Impact Of An Enterprise Engineering Development Lifecycle On Company Performance
Thesis Outline
Impact of an Enterprise Engineering Development Lifecycle on Company Performance
A Thesis presented to the
Department of Information Systems
University of Cape Town
By Francois du Toit
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for INF5004W
06 November 2015
Contents
Introduction
Overview of Thesis
Chapter 1 gives background of the Thesis, the purpose of the study, research objective and research .problem. Chapter 2 presents a discussion of the existing literature in the area of Enterprise Engineering as well as the use of Enterprise Engineering in the context of Enterprise Architecture Management, IT Governance, Enterprise Modelling and System Development Lifecycle. Chapter 3 explains the research methodology that was followed doing the research. Chapter 4 show the findings and the results showing a grounded theory approach. Chapter 5 will bring it into perspective of future research.
Background
One of the main goals of enterprise engineering is to foster the development of a congruent and coherent perspective of the organisation, in which all parts of the organisation are arranged in a harmonious and skilful way. In particular, the development of an encompassing ‘Enterprise Architecture’ is to offer a global perspective on an organisation’s design, facilitating in this way better project and programme management by ensuring the mutual fit of individual projects.
All elements (resources, business and organization) should be aligned with one another for making a great corporate strategy. The failing building up of and utilizing of IT capabilities and resources supporting business capabilities to enable the business strategy has also a lot to do with this lack of coherence and integration.
Besides the need for coherence and consistency, also manageability is a major concern. Indeed, the fast evolving world puts high demands on our enterprises and organisations in terms of constant need for flexibility, adaptation and innovation and the desire to proactively exploit new developments in order to create new business opportunities.
EAM assists organisations in maintaining the flexibility, cost-efficiency and transparency of their technical infrastructure, information systems, business processes and organisational structures in line with their business goals. EAM therefore ensures that corporate change can be implemented swiftly and easily.
To address these problems from an Enterprise Architecture Management perspective the need arises to have an Enterprise Engineering based methodology to (re) design, (re) engineer, and (re) implement IT projects in a comprehensive, coherent and consistent way so that there are proper alignment and coordination between Business strategy, IT strategy and the intended IT capabilities which support it, utilizing process, people and technology.
This study investigates the issues and challenges that affect the implementation and execution of an enterprise engineering based Development Life Cycle in organization X and also determines the influence of the quality of the enterprise engineering Development Life Cycle on the corporate performance of the organisation. This study also identifies which of the factors have an influence on the quality of enterprise architecture governance which also effect corporate performance. This study was conducted in a financial service provider firm in South Africa. However due to confidentiality agreement the name of firm will not be revealed, it is going to be referred as organisation X henceforth.
Research Problem
The financial service sector is faced with increasing amount of pressure to deliver innovative products and services to a demanding consumer market. To position itself against competitors, a company need to be able to respond agile to address to gap in a market segment. Business-Information Technology (IT) convergence is increasingly becoming a source of competitive advantage in the global economy and its importance has been widely discussed and documented in recent years.
Companies rely heavily on complex software systems and tightly integrated supply-chains to serve their customers in increasingly fast changing markets. To gain competitive advantage in such a setting, companies must adapt their processes, products and inter-organizational relationships quickly to changing environments. In the future, enterprise software systems must be explicitly designed for flexibly switching intensive inter organizational relationships and for rapidly implementing changes in requirements or context while retaining existing functionality and user acceptance.
For companies to be more competitive, they need to align their business and IT resources. Enterprise Architecture is the discipline whose purpose is to align more effectively the strategies of enterprises together with their processes and their resources (business and IT). Enterprise architecture is complex because it involves different types of practitioners with different goals and practices during the lifecycle of the required changes.
Literature shows that the management of business and IT alignment through a proper EAM strategy yields to better performance of the company (Rivard et al., 2006;Teece, 2007; Sanders & Premus, 2005; Ravichandran et. Al, 2005). However the literature discussing the IT resources and capabilities impact on firm performance where as little research has been completed in respective of the use of an enterprise engineering based system development life cycle by enterprise architecture governance for executing and implementing IT projects.
This research aimed to identify the factors influencing the use of en enterprise engineering based development life cycle in a financial provider firm and the challenges and issues that arises by following such an approach during the enterprise architecture management processes. Enterprise engineering is a very new field (de Vries, 2015) stated in her study’s recommendation for future research that there is a need for further research which could close the gap between what existing Enterprise Engineering (EE) theory offers and its usefulness in practice. This research will look at the usefulness of applying the theory of EE methodology and thereby uncover the related challenges and problems of how an enterprise engineering approach to align business and IT strategy impacts a firm’s operating model and processes which in turn could also affect the performance of a firm.
Necessity for and Value of Research
Recent surveys indicate that software projects have still high failure rates (Mieritz, 2012). In order to increase the odds of success, we have to identify the challenges and determine the causes. Management issues, rather than technological issues, are mostly the causes of these failures (Bloch et. al, 2012).
The fast-growing movement of the modern societies shows increasing implementation of operational projects in the areas of IT in organizational and national levels. And it is special and important because of the very high risks that large projects (and even small ones) experience (Flyvbjerg, B. & Budzier, A, 2011).
To mitigate risk and cause effect for business strategy and IT strategy misalignment, an advanced enterprise architecture management methodology requires the efforts of many stakeholders in an organization, working together towards the same goals. The successful management of, planning of and the execution of IT project management, change management, business system maintenance, alignment of IT capabilities towards business capabilities and business strategic goals requires not a single contribution from one stakeholder group but only when all the personnel and resources involved in the end to end business processes across all business clusters and IT teams are coordinated and directed toward a common goal (Schneider et. Al, 2013)
This raised a need for the financial sector to have an IT strategy in place that will improve the way they govern and manage their IT initiates to minimize risks and have a more productive IT system development life cycle.
Literature Review
The literature review will build upon previous discussion of sections 1 and 2 above. Section 2.1 will shortly introduce prior related researches that were completed that are similar in context of this study. Then in section 2.2 will explain what enterprise engineering is, section 2.3 will clarify which definition of enterprise engineering the study will form its architecture perspective, section 2.4 describe what elements of enterprise engineering consist, section 2.5 will explain why doing EE, section 2.6 show which elements of EE do contributes to enterprise architecture management and system development lifecycle, section 2.7 enlighten where and how EE is performed using people, process and technology, section 2.8 who the role-players are and section 2.9 when is EE executed.
Prior Research
Only a few research approaches were undertaken in the past, a study to align business and IT strategy following an enterprise engineering approach was researched by Cuenca, Boza & Oriz (2011). The research has down that enterprise engineering enables the definition of business and IT strategy alignment design. With this perspective new building blocks and life-cycle phases have been defined for their use in an enterprise architecture context.
Architectures and methods for EE have also to cover the integration of quality, information system,cost, human and organizational aspects and have to support the EE process from goal and requirements definition up to implementation and operation (Vernadat, 1999). Mertins & Jochem (2005) give an overview of architectures, methods and tools for EE. They then also presents a methodology and a related tool which supports all phases and aspects of EE.
IT systems that are used for engineering documentation fail to meet the requirements to plan, design and build high quality conceptual modelling technical documentation (Kerval, 2011). The underlying scientific theories, methodology and software technology to enable people, process and technology present high quality technical documentation were discussed and propose principles that could be applied ensuring higher quality engineering designs.
A Model of Methodology Tailoring was designed and explored in a case study approach by (Barrow, 2013). In this thesis the issues related to how methodologies for guiding the development of complex Information Systems are tailored in practice.
Factors impacting the adoption and non-adoption of Agile Methods among Software Practitioners in Malaysi were done by (Asnawi, 2012). In here the Perception of Agile Methods, Organisational Cultural- related Aspects and the Technology aspects were discussed when an agile methodology was adopted.
A proposed strategic alignment maturity model (SAM) was done by Luftman et. al (2015). Herein it seeks to addresses some of these challenges by focusing on activities that contribute to business and IT strategy alignment and measuring their scope and extent. It do show how the IT function and other business functions can jointly participate in and coordinate their work to improve the alignment.
A study by (Aebi, 2012) have shown that to significantly improve the quality and performance profile of Bank’s risk management function they need to embed the appropriate risk governance programs. The purpose of EAM function is exactly that to ensure that risk and opportunities are addresses in time so that business and IT strategies can be aligned. The function of EAM are encompassed by EE discipline.
None of the above mentioned approaches analysed the impact of an EE methodology on company performance when applied during the governance of system development processes.
What is Enterprise Engineering
Enterprise engineering is defined as the body of understanding, principles, and methods to make an organization (Giacheti, 2010) A business is a facility, socio-technical system that consists of interdependent resources of individuals, information, as well as innovation that needs to interact with each various other as well as their atmosphere in encourage of a common mission. Venture design may concentrate on the layout of the business as a whole, or on the design and also combination of certain business components (De Vries et al, 2014).
In theory and practice more types of enterprise engineering have emerged. In the field of engineering, a more general form of enterprise engineering has emerged (Pilkington, 2008). Encompassing the application of knowledge, principles, and disciplines related to the analysis, design, implementation and operation of all elements associated with an enterprise. In essence this is an interdisciplinary field which combines systems engineering and strategic management as it seeks to engineer the entire enterprise in terms of the products, processes and business operation (Pilkington, 2008). This field is related to engineering management, operations management, service management and systems engineering.
In the circumstance of software project development, a specific industry of enterprise engineering seemed to take care of the modelling and the assimilation of several company technical business processes and also specialized portions of operational business methods and features (Vernadat, 1996). In the light of innovation and advancement of software development research, this has become a predicament of endeavour for the association of systems analysis with the inclusion Information Modelling (Bubenko, 1993). It could likewise be actually checked out as an extension of reason of systems analysis as well as the systems conceptualization phases of a software project development advancement methodology (Gustas, R & Gustiene, P, 2003).
To understand the organizational changes of already existing work best practices and processes in context of enterprise engineering, one needs the depiction of the company’s organizational structure and the technological systems be established together. Then one use those to have the full view of enterprise modelling which can be genetically be made up during, the initial part of, major and also end phases during an advanced system design/development life process (Gustas, R & Gustiene, P, 2003).
The discipline of organization engineering is described as having three goals namely: intellectual manageability, business continuity, as well as social dedication (Dietz, J. & Hoogervorst, et al, 2013). This article shares the suggested defintions of the enterprise engineering discipline as of the CIAO Network (www.ciaonetwork.org) which is an organizational group specializing in enterprise engineering.
Research Definition of Enterprise Engineering
There are numerous definitions quoted by researchers since early 1990’s till today. All of these perspectives build up and made up the body of knowledge pertain to enterprise engineering over the years. Although a field still in its infancy more or more researchers see the need to define EE in context of their research work.
“Various standpoints exist in an organization, including efficiency, high quality, and also expense. Any venture for enterprise design should be able to define, managing and demonstrate how these various point of views exist together” by (Grüninger and Fox, 1995: 22-31).
“Enterprise engineering is… the art of understanding, describing and applying the business processes for the enterprise’s all-inclusive life cycle, so that the enterprise can achieve its goals by a cost-effective manner in a demanding competitive market.” by (Vernadat, 1996:30)
Martin (1995) describes a framework of seven disciplines which should be used as a toolbox to describe an enterprise in context of
i) To understand and implement end to end business change procedures and processes
ii) To have a clear and directed strategic vision of an enterprise
iii) The be able to continuously adapt and change in the value definition
iv) To re-invent the value stream
v) To have total quality management processes for the value chain
vii) To be continuously looking at ways to be innovation
viii) To continually enable value creation by the use and support of information technology
Rebovich (2007) stated that, ”an enterprise engineering is an emerging discipline
which is managed primarily through innovation actions instead of rigorous and strict organizational controls to implement a multidisciplinary approach merging the political, economic, organizational, operational, social and cultural aspects of an enterprise to achieve its goals”.
Enterprise engineering is an interdisciplinary field applying engineering principles to the strategic management of enterprises and also systems engineering enhancing the whole enterprise in context of the business products and services, the business processes and the operations of a business Pilkington (2008).
Enterprise engineering is an emerging discipline that studies enterprises from an engineering perspective that also include the dynamics between social system individuals and technical systems which are rooted in the theories of enterprise ontology, enterprise architecture and enterprise governance (Proper, Harmsen & Dietz, 2009:Preface).
Pokorny et al (2011:1) states that enterprise engineering do root in the theories of information systems science and organizational sciences.
“Enterprise Engineering is specified as that body of knowledge, guidelines, as well as practices having to do with the evaluation, design, implementation as well as procedures of a business. In a continuously transforming and competitive surrounding, the Enterprise Engineer manages an essential inquiry: How to develop as well as strengthen all elements related to the complete enterprise through the use of engineering analysis techniques as well as the resources to let the enterprise effectively reach its own goals as well as purposes”.. by Liles et al. (1995).
If we may define our own definition collectively from the statements and descriptions above, we can summarises what enterprise engineering is: “Enterprise engineering is rooted in the theories of information systems science, organizational sciences and the body of knowledge, the guidelines of, as well as practices of enterprise ontology, enterprise architecture and enterprise governance. It is managed primarily through innovation action to achieve an efficient high quality value chain management, and also having an all-inclusive life cycle, applying engineering principles to the strategic management of enterprises and the systems engineering describing the dynamics between the social system individuals and technical systems.”
This thesis will use this as the base definition whereas all the other definitions above give a deeper explanations or some other perspective on one or more parts of an enterprise. This collective descriptions given above give a clear explanation that an enterprise is a living and growing entity, managed by people driven by processes and supported by technology.
Why do EE?
The need to an enterprise defined by enterprise ontology, enterprise architecture and enterprise governance will be discussed first. Thereafter the practical implication of each of these concepts to describe the “why of EE”.
As stated in section 3.3 our definition of EE is: “Enterprise engineering is rooted in the theories of information systems science, organizational sciences and the body of knowledge, the guidelines of, as well as practices of enterprise ontology, enterprise architecture and enterprise governance. It is managed primarily through innovation action to achieve an efficient high quality value chain management, and also having an all-inclusive life cycle, applying engineering principles to the strategic management of enterprises and the systems engineering describing the dynamics between the social system individuals and technical systems.”
This encompass a holistically view of all aspects defining a dynamic enterprise integrating the social dynamics of both human and technological perspectives of an enterprise. This definition of an enterprise need to be define by the conceptual and semantic meaning of what an enterprise is, namely an enterprise ontology (Dietz, J, & Hoogervorst J. et al, 2013).
In enterprise engineering the systems involvement of both human and technological aspects are guided by strategy development, programme management and Enterprise Architecture (Op’t Land et. al., 2009) therefore the necessity for an enterprise for having to formulate strategy development plans defining the all-inclusive life cycle of the business, the programme and project management and for enterprise architecture by using an enterprise ontology approach which do depict the description of what an enterprise is so that everybody involve can use it to execute according the correct goals and vision.
During strategy development the Business – IT alignment strategy is defined how it will be supported by using enterprise architecture strategy plan and the execution thereof by having proper enterprise governance (Dietz, J, & Hoogervorst J. et al, 2013).
Once company and IT strategy have been formulated, their execution will usually offer rise to a variety of IT-projects to allow for the support of providing the mechanisms and channels of the product and services of the enterprise value chain to achieve the organizational goals (Martin, 1995; Dietzen et al, 2006; Rodrigues & Amaral, 2010). The coherence and consistency between different projects need to be managed and maintained, this is the responsibility area of program management (Stettina, C. J., & Hörz, J, 2015). The programme management office responsibility is therefore about planning, coordinating and execution of the IT projects in achieving enterprise goals and benefits and at the same time other related activities to align the organizational operation business processes through change management (Pellegrinelli et al, 2007). A programme manager will be responsible to specify a programme plan that sets out how each project and sub projects are set up according a roadmap to achieve the demand and goals of business (Doucet, 2009; Doucet et al, 2011; Boucharas et al, 2010).
If there is no synergies between business and IT’s overall strategy plan, chances to all individual projects that effect the business and technical capabilities dependencies occur with impacting the integration and interfaces between them.
Failing to address the gaps and inconsistencies between programme and project management dependencies are mainly the cause of a failing to implement an enterprise strategy (Dietz, J, & Hoogervorst J. et al ,2013).
To address these complexities and to allow for the coherence and congruence between business and IT to be successfully driven and implemented the different types of theories that do describe the essence of what EE is and their relationships between are discussed (Dietz, J, & Hoogervorst J. et al, 2013). According to them most theoretical discussions have been in context of enterprise architecture frameworks.
Limited research have been completed giving a formal theoretical grounding of the theory of EA frameworks (Saat et. al, 2009; Buckl et. al, 2010; Mezzanotte et. al. 2010; Mezzanotte et. al, 2012; Löhe & Logner, 2014; Coetsee & Brown, 2010). In spite of that it gives a practical guide and frame of reference for EA Architects to develop and maintain an enterprise architecture capability within an organization. It does give the conceptual components that do describe the architecture from different viewpoints and also guidelines to how align architectural capabilities according the demand of business. This theoretical body of knowledge of EA is an very important part in contributing to the theories of EE as described in the “The discipline of enterprise engineering” by Dietz, J. L. & Hoogervorst et. al (2013).
Theory of Enterprise Engineering
Goals of Enterprise Engineering
The goals of enterprise engineering is explained in detail by (Dietz, J. L., Hoogervorst et. al, 2013). In there the following were highlighted as the goals of enterprise engineering: Firstly, that enterprises are evolvable and that the intellectual knowledge of that enterprise must be understood to ensure growth. Secondly, for an organization to perform optimally and to implement changes successfully, an enterprise must operate as a unified and integrated whole. Thirdly, for an enterprise to emerge as a leader in its field, the employees have to be involve and participate to be productive, ensure service quality, be customer centric, be innovative and be able to cope with dynamic changes.
Theories of Enterprise Engineering – Philosophical Theory
Philosophical theories are theories that explain abstract substances. Philosophical theories also include branches of epistemology and phenomenology. From an epistemology view, it describe the nature and scope of the knowledge gained by the researcher and describe the “how” or “what” of the subject under investigation by the researcher (Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., 1998; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2011). Phenomenology is the study of phenomena, their principles and meaning as it explores the experience of the phenomena. Phenomenology, therefore, reveals meanings that appear ‘hidden’ or identifies the influence of a phenomenon in perspective of the research describe by knowledge gained by the researcher (Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., 1998; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2011).
Theories of Enterprise Engineering– Ontological theories
Ontological theories are about the nature of things. They address explanatory and/or predictive relationships in observed phenomena. As described in section 3.4 above, enterprise engineering ontology will then therefore described the nature of the enterprise and its dynamics between the things that cause the phenomena. It is therefore explanatory of the therefore describe the ideological theories and the technical theories (Dietz, J. L., Hoogervorst et. al, 2013).
Theories of Enterprise Engineering– Ideological theories
Ideological theories are theories that addresses the beliefs that motivates people to people strive to goals. In the context of an enterprise it is the motivations that drive people to achieve the enterprise goals and objectives. To achieve these goals there need to be a common understanding of those beliefs and values in an organization. This makes it possible to define a common understanding of the enterprise goals as well as the enterprise architecture goals and purpose (Boucharas et al, 2010).
Theories of Enterprise Engineering– Technological theories
According Dusek (2006) there are various philosophical approaches that can be applied for different tasks investigating the philosophy of technology in context of research. There are so many views to name a view would be logical views, economic views, and analytical views all of these can be approached in context of the society and culture.
To describe the basic roots of technology theory one can look at the different types of technological theories (Bunge, 1967) namely substantive and operative. “Substantive technological theories are essentially applications, to near real situations” (1967:122). The theory of enterprise architecture as an application of the enterprise engineering. Substantive theories are the engineering sciences and are the applied sciences of engineering theory. The context of this thesis it means how the theory of enterprise engineering and enterprise architecture made up of are and how they relate to one another. Operative technological theories are the theories that do describe the human and technological dynamics in real situations. In the context of this thesis it would be the theory of how the technology affects people and how people uses and drives technology changes. According to (Dietz, 2008) this theory describe the whole development process of a system, consisting function design, construction design and implementation.
Elements of Enterprise Engineering
Enterprise Ontology
The semantic web as defined by Berners-Lee (2001) makes heavy usages of ontologies to describe how information and data are linked to each other and the meaning between them (Bizer et al 2009). Using ontologies is therefore knowledge sharing and reuse across different application areas. According philosophy stance, ontology describes the nature of and the structure of “reality.” (Øhrstrøm et al, 2005). According Gruber (1995), “An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization” which means that an ontology is a high level abstracted description of the concept of something that do exist. Likewise in a Ph.D. thesis, Alberts (1993) define “An ontology for a body of knowledge concerning a particular task or domain describes a taxonomy of concepts for that task or domain that define the semantic interpretation of the knowledge.”
The lack of coherency between business and IT strategy (Dietz, J. L. & Hoogervorst J., 2008; Doucet et al, 2009) is one of the main factors why projects fail. To prevent misalignment and communication of purpose and strategy between business and IT, there need to be a common understanding of what an enterprise is, what it defines, how it function, how the business processes drives the value chain all need to be communicated effectively, efficiently and unambiguously (Dietz, J. L. & Hoogervorst J., 2008). Therefore to ensure that the entities or components that do entails an enterprise are described with full meaning of them and with the dynamics between them, meaning the semantics as described by Gruber (1995), an enterprise ontology is needed. Once the enterprise is well-defined by an enterprise ontology the strategy to achieve the enterprise objectives and goals driven and supported by information systems need to be defined as well. This is the means to support and ensure business and IT alignment is enterprise architecture and enterprise governance (Niemann, K.D., 2006; De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. ,2015).
Enterprise Architecture
The following is a summary of a paper that was published by the author of this Thesis describing the need to define and use a capability architecture view. The description of what enterprise architecture is and what a business architecture capability is that fulfil the demand and supply for enterprises are summarized below as taken from a paper “A Business Architecture Capability Meta Model and Tool-set for Providing Function Point Estimation for Enterprise Architecture Management” by du Toit, F.A. and Tanner, M. (2015).
Business-Information Technology alignment is increasingly becoming a source of competitive advantage in the global economy and its importance has been widely discussed and documented in current years (Niemann, K.D., 2006; De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. ,2015). Enterprise architecture ontology the essential organization of an enterprise’s different components (Dietz, J. L. & Hoogervorst J., 2008) and enterprise architecture, how the business components exist and the IT capabilities that supports transformation by offering a comprehensive perspective on the as-is enterprise models as well as to-be models (Lankhorst, M., 2005; Winter, et. al., 2007).
“Several enterprise architecture management frameworks have been developed to guide the enterprise architect and the solution architect in managing the application landscape of enterprise systems. The Enterprise Architecture Management Pattern Catalog by academics (Buckl, 2008), The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) by a standardization body (OMG, 2008) and Department of Defence Architectural Framework (DoDAF, 2003) for the United States Department of Defence that provides several viewpoints of enterprise systems. The Architectural Development Method addresses the whole enterprise architectural lifecycle of all enterprise systems across the enterprise” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
Figure 1 – TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) – The Open Group
“The ADM is a generic method for enterprise architecture formulation which handles with the people, process, methods and technical knowledge. The ADM do be comprised of many stages (Figure 1) whereupon each of them does have goal in minds, endeavours and artefacts that may be realized. The TOGAF articulates the enterprise architecture into four comprehensive regions namely: Business Architecture, Information Systems Architecture and Technology Architecture” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
Table 1 – Summary of TOGAF Architecture Development Method
“To ensure that there is coherence between business strategy and IT architecture strategy, the theory of business capabilities were proposed. This was done to make sure that the demand from a strategic goal viewpoint was clearly linked to an architecture viewpoint that do show a roadmap and landscape called a business capability model, that map out how a business’s service provides the features ask for, as well as the business performance metrics of the resources that are linked to that business service that could be tracked. (Cherbakov, 2005).” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
“There are two different ways that Business Capabilities mapping can be done one is strategic modelling and the other functional modelling (Cherbakov, 2005). From an enterprise architecture management governance and toolset is to focus on the strategic modelling. The strategic modelling will produce an enterprise architecture model which do classify the business challenges, opportunities and demands of the high level architecture descriptions. The functional modelling is to produce the solution architecture showing the architectural design rationale, the reflected business components and its corresponding application components of the capabilities that will be implemented.” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
“A Business Capability defines the people, process and technology to deliver the desired outcomes that supports the business strategy.” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015). The networking between them can be seen in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2- The role of business capabilities in EA (Ulrich, 2011). The numbering is our own.
“Each Business Capability (indicated by (2) in Figure 2) maps to a business component defined in the high level conceptual business architecture (indicated by (1) in Figure 2). Each Business Component do have working together with one or more Business Services which for fill the demand of the Business Capability, therefore also the creation of value to business according to their value chain. The Application Architecture do show the end to end view of all the business and technical components. Some systems are not business through SOA but continue to provide a function for business. The relationship between a Business Component and an Application component could be map to one to many (indicated by (1) in Figure 2). Summary of the main definitions are in Table 2 below.” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
Table 2 – Definitions of Business Component, Business Capability and Business Service (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
Enterprise Architecture Structure
“The structure of the enterprise architecture is depicted by the Architectural Content Framework (ACF). The content meta-model display by what means all the other elements of enterprise architecture are linked to one another. For the scope of this research, details will not be discussed each element of the ACF but show that there is a working together between the business service, data architecture and application architecture (See Figure 3 below). The enterprise business functions are provided through a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) design of re-usable Business Services. The Business Services also give access to the Data Entities. The Data Entities are presented by standardized enterprise common industry conceptual models. So that a consolidated, consistent business glossary and the meaning of business terminology can be understood in context of the business entities. An IS Service is realized through an Application Component which is modelled as part of the solution architecture model and detail design models. For the scope of this research, details will not be discussed each element of the ACF but show the relationship between business service, data architecture and application architecture (See Figure 3 below).” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
Figure 3 – Business Service relationship towards Data Entity and Application Component – The Open Group.
“The Enterprise Architecture are therefore different views of all the enterprise systems across the whole enterprise. The whole enterprise architecture consist of the integrated view of all the segmented product line or specific line of business systems architectures. Each specific line of business systems architecture only do show a part of the whole. It’s the responsibility of the architects to ensure that the business capabilities are streamlined and no duplication occur to have efficient synergies between the sums of all business systems architectures having enterprise wide re-useable services enabling the business functions of the capabilities.” (du Toit, F.A. & Tanner, M., 2015).
Enterprise Architecture Governance
To get a glimpse into how enterprise architecture governance is related to company performance one need to understand how enterprise architecture governance relates to the business strategy and function (Niemann, K.D. , 2006 & Vagadia, B., 2013).
Enterprise architecture governance, is the governance of business processes and IT processes in an organization that enable both business and IT to perform their tasks and responsibilities to for fill both the business and IT strategies creating the value chain for the company (Op't Land et al, 2008). The need to have enterprise architecture governance to assist with coherency of business and IT strategies to create the synergies that will add to the value chain of an organization was expressed by Winter et al (2008; Patnayakuni, R., & Patnayakuni, N. ,2014). If enterprise architecture management is driven by IT their could arise a gap to have business ownership in executing and participating of the enterprise architecture governance mission and vision Winter et al (2008).
The benefits of EAM can be experienced by varying degrees of success by different business units and IT units across the enterprise (Weiss, S., Aier, S., & Winter, R. ,2013). To be successful in business and IT to work together in executing EAM, seven factors were identified (Weiss, S., Aier, S., & Winter, R. ,2013) as important forecasters for if the collaborative efforts will be successful.
To have a common understanding of EAM goals, the purpose, function and processes of the EAM governance need to be clearly described (Winter, R., & Schelp, J., 2008). To manage EA successfully and consistently, the value chain of customers, products and services to be delivered need to be defined and understood, the goals and plans that will realize the strategic initiatives and the proper and transparent reporting about the enterprise performance to staff in all levels in the organization and towards customers and investors need to be formal and in place (Hoogervorst, J. A. , 2009).
The EAM governance model not only guides the planning, development, enablement of product and service through capability management of the relevant best practices and business processes but also the organizational changes that will affect the employees. Therefore a unified and integrated approach between the enterprise business context and the IT context is needed to ensure coherency and congruency (Dietz et al, 2013). The realization of value for business through the enablement of IT, can only come through the application of defined enterprise engineering principles (Op't Land, M., & Proper, H. A. ,2007; Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A. ,2012).
Enterprise Modelling
Various enterprise modelling methods and techniques can be applied to depict the business processes of the enterprise together with a full set of semantic models showing the enterprise ontology of the enterprise together with the enterprise architecture ontology, describing the IT landscape. Collectively these are used to make informed decisions on the AS-IS/TO-BE capability models and architecture roadmaps (Fritscher, B., & Pigneur, Y., 2015; Furterer, S. L., 2015). The dynamics of the capabilities are and the need to model those are proposed by Danesh et al (2015). To model these an enterprise engineering approach could be followed as proposed by an enterprise engineering contextual model (EECM) by de Vries, Gerber & Van Der Merwe (2014).
An enterprise engineering contextual model (EECM) was inductively established by de Vries, Gerber & Van Der Merwe (2014) by looking at existing enterprise design, enterprise alignment and enterprise governance approaches. The EECM therefore presents a high-level meta-model for the existing body of knowledge within EE. EECM serves as a common reference model to put existing EE approaches into perspective with each other (De Vries, 2010; De Vries, 2012; De Vries, Gerber, Van Der Merwe, 2013) by deriving a context model that do describe common properties of EE.
This contextual model could be further be extended to show the properties of enterprise architecture capabilities towards the value chain and the governance there of via to align with business strategies, the planning thereof, the design thereof, the implementation thereof and also the change management of the capabilities across its life-cycle. The principles as proposed by Cuenca, Boza & Oriz (2011) can be applied to show the enterprise life-cycle phases of the contextualized components and their use in an enterprise architecture context.
EE Methodologies
The financial company under scope that is used as a case study example for this Thesis study is using the enterprise engineering methodology, GERAM, as the base for their innovation development lifecycle. The GERAM framework will be discussed here to give context of what an enterprise engineering framework is.
GERAM
The acronym GERAM stands for “generalized enterprise reference architecture and methodology”. This enterprise engineering framework is the generalization and the combination of various other earlier defined enterprise engineering frameworks. The major ones were Open Systems Architecture for CIM (CIMOSA), GRAI integrated methodology (GRAI-GIM) and Purdue enterprise reference architecture (PERA).
CIMOSA, was developed by the ESPRIT consortium AMICE (ESPRIT consortium AMICE, 1993) “…for the automation and manufacturing engineering industry…” (ESPRIT consortium AMICE, 1993). . The framework is based upon sound engineering principles and contain a modelling framework showing different perspectives and building blocks (See figure X). These perspectives are “…Functional, Informational, Resource and Organizational views…” (ESPRIT consortium AMICE, 1993). The CIMOSA modelling framework do have different levels of abstraction that fork the building blocks of the models namely “… Generic level, Partial level and Particular level…” (ESPRIT consortium AMICE, 1993). These building blocks intersects with the functional and organizational resource views of an enterprise. The progressive level of the derivative of the models are shown through the development life cycle from top to bottom as “…requirements definition model, design specification model and implementation description model…” (ESPRIT consortium AMICE, 1993).
Figure 4: CIMOSA – Modelling Framework (ESPRIT consortium AMICE, 1993).
CIMOSA provides an integrated structural perspectives of the enterprise models as viewed from an enterprise engineering perspectives. The CIMOSA framework lack enterprise life-cycle definitions and how these should be used in context of an enterprise engineering methodology during execution of these concept (Force, I. I. T., 1999).
It provides a methodology for enterprise engineering (PERA and GIM), a system life cycle (from PERA) and constructs for modelling (CIMOSA).
The GRAI-GIM reference model, architecture and methodology were proposed to address the need of having an integrated view of the original GRAI methodology (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996). The original GRAI method was developed to have en engineering design method for a production management system. The GRAI-GIM methodology consist of,”…a conceptual reference architecture model, a formalisms to describe the GRAI model and a structured approach…” (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996) to use the models. The GIM modelling framework consist of a user oriented perspective of requirements and models and secondly of a technical requirements and models (See Figure X). The user requirements and models can be depicted into, “…conceptual, structural and realization views…” levels of abstraction (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996), likewise also the technical requirements and models. The user as well as the technical levels of abstraction can be segmented into different views, namely: “…information, decision, physical and functional…” (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996).
Figure 5: The GRAI-GIM modelling framework and methodology (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996:102-126)
The levels of abstraction closely assembles those of the Zachman framework Zachman, J. A., 2008), where “…the conceptual level of abstraction answer the question of “What?”, the structural level of abstraction the questions of “Who?”, “When?”, “Where?”..”, the realization abstraction level the “How?”” (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996:102-126).
The life-cycle of a manufacturing systems as defined by the GRAI-GIM methodology included phases of “…user requirements, analysis/design, specification, development, implementation and operation…” (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996:102-126).
Figure 6 – The GRAI-GIM life cycle (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996:102-126)
In figure 6 (Williams, T. J., & Li, H., 1999) above, the different modelling perspectives are stepwise defined through all the phases where the proposed solution showing the conceptual and the structural models of the user and technical requirements before implementation and then implementation onwards would be the actual coding of the solution (Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G., 1996:102-126).
The third and final major enterprise methodology that GERAM is based upon are the Perdue Enterprise Reference Architecture (PERA) methodology (Williams, T.J., 1997). The PERA methodology showing the life – cycle of integration projects, “…from initial to operation and finally to obsoleteness…” (Williams, T.J., 1997). The Purdue reference architecture to provide a frame of reference of seven concepts. Each concept describe the life cycle as a whole and provide meta-description to each part of the life cycle (Williams, T. J., & Li, H., 1999). As seen in figure 7 below, the phases consist of “…Identification of the Enterprise Business Entity, Concept of the Project, Definition of the Project, Specification or Preliminary Design of the Project, Detailed Design, Implementation, Operations and Decommissioning…” (Williams, T. J., & Li, H., 1999). Each phase focus and establish specific aspects of a project life-cycle namely: “Identification of the Enterprise Business Entity will specify the identity and boundaries of the enterprise entity, during the Concept phase the mission, vision and values of en enterprise are stipulated, the Definition of the Project phase will make sure identity requirements, tasks and models of the enterprise entity are defined, the Preliminary Design phase all the human tasks and organizational controls and specification of the organization are specified, during the Detailed Design phase all the detail design specifications of human and technology integration and the use of product and services are specified, the Implementation Phase is where actual transformation from specification to actual engineering entities, their testing, operational trails and acceptance thereof are completed, the Decommissioning phase define when en enterprise entity has come to its end of economic life cycle…” (Williams, T. J., & Li, H., 1999).
Figure 7: Purdue methodology and Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture mapping 6 (Williams, T. J., & Li, H., 1999).
The GERAM methodology was based upon a set of requirements that addresses the gaps of CIMOSA, GRAI-GIM and PERA (Bernus, P., & Nemes, L., 1997). It integrates the body of knowledge of “…enterprise strategic management, of the integration of enterprise projects across the enterprise and of product life-cycle engineering…” (Bernus, P., & Nemes, L.,1997). The requirements could be summarized as shown in figure 8 below. There was a need to specifically define the how process and reference architecture can be defined organizational structural or physical structure (the physical systems). All details of an enterprise or entity or system life-cycle to be defined, be able to be generic not to be tied to a specific class or type of system or enterprise, be able to execute the life-cycle on any entity type, be able to provide modelling constructs, modelling tools, guidelines and management procedures of how to initiate and execute a project, be able to show how the integration of CIMOSA, GRIA-GIM end PERA collaboratively works together operationally and lastly a glossary for using it in enterprise integration projects.
Figure 8 – GERAM support for enterprise engineering modelling design Force, I. I. T. (1999)
GERAM integrate and extend the modelling framework of CIMOSA, the life-cycle and abstracted organizational views from GRAI-GIM and the enterprise entity life-cycle from PERA and the reference architecture concepts from PERA to create a generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Each of the life-cycle, modelling and reference architecture concepts are mapped and described in context of an Enterprise Entity type.
The GERAM methodology identifies entity types to be used in enterprise engineering and enterprise integration as shown in figure 9 below.
Figure 9 – GERAM life-cycle mapped to enterprise entity types Force, I. I. T. (1999)
Figure 9 – GERAM life-cycle mapped to enterprise entity types and human task and roles (Force, I. I. T., 1999)
As shown in figure 9 and 10 above, there are five enterprise entity types as follows:
Strategic Enterprise Management Entity (Type 1): this entity type “…defines the motivation, objective and scope of any enterprise engineering / integration project…” (Force, I.I.T., 1999)
Enterprise Engineering/Integration Entity (Entity Type 2): this entity type defines the “…methodology, the how (the function) as well as who (people) that will execute the enterprise integration project as defined by enterprise Entity Type 1 and defines the governance structure and function to execute the project by Entity Type 5 and Entity Type 3…” (Force, I.I.T., 1999).
Enterprise Entity (Entity Type 3): this entity type “…is one of the outcomes of executing Entity Type and it uses a methodology driven by Entity Type 5 and Entity Type 2 to design, implement and build the products and customer services of the enterprise (Entity Type 4)…” (Force, I.I.T., 1999).
Product Entity (Entity Type 4): this entity type “…is the result of the successful execution of Entity Type 3 and it aligns with the demand of Entity Type 1 and 2, it do show the needed for having a methodology to accomplish the demand for creating value to the product and services value chain of enterprise engineering..” (Force, I.I.T., 1999).
Methodology Entity (Entity Type 5): this entity type “…show the detail adoption and execution of the method, best practices, techniques and usage of modelling and tools to implement the desired products and services into operation…” (Force, I.I.T., 1999).
GERAM also do specify the capabilities, skills-sets, techniques, best practices, and competencies that the people in the enterprise must have to fulfil the task needed, see figure 9 above. Likewise the process oriented concepts that do describe and define the functions of each resource and the expected behaviour. Lastly is do show the integration of technology with people and the process which are the physical technology and infrastructure that will make it happen (Force, I.I.T., 1999).
EA Frameworks in context of an EE Methodology – GERAM
TOGAF mapped in context to GERAM
TBC by supervisor if needed. Still in the process of getting the article.
Zachman mapped in context to GERAM
The Zachman Framework was initially design for information systems architecture Zachman, 1987) and then grows into an enterprise architecture framework Zachman, 200a, Zachman, 2000b). The Zachman framework addresses the high level abstractions of the Why? (Data), How? (Function), Where? (Network), Who? (People), When? (Time) and Why? (Motivation) of enterprise architecture.
A short summary of how GERAM enterprise entity types mapped to the Zachman enterprise ontology types are listed in figure 11 below.
Figure 11 – Zachman in context of GERAM (Noran, O. (2003).
The functions and purpose of the GERAM entities as described in section 3.7.1 can be seen in the figure 11 above. This do show that the Zachman ontology types can be described by the enterprise ontology types of GERAM.
A Theoretical System Development Life Cycle Model in context of an EE Methodology
This section to describe the use of Software engineering methodology mapped to enterprise engineering entity types as described in GERAM framework.
According GERAM framework there are five entity types – see section 3.7.1 above.
Each of the GERAM entity types can be mapped to each function of the EAM functions and the standard system development life cycle, as prescribed by ISO and IEEE, is mapped to the methodology entity type The development life cycle below do show the major steps in a sequential execution of the waterfall methodology. The enterprise architecture management function is responsible for managing the demand and supply from a strategic business perspective. Each of the entity types listed in the diagram below is governed by the EAM function. In sequential flow, the demand is triggered by business strategy, the demand is supplied by EAM by executing enterprise architecture functions, solution development functions, infrastructure and operations functions and then delivering the product and service to the enterprise.
Figure 11 – Mapping of EAM functions to GERAM
Motivation for an enterprise engineering approach
The GERAM methodology do describe the human, process and technology concepts in context of enterprise engineering lifecycle as confirmed by Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.P. et al (2013) that those are needed to ensure coherency between business and IT strategy.
The need for having enterprise engineering conceptualize in context of ontology were confirmed much later after GERAM was specified (Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A., 2008). The research done here confirmed that the proposed GERAM framework was on the accurate progression to map each of these type conceptualize the enterprise engineering concepts of CIMOSA, GRAI-GIM and PERA (Bernus, P., & Nemes, L., 1996) in such a way of having an enterprise ontology, describing the enterprise, supported by enterprise architecture to manage business and IT coherency and lastly having enterprise governance manage the agility of an enterprise as prescribed by Albani et al (2006) and Dietz, J.L.G., Hoogervorst, J.A.P. et al (2013).
Due to the lack of coherency and congruency between business and IT (Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A., 2008) there is this need to have an enterprise and its components defined as an ontology. As explained in previous sections the GERAM methodology provides such a basis.
Over the years, many studies have analysed the relationship between corporate governance choices and company performance, arriving at the conclusion that corporate governance does effect company performance (Brown et. al. 2004; Amran, N., 2011; Kocmanová, A., & Nemecek, P. ,2009; Irina, I., & Nadezhda, Z. ,2009; Moldovan, D., & Mutu, S. ,2015; Harvey et. al., 2015; Dehipegedara, B. ,2015; Luik, G. ,2015). Nevertheless, few studies have concentrated on the relationship between enterprise architecture governance characteristics and company performance.
Research Methodology
Research Objective
An enterprise engineering based methodology was implemented at a large financial provider within South Africa to address these lack of coherence and congruence during the planning, architecting, designing and implementing of IT projects across various business sectors.
To get an understanding of what the impact is of implementing an Enterprise Engineering based software development lifecycle on company performance.
The more enterprises and organisations rely on IT support for their functioning, the more the same flexibility, adaptation and innovation are required from enterprise information systems. So, while in information systems engineering very often an analogy with bricks and mortar construction is made, one needs to be aware that organisations and their supporting information systems are required to evolve much faster than is usually required from bricks and mortar constructions, making manageability an important issue.
The literature review have identify and explain the context of enterprise engineering and the need to have theories that can support the understanding and use of enterprise engineering principles de Vries, Gerber & Van Der Merwe (2014).
Research Question
Research question motive
The study was conducted in a financial service provider firm. In the financial sector, the amount of It initiatives to be client centric, customer focussed on all channels are complex due to rapid growth of market challenges. There are quite a few challenges in the changing of a methodology (He et. al. ).
The enterprise architecture management challenges are: firstly is hard for someone to get access to the information they need (De Lucia, 2009). Secondly, make sure that the governance process establishes that all risks, issues and defects raised at previous quality gates have in fact been resolved prior to the project moving forward to the next phase (Janssen & Klievink,2010; Sousa et. al 2013; Pauli et. al 2010).
Thirdly, make sure from a Collaborative Asset Management perspective the roles, responsibilities and tasks for resources are clear (Naumann ; Détienne 2006). Fourthly, improve the effectiveness of the SDLC (Lagerstrom et. al; Cataldo & Herbsleb 2010), the use thereof (Berkhout & Hertin, 2001; Cataldo 2009; de Souza, 2004) and simplify and align processes (de Souza 2005). Fifthly, be able to report on SDLC activities and link the assets created to finance to determine value of assets created (du Toit, 2015).
This means that if impacts on sustainability are identified, actors, like e.g. software architects and developers, need processes, tools, guidelines, or hints that provide them with ideas and suggestions, so that they can refine e.g. software architecture or coding.
Software Engineering knows several systematic process models that allow a methodical and well organized development of software products. Typical process phases are: requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing, operation and maintenance. At a first glance, most of these process models look very different. However, when analysing the different activities within these models, one can find activities that belong to the phases mentioned above, even though the phases are named differently, occur in a different order, or are iterated.
Heterogeneous tools are involved in collaboration, the information are often represented in heterogeneous formats. The differences in the information structure are an issue to information integration (Torres et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the collaborative environment enables multiple designers to collaborate on the same design project (Kim and Yoo, 2014), and designers may use their own terms to represent domain-specific information. Thus, different terms in heterogeneous formats may be used to denote the same entity, which could result in misunderstanding or information loss.
Therefore as listed above, during the governance process of Enterprise Architecture management many software failures are caused by dependencies that are not recognized by the engineers that architect, design and implement a software system (de Souza et al, 2004; Cataldo et al, 2009).
Organisation X needs to govern its IT Projects more efficiently and effectively in order to obtain value for business and to increase profitability as well as achieving a competitive advantage by delivering IT systems that supports the business strategy quicker.
In order to effect improvements in the practice of enterprise engineering discipline, it is important to understand the different aspects of the enterprise engineering discipline and the contextual theories of it (de Vries, Gerber & Van Der Merwe, 2014).
The research will be using a grounded theory approach to do the qualitative analysis to evaluate the literature and the data to derive the factors that do impact all phases of the system development lifecycle. Additional literature will be consulted after the data analysis to confirm the factors that do impact EAM efficiency and effectiveness, the IT productivity and hence the company performance.
The objective of this research is to contribute to the body of knowledge of enterprise engineering processes by introducing a theoretical model that can improve the analysis of when using an EE approach when implementing a software development methodology.
New theories can be build or extend existing theories as researched by Dietz (2013) and de Vries (2014). An enterprise engineering contextual model (EECM) was inductively established by de Vries, Gerber & Van Der Merwe (2014) which could be extended to show the usage of enterprise capability driven approach with the life-cycle methodology of GERAM. Theory could be build that do show factors impacting company performance via an enterprise engineering lens.
The observations of the different enterprise entity types as classes of objects or events can lead to new theory according (Lederer & Salmela, 1996, Markus & Robey, 1988, van de Ven, 1989).
One way to successfully address these challenges, is to improve the EA practices from an EE perspective is to build a theoretical model that will answer the primary and secondary research questions:
Primary research question is:
• Which factors influence the use of an Enterprise Engineering based development methodology by EA governance in organisation X operating in the financial sector?
Secondary research question is:
• Does the quality of IT Project governance influence the corporate performance of organization X?
This question is broad enough not to exclude relevant concepts that may emerge during the study, yet narrow enough to confine the scope of the study to the phenomenon in question (i.e. “Enterprise Engineering”).
This leads us to the objective of this study:
• To investigate the factors that affect the use of an Enterprise Engineering based development methodology in organization X and also determine does quality of the governance influence the corporate performance of organization X.
Context of Research Question
The aim of the research project was primarily to develop theory, particularly by using the grounded theory method. The questions provided by researcher to subjects need to be broad enough so that the discovery of new concepts regards to the phenomenon can be uncovered (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
In addition to the primary and secondary research questions outlined in the previous sections, several specific issues emerged during the development of the conceptual framework in section 3.7.1 and 3.8 using literature review of what enterprise engineering is, how it is used in context of a system development methodology.
The model do show relationship between system development methodology, EA and EE:
• Lack of Coherency and congruence between business strategy and IT strategy.
• Challenges, shortcomings of the methodology that short circuit the usage thereof. Synergies between employees using the methodology.
It should be noted, however, that the conceptual framework developed from literature in section 3.7 and 3.8, as well as the issues mentioned earlier in section 3.1 merely represented provisional concepts related to each other, it has not yet been proven other than theoretical investigation. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990, p. 180), initial concepts may be developed by literature and then confirmed by the study analysis and findings.
3.2. Research Design
3.2.1. Research Strategy, Philosophy and Approach
There can be more than one approach when using a grounded theory approach. one is positivist and the other interpretivist approach. The study of enterprise engineering is very complex and is a non-deterministic model (Wegmann, 2003). An positivist approach may be strong enough to reflect and uncover the organizational dynamics (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, pp. 15-16). Therefore an interpretivist approach will be followed.
The selection of methodology has been to be as such to follow a constructive approach to grounded theory where the researcher is also knowledgeable and involve in the uncovering of the theory together with the participants Charmaz, K. , 2014). Charmaz argue that a constructive approach will be better suited in this case study whereas a classical grounded theory methodology should be used where the researcher is not involve in the theory but is totally objective. The research will follow an inductive approach as described by individual Charmaz (2014).
3.2.2. Data Requirements
The grounded theory method may use data obtained from many sources, like surveys, interviews, secondary documents and literature Charmaz (2014). This study will use data obtained from all four sources, it will use data obtained from interviews firstly, then base a conformational semi-structured questionnaire as follow up, then confirm the analysis via literature and also will analyse documents provided by the subjects as part of the study.
The questionnaire was developed using the conceptual map described in section 3.7 and 3.8. The primary questions on the questionnaire, apart from the section covering demographic data such as department size and location, position or title of respondent and level of experience, correspond to the Zachman interrogative primitives of what, why, how, where, who and when, and the entity types of GERAM as mapped in section 3.7 and 3.8. Primary and secondary questions were summarized to be used as some guide and prompts during interviewing. As described in 3.7 and 3.8.
3.2.3. Sampling
Sampling was done to cover the broadest range of subjects that are using the enterprise engineering methodology to get a clear 360 view of all users of the methodology. As the GERAM methodology explains one need to define all user roles that do engage with the technology entities.
However, due to time constraints both on the side of the researcher as well as the participants, it was decided to construct a small up-front sampling plan so that interviews could be scheduled and conducted in a predictable manner. In order to introduce as much flexibility as possible into the preliminary sampling plan, departments were chosen in relation to a conceptual mapping of user roles as depicted by the methodology in-house definition of the method usage, roles and responsibilities.
For example, in the “Where” column, the concepts “department type”, “department size” and “function” are listed. To introduce theoretical diversity, the “department size” was varied from “Large” to “Small”. This, together with a selection of two different functions provides a list of four possible candidate departments as shown in Table 1. The similarity amongst these candidate departments must be that they all use the development lifecycle in conjunction with EA in some form.
Table 3: Three Dimensional Sampling Breakdown
As a further variation, the concepts listed in the “Who” column of the conceptual map were used to expand the sampling plan. An additional variation was added of position, the ideal sample survey was as follows:
Table 2: Five Dimensional Sampling Breakdown
This survey plan would have resulted in a sample size of 50 interviews.
The grounded theory method dictates that data collection cease as soon as a saturation stage has been achieved (Charmaz, K. ,2014).
Due to the severe work schedules and scarcity of available time of senior IT personnel, the extent to which theoretical sampling can be followed is limited since interviews have to be scheduled well in advance.
3.2.4 Data Collection
X number of interviews were conducted during this study. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the demographic information collected during these interviews. Interview Industry Org no. Sector Size Interview 1 Insurance 6000+
TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEWS
Table 4: Demographic Data Summary
3.2.5. Data Analysis
TO BE COMPLETED AFTER INTERVIEWS
3.2.5.1 Concepts, Categories, Properties and Dimensions
The basic building blocks of grounded theory is as “Concepts”, “Categories”, “Properties” and “Dimensions” (Rowlands, B. H. ,2005). Concepts are according Strauss & Corbin (1998:101) the basic building blocks of theory which represent some abstracted real-world object or a set of real-world objects. For example, the concept “laptop” could represent simply a personal computer in the real world, or it could be used to represent the set of objects including a Microsoft laptop, Macintosh laptop, et cetera .
A category is usually at a higher-level of abstraction than a concept, it categorizes concepts together. It can categorize a set of concepts, for example, a category “computer” could be an abstraction of the concepts “desktop computer”, “laptop” and “notebook”.
According Strauss and Corbin (1998) properties is the characteristics of a category and usually has one dimension.
An example of a property for the category “computer” could be “CPU”, and the speed range might vary from 10 instructions per millisecond to 1000 instructions per millisecond. The property of “speed” therefore delineates “slow computers” from “fast computers” depending upon the position it do have within its dimensional range.
3.2.5.2 Open Coding
The first step in the data analysis process would be to perform open coding. This is the analytical process to uncover the concepts, categories and their properties. Open coding may be done using a line by-line analysis, or by analysing a paragraph or even a whole document (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The step will generate a list of concepts all of these concepts are then grouped into categories. Hereafter, is to identify the properties of the categories. Each property has a dimension or range (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 116). For example, “Enterprise Engineering” might be a category under which concepts such as “Enterprise Architecture Domain” and “Enterprise Modelling Domain” are grouped, while “Number of Projects Planned” might be a property or attribute of the “Enterprise Architecture Management” category.
3.2.5.3 Axial Coding
Axial coding linking categories in groups at the level of properties and its dimensions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123). Axial coding can be done in in parallel with open coding. Axial coding define the links between categories and can be identified from statements in the interview data during the open coding process.
3.2.5.4 Selective Coding
Selective coding is the process of integrating the theory that emerged, to consolidate the theories into a set of conepts that do make sense (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 143).
3.2.5.5 Tool Preparation for Grounded Theory Analysis
Although the original intent was to capture the data analysis in Microsoft Excel, initial coding attempts soon proved Excel to be inadequate in that it is two dimensional and does not provide the flexibility required to adequately perform and document the grounded theory coding processes. As part of the preparation the researcher has taken a small set of data that were already collected as part of a preliminary study done earlier this year as part of the investigation phase of writing this thesis by publishing an paper that forms the groundwork for this thesis (du Toit, F.A., Tanner, M., 2015). During this study a few interviews were conducted informally with about 10 employees who work in the system development environment. Questions were asked how they perceive the usage of the tool and will a study into the impact the methodology has on productivity, hence the company performance, be useful. The data were used to learn how the tool works. Here some background what the researcher has learned which will form the basis for applying the research methodology towards the final set of formal interviews that will be conducted.
For example, one line in an interview may give rise to more than one concept, property or relationship. Also, one category may categorise many different concepts, and it may be described by many properties. Upon further reflection, it was decided to use a qualitative analysis tool called NVIVO.
In order to model the grounded theory coding exercise using the NVIVO tool, a set of categories had to be designed and captured into the tool that do match the GERAM entity types as describes in section 3.7 and 3.8.
Since this purpose is to seeks to model the domain of the grounded theory method as applied to the research data, the “real-world objects” to be modelled are things such as interviews, interview lines, concepts or categories, properties, axial relationships and memos.
Findings and Results
Discussion and Future Research
References
Aebi, V., Sabato, G., & Schmid, M. (2012). Risk management, corporate governance, and bank performance in the financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(12), 3213-3226.
Cuenca, L., Boza, A., & Ortiz, A. (2011). An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 24(11), 974-992.
Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Lee-Shang Lau, J., & Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business process management journal, 7(3), 285-296.
Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., & Zelm, M. (1999). CIMOSA: enterprise engineering and integration. Computers in industry, 40(2), 83-97.
Vernadat, F.B., 1999. Enterprise modeling and integration—myth or reality. Proceedings of CARS&FOF 99 Conference, Aquas de Lindoia, Brazil.
F.B. Vernadat Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications Chapman & Hall, London (1996)
Mertins, K., & Jochem, R. (2005). Architectures, methods and tools for enterprise engineering. International journal of production economics, 98(2), 179-188.
van Kervel, S. J. (2011). High quality technical documentation for large industrial plants using an enterprise engineering and conceptual modeling based software solution. In Advances in Conceptual Modeling. Recent Developments and New Directions (pp. 383-388). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Mieritz, L. (2012). Gartner survey shows why projects fail. Gartner Survey Shows Why Projects Fail. Gartner Survey Shows Why Projects Fail, 501, G00231952.
Bloch, M., Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. McKinsey Quarterly.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Budzier, A. (2011). Why your IT project may be riskier than you think. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 601-603.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., & Abrahall, R. (2014). Reframing success and failure of information systems: a performative perspective. Mis Quarterly,38(2), 561-588.
Gregory, R. W., & Piccinini, E. (2013). The Nature Of Complexity In Is Projects And Programmes. Nature, 7, 1-2013.
Lopes, L., & Mañas, A. V. (2013). Delays in IT Projects Due to Failures in the Stakeholders Management. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies, 5(2), 155-186.
Stretton, A. (2015). Approaches to increasing Level 3:“Business” success.
Jankovic, M. (2013, May). Semi-automatic improvement of software development methods: Doctoral consortium paper. In Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on(pp. 1-6). IEEE.
De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. (2015). Enterprise Governance of IT. In Enterprise Governance of Information Technology (pp. 11-43). Springer International Publishing.
Niemann KD (2006) From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance: Elements of
Effective IT Management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Albani, A., & Dietz, J. L. (2011). Enterprise ontology based development of information systems. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, 7(1), 41-63.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific american, 284(5), 28-37.
Bizer, C., Heath, T., & Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked data-the story so far. Semantic Services, Interoperability and Web Applications: Emerging
Concepts, 205-227.
T.R. Gruber; “Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing”, International Journal of Human – Computer Studies 43:907-928, 1995
L.K. Alberts; “YMIR: an ontology for engineering design”, Ph. D. Thesis. University of Twente, 1993.
Op't Land, M., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J., & Steghuis, C. (2008).Enterprise architecture: creating value by informed governance. Springer Science & Business Media.
P. Øhrstrøm, J. Andersen, and H. Sch¨arfe. What has happened to ontology.
In F. Dau, M.-L. Mugnier, and G. Stumme, editors, Conceptual Structures:
Common Semantics for Sharing Knowledge, 13th International Conference on
Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2005, Kassel, Germany, July 17–22, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3596 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 425–438. Springer, Heidelberg, 2005.
Mentz, J. C., Kotzé, P., & van der Merwe, A. (2014, September). Propositions that Describe the Intended Meaning of Enterprise Architecture. In Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientist and Information Technologists Annual Conference 2014 on SAICSIT 2014 Empowered by Technology (p. 304). ACM.
Giachetti R.E. (2010). Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Methods, and Architecture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Dietz, J. L. (2006). Enterprise ontology-understanding the essence of organizational operation. In Enterprise Information Systems VII (pp. 19-30). Springer Netherlands.
Dietz, J. (2006). Enterprise Ontology – Theory and Methodology. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
De Vries, M., Gerber, A. & van der Merwe, A. In: Aveiro D., Tribolet J., Gouveia D. (eds) "The Nature of the Enterprise Engineering Discipline." Advances in Enterprise Engineering VIII. Springer International Publishing, 2014. p. 1-15.
Enterprise Engineering Research at Royal Holloway led by Dr Alan Pilkington, Ver 9.08. Accessed 4 November 2008.
Vernadat, F.B. (1996) Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications. Chapman & Hall, London, ISBN 0-412-60550-3.
Bubenko, J. A. (1993). "Extending the Scope of Information Modelling". In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Database Systems, Costa Brava, Catalonia. 1993.
Gustas, R. and Gustiene, P. (2003) "Towards the Enterprise engineering approach for Information system modelling across organisational and technical boundaries", in: Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, vol. 3, Angers, France, 2003, pp. 77-88.
Dietz, J. & Hoogervorst et al. (2013). The Discipline of Enterprise Engineering". International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2013, pp 86-114.
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.
Amiri, Z. A. (2012). Challenges and weaknesses of agile method in enterprise architecture. International Journal of Computer Science & Engineering Survey (IJCSES), 3(6), 37-45.
Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Monahov, I., Roth, S., Schulz, C., & Schweda, C. M. (2011, August). Towards an agile design of the enterprise architecture management function. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), 2011 15th IEEE International (pp. 322-329). IEEE.
Dehning, B., & Stratopoulos, T. (2003). Determinants of a sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12(1), 7-28.
de Vries, M., Gerber, A., & van der Merwe, A. (2015). The Enterprise Engineering Domain. In Advances in Enterprise Engineering IX (pp. 47-63). Springer International Publishing.
Hauder, M., Roth, S., Schulz, C., & Matthes, F. (2014). Agile enterprise architecture management: an analysis on the application of agile principles. InInternational Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design BMSD.
Kluge, C., Dietzsch, A., & Rosemann, M. (2006, June). How to realise corporate value from enterprise architecture. In ECIS (pp. 1572-1581).
Lange, M., Mendling, J., & Recker, J. (2012, January). A comprehensive EA benefit realization model–An exploratory study. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 4230-4239). IEEE.
Niemi, E., & Pekkola, S. (2009, January). Adapting the DeLone and McLean model for the enterprise architecture benefit realization process. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
Plessius, H., van Steenbergen, M., & Slot, R. (2015, June). Towards an Enterprise Architecture Benefits Measurement Instrument. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (pp. 363-374). Springer International Publishing.
Foorthuis, R., van Steenbergen, M., Brinkkemper, S., & Bruls, W. A. (2015). A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits.Information Systems Frontiers, 1-24.
Oh, W., and Pinsonneault, A. 2007. “On the Assessment of the Strategic Value of Information Technologies: Conceptual and Analytical Approaches,” MIS Quarterly (31:2), pp. 239-265
Ravichandran, T., Lertwongsatien, C., & LERTWONGSATIEN, C. (2005). Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of management information systems,21(4), 237-276.
Rivard, S., Raymond, L., & Verreault, D. (2006). Resource-based view and competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,15(1), 29-50.
Rouhani, B. D., Shirazi, H., Nezhad, A. F., & Kharazmi, S. (2008, May). Presenting a framework for agile enterprise architecture. In Information Technology, 2008. IT 2008. 1st International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.
Rodrigues, L. S., & Amaral, L. (2010). Issues in enterprise architecture value. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 6(4), 27-32.
Sanders, N. R., & Premus, R. (2005). Modeling the relationship between firm IT capability, collaboration, and performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 26(1), 1-23.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Weill, P. (2004). Don’t just lead, govern: How top-performing firms govern IT.MIS Quarterly Executive, 3(1), 1-17.
Weiss, S., Aier, S., & Winter, R. (2013). Institutionalization and the effectiveness of enterprise architecture management.
Wegmann, A. (2002). The Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM). Business and IT Alignment for Competitiveness (No. LAMS-REPORT-2002-009).
Wegmann, A., Regev, G., Rychkova, I., Lê, L. S., de la Cruz, J. D., & Julia, P. (2007, October). Business and it alignment with seam for enterprise architecture. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2007. EDOC 2007. 11th IEEE International (pp. 111-111). IEEE.
Morganwalp, J. M., & Sage, A. P. (2004). Enterprise architecture measures of effectiveness. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management,4(1), 81-94.
Op't Land, M., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J., & Steghuis, C. (2008).Enterprise architecture: creating value by informed governance. Springer Science & Business Media.
Alaeddini, M., & Salekfard, S. (2013). Investigating the role of an enterprise architecture project in the business-IT alignment in Iran. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(1), 67-88.
Niemann, K. D. (2006). From enterprise architecture to IT governance (Vol. 1). Springer Fachmedien.
Tamm, T., Seddon, P. B., Shanks, G., & Reynolds, P. (2011). How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(1), 141-168.
Riege, C., & Aier, S. (2009, January). A contingency approach to enterprise architecture method engineering. In Service-Oriented Computing–ICSOC 2008 Workshops (pp. 388-399). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Niemi, E. (2008). Enterprise architecture benefits: Perceptions from literature and practice. Evaluation of enterprise and software architectures: critical issues, metrics and practices:[AISA Project 2005-2008]/Eetu Niemi, Tanja Ylimäki & Niina Hämäläinen (eds.). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Information Technology Research Institute, 2008.-(Tietotekniikan tutkimusinstituutin julkaisuja, ISSN 1236-1615; 18). ISBN 978-951-39-3108-7 (CD-ROM).
Pereira, C. M., & Sousa, P. (2005, March). Enterprise architecture: business and IT alignment. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 1344-1345). ACM.
Labusch, N., Aier, S., Rothenberger, M., & Winter, R. (2014). Architectural support of enterprise transformations: insights from corporate practice. InMultikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 1048-1060).
Janssen, M., & Klievink, B. (2010, May). Ict-project failure in public administration: The need to include risk management in enterprise architectures. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 147-152). Digital Government Society of North America.
Sousa, S., Marosin, D., Gaaloul, K., & Mayer, N. (2013, September). Assessing risks and opportunities in enterprise architecture using an extended ADT approach. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), 2013 17th IEEE International (pp. 81-90). IEEE.
Pauli, M., Schermann, M., & Krcmar, H. (2010). The Risk-Aware Enterprise Architecture: Towards a Transparent Inventory of IT Risk Management Artifacts. In GI Jahrestagung (2) (pp. 259-264).
Kim KC and Yoo SB (2014) Collaborative design by sharing multiple-level encryption files. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 22(1): 29–37
Torres VH, Rı´os J, Viza´ n A, et al. (2013) Approach to integrate product conceptual design information into a computer-aided design system. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 21(1): 27–38.
Investigating the impact of changes in iteration-likelihoods on design process performance
Lina He, Xinguo Ming, Yanrong Ni, Miao Li, Maokuan Zheng and Zhitao Xu
Identifying factors affecting software development cost and productivity Robert Lagerstro¨m • Liv Marcks von Wu¨rtemberg •
Hannes Holm • Oscar Luczak
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. (2001): Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies on Environmental Sustainability: speculations and evidence. Report to the OECD. OECD (ed.). Internet
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/6/1897156.pdf, last access 2010-06-24
Dick, M., Naumann, S., Held, A. (2010): Green Web Engineering. A Set of Principles to Support the Development and Operation of "Green" Websites and their Utilization during a Website’s Life Cycle.
In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.): WEBIST 2010 – Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
on Web Information Systems and Technologies, Volume 1, Valencia, Spain, April 07-10, 2010, 2
volumes, INSTICC Press, Setúbal, pages 48–55.
Coordination Breakdowns and their Impact on Development Productivity and Software Failures
Marcelo Cataldo and James D. Herbsleb March, 2010 CMU-ISR-10-104
Cataldo, M. Mockus, A., Roberts, J.A., Herbsleb, J.D. (2009). Technical Dependencies, Work Dependencies and their Impact of Failures. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 864-878
de Souza, C.R.B., Redmiles, D., Cheng, L., Millen, D. and Patterson, J. (2004). How a Good Software Practice Thwarts Collaboration – The multiple roles of APIs in Software Development. In Proceedings of the 12 th Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE ’04),
Newport Beach, CA, 221-230.
de Souza, C.R.B. (2005). On the Relationship between Software Dependencies and Coordination: Field Studies and Tool Support. Ph.D. dissertation, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine.
Michael Grüninger and Mark S. Fox (1995) in the “The role of competency questions in enterprise engineering." Benchmarking—Theory and Practice. Springer US, 1995. p. 22-31.
Donald H. Liles et al. (1995) "Enterprise engineering: a discipline?." Society for Enterprise Engineering Conference Proceedings. Vol. 6. 1995.
James Martin (1995) The great transition: using the seven disciplines of enterprise engineering to align people, technology. p. 58; As cited in: Jan Hoogervorst (2009) Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering. p. 8-9.
Joseph Sarkis, Adrien Presley and Donald H. Liles (1995) "The management of technology within an enterprise engineering framework." in: Computers & industrial engineering.
Liles, D. H., Mary E. Johnson, Laura M. Meade, and D. Ryan Underdown, "Enterprise Engineering: A Discipline?", Society for Enterprise Engineering Conference Proceedings, June, 1995.
Liles, D. H., Johnson, M. E., Meade, L., & Underdown, D. R. (1995). Enterprise engineering: a discipline?. Proceedings of the Society for Enterprise Engineering, Orlando, FL.
Donald H. Liles and Adrien R. Presley (1996). "Enterprise modeling within an enterprise engineering framework." Proceedings of the 28th conference on Winter simulation. IEEE Computer Society.
Donald H. Liles and Adrien R. Presley (1996). "Enterprise modeling within an enterprise engineering framework." Proceedings of the 28th conference on Winter simulation. IEEE Computer Society.
François B. Vernadat. Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications. Chapman & Hall, London, 1996. p. 30; Cited in Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications Review by Florin-Gheorghe Filip, 1997.
Kurt Kosanke, François Vernadat, and Martin Zelm. "CIMOSA: enterprise engineering and integration." Computers in industry 40.2 (1999): 83-97.
Peter Bernus (2003) "Enterprise models for enterprise architecture and ISO9000: 2000." Annual Reviews in Control 27.2 : 211-220.
Peter Bernus, Laszlo Nemes, Günter Schmidt (eds.) Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. 2003. p. 22; Cited in: Dennis F.X. Mathaisel (2007) Sustaining the Military Enterprise. p. 69.
2005-2009[edit]
The great transition (1995)]
"The Great Transition" on it.toolbox.com. Jurgens Pieterse April 7, 2006.
George Rebovich, Jr. (2007) as cited in: Cesar Ariel Pinto, Paul R. Garvey (2011) Advanced Risk Analysis in Engineering Enterprise Systems. p. 23.
Alan Pilkington (2008) Enterprise Engineering Research at Royal Holloway, Ver 9.08. Accessed 4 November 2008.
George Rebovich, Jr. "Enterprise system of systems" in: Mo Jamshidi (ed.) Systems of Systems Engineering: Principles and Applications. 2008. p. 188.
Erik Proper, Frank Harmsen, Jan L. G. Dietz (2009) Advances in Enterprise Engineering II: First NAF Academy Working Conference on Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, PRET 2009, Held at CAiSE 2009, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 11, 2009 : Proceedings. preface.
Erik Proper, Frank Harmsen, Jan Dietz (2009, preface).
2010s[edit]
Gary Doucet (2011) Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance'. p. 451.
Alan Eardley, Lorna Uden (2011) Innovative Knowledge Management: Concepts for Organizational Creativity and Collaborative Design. p. 151.
Jaroslav Pokorny, Vaclav Repa, Karel Richta (2011) Information Systems Development: Business Systems and Services: : Modeling and Development. p. 1
Snoeck, M., Dedene, G., Verhelst, M. & Depuydt, A. M.
(1999) Object-Oriented Enterprise Modelling with
MERODE, Leuven University Press.
72. Op’t Land M, Proper E, Waage M, Cloo J, Steghuis C (2009) Enterprise architecture, creating
value by informed governance. Springer, Berli
Henderson JC, Venkatraman N (1999) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology
for transforming organizations. IBM Syst J 38(2.3):472–484
Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A. (2011). Enterprise engineering manifesto. Advances in Enterprise Engineering I. LNBIP, 10.
Dietz JLG, Hoogervorst JAP et al (2013) The discipline of enterprise engineering. Int J Organ
Des Eng 3(1):86–114
. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 26
(3):276–292
. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst J 26 (3):276–292
Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A. (2011). Enterprise engineering manifesto. Advances in Enterprise Engineering I. LNBIP, 10.
Saat, J., Aier, S., & Gleichauf, B. (2009). Assessing the complexity of dynamics in enterprise architecture planning-lessons from chaos theory. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 808.
Buckl, S., Schweda, C. M., & Matthes, F. (2010, October). A design theory nexus for situational enterprise architecture management. In Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), 2010 14th IEEE International (pp. 3-8). IEEE.
Mezzanotte Sr, D. M., Dehlinger, J., & Chakraborty, S. (2010, August). On Applying the Theory of Structuration in Enterprise Architecture Design. In Computer and Information Science (ICIS), 2010 IEEE/ACIS 9th International Conference on (pp. 859-863). IEEE.
Löhe, J., & Legner, C. (2014). Overcoming implementation challenges in enterprise architecture management: a design theory for architecture-driven IT Management (ADRIMA). Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(1), 101-137.
Mezzanotte Sr, D. M., & Dehlinger, J. (2012). Enterprise Architecture: A Framework Based on Human Behavior Using the Theory of Structuration. In Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications 2012 (pp. 65-79). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Coetsee, R., & Brown, I. (2010, March). Towards a Theory for Enterprise Architecture Governance in Organisations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Management & Evaluation (pp. 82-90).
Goethals F, Snoeck M, Lemahieu W, Vandenbulcke J (2006) Management and architecture
click: The FAD(E)E framework. Inf Syst Front 8(2):67–79
Dietz, J. L., Hoogervorst, J. A., Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Babkin, E., Barjis, J., … & Winter, R. (2013). The discipline of enterprise engineering. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, 3(1), 86-114.
References
Dietz, J.L.G. (2008) Architecture: Building Strategy into Design, SDU Publishing, The Hague.
Hoogervorst, J.A.P. (2009) Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, Springer, Berlin.
Dietz, J. L., & Hoogervorst, J. A. (2008, March). Enterprise ontology in enterprise engineering. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 572-579). ACM.
The Open Group, The Open Group Architecture Framework TOGAF – 2007 Edition (In-
corporating 8.1.1). Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2007
Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Archi-
tecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(2), 7–18 (2007)
Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis.
Springer, Berlin (2005
References 2.6.2
De Vries, M., Gerber, A., Van der Merwe, A.: The Nature of the Enterprise Engineering Discipline. In: Aveiro, D., Tribolet, J., Gouveia, D. (eds.) Advances in Enterprise Engineering VIII. Vol. 174, pp. 1-15. Springer, Switzerland (2014)
De Vries, M., Van der Merwe, A., Gerber, A.: Towards an Enterprise Evolution Contextualisation Model. In: First IEEE SMC Conference on Enterprise Systems (ES 2013). IEEE Explore, (2013)
12 De Vries, M.: A Process Reuse Identification Framework Using an Alignment Model. PhD Thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria (2012)
13 De Vries, M.: A Framework for Understanding and Comparing Enterprise Architecture Models. Management Dynamics, 19(2), 17-29 (2010)
[Corporategovernancecharacteristicsanddefaultpredictionmodeling]
References for 2.5
Dietz, J. L., Hoogervorst, J. A., Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Babkin, E., Barjs, J., … & Winter, R. (2013). The discipline of enterprise engineering. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, 3(1), 86-114.
Governance
==============
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2004). Corporate governance study: the correlation between corporate governance and company performance. Corporate Governance Study, Institutional Shareholder Services.
Christensen, J., Kent, P., & Stewart, J. (2010). Corporate governance and company performance in Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 20(4), 372-386.
Amran, N. A. (2011). Corporate governance mechanisms and company performance: Evidence from Malaysian companies. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7(6), 101-114.
Kocmanová, A., & Nemecek, P. (2009). Economic, environmental and social issues and corporate governance in relation to measurement of company performance. In Liberec Economic Forum Liberec: Technical university in Liberec, Faculty of Economics (pp. 177-187).
Irina, I., & Nadezhda, Z. (2009). The relationship between corporate governance and company performance in concentrated ownership systems: The case of Germany. Journal of Corporate Finance, 4(12), 34-56.
Moldovan, D., & Mutu, S. (2015). Learning the Relationship Between Corporate Governance and Company Performance Using Data Mining. In Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition (pp. 368-381). Springer International Publishing.
Harvey Pamburai, H., Chamisa, E., Abdulla, C., & Smith, C. (2015). An analysis of corporate governance and company performance: a South African perspective. South African Journal of Accounting Research, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.
Dehipegedara, B. (2015). Corporate governance and company performance.
Calopa, M. K., Kokotec, I. D., & Korent, D. (2015, September). Corporate governance and successful company performance (focus on Croatia). In Economic and Social Development (Book of Proceedings), 10th International Scientific Conference on Economic and (p. 283).
Luik, G. (2015). Corporate Governance and EU Company Performance During the Financial Crisis. IZMIR REVIEW OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, 3(1).
References for section 2
Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B. Darracar, d. And Roboam, M., 'Design Methodology for Advanced Manufacturing Systems,' Computers in Industry, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 271-296 (December 1987).
Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., Zanettin, M., and Chen, D., GIM, GRAI INTEGRATED METHODOLOGY, A Methodology for Designing CIM Systems, Version 1.0, Unnumbered Report, LAP/GRAI, University Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux, France (May 1992).
Doumeingts, Guy, Methode GRAI: Methode de Conception des Systemes de Productigue, These d Etat en Automatigue, Universite de Bordeaux 1, Bordeaux, France (November 1984)
TFAEI, I. I. GERAM.(2003). The generalized enterprise reference architecture and methodology, IFIP-IFAC task force on architectures for enterprise integration. Handbook on enterprise architecture. Heidelberg: Springer, 22-63.
GERAM:
Williams, T. J. (1995). Development of GERAM, a generic enterprise reference architecture and enterprise integration methodology. In Integrated Manufacturing Systems Engineering (pp. 279-288). Springer US.
Williams, T. J., & Li, H. (1999). PERA and GERAM—enterprise reference architectures in enterprise integration. In Information Infrastructure Systems for Manufacturing II (pp. 3-30). Springer US.
Force, I. I. T. (1999). GERAM: Generalised enterprise reference architecture and methodology. IFIP-IFAC Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration March Version, 1(3).
Standardization, I. O. (2008). ISO/IEC 15288, Systems and software engineering-System life cycle processes.
Walker, L. M. (2005, July). 6.2. 3 Modeling ISO/IEC 15288 & Tailoring Enterprise Systems Engineering Processes for an Organization's Success. In INCOSE International Symposium (Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 884-896).
Stallinger, F., & Neumann, R. (2013). Enhancing ISO/IEC 15288 with reuse and product management: An add-on process reference model. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 36(1), 21-32.
Walker, L. M. (2005, July). 6.2. 3 Modeling ISO/IEC 15288 & Tailoring Enterprise Systems Engineering Processes for an Organization's Success. In INCOSE International Symposium (Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 884-896).
Stallinger, F., Neumann, R., Vollmar, J., & Plösch, R. (2011, May). Reuse and product-orientation as key elements for systems engineering: aligning a reference model for the industrial solutions business with ISO/IEC 15288. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process (pp. 120-128). ACM.
Arnold, S., & Lawson, H. W. (2004). Viewing systems from a business management perspective: The ISO/IEC 15288 standard. Systems engineering, 7(3), 229-242.
EHORZ, D. J., EHORZ, D., & RUJ, H. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288: 2015 (E).
Roedler, G. (2010). An Overview of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, System Life Cycle Processes. Asian Pacific Council on Systems Engineering. In Asia-Pacific Council on Systems Engineering (APCOSE) Conference.
Lake, J. (2004). A Guide for the application of ISO/IEC 15288 System Life Cycle Processes. INSIGHT, 7(2), 49-49.
Rui, X. U. E., Baron, C., Esteban, P., & Zheng, L. (2016). Integrating the ISO/IEC 15288 Systems Engineering Standard with the PMBoK Project Management Guide to Optimize the Management of Engineering Projects. In Complex Systems Design & Management (pp. 291-291). Springer International Publishing.
Wiley. (2015). INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities. John Wiley & Sons.
Hamelin, R. D., Walden, D. D., & Krueger, M. E. (2010). INCOSE systems engineering handbook v3. 2: Improving the process for SE practitioners. INCOSE, Seattle, WA.
Rui, X. U. E., Baron, C., & Esteban, P. (2015). Aligning systems engineering and project management standards to improve the management of processes. In Progress in Systems Engineering (pp. 547-553). Springer International Publishing.
Stallinger, F., Neumann, R., Schossleitner, R., & Zeilinger, R. (2011). Linking software life cycle activities with product strategy and economics: Extending ISO/IEC 12207 with product management best practices. In Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 157-168). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Buckl, S., Dierl, T., Matthes, F., & Schweda, C. M. (2010). Building blocks for enterprise architecture management solutions. In Practice-driven research on enterprise transformation (pp. 17-46). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Orlikowski, W.J., & Baroudi, J.J. 1991. Studying Information Technology in Organisations:
Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1):1-28, March 1991.
Orlikowski, W.J. 1993. CASE Tools as Organisational Change: Investigating Incremental and
Radical Changes in Systems Development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3): 309-340, September 1993.
Pant, S., & Hsu, C. 1995. Strategic Information Systems Planning: A Review. Information
Resources Management Association International Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 21-24 May
1995.
Wegmann, A. 2003. On the Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology
(SEAM). International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS).
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Knox, K. 2004. A Researcher’s Dilemma – Philosophical and Methodological Pluralism.
Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 2(2): 119-128, October 2004.
Glaser, B.G., & Holton, J. 2004. Remodeling Grounded Theory, Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 5(2), May 2004.
Goulding, C. 1999. Grounded Theory: Some Reflections on Paradigm, Procedures and
Misconceptions. Working paper series, WP006/99, Wolverhampton: University of
Wolverhampton.
Brown, I.T.J. 2004. Testing and Extending Theory in Strategic Information Systems Planning
Through Literature Analysis. Information Resources Management Journal, 17(4):20-48, Oct.-
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of management
Review, 14(4): 532-550, October 1989.
Theory
Gregor, S.: The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642
(2006)
Coherency :
Doucet, G., Gøtze, J., Saha, P., & Bernard, S. A. (2009). Coherency management: Using enterprise architecture for alignment, agility, and assurance. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 4(2).
Boucharas, V., van Steenbergen, M., Jansen, S., & Brinkkemper, S. (2010). The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: a review of the evidence. In Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research(pp. 1-15). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Boucharas, V., van Steenbergen, M., Jansen, S., & Brinkkemper, S. (2010). The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: Establishing the enterprise architecture benefits framework. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Lemmetti, J., & Pekkola, S. (2012, January). Understanding Enterprise Architecture: Perceptions by the Finnish Public Sector. In EGOV (pp. 162-173).
Niemi, E., & Ylimäki, T. (2007). Evaluating Business-IT Alignment in the Enterprise Architecture Context. Evaluation of enterprise and software architectures: critical issues, metrics and practices/Eetu Niemi, Tanja Ylimäki & Niina Hämäläinen (eds.). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Information Technology Research Institute, 2008.-(Tietotekniikan tutkimusinstituutin julkaisuja, ISSN 1236-1615; 18). ISBN 978-951-39-3108-7 (CD-ROM).
Fallmyr, T., & Bygstad, B. (2014, January). Enterprise Architecture Practice and Organizational Agility: An Exploratory Study. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3788-3797). IEEE.
Boucharas, V. THE CONTRIBUTION OF ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS.
Value
Dietzsch, A., Kluge, C., & Rosemann, M. (2006). How to realise corporate value from enterprise architecture.
Rodrigues, L. S., & Amaral, L. (2010). Issues in enterprise architecture value.Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 6(4), 27-32.
Boucharas, V., van Steenbergen, M., Jansen, S., & Brinkkemper, S. (2010). The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: a review of the evidence. In Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research(pp. 1-15). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Morganwalp, Jillian M., and Andrew P. Sage. "Enterprise architecture measures of effectiveness."International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 4.1 (2004): 81. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
Control
Cram, W. A., Brohman, M. K., & Gallupe, R. B. (2015). Addressing the control challenges of the enterprise architecture process. Journal of Information Systems.
Roth, S., Hauder, M., Farwick, M., Breu, R., & Matthes, F. (2013). Enterprise Architecture Documentation: Current Practices and Future Directions. InWirtschaftsinformatik (p. 58).
Espinosa, J. A., Armour, F., & Boh, W. F. (2010, January). Coordination in enterprise architecting: an interview study. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
Hauder, M., Roth, S., Schulz, C., & Matthes, F. (2013). An Examination Of Organizational Factors Influencing Enterprise Architecture Management Challenges. In ECIS (p. 175).
Project failure
Janssen, M., & Klievink, B. (2012). Can enterprise architectures reduce failure in development projects?. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 27-40.
Janssen, M., & Klievink, B. (2010, May). Ict-project failure in public administration: The need to include risk management in enterprise architectures. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 147-152). Digital Government Society of North America.
Noran, O. V. I. D. I. U. (2009). Engineering the Sustainable Business: An Enterprise Architecture Approach. Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility, and Assurance, 179-210.
Hamersly, W. J. (2015). Business Governance Best Practices of Virtual Project Teams.
Modelling
Vella, R., Chattopadhyay, S., & Mo, J. (2009). Six Sigma driven enterprise model transformation. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 1(1), 1-8.
Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction (Vol. 90). Malden, Oxford, Carlston: Blackwell.
Bunge, M. (1967) Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. New York: Springer Verlag.
Bunge, M. (1979) Philosophical inputs and outputs of technology. In G. Buliarello and D. B. Doner (eds), History of Philosophy and Technology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press (also in Scharff and Dusek, pp. 172–81).
Bunge, M. (1976). The philosophical richness of technology. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 153-172). Philosophy of Science Association.
Stettina, C. J., & Hörz, J. (2015). Agile portfolio management: An empirical perspective on the practice in use. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 140-152.
Aubry, M., Müller, R., Hobbs, B., & Blomquist, T. (2010). Project management offices in transition. International Journal of Project Management, 28 (8), 766-778.
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., & Shah, M. (2007). The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 41-55.
Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276–292.
Zachman, J. A. (2000a). Enterprise architecture—a framework [Web Page]. ZIFA, Zachman International. Available: www.zifa.com [2002,June].
Zachman, J. A. (2000b). Zachman framework definition and enterprise architecture quick start [Web Page]. ZIFA, Zachman International. Available: www.zifa.com [2002, June].
Reference: Noran, O. (2003). An analysis of the Zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the GERAM perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 163-183.
Noran, O. (2003). A mapping of individual architecture frameworks (GRAI, Pera, C4ISR, CIMOSA, Zachman, ARIS) onto
GERAM. In Handbook on enterprise architecture (pp. 65-210). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Reference: Dietz, J.L.G. and Hoogervorst, J.A.P. (2011) ‘A critical investigation of TOGAF’, Advances in
Enterprise Engineering V, LNBIP 79, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Nedbank governance methodology is also based upon TOGAF.
De Vries, M., Gerber, A. & van der Merwe, A. In: Aveiro D., Tribolet J., Gouveia D. (eds) "The Nature of the Enterprise Engineering Discipline." Advances in Enterprise Engineering VIII. Springer International Publishing, 2014. p. 1-15.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Rowlands, B. H. (2005). Grounded in practice: Using interpretive research to build theory. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, 3(1), 81-92.
Bernus, P., & Nemes, L. (1997). Requirements of the generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Annual Reviews in Control, 21, 125-136.
Bernus, P., & Nemes, L. (1997). Requirements of the generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Annual Reviews in Control, 21, 125-136.
Williams, T. J., & Li, H. (1997). The task force specification for GERAM and its fulfillment by PERA. Annual reviews in control, 21, 137-147.
Force, I. I. T. (1999). GERAM: Generalised enterprise reference architecture and methodology. IFIP-IFAC Task Force on Architectures for Enterprise Integration March Version, 1(3).
ESPRIT Consortium AMICE. (Ed.). (1993). CIMOSA: open system architecture for CIM (Vol. 1). Springer.
Kosanke, K. (1995). CIMOSA—overview and status. Computers in Industry, 27(2), 101-109.
AMICE, CIMOSA Open System Architecture for CIM. Springer, Berlin (1993) (Second extended and revised version)
Doumeingts, G. Vallespir B.A methodology supporting design and implementation of CIM systems including economic
evaluation. P. Brandimarte, A. Villa (Eds.), Optimization Models and Concepts in Production Management, Gordon &
Breach Science, New York (1995), pp. 307–331
Williams. T.J. The Purdue enterprise reference architecture. Computers in Industry, 24 (2–3) (1997), p. 141
Chen, D., & Doumeingts, G. (1996). The GRAI-GIM reference model, architecture and methodology. In Architectures for
Enterprise Integration (pp. 102-126). Springer US.
Copyright Notice
© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.
Acest articol: Impact Of An Enterprise Engineering Development Lifecycle On Company Performance (ID: 116186)
Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.