Conflicts, Compromises and Political Decisions

Abstract

This article describes the architecture development process in an international ICT company, which is building a comprehensive e-business system for its customers. The implementation includes the integration of data and legacy systems from independent business units and the construction of a uniform Web-based customer interface. We followed the early process of architecture analysis and definition over a year. The research focuses on the creation of e-business architecture and observes that instead of guided by a prescribed method, the architecture emerges through somewhat non-deliberate actions obliged by the situation and its constraints, conflicts, compromises, and political decisions. The interview-based qualitative data is analyzed using grounded theory and a coherent story explaining the situation and its forces is extracted. Conclusions are drawn from the observations and possibilities and weaknesses of the support that UML and RUP provide for the process are pointed out.

Enterprise architecture implementation as interpersonal connection: Building support and commitment

“…According to Rouse (2005) "the people and organizational issues associated with transformational solutions are often the thorniest part of the road to success" (Rouse, 2005, p. 143). Authors have noted that EAI initiatives may fail because of (a) the reclusive working styles of architects (Poutanen, 2012;Van der Raadt, Schouten, & van Vliet, 2008), (b) the inability of architects to understand business values (Bui, 2017), (c) the inability of architects to take account of the different perspectives of their stakeholders (Smolander & Rossi, 2008), (d) the inability of architects to build effective knowledge sharing connections with their stakeholders (Van der Raadt et al, 2008), and (e) the inability of architects to obtain executive and general management support (Bui, 2017). EAI scholars have called for a greater partnership between architects and stakeholders (Niemi & Pekkola, 2017) and greater stakeholder involvement in EA initiatives (Hope et al, 2017).…”

“…Researchers have taken steps to address this issue and have sought to clarify the stakeholder context of an EAI by addressing the stakeholder community and surfacing the different types of social groupings within that community (Roth et al, 2013). In their analysis of the stakeholder community, authors have adopted a functional approach differentiating stakeholders based on organizational location (Valorinta, 2011) and their position within the organizational hierarchy (Smolander & Rossi, 2008).…”

“…The ability of architects to take into account the information requirements of their stakeholders when constructing the architectural solution is seen to reduce the sensemaking gap between what architects consider architecturally important and what matters to stakeholders (Niemi & Pekkola, 2017). This is significant as it has been known for some time that an EAI represents design trade-offs amongst properties such as cost, usability, maintainability, and performance, and these represent the explicit commitment of a group towards an objective or course of action (Smolander & Rossi, 2008). EAI is the product of a process of decision making and negotiation for resources needed for building the systems, including personnel, expert skills, and funding (Bass, Clements, & Kazman, 2003).…”

“…For over two decades, researchers and practitioners have acknowledged the importance of social factors to the outcomes of an EAI and have made important contributions to EAI practice in laying out the different types of social conditions associated with EAI failure and success. Spewak (1992) recommended that in the planning stage of an EAI, architects liaise with executive management to build awareness and support for the EAI, and Smolander and Rossi (2008), Aier (2014), and Faller and De Kinderen (2014) have examined the potentially negative effect of organizational politics and culture on EAI outcomes. Faller and De Kinderen (2014) examined the impact of cultural diversity on the effectiveness of architects, including their ability to communicate with their stakeholders.…”

“…The role that stakeholders play in the delivery of an EAI is an important theme in EAI research. Authors have examined the role of stakeholder acceptance (Gregor, Hart, & Martin, 2007), stakeholder communication (Poutanen, 2012), the architect and stakeholder relationship (Smolander & Rossi, 2008), and how business stakeholders perceptions (Lange, 2012) can negatively influence EAI outcomes. Further stakeholder research has examined the different subgroups within the stakeholder community (Roth, Hauder, Zec, Utz, & Matthes, 2013) and the types of barriers that can exist between architects and these communities, including differences in the knowledge and background of architects and stakeholders (Abraham et al, 2015).…”