Using enterprise architecture artefacts in an organisation

Abstract

As a tool for management and planning, Enterprise Architecture (EA) can potentially align organisations' business processes, information, information systems and technology towards a common goal, and supply the information required within this journey. However, an explicit view on why, how, when and by whom EA artefacts are used in order to realise its full potential is not defined. Utilising the features of information systems use studies and data from a case study with 14 EA stakeholder interviews, we identify and describe 15 EA artefact use situations that are then reflected in the related literature. Their analysis enriches understanding of what are EA artefacts, how and why they are used and when are they used, and results in a theoretical framework for understanding their use in general.

Artifacts, Activities, Benefits and Blockers: Exploring Enterprise Architecture Practice in Depth

“…EA consists of multiple separate components typically called as EA artifacts [1,2]. An EA artifact is a descriptive document providing a certain view of an organization from the perspective of its business and IT [1,2,17]. Various EA artifacts used in organizations as part of EA practices can be very diverse in nature.…”

“…In the digital epoch achieving business and IT alignment still remains among the topmost concerns of IT executives. Enterprise architecture (EA) is a collection of special documents, typically called as artifacts, describing various aspects of an organization from an integrated business and IT perspective [1,2]. EA facilitates communication between business and IT stakeholders and helps improve business and IT alignment.…”

Enterprise architecture implementation as interpersonal connection: Building support and commitment

“…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). Though the relationship between architects and their stakeholders is viewed as a major factor in the determination of organizational EAI outcomes, the lack of tools and methods for understanding these is viewed as a critical impediment to EAI success (Hope et al, 2017).…”

“…Other authors have advanced our understanding of the architect-stakeholder relationship, identifying the knowledge boundaries between architects and their stakeholders (Abraham, 2013) and showing how, if architects are sensitive to the differing information requirements of their stakeholders and adept in their use of technical artefacts, architects are able to bridge the knowledge differences between themselves and their stakeholders (Abraham, 2013;Niemi & Pekkola, 2017).…”

“…Personal organizational networks of architects are known to significantly contribute to EAI success (Aier & Schelp, 2010), as are stakeholder perceptions of architects (Aier & Schelp, 2010;Niemietz et al, 2013). 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).…”