Keywords: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Citizens’ rising demands and expectations concerning both the quality and equality of public services are increasing pressure on the Finnish public administration to improve its efficiency and responsiveness. An enacted act on Information Management Governance in public administration declares Enterprise Architecture (abbreviated EA) as a central tool for developing administration’s services. EA is seen as a strategic management tool standardising the development of administration and exploitation of Information and Communication Technologies (abbreviated ICT). The new act demands agencies to apply EA yet there exists relatively limited knowledge and experience of the concept. Since EA is an abstract and complex tool there is great risk that the expectations put on EA are not met. The large numbers of agencies demanded to apply this tool increases the significance of the problem. This article is based on a case study research where the goal was to identify issues of EA use and adoption, to gain understanding why these issues exist and to recommend ways of improving the perceived value of EA. The focus was on the social dimension of alignment since most existing studies have emphasised the technical dimension. The study approaches the problem from the perspective of strategic management and organisational learning. EA is treated as a mechanism and a strategy tool to enable alignment of business and IT. EA adoption presents a learning challenge to an organisation – it has to learn the intellectual content but more importantly, it has to learn how to cooperate and share information across functional, hierarchical and professional boundaries.


e-Government, EA, business and IT alignment, social dimension, strategic management, IT capabilities, organizational learning, boundary object

About the author

Jouko Poutanen holds a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Warwick’s Warwick Business School and Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from the Helsinki Institute of Technology. Jouko has participated in many academic research projects in areas of EA and requirements management. Jouko works in IBM as an IT architect and consultant.


J. Barney: Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, pp.99-120 (1991).

P.R. Carlile: Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries, Organization Science, 15(5), pp.555-68 (2004).

D.N. Clark: Strategic Management Tool Usage: A Comparative Study, Strategic Change, 6(7), pp.417-27 (1997).

R.M. Grant: Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Malden, MA, Blackwell Pub (2008).

K. Hjort-Madsen: Institutional Patterns of Enterprise Architecture Adoption in Government, Transforming Government: People, Process, and Policy, 1(4), pp.333-349 (2007).

J. Horovitz: New Perspectives on Strategic Management, Joumal of Business Strategy, 4(3), pp.19-33 (1984).

H. Isomäki, K. Liimatainen, K. Valtonen: Challenges and Collaboration Opportunities of Enterprise Architecture Work, Ministry of Finance (2008); available at: ions/04_public_management/20080227Challe/name.jsp.

P. Jarzabkowski, A. Spee: Strategy Tools as Boundary Objects, Strategic Organization, 7(2), pp.223-232 (2009).

P. Jarzabkowski, D.C. Wilson: Actionable Strategy Knowledge: A Practice Perspective, European Management Journal, 24(5), pp.348-367 (2006).

G. Johnson, L. Melin, R. Whittington, Micro Strategy and Strategizing: Towards an Activity-Based View, Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp.3-22 (2003).

S. Kaisler, F. Armour, M. Valivullah: Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems, System Sciences, HICSS ’05, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference, pp.224b (January 2005).

R. Merton: Bureaucratic Structure and Personality, Social Forces, 18, 560-8 (1940).

Ministry of Finance Act on Information Management Governance in Public Administration 634/2011 (2011); available at: nts/20110902ActonI/Tietohallintolaki_englanniksi.pdf.

I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, N. Konno: SECI, ba, and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation, Long Range Planning, 33(1), pp.5-34 (2000).

OECD: OECD Public Governance Reviews Finland – Working together to Sustain Success (2010); available at: .jsp.

C.K Prahalad, G. Hamel: The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review (May–June), pp.79-91 (1990).

B.H. Reich, I. Benbasat: Measuring the Linkage Between Business and Information Technology Objectives, MIS Quarterly, 20(1), pp.55-81 (1996).

B.H. Reich, I. Benbasat, I.: Factors that Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives, MIS Quarterly, 24(1), pp.81-113 (2000).

O-P. Rissanen, R. Jylhänkangas, R.: Julkisen hallinnon tietohallinnon ohjaus ja yhteentoimivuus (2010); available at: 0100608julkis/02_JULKISEN_HALLINNON_TIETOHALLINNO N_OHJAUKSEN_JA_YHTEENTOIMIVUUDEN_KEHITTAeMIN EN.pdf.

J. Ross: Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages, MIT Sloan Management Review (2003).

E.H. Schein: How Culture Forms, Develops, and Changes, in R.H. Kilmann, N.S. Saxton, R. Serpa et al (Eds): Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp.230-61 (1985).

E.H. Schein: The Role of CEO in the Management of Change: The Case of Information Technology, in T.A Kochan, M. Useem (Eds), Transforming Organizations, New York: Oxford University Press (1992).

E.H. Schein: Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning, MIT Sloan Management Review, 38(1), pp.9-19 (1996).

V. Seppänen: Experiences on Enterprise Architecture Work in Government Administration, Ministry of Finance (2009), available at: ions/04_public_management/20090121Experi/name.jsp.

D.J. Teece, G. Pisano, A. Shuen: Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp.509–533 (1997).

R. Whittington: Strategy as Practice, Long Range Planning, 29(5), pp.731-5 (1996).

Journal of Enterprise Architecture