Abstract
This study investigates the systemic challenges facing enterprise architecture programs in government. Drawing upon the institutional theory lens from the political science field, a Danish case study is used to explore why public agencies implement enterprise architecture programs and the challenges they face when governing these programs at different levels (vertically) and different functions (horizontally) of government. The analysis shows that enterprise architecture is not just a technical issue, as economic and political facts are equally important when establishing interoperable e-government services. The findings suggest that implementing enterprise architectures in government challenges the way information systems are organized and governed in public agencies. Interoperability challenges in government arise because there is no overall coordination of different information systems initiatives in the public sector and because public organization have no economic and/or immediate political incentives to share data and business functionality with other organizations in their enterprise architecture programs.
Keywords
enterprise architecture, institutional theory, interoperability, governance, e-government
About the authors
Kristian Hjort-Madsen is a strategic enterprise architect with Denmark’s national egovernment office in the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Mr. Hjort-Madsen is currently completing his Ph.D. in combination with his work in a public-private partnership between the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, the IT-University of Copenhagen, IBM Denmark, and KMD. His works focus on the actual implementation and management of EA processes in public agencies and he is widely used as a guest lecturer, coach and strategic advisor on EA related matters. Prior to his work in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Mr. Hjort-Madsen perused a bachelor degree in political science from Aarhus University and a master degree in information systems from the IT-University of Copenhagen. A more detailed bio and significant publications can be found on Mr. Hjort-Madsen’s blog at: www.EAGov.com.
Jakob Burkard has several years of experience working with EA methodologies, specifically IAF and TOGAF. He has been practicing the role of solution architect for almost a decade, specializing in information and integration. He holds a Masters of Information Science, and is working as Chief Architect and Business Unit Manager for Solution Architecture Services within Capgemini, Denmark.
References
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: Ananalytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1 (3), pp. 385-405.
Bernard, S. (2005). An introduction to enterprise architecture (2nd Edition). Bloomington, IN: Author House.
Boar, B. (1999) Constructing blueprints for enterprise IT architectures. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Ferlie, E., Pettigrew, A, Ashburner, L. and Fitzgerald, L. (1996). The new public management in action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fountain, J. (2002). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Hall. Peter A and Taylor, R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutions. Political Studies, 44(5).
Hjort-Madsen, K. and Gøtze, J. (2004) Enterprise architecture in government – Towards a multi-level framework for managing IT in government. Proceedings of ECEG04, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 365-374.
Iyer, B. and Gottlieb, R. (2004). The fourdomain architecture: An approach to support enterprise architecture design. IBM Systems Journal,43, (3), pp. 587-597.
Janssen, M. and Cresswell, A (2005). The development of a reference architecture for local government. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Janssen, M., Wagenaar, R. and Beerens, J. (2003). Towards a flexible ICT-architecture for multi-channel e-government service provisioning. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Klischewski, R. (2003). Top down or bottom up. In R. TraunmOlier & M. Palmirani (Eds.) Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on E-Government at ICAIL, pp.17 -26.
Lankhorst, M. (2005). Enterprise architecture at work. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Layne, K. and Lee, J. (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18, pp. 122-136.
Leben, A. and Bohanec, M. (2003). Evaluation of life-event portals: Multi-attribute model and case study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2645, pp. 25-36.
March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press
McNurlin, B., and Sprague R. (2002). Information systems management, (5th Edition). Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Meyer, J., and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Joumal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340-363.
Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), pp. 1-28.
Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions, public choice. Martin Nijhoff. Papazoglou, M., and Georgakopoulos, D. (2003). Service oriented computing: Introduction. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), pp. 25-28.
Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). Information systems interoperability: What lies beneath? ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 22(4), pp. 595-632.
Peristera V. and Tarabanis K. (2000). Towards an enterprise architecture for public administration using a top-down approach. European Joumal of Information Systems, 9, pp. 252-260.
Pulkkinen, M. and Hirvonen, A. (2005). EA planning, development and management process for agile enterprise development. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii Intemational Conference on System Sciences. Ross, J. (2003). Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: Learning in stages. MISQ Executive, 2(1).
Schekkerman, J. (2004). How to survive in the jungle of enterprise architecture frameworks. Victoria, BC: Trafford.
Schultz, U. and Boland R. Jr. (2000). Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, pp. 193-212.
Stamoulis, D., Gouscos, D., Georgiadis, P. and Martakos, D. (2001). Revisiting public information management for effective egovernment services. Information Management & Computer Security 9(4), pp. 146-153.
TraunmOller, R. and Wimmer, M. (2003). Egovernment at a decisive moment: Sketching a roadmap to excellence. In R. TraunmOlier (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, EGOV; Springer Verlag. pp. 1- 14.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, pp. 74-81.
Ward, J. and Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for information systems, (3rd Edition). Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons.
Weill, P. and Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance – How top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pres.
Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy – what government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research – design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yourdon, E. and Constantine, L. (1986). Structured design: Fundamentals of a discipline of computer program and systems design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon.
Zachman, J. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3).
Journal of Enterprise Architecture