SpringerLink
Log in

A Meta-Framework for Efficacious Adaptive Enterprise Architectures

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Information Systems Workshops (BIS 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 263))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Tuning enterprise architectures to stay competitive and fit is an enduring challenge for organizations. This study postulates a meta-framework for Efficacious Adaptive Enterprise Architectures (EA), the 2EA framework. We use fundamental long-standing principles found in complex adaptive systems. These principles explain adaptive success. Also, we set forward managerial implications about the dynamics of EA to function effectively on four architectural levels, i.e. enterprise environment, enterprise, enterprise systems and infrastructure. Principles of efficacious adaptation have not been incorporated into current EA frameworks and methods underlining an improvement area. Subsequently, we extend baseline work into a meta-framework and evaluate it accordingly following the design science method. Our meta-framework supports organizations to assess and adapt EA capabilities – modular units of functionality within the organization – to the continuously changing environment, stakeholder interests and internal organizational dynamics. Our research contributes to foundational work on EA and can be used for strategic EA development and maturation.

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.

    The authors in the current article refer to the field of Complexity Science. Complexity science will be addressed in Subsect. 1.2 and Sect. 2 more extensively.

  2. 2.

    Complexity science and CAS thinking search for generative simple rules in nature that underpin complexity and do not embrace the radical holism of systems theory.

  3. 3.

    This complementarity principle does not occur in the original work of McKelvey. We add this principle based on its longstanding tradition and its impact on modern economics and business management.

References

  1. Wegmann, A.: The Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM). Business and IT Alignment for Competitiveness (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brown, S., Eisenhardt, K.: The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 42(1), 1–34 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A.: Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 21(10–11), 1105–1121 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wernerfelt, B.: A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 5(2), 171–180 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Duncan, N.B.: Capturing flexibility of information technology infrastructure: a study of resource characteristics and their measure. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 12, 37–57 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hoogervorst, J.: Enterprise architecture: Enabling integration, agility and change. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 13(03), 213–233 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benbya, H., McKelvey, B.: Toward a complexity theory of information systems development. Inf. Technol. People 19(1), 12–34 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benbya, H., McKelvey, B.: Using coevolutionary and complexity theories to improve IS alignment: a multi-level approach. J. Inf. Technol. 21(4), 284–298 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vessey, I., Ward, K.: The dynamics of sustainable IS alignment: The case for IS adaptivity. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 14(6), 283–311 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Merali, Y., Papadopoulos, T., Nadkarni, T.: Information systems strategy: Past, present, future? J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 21(2), 125–153 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jonkers, H., et al.: Concepts for modeling enterprise architectures. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 13(03), 257–287 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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, Bloomington (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Bell, M.: SOA Modeling patterns for service-oriented discovery and analysis. Wiley Online Library (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ren, M., Lyytinen, K.J.: Building enterprise architecture agility and sustenance with SOA. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 4 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Foorthuis, R., et al.: A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits. Inf. Syst. Front. 1–24 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zimmermann, A., et al.: Collaborative Decision Support for Adaptive Digital Enterprise Architecture (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Janssen, M., Kuk. G.: A complex adaptive system perspective of enterprise architecture in electronic government. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Hawaii (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Proper, E., Greefhorst, D.: The Roles of Principles in Enterprise Architecture. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Holland, J.: Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus 121(1), 17–30 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nightingale, D.J., Rhodes, D.H.: Enterprise systems architecting: Emerging art and science within engineering systems. In: MIT Engineering Systems Symposium. MIT (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Urbaczewski, L., Mrdalj, S.: A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues Inf. Syst. 7(2), 18–23 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Azevedo, C.L., et al.: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: a well-founded ontology-based proposal for ArchiMate. Inf. Syst. 54, 235–262 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dooley, K.: A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 1(1), 69–97 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stacey, R.: The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strateg. Manag. J. 16(6), 477–495 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson, P.: Complexity theory and organization science. Organ. Sci. 10(3), 216–232 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kauffman, S.A.: The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Boulding, K.: General systems theory-the skeleton of science. Manag. Sci. 2(3), 197–208 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolfram, S.: A New Kind of Science, vol. 5. Wolfram Media, Champaign (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Holden, L.: Complex adaptive systems: concept analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 52(6), 651–657 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Burnes, B.: Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future? J. Change Manag. 4(4), 309–325 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Prigogine, I., Stengers, I.: The End of Certainty. Simon and Schuster, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gell-Mann, M.: What is complexity? In: Complexity and Industrial Clusters, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Andriani, P., McKelvey, B.: Perspective-from Gaussian to Paretian thinking: causes and implications of power laws in organizations. Organ. Sci. 20(6), 1053–1071 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Newman, M.E.: Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp. Phys. 46(5), 323–351 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Morel, B., Ramanujam, R.: Through the looking glass of complexity: the dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems. Organ. Sci. 10(3), 278–293 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Plsek, P.: Redesigning health care with insights from the science of complex adaptive systems. In: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, pp. 309–322 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Peffers, K., et al.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Hevner, A.R., et al.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  48. March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Chan, Y.E., Reich, B.H.: IT alignment: an annotated bibliography. J. Inf. Technol. 22, 316–396 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Van de Wetering, R., Batenburg, R.: Towards a theory of PACS deployment: an integrative PACS maturity framework. J. Digit. Imaging 27(3), 337–350 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Van de Wetering, R.: Modeling alignment as a higher order nomological framework. In: Abramowicz, W., Rainer, A., Bogdan, F. (eds.) BIS 2016 Workshops. LNBIP, vol. 263, pp. 111–122. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mikalef, P., et al.: Business alignment in the procurement domain: a study of antecedents and determinants of supply chain performance. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2(1), 43–59 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zarvić, N., Wieringa, R.: An integrated enterprise architecture framework for business-IT alignment. In: Proceedings of the CAISE 2006 Workshop on Business/IT Alignment and Interoperability (BUSITAL 2006). CEUR (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mitleton-Kelly, E.: Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. Elsevier Science Ltd. (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Van Den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., De Boer, M.: Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organ. Sci. 10(5), 551–568 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lewin, A.Y., Volberda, H.W.: Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organ. Sci. 10(5), 519–534 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Han, M., McKelvey, B.: Toward a social capital theory of technology-based new ventures as complex adaptive systems. Int. J. Account. & Inf. Manag. 16(1), 36–61 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Prigogine, I.: Thermodynamics of irreversible processes. Thomas (1955)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Maruyama, M.: The second cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. Am. Sci. 51, 164–179 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fisher, R.A.: The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection: A Complete Variorum Edition. Oxford University Press (1930)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ashby, W.: Principles of the self-organizing system. In: Principles of Self-organization, pp. 255–278 (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Simon, H.A.: The architecture of complexity. Gen. Syst. 1965(10), 63–76 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lindblom, C.E.: The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm. Rev. 19(2), 79–88 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Milgrom, P., Roberts, J.: The economics of modern manufacturing: technology, strategy, and organization. Am. Econ. Rev. 80(3), 511–528 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Milgrom, P., Roberts, J.: Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. J. Account. Econ. 19(2–3), 179–208 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Dumont, L.: Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications (trans. M. Sainsbury, L. Dumont, and B. Gulati). University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  67. March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1), 71–87 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Nonaka, I.: A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5(1), 14–37 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Davis, G.B.: Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Syst. J. 21(1), 4–30 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. McKay, D., Brockway, D.: Building IT infrastructure for the 1990s. Stage by Stage 9(3), 1–11 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Frenken, K.: A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 17(3), 288–305 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Weick, K.E.: Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adm. Sci. Q. 21, 1–19 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Levinthal, D.A., Warglien, M.: Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds. Organ. Sci. 10(3), 342–357 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Clune, J., Mouret, J.-B., Lipson, H.: The evolutionary origins of modularity. In: Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Mintzberg, H.: Patterns in strategy formation. Manag. Sci. 24(9), 934–948 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Edgeworth, F.: Mathematical Physics: An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences. C. Kegan Paul & Co., London (1881)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Black, S.E., Lynch, L.M.: How to compete: the impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 83(3), 434–445 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wagter, R., et al.: Dynamic enterprise architecture: how to make it work. John Wiley & Sons (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Van de Wetering, R., Batenburg, R., Lederman, R.: Evolutionistic or revolutionary paths? A PACS maturity model for strategic situational planning. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 5(4), 401–409 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  81. Davis, J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M., Bingham, C.B.: Develo** theory through simulation methods. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32(2), 480–499 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Rogier van de Wetering & Rik Bos

Authors
  1. Rogier van de Wetering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rik Bos
    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, Poznan, Poland

    Witold Abramowicz

  2. Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

    Rainer Alt

  3. Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

    Bogdan Franczyk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

van de Wetering, R., Bos, R. (2017). A Meta-Framework for Efficacious Adaptive Enterprise Architectures. In: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Franczyk, B. (eds) Business Information Systems Workshops. BIS 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 263. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52464-1_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation