SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Enterprise Architecture Capabilities: Conceptualization and Validation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Information Systems (BIS 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 354))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The notion of enterprise architecture (EA) and EA-based capabilities in IS literature has emerged as an important research domain. However, the conceptualizations of EA-based capabilities remain ambiguous, largely not validated and still lack a firm base in theory. This study, therefore, aims to rigorously conceptualize EA-based capabilities grounded in theory and puts forward the notion of dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities. These capabilities highlight the core areas in which organizations should infuse EA. The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid measurement scale. This scale is validated using item-sorting analyses, expert reviews and an empirical study of 299 CIOs and enterprise architects. The outcomes support the validity and reliability of the scale. The dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities scale developed in this research contributes to theory development and the EA knowledge base. The scale may be used as an assessment or benchmarking tool in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    These students also governed the data collection process throughout this study.

  2. 2.

    Students that take part in this course are adults that have many years of working experience in either business or IT (management) functions.

References

  1. Hazen, B.T., et al.: Enterprise architecture: a competence-based approach to achieving agility and firm performance. Management 193, 566–577 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shanks, G., et al.: Achieving benefits with enterprise architecture. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 139–156 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tamm, T., et al.: How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 28(1), 141–168 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bernard, S.A.: An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture, 3rd edn. AuthorHouse, Bloomington (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Janssen, M.: Framing enterprise architecture: a metaframework for analyzing architectural efforts in organizations. In: Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance. Authorhouse (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kotusev, S.: Enterprise architecture and enterprise architecture artifacts: questioning the old concept in light of new findings. J. Inf. Technol. p. 0268396218816273 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lange, M., Mendling, J., Recker, J.: An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of Enterprise Architecture Management success. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25(5), 411–431 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahlemann, F., et al.: Strategic Enterprise Architecture Management: Challenges, Best Practices, and Future Developments. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24223-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Foorthuis, R., et al.: A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(3), 541–564 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Korhonen, J.J., Molnar, W.A.: Enterprise architecture as capability: strategic application of competencies to govern enterprise transformation. In: 2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. van de Wetering, R., Bos, R.: A meta-framework for efficacious adaptive enterprise architectures. In: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Franczyk, B. (eds.) BIS 2016. LNBIP, vol. 263, pp. 273–288. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52464-1_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Doucet, G., et al.: Coherency management: using enterprise architecture for alignment, agility, and assurance. J. Enterp. Architecture 4(2), 1–12 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greefhorst, D., Koning, H., Van Vliet, H.: The many faces of architectural descriptions. Inf. Syst. Front. 8(2), 103–113 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilkinson, M.: Designing an ‘adaptive’enterprise architecture. BT Technol. J. 24(4), 81–92 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., van de Wetering, R.: IT flexibility and competitive performance: the mediating role of IT-enabled dynamic capabilities. In: 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pavlou, P.A., El Sawy, O.A.: Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decis. Sci. 42(1), 239–273 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wheeler, B.C.: NEBIC: a dynamic capabilities theory for assessing net-enablement. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(2), 125–146 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Toppenberg, G., Henningsson, S., Shanks, G.: How Cisco Systems used enterprise architecture capability to sustain acquisition-based growth. MIS Q. Executive 14(4), 151–168 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abraham, R., Aier, S., Winter, R.: Two speeds of EAM—a dynamic capabilities perspective. In: Aier, S., Ekstedt, M., Matthes, F., Proper, E., Sanz, J.L. (eds.) PRET/TEAR -2012. LNBIP, vol. 131, pp. 111–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34163-2_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Labusch, N., Aier, S., Winter, R.: Beyond Enterprise Architecture Modeling-What are the Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations? (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Winter, R., Fischer, R.: Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. In: 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops. IEEE (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brosius, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture Assimilation: An Institutional Perspective. Association for Information Systems (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schmidt, C., Buxmann, P.: Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20(2), 168–185 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hinkelmann, K., et al.: A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and IT: combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology. Comput. Ind. 79, 77–86 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18(7), 509–533 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A., Sambamurthy, V.: Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(2), 120–131 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., Grover, V.: Sha** agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Q. 27(2), 237–263 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pavlou, P.A., El Sawy, O.A.: From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: the case of new product development. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(3), 198–227 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Drnevich, P.L., Kriauciunas, A.P.: Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 32(3), 254–279 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Podsakoff, N.P.: Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 35(2), 293–334 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wilden, R., et al.: Dynamic capabilities and performance: strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Plan. 46(1–2), 72–96 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nahm, A.Y., et al.: The Q-sort method: assessing reliability and construct validity of questionnaire items at a pre-testing stage. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Meth. 1(1), 15 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 192–222 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Presser, S., et al.: Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opin. Q. 68(1), 109–130 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Coltman, T., et al.: Formative versus reflective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement. J. Bus. Res. 61(12), 1250–1262 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Van Oppen, C.: Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. 33(1), 177–195 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Petter, S., Straub, D., Rai, A.: Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Q. 623–656 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., Wetzels, M.: Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Plan. 45(5–6), 359–394 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jarvis, C., MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P.: A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 30(2), 199–218 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Teece, D., Peteraf, M., Leih, S.: Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 58(4), 13–35 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim, G., et al.: IT capabilities, process-oriented dynamic capabilities, and firm financial performance. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12(7), 487 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fischer, T., et al.: Exploitation or exploration in service business development? Insights from a dynamic capabilities perspective. J. Serv. Manag. 21(5), 591–624 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., Lioukas, S.: Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance. Ind. Corp. Change 21(3), 615–647 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. van Oosterhout, M., Waarts, E., van Hillegersberg, J.: Change factors requiring agility and implications for IT. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(2), 132–145 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Warkentin, M., Johnston, A.C., Shropshire, J.: The influence of the informal social learning environment on information privacy policy compliance efficacy and intention. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20(3), 267–284 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Podsakoff, P.M., et al.: Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(5), 879 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH (2015). http://www.smartpls.com

  50. Hair Jr., J.F., et al.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Straub, D.: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Q. 36(1) (March 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hair Jr., J.F., et al.: Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.: Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Farrell, A.M.: Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). J. Bus. Res. 63(3), 324–327 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43(1), 115–135 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kock, N., Lynn, G.: Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rai, A., Tang, X.: Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(3), 516–542 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I want to thank Tom Hendrickx, Kevin Billen and Salo Langer for their contributions in the data collection and for sharing their perspectives in numerous discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, the Netherlands

    Rogier van de Wetering

Authors
  1. Rogier van de Wetering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rogier van de Wetering .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland

    Witold Abramowicz

  2. ETSI Informática, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Rafael Corchuelo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

van de Wetering, R. (2019). Dynamic Enterprise Architecture Capabilities: Conceptualization and Validation. In: Abramowicz, W., Corchuelo, R. (eds) Business Information Systems. BIS 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 354. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20482-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20482-2_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20481-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20482-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation