Stakeholder engagement in enterprise architecture practice: What inhibitors are there?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106536Get rights and content

Abstract

Context

Enterprise architecture (EA) is a collection of artifacts describing various aspects of an organization from an integrated business and IT perspective. EA practice is an organizational activity that implies using EA artifacts for facilitating decision-making and improving business and IT alignment. EA practice involves numerous participants ranging from C-level executives to project teams and effective engagement between these stakeholders and architects is critically important for success. Moreover, many practical problems with EA practice can be also attributed to insufficient engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders. However, the notion of engagement received only limited attention in the EA literature and the problem of establishing engagement has not been intentionally studied.

Objective

This paper intends to explore in detail the problem of achieving effective engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders in an organization, identify the main inhibitors of engagement and present a theoretical model explaining the problem of establishing engagement in practice.

Method

This paper is based on a single in-depth revelatory case study including nine interviews with different participants of EA practice (e.g. architects and other EA stakeholders) and documentation analysis. It leverages the grounded theory method to construct a conceptual model explaining the problem of engagement in the studied organization.

Results

This paper identifies 28 direct and indirect inhibitors of engagement and unifies them into a holistic conceptual model addressing the problem of achieving engagement that covers the factors undermining both strategic and initiative-based engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders.

Conclusions

This paper focuses on the notion of engagement and offers arguably the first available theoretical model that explains how typical engagement problems between architects and other stakeholders inhibit the realization of value from EA practice. However, the developed model has a number of limitations and we call for further empirical research on engagement problems in EA practice and coping strategies for addressing these problems.

Introduction

The current epoch of digital business transformation compels organizations to rethink their attitude towards IT [73, 162, 163]. The recent developments of technology are not only modifying established business models, but also continually creating new opportunities for many companies to innovate [129, 160, 164]. These profound shifts in the competitive business environment inspired by digitization magnify the importance of achieving tighter business and IT alignment in organizations [99]. Alignment leads to numerous benefits for organizations including increased agility [146], financial business performance [52, 53] and overall organizational success [27, 105, 165].

Enterprise architecture (EA) is a collection of documents, typically called artifacts and consisting of various models, describing different aspects of an organization from an integrated business and IT perspective1 [79, 116]. EA intends to bridge the communication gap between business and IT stakeholders, facilitate information systems planning and thereby improve business and IT alignment [79, 117, 147].

EA practice is an organizational activity that implies using EA artifacts for facilitating decision-making and improving business and IT alignment [1, 77, 114]. EA practice includes defining an overarching strategic direction and moving towards this direction through implementing specific initiatives [1, 77, 130]. Participants of EA practices in organizations range from C-level executives to project teams [78, 116, 151].

EA practices have multiple diverse success factors, e.g. quality of EA artifacts, organizational anchoring and tool support [67, 89, 169]. Besides those factors, effective EA practices require achieving engagement between architects2 and other EA stakeholders [4, 47, 98]. On the one hand, different facets of engagement (e.g. communication, collaboration and partnership) are consistently found among the most critical success factors of EA practice [5, 19, 133, 151]. On the other hand, among various problems associated with EA practices [2, 32, 86], the challenges related specifically to establishing engagement can be considered as the most common and acute ones [11, 28, 60].

However, although the importance of strong engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders is widely recognized and the lack of engagement is acknowledged as a major issue [11], the very notion of engagement received only limited attention in the existing EA literature [4, 98] and the problem of achieving engagement in EA practice has never been intentionally studied. In order to address this gap, this study explores various inhibitors of engagement between architects and other stakeholders in EA practice.

Based on a revelatory in-depth case study of a troublesome EA practice and a grounded theory-based analysis approach, we identify a number of factors undermining engagement between architects and EA stakeholders, join these factors into a holistic theoretical model and classify them into a two-dimensional analytical framework according to their relative novelty and specificity to the studied organization. The resulting theoretical model conceptualizes the problem of achieving engagement in EA practice and explains the relationship between different direct and indirect negative factors complicating engagement. Our study contributes to theory via proposing the first explicit conceptualization of the engagement problem as well as to practice by means of providing a “checklist” of potential issues to watch for.

This paper continues as follows: (1) we discuss EA practice and its stakeholders, the notion of engagement, two different types of engagement and motivation for this research, (2) we describe the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, (3) we present the set of identified inhibitors of engagement and the resulting theoretical model, (4) we discuss our findings in light of the existing EA literature, (5) we conclude the paper, describe the theoretical and practical contribution of our study, outline its limitations and propose directions for future research.

Section snippets

Literature review

In this section, we define EA practice and the notion of engagement between architects and EA stakeholders. Then, we discuss the importance of effective engagement, two different types of engagement in the context of EA practice and problems related to EA practice. Lastly, we explain in detail the study motivation and the research question of this study.

Research method

This study is qualitative, inductive and exploratory in nature because the question under investigation is arguably not described in the EA literature well enough to formulate any reasonable deductive propositions or quantitative hypotheses. For this reason, we selected the case study research method as the most suitable approach for studying qualitatively a contemporary, but insufficiently explored phenomenon in its full complexity and natural settings [39, 96, 167]. We focused specifically on

Research findings

In this section, we describe the studied organization, discuss the identified direct inhibitors of strategic and initiative-based engagement as well as the indirect aggravating factors influencing engagement, and finally present the resulting theoretical model explaining the problem of achieving engagement.

Discussion of findings

This exploratory study focuses on the notion of engagement as one of the core issues of EA practice, which undeservingly received only limited attention in the existing EA literature. It aims to deepen our understanding of engagement in EA practice and explicitly distinguishes between strategic engagement, as the interaction of business leaders and architects, and initiative-based engagement, as the interaction of architects and project teams, due to their disparate nature (see Table 1). The

Conclusion

In the epoch of “total digitization” [159] EA, as a proven means for linking business and IT, can be viewed as an essential tool in the organizational toolkit necessary for implementing innovative digital business models and strategies [127, 129]. Digital transformation is fueled by ubiquitous digital information, virtually unlimited connectivity and massive processing capacity and is closely associated with such technologies as social networks, mobile devices, analytics, cloud and the Internet

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Australian Research Council for funding this study (DP14010024). We are grateful to Dr. Keith Frampton for organizing initial access to the case organization. We also appreciate the case study participants’ on-going support for our research.

References (170)

  • W.R.J Baets

    Aligning Information Systems with Business Strategy

    J. Strat. Inform. Syst.

    (1992)
  • J.E. Gerow et al.

    Alignment's Nomological Network: Theory and Evaluation

    Information and Management

    (2016)
  • K. Grindley

    Information Systems Issues Facing Senior Executives: The Culture Gap

    J. Strat. Inform. Syst.

    (1992)
  • A.K. Ajer et al.

    Enterprise Architecture Challenges: A Case Study of Three Norwegian Public Sectors

  • H. Akkermans et al.

    Vicious and Virtuous Cycles in ERP Implementation: A Case Study of Interrelations Between Critical Success Factors

    Eur. J. Inform. Syst.

    (2002)
  • H. Al-Kharusi et al.

    Factors Influencing the Engagement Between Enterprise Architects and Stakeholders in Enterprise Architecture Development

  • S.W. Ambler

    Enterprise Architecture: Reality Over Rhetoric [Online].

    (2010)
  • F.J. Armour et al.

    Enterprise Architecture: Agile Transition and Implementation

    IT Professional

    (2001)
  • C.L. Azevedo et al.

    Towards Capturing Strategic Planning in EA

  • N. Banaeianjahromi

    Where Enterprise Architecture Development Fails: A Multiple Case Study of Governmental Organizations

  • N. Banaeianjahromi et al.

    Understanding Obstacles in Enterprise Architecture Development

  • N. Banaeianjahromi et al.

    Lack of Communication and Collaboration in Enterprise Architecture Development

    Information Systems Frontiers

    (2019)
  • G. Bassellier et al.

    Business Competence of Information Technology Professionals: Conceptual Development and Influence on IT-Business Partnerships

    MIS Quarterly

    (2004)
  • D. Basten et al.

    EA Frameworks, Modelling and Tools

  • P. Beijer et al.

    IT Architecture: Essential Practice for IT Business Solutions

    (2010)
  • I. Benbasat et al.

    The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems

    MIS Quarterly

    (1987)
  • R.I. Benjamin et al.

    A Framework for Managing IT-Enabled Change

    MIT Sloan Management Review

    (1993)
  • R.S. Bittler et al.

    How to Restart and Re-energize an Enterprise Architecture Program

    (2011)
  • S. Blomqvist et al.

    Connecting Enterprise Architecture with Strategic Planning Processes: Case Study of a Large Nordic Finance Organization

  • R. Bricknall et al.

    Enterprise Architecture: Critical Factors Affecting Modelling and Management

  • M. Broadbent et al.

    Management by Maxim: How Business and IT Managers Can Create IT Infrastructures

    MIT Sloan Management Review

    (1997)
  • M. Brosius et al.

    Enterprise Architecture Assimilation: An Institutional Perspective

  • S. Buckl et al.

    State of the Art in Enterprise Architecture Management

    (2009)
  • B. Burton

    Thirteen Worst Enterprise Architecture Practices

    (2009)
  • B. Burton

    Eight Business Capability Modeling Best Practices Enhance Business and IT Collaboration

    (2012)
  • B. Campbell

    Alignment: Resolving Ambiguity within Bounded Choices

  • Y.E. Chan et al.

    IT Alignment: What Have We Learned?

    J. Inform. Tech.

    (2007)
  • Y.E. Chan et al.

    Antecedents and Outcomes of Strategic IS Alignment: An Empirical Investigation

    IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.

    (2006)
  • C.-H. Chuang et al.

    Challenges Facing Enterprise Architects: A South African Perspective

  • M.D. Cohen et al.

    A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice

    Adm. Sci. Q.

    (1972)
  • J.M. Corbin et al.

    Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria

    Qualitative Sociology

    (1990)
  • M. Dale

    Enterprise Architecture Implementation Governance: Managing Meaning and Action

    J. Enterpr. Arch.

    (2013)
  • D.D. Dang et al.

    Root Causes of Enterprise Architecture Problems in the Public Sector

  • P. Darke et al.

    Successfully Completing Case Study Research: Combining Rigour, Relevance and Pragmatism

    Inform. Syst. J.

    (1998)
  • T.H. Davenport et al.

    How Executives Can Shape Their Company’s Information Systems

    Harv. Bus. Rev.

    (1989)
  • M. de Reuver et al.

    The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda

    J. Inform. Tech.

    (2018)
  • EA on a Page

    Enterprise Architecture on a Page (v1.3)

    (2018)
  • EAP on a Page

    Enterprise Architecture Practice on a Page (v1.0)

    (2019)
  • B. Edelman

    How to Launch Your Digital Platform

    Harv. Bus. Rev.

    (2015)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt

    Building Theories from Case Study Research

    Acad. Manage. Rev.

    (1989)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt et al.

    Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges

    Acad. Manag. J.

    (2007)
  • T. Fallmyr et al.

    Enterprise Architecture Practice and Organizational Agility: An Exploratory Study

  • A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0

    (2001)
  • A Common Perspective on Enterprise Architecture

    (2013)
  • FEAPO 2018. The Guide to Careers in Enterprise Architecture. University Park, PA: The Federation of Enterprise...
  • N.O. Fonstad

    Expanding the Value from Outsourcing: The Role of Engagement Mechanisms

    (2006)
  • N.O. Fonstad et al.

    Realizing IT-Enabled Change: The IT Engagement Model

    (2004)
  • N.O. Fonstad et al.

    Transforming a Company, Project by Project: The IT Engagement Model

    MIS Quarterly Executive

    (2006)
  • R. Foorthuis et al.

    Compliance Assessments of Projects Adhering to Enterprise Architecture

    J. Database Manage.

    (2012)
  • Cited by (12)

    • CAESAR8: An agile enterprise architecture approach to managing information security risks

      2022, Computers and Security
      Citation Excerpt :

      Ideally, these stakeholders are people who share a common goal in the project but who also offer different perspectives or skill sets and are likely to employ a different mode of thinking. However, existing approaches to enterprise architecture struggle with obtaining and maintaining stakeholder involvement (Kurnia et al., 2021). The term groupthink refers to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it overrides realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action (Janis, 1971).

    • Leveraging Enterprise Architecture Artifacts for Digital Transformation: Some Preliminary Findings

      2023, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
    • Enriching Enterprise Architecture Stakeholder Analysis with Relationships

      2023, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text