=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2018/paper-07
|storemode=property
|title=How Stakeholders Make Decision About Changes in Enterprise Architecture. Cases in
Private Business and Public Organization
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2018/paper-07.pdf
|volume=Vol-2018
|authors=Igor Ilin,Anastasiia Grigoreva
}}
==How Stakeholders Make Decision About Changes in Enterprise Architecture. Cases in
Private Business and Public Organization==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2018/paper-07.pdf
How Stakeholders Make Decision About Changes
in Enterprise Architecture. Cases in Private
Business and Public Organization
Igor Ilin1 and Anastasiia Grigoreva2
Graduate School of Business Technologies,
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia
1
ivi2475@gmail.com, 2 grigoreva_spb@list.ru
Abstract. Companies currently are forced to remain in constant devel-
opment in order to stay competitive. One approach to manage this pro-
cess is Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Enterprise Architecture Man-
agement (EAM) as a tool for continuous support of organization evolu-
tion. Huge changes in EA are implemented within Enterprise Architec-
ture Project (EAP) that involves specialists and managers from differ-
ent functional areas into collaborative work. Despite a great amount of
research and literature on EA, the participations suffer of lack of under-
standing managers drivers regarding EAP outcomes. Yet, the questions
of what differences in vision about EAP outcomes within Stakeholders
Management Group (SMG) exist and how to manage conflicting inter-
ests within it remain unanswered. The present paper investigates deci-
sion making process within SMG by qualitative analyses the cases in
public and private businesses. To this end we have identified two types
of conflicts that may occur during discussion process about changes in
EA. This study contributes with the evidence which describes decision
making process within SMG as interaction of rational agents. Generally,
game theory approach is to be implemented to describe conflict situa-
tion in a formal way. The finding equilibrium state in which conflicting
interests are harmonized in the most optimal way is followed.
Keywords: business IT alignment, enterprise architecture project, stake-
holder management group, cooperative decision making process
1 Introduction
The current business environment is characterized by digitalization, volatile ex-
ternal environment and high competition between suppliers. To stay competi-
tive many large and middle organizations use Enterprise Architecture (EA) as a
tool to improve alignment between business processes, information support and
technical infrastructure [19, 28]. They implement such an alignment in Enter-
prise Architecture Projects (EAP). Architectural Projects are typically complex
in nature, they need proper Project Management to stay on track and deliver
on promise [2, 3]. In the context of EAP management previous studies investi-
gated the role of architects [12], problems occurring during communication with
IT-specialists and specialists other functional areas [13, 20, 21], EA modelling
languages [6, 22] as well as EA decisions [24, 37]. These are elaborated in detail
in the following section.
However, the current state of EA literature limits to researches focused on
communication and decision making process within Stakeholders Management
Group (SMG). It is arguably that SMG consists of managers from different func-
tions areas and their interests are potentially conflicting [9, 21, 26]. In terms of
EAP the conflicting interests are caused by limited project resources, compre-
hensive character of EA changes across multiple organization and own set of
metrics to assess work efficiency in each functional department [35].
In this paper we report on results of the quality study conducted to analyze
the decision making process about necessity to implement changes in EA and
drivers of each manager. We will use two case studies from profit and non-profit
organizations with different EA governance style to find difficulties, similarities
and differences in EA decision making process.
The research question we aim to answer in this paper is:
RQ: How stakeholders from different functional areas collaborative decide on
EAP?
This paper is structured as follows:
In the next section we discuss related works that we used in this multiple case
study. Section 3 presents interview results of both public and private business
cases. Section 4 focuses on determining some common features about conflicts
existing within SMG and structures these. Finally, in Section 5 we summarize our
research findings and suppose actions to prevent negative outcomes of different,
sometimes conflicting, EAP expectations, followed by presenting some related
works from EAM literature and our future research direction.
2 Theoretical backgrounds
2.1 Related works
The topic of EA as a management instrument is promoted to improve the
Business-IT alignment and support of strategy execution has garnered consider-
able interest in research, [28, 32, 33] among them. In the literature we’ve found
a lot of study focuses on how organizations benefit of EA [25, 37] as well as
challenges on the EA Management and Project practices [12, 13, 31].
Typically EAP activities involve EA stakeholders across multiple organiza-
tion units and collaboration process is challenging for both internal (between
stakeholders) and external perspectives (with EA/IT consultants). In this con-
text Martin van den Berg and Hans van Vliet [5] conducted a multiple case study
of the Enterprise Architect role, where they investigate how architects contribute
to better IT decision-making. They conclude that Enterprise Architecture role
is determined by four different context factors: the formalization of process, the
mindset of decision-makers, and the magnitude of impact and time pressure. In
similar way several researches highlight, that soft skills of Enterprise Architect
can play a solid role during decision making process on alternatives and can
considerably influence project results [12, 31]. The Roles Concept was presented
in work [36] where authors have identified eleven roles, incl. several solely Archi-
tects Actors that may constitute EAM Team. The goal of their research was to
provide grouping of roles and to match them with needed skills and work tasks
which will improve EAM praxis. However, the communication process within
stakeholder managers remains out of scope.
As a way to improve collaboration between Enterprise Architect and stake-
holders with different background knowledge, EA modelling languages are con-
sidered in several researches [16, 18]. In [16] Johnson P. et al. emphasizes the
decision-supporting potential of EA modelling and present a tool that guides
the user in the generation of enterprise architecture models and subjects these
models to analyses of various properties, as e.g. the availability, performance, in-
teroperability, modifiability, and information security of the modeled Enterprise
Information Systems.
The process of creating EA models and EA documentation is challenging.
In [29] Roth et al. present a survey among 140 organizations. The authors focus
on companies located in USA, Europe, India etc. and present information on
what EA challenges organizations face in terms of documentation of EA. Despite
the fact that the survey focuses on EA documentation, amount their findings
was the problem that many EA initiatives are struggling to get management
support. One reason seems to be the perceived low return of investment (ROI)
according to 25.71% of survey participants.
Several authors also outline problems with differences in stakeholders’ vi-
sion and assessment EA benefits. A research conducted by Bas van der Raadt
et al. [27] presents the cognitive map of various Stakeholders’ (Change Man-
agement, Program Management, Application Management and Project Leader)
expectations regarding EA functional products and services. The results of this
work confirm that Stakeholders’ objectives are potentially conflicting and each
expectation is hardly to satisfy. Based on empirical evidence Hirvonen, Ari P.,
and Mirja Pulkkinen [12, 13] provided information that the outcomes of EA de-
velopment effort may be negative from some organization unity’s perspectives
indeed. For example, in case of decreasing the number of applications (software
products) the enterprise is forced to buy licenses for [13].
It is largely argued that organizations can benefit from EA in different ways.
For example, Plessius et al. introduce the framework to categorize the benefits
of EA [25] and based on this framework developed the Enterprise Architecture
Measurement Instrument. From their point of view EA benefits can be classified
into twelve classes: four perspectives (Financial, Customer, Internal and Learning
& Growth) times three phases (Development, Realization and Use). Based on
their survey research the team find out, that many organizations are interested
“in measuring the benefits of architecture, but did not have a clear understanding
of the type of information that is needed to measure it”.
The topic of EA decisions was elaborated by Platanious et al. In work [23]
they introduced the Anamnesis approach. The Anamnesis approach is focused
solely on individual decisions and lacks explication of the relationships of this
decision with other decisions. Based on these limitations in their later paper [24]
the Anamnesis approach was extended with a metamodel for capturing relation-
ships between decisions. Researches defined four types of relationships: trans-
lation, decomposition, alternative, substitution and introduced Decision Design
Graphs enabling the capturing and visualization of the impact of decisions across
the enterprise. Despite the fact that this approach considers EA decisions from
different EA perspectives, researchers solely concluded, that “different stakehold-
ers with different individual rationales and stakes, from business as well as IT,
have to coordinate to collaboratively come to the final EA decision”.
To sum up, current state on EA literature have provided information that
EAM is considered as a tool that helps organizations in achievement their strate-
gical targets by Business-IT alignment through proper IT support. Scholars and
practitioners confirm the challenges existing in communications between Stake-
holders Board and EAP Executive Team. In order to contribute in their better
collaboration EA modeling languages and documentation practice were examine
and evaluate. However, communication process solely within SMG is also chal-
lenging. Members of SMG admit that they need to use EA practice and proper
IT support to stay competitive, but the question on how each of functional ar-
eas manager can estimate and predict EA benefits and how SMG collaboratively
decides on EAP is still out of scope.
In the next section we present theoretical information about EA decisions
and tools that help stakeholders to meet optimal decisions.
2.2 Decisions on EA changes and Architectural Solution
In our first paper [14] we’ve introduced a pattern Architecture Solution (AS)
– a tool that provides the insight for stakeholders not IT area on EA changes
(decisions second stage) in order to solve the problem of stakeholders’ misunder-
standing. Changes in existed EA design might be also caused by integration a
new solution in existing EA design. By using EA modelling languages we were
able to present a document form “Architectural Solution” that in nature is an ex-
tended form of preliminary textual design document, visually describing changes
in existing EA state due to EA models. AS and EA models aim to provide a
holistic view and changes visualization caused by necessity to release a new solu-
tion to business issue in existing EA and subsequently support decision makers
with relevant information [19]. Another contribution of AS is that such type of
document can be used by Project Team following Agile methodology for getting
stakeholders’ approval of a new Solution Architecture (high and middle level
views on Business, Service and Data, Technological levels). The developed form
of document “AS” is in line with other researches arguing that holistic perspec-
tive on an Enterprise helps clarify the business advantages of IT, analyze cost
structure of decision etc. [19].
Based on literature review and our previous work we assume three hypotheses
as significant factors for organizations in terms of EAP outcomes and benefits
for our next research way:
1. Organizations benefit from EA in from of concrete AS (i.e. solution to a
problem, solution as an opportunity to be more comprehensive [8]); ASs
constitute the whole EA;
2. The characteristic of AS could be measured by diverse ranges of criteria like
quantitative (time to design and implementation, labor involvement, Total
Cost of System Ownership), and qualitative (EA agility, usability, sustain-
ability, flexibility);
3. Holistic AS document form not only contributes to collaboration between
internal business stakeholders or with IT-consultants/architects, but also
provides information for measurement and assessment the needed resources
and project investments.
3 Research methodology
This section describes methods we have used to collect and analyze research
data. We used quality methods in form case analysis for collecting empirical
data. The quality research methods are used in order to obtain deeper insight
into situation context and take into account a great major of influencing fac-
tors. According to other researcher [30] firstly, study in IS development is highly
context specific, secondly, EAM praxis supports the strategy execution that is
always unique for a company. At the same time, decision making process within
SMG is taking by individuals, who behavior frequently are influenced by nu-
merous factors, sometimes irrational, like power-hierarchical structure, person’s
soft-skills and personal loyalty to individuals [11, 15, 26].
We used cases on both public and private businesses to collect research data.
Using cases from different types of companies enabled us to facilitate data to-
wards finding features of decision making process in different contexts. Further-
more, we used grounded theory methodology at the stage of data analyses in
order to review collecting data [10].
3.1 Case Organizations
The first organization in our research is a Russian Sales Unit (SU) of one Multina-
tional Corporates (MNC) providing services and products for the metal cutting
industry. The main activities of the SU is direct-to-customer and per intermedi-
aries sales and distribution of metal cutting tools. The company business model
provides complex services to logistic production support, but the main goal of
MNC is to conquer the market share of cutting tools their brands. Figure 1
present the SU organizational structure, modeled with the EA modelling lan-
guage ArchiMate. The staff members are 5 Service Engineer designing special
customer solution, 20 Sales Engineers promoting standard catalog’s solutions, 4
Internal Sales Assistants responsible for Order-to-Delivery process, 3 Account-
ing Employees, one HR-Specialist, one Marketing Communication Specialist and
one Market Manager. The MNC group operates in global SAP ERP/CRM en-
vironment.
Fig. 1. Study Organization 1. Sales Unit Organization Structure
The second case-study organization is the St. Petersburg Metro State Unitary
Enterprise – nonprofit organization with government support. Metro main func-
tion is to provide underground public transport service. Enterprise sees its mis-
sion in providing mobility with minimal transportation costs, meanwhile meeting
safety requirements and accessibility for citizens and city guests. In year 2017, the
Metro system consisted of 67 stations More than 1,600 train cars on five lines
transport 2.3 million St. Petersburg residents and city guests a day. The enter-
prise has state budged support, which is reassessed each year. The number of
employees includes 15,000 individuals; the organization structure is matrix [1].
3.2 Data collection
We collected data from different resources: documents, observation and inter-
views. The data collection process started with the interviews the company rep-
resentatives. We asked managers and business process owners that had authority
for decision-making in EAP. In particular their responsibilities cover tactic, op-
erating, budgeting and controlling levels.
During interviews with organizations, among others, the following questions
were asked.
– What was the nature of occurred business issue?
– What is your opinion, what part of them could be solved through IT support?
– How did you determine and discuss possible solutions?
– How did you predict and evaluate decisions outcomes?
In parallel with interviewing we got access to internal project documentation
incl. mails, meeting protocols, project execution plans.
3.3 Data analyze
After interviewing results were noted and summarized, we decided to discuss
them together with representatives of two IT-consulting agencies, which are part-
ners of our Graduate School. At this stage we used grounded theory methodology
to review the case study problems.
To collect and analyze data we conducted a total of 4 interviews with 4 head
departments and 5 consultants from two agencies. Hence, we propose that the
resulting decision making features that we are highlighting in the next section
are generalizable to other not only considered organizations.
4 Results
The summary of data analyze are provided in Table 1. For each case organiza-
tion we were asked to work out the problems that are predicted to lead into EA
changes and necessity to conduct EAP. Each EAP required a board of stake-
holders to discuss issues and possible solutions. The table presents the data in
time order, that means that first business issue (problem) occurs that should be
analyze in context (problem background) and discuss enterprise-wide (involving
departments). Despite we organized information collection in order followed by
discussion and decision making logic, the distance between events is out of scope
in our research.
Case 1. Private profit business. In first business organization the department
that faced problem was the Sales Area department, the first contact person
(Front office) to customer. The problem in SU occurs from external driver: some
customers were unsatisfied with delivery time. The business process owner re-
sponsible for Order-to-Delivery process couldn’t affect the delivery time of stan-
dard products locally (problem background), because the storage was located in
European country and delivery were globally arranged by a Distribution Center
(DC).
Possible solutions in this case were a delegation the planning stock function
to the local Sales Unit level. A question arises – where should the stock physically
be located, either in Russia or DC (level of realization)? As it was mentioned
earlier the SU doesn’t have any local IT support, therefore Market Manager next
discussed possible solutions with the Head Quarter (HQ). For both scenarios the
new function and process should be delegated and integrated at the local SU level
The global IT department is in charge of maintaining the whole IT infras-
tructure (incl. IS functionality, Service Desk Support) for Multinational Cor-
poration, the current IT strategy is to integrate all type of activities of remote
Units (production plans, DCs, SU, R&D) in SAP CIS with minimal level of local
customization.
Table 1. Decision-making context of EA changes. Discussion towards EAP within
SMG.
Case 1st Case 2nd
Private profit business Public non-profit Enterprise
Sales Subsidiary of production MNC, St. Petersburg Metro State Unitary
sales and distribution of metal cutting Enterprise
tools.
Problem Some items aren’t able on stock, when Accounting of the compressed air
Customers order them as urgent. The consumption is inaccurate. One must
delivery time increase unpredictably. to get budgetary subsidies is to provide
the precise costs calculation for coming
year.
Problem Stock planning is on responsibility of The business process “Provision of
background Distribution Center (DC) that covers compressed air” is supported by several
the demand of whole European Region. IS, existing data exchange model
Sales Units don’t plan stock and don’t doesn’t cover all systems.
have a function on replenishment and
demand planning as a rule.
IT and IS Global SAP, IT department is also Local Solutions based on SAP, and
infrastructure responsible for Systems Customization individual self-development Systems.
Involved 1) Manager of Internal Sales 1) Planning and Accounting – Demand
Department Department – Order-to-Delivery planning
(Actor) – Role business process owner 3) Production and Technical
in context 2) Area Sales Manager – the Central department – Producting and
Russia Sales development Manager Technical trouble Shooting
3) Financial Officer – Controlling and 4) Financial department – Accounting
budgeting, Risk Management and budgeting, controlling, Risk
4) Market Manager – Global MNC Management
strategy execution at Russian Region 5) IT department – IT Maintenance
level and User support
6) Security department – Data
security, Safety and legality
regulations observe
Possible Delegate planning functions to Sales Different level of automatization
Solution Unit level in the ways: 1st scenario Automate data exchange
1st scenario Build/Outsource Storage model between accounting and
and maintain local stock production systems;
2nd scenario Maintain hold stock for 2nd scenario full one platform process
Russian region at DC realization, implementation EAM
practice.
Level of Head level Metro Enterprise level
solution DC and IT departments: Create IT department:, asses IT changes,
realization in physical stock and organize inventory Coordinate the EAP (both scenarios),
EA context accounting (2nd scenario); Develop IT Strategy (2nd scenario);
depending on IT department: Integrate the demand Finance: Resource investment,
chosen planning process at the Sales Unit Compliance management (2nd
scenario Level in existing ERP System (both scenario);
scenarios); Security department: Security and
IT department: Provide necessary vulnerability assessment, risk
instructions to key user. assessment (non-financial) (2nd
Local level: scenario);
Internal Sales Department: Analyze the “Provision of compressed air” process
necessary of creation an additional role level
to execute demand planning process Planning and Accounting, Production
(both scenarios); and Technical departments: use the
Financial Officer: Consider influences new IT Infrastructure (both scenarios);
on all associated functions and segregation of duties.
processes: accounting, resources,
legalcy (1st scenario);
Internal Sales Department: Provide
instructions/ training of users on the
new application (both scenarios)
At the moment we conducted interviews (July 2016 – November 2016) SU
were at the stage of discussing solutions and their realization with IT-department.
For SU it becomes clear that the requests about delegation the planning function
to the local level and IS customization are complicated and this stays in con-
flict with global IT-strategy. The necessity to implement local business process
localization is supposed to be demonstrated and substantiated.
Case 2. Public non-profit Enterprise. In second Enterprise the problem occurs
when the Planning and Accounting department was asked to provide the Gov-
ernment authorities about the needed amount of budgetary subsidies for the
“Provision of compressed air” process for coming years. The Metro public trans-
port in Russia is supported by Government budget and one of the conditions
to get them is to provide documents with accurate plan of needed resources.
Manager of Planning and Accounting department needed information that sup-
ports his\hers in meeting decision on demand forecast for coming year. The
problem occurs from internal driver: “Provision of compressed air” process was
supported by several ISs (Production, Distribution, Accounting, Procurement),
and exchange data model didn’t cover all systems (problem background), the
data were delivered to related departments manually. This leaded to loss and
distortion of actual information about estimated volume and cost of compressed
air production and consumption.
According to Business Reengineering Project Results several solutions we
present. Differences between them were the level of automatization – from local
data exchange model automatization to full technological data exchange inte-
gration. In second scenario the integration of whole process for one platform in
fact is connected with necessity to start EAM practices implementation and IT
Strategy development, as the role of IS will increase significantly. Among ques-
tions to be answered are: What of IT Suppliers is to choose, How much resources
do we need to design, implementation, support and modernization of new solu-
tion, will we in line with Government strategy, will we get Government Support
and under what conditions? Will the new solution ensure our Strategy?
5 Discussion
Within our case study we were focusing on analyze decision-making process
within SMG, members of which have power to influence decision taking. Based
on case study results we identified two classes of conflicts may arise during
decision making process on EAP: one, global-local conflict and other the same
level conflict.
Global-local conflict. In case of global MNC acting worldwide conflicting interests
are presented between IT department HQ level and local SU business. IT depart-
ment is interested in standardization and aggregation all processes globally, at
the same time SU is faced the external problem and it requires the delegation the
planning function to the local level. While the SU is more interesting in having
some tools for planning and replenishment function at remote physical storage
location (DC) merely by implementing new function in ERP-system, the global
IT-department wish this problem to be solved on the local SU level manually
without any changes in global IS practice. IT department in MNC strive for
duplication Standard Solutions as a means of controlling cost and complexity.
Any localization of business processes is undesirable.
In case of St. Metro public organization any changes in software and tech-
nological infrastructure that were suggested according to the results of Business
Reengineering Project must be approved by Compliance committee, since St.
Metro belong to strategic object of the Russian Federation. In case the Metro
Enterprise decides to invest in creating EAM practice, the role of IT function
will modify organization power structure accordingly. In spite it unnecessary will
lead to conflict department arises, Compliance committee might stand in con-
tradiction to Managers expectation of Systems Solution by force them to buy
licenses by limited number of IT vendors in order to support small and medium
Russian business.
The same level conflict. Another type of conflict occurs between managers of
different functional areas on the same local level.
The motives include:
– Users and process owners operate in global information environment and
changes in one process/function/domain or unit can cause changes in process
of other departments;
– Changes in EA might influence segregation of duties, transparency of pro-
cesses and creating new Cost Centers;
– Reaction of human behavior to any changes is often resistant;
– Project execution require resources that are as a rule limited and especially
in project work intent to be increasing during project execution. Return of
IT investment is considered as low.
6 Conclusions
This study provides concrete insights into decision making process about changes
in EA and necessity to execute EAP. We contribute to the understanding of
conflicts occurring during solutions discussions within SMG before EAP starting
by qualitative analyze of cases from a MNC and a non-profit Enterprise going
beyond EA literature state so far.
The major finding is two levels of conflicting interests (global-local level and
the same level conflicts);
One way to harmonize conflicting situations determined by differences in
drivers of decision-makers during discussion EAP outcomes is to consider this
process from game theory perspectives [7, 17, 34]. The game theoretical imple-
mentation in EA has been recently in work [4]. The purpose of our further study
is to provide a tool for scholars and practitioners for harmonizing EAP decision
making process and its potential conflict from different managers’ perspectives.
The unity and clearly understanding of goals and metrics of evaluation EA con-
tribution in SMG will lead to effective collaboration between EAP participants.
This finally will enhance results of requirement engineering as well as EAP on
whole.
References
1. Official site of St. Petersburg metro. http://www.metro.spb.ru/en/metro.html
2. The open group architecture framework version 8.1.1, enterprise edition (TOGAF
9.1). The Open Group (2011)
3. Architecture project management. how to manage an architecture project using
the TOGAF framework and mainstream project management methods. The Open
Group. A White Paper. (2016)
4. Abraham, R., Aier, S.: Architectural coordination of transformation: Implications
from game theory. In: Rahman, H., Mesquita, A., Ramos, I., Pernici, B. (eds.)
Knowledge and Technologies in Innovative Information Systems: Proceedings of
7th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS 2012). pp. 82–96.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (Sep 2012)
5. van den Berg, M., van Vliet, H.: The decision-making context influences the role
of the enterprise architect. 2016 IEEE 20th International Enterprise Distributed
Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW) pp. 1–8 (2016)
6. Boh, W.F., Yellin, D.: Using enterprise architecture standards in managing infor-
mation technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3), 163–207
(2006)
7. Branzei, R., Dimitrov, D., Tijs, S.: Models in cooperative game theory. Springer
Science & Business Media (2008)
8. Brosius, M., Aier, S.: The impact of enterprise architecture management on design
decisions in IS change projects. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI).
pp. 1405–1416. Tagungsband Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI), Il-
menau (2016)
9. Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E.: The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review 20(1), 65–91
(1995)
10. Fernández, W.D.: The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research:
is-sues and design. Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and
Criticising 1 (2004)
11. Freeman, R.E.: Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press (2010)
12. Hirvonen, A., Pulkkinen, M.: Evaluation of enterprise IT architecture solutions:
How can an ICT consultant tell what is best for you? In: Management Centre In-
ternational Limited. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information
Technology Evaluation, pp. 327–337. University of Jyvaskyla, Finland (2003)
13. Hirvonen, A.P., Pulkkinen, M.: User participation in consulting projects: Client
and provider role variations. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference
on Information Systems, Information Systems in a Rapidly Changing Economy
(ECIS). pp. 140–153. Regensburg, Germany (May 2005)
14. Ilyin, I., Grigoreva, A., Zapivakhin, I.: Architectural solution as a tool for planning
and approval of changes in projects for information systems implementation and
customization. Biznes informatika-Business informatics 2(40), 68–78 (2017)
15. Jensen, M.C.: Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective
function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 14(3), 8–21 (2001)
16. Johnson, Pontus, e.a.: A tool for enterprise architecture analysis. EDOC 2007. 11th
IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (2007)
17. Jørgensen, S., Zaccour, G.: Developments in differential game theory and numerical
methods: economic and management applications. Computational Management
Science 4(2), 159–181 (2007)
18. Jugel, D., Sandkuhl, K., Zimmermann, A.: Visual analytics in enterprise architec-
ture management: A systematic literature review. In: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R.,
Franczyk, B. (eds.) Business Information Systems Workshops: BIS 2016 Interna-
tional Workshops, Leipzig, Germany, July 6-8, 2016, Revised Papers, pp. 99–110.
Springer International Publishing (2017)
19. Lankhorst, M.: Architecture at Work. Modelling, Communication, and Analysis.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag (2005)
20. Lindström, Å., Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Simonsson, M.: A survey
on cio concerns-do enterprise architecture frameworks support them? Information
Systems Frontiers 8(2), 81–90 (2006)
21. Nakakawa, A., P.v.B., Proper, H.: Challenges of involving stakeholders when creat-
ing enterprise architecture. In: 5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Infor-
mation Systems (2010)
22. Niemi, E.I.: Enterprise architecture stakeholders – a holistic view. In: AMCIS 2007
Proceedings (2007)
23. Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.: Ea anamnesis: Towards an approach
for enterprise architecture rationalization. In: Proceedings of the 2012 workshop
on Domain-specific modeling. pp. 27–32. ACM (10 2012)
24. Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper., H.A.: Relating decisions in enterprise
architecture using decision design graphs. In: 2013 17th IEEE International. En-
terprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC) (2013)
25. Plessius, H., Slot, R., Pruijt, L.: On the categorization and measurability of en-
terprise architecture benefits with the enterprise architecture value framework.
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 131, 79–92 (2012)
26. Post, J.E., Preston, L.E., Sauter-Sachs, S.: Redefining the corporation: Stake-
holder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press (2002)
27. van der Raadt, B., Schouten, S., van Vliet, H.: Stakeholder perception of enterprise
architecture. In: Morrison, R., Balasubramaniam, D., Falkner, K. (eds.) Software
Architecture: Proceedings of Second European Conference (ECSA). pp. 19–34.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (Oct 2008)
28. Ross, J.W., Weill, P., Robertson, D.C.: Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creat-
ing a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press (2006)
29. Roth, S., Hauder, M., Farwick, M., Breu, R., Matthes, F.: Enterprise architecture
documentation: Current practices and future directions. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik
(2013)
30. Schelp, J., Stutz, M.: A balanced scorecard approach to measure the value of
enterprise architecture. In: Lankhorst, M.M., Johnson, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the
Second Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007),
June 6 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. pp. 5–11. Via Nova Architectura (2007)
31. Smolander, K., Päivärinta, T.: Describing and communicating software architec-
ture in practice: Observations on stakeholders and rationale. In: Pidduck, A.B.,
Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems En-
gineering: Proceedings of 14th International Conference, CAiSE 2002. pp. 117–133.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (May 2002)
32. Spewak, S., Tiemann, M.: Updating the enterprise architecture planning model.
Journal of Enterprise Architecture 2, 11–19 (2006)
33. Spewak, S.H., Hill, S.C.: Enterprise architecture planning: developing a blue-print
for data, applications and technology. QED Information Sciences, Inc. (1993)
34. Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of games and economic behavior.
Princeton university press (2007)
35. Weill, P., Ross, J.W.: IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision
rights for superior results. Harvard Business Press (2004)
36. Wißotzki, M., Köpp, C., Stelzer, P.: Rollenkonzepte im enterprise architecture
management (2015)
37. Zimmermann, A., Jugel, D., Sandkuhl, K., Schmidt, R., Schweda, C., Möhring,
M.: Architectural decision management for digital transformation of products and
services. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly (6), 31–53 (2016)