The increasing volatility and complexity of business models call for a fast and yet robust approach to continuous transformation. Enterprise Design is an emerging and practice-driven response for generating and implementing business models, while integrating innovative and disruptive Information Technology. At a limited scale, practical experience has been gained in several industry environments. To establish a research program to further enhance, develop and mature Enterprise Design, a 1⁄2 day Industry-meets-Academia forum on Enterprise Design was conducted, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of this approach, and seeking for opportunities for further research collaboration with industrial relevance. It appeared to be crucial to further increase the speed and robustness of transformation by a gradual expansion of the metamodel of the ED approach, continuously applied on real-life cases (e.g. supported by low-code platforms). Also of major relevance is the creation of a governance model for Enterprise Design that is able to handle interventions in the context of disruptive innovations; also these governance models should be applied and monitored in real-life cases to establish best-practices in timings, iterations, order of working and the relationship with achieved bene ts.
The increasing volatility and complexity of business models call for a fast and
yet robust approach to continuous transformation. Indeed, both the change is
continuously accelerating (reacting on more frequently occurring disruptions)
and the complexity of changing collaboration networks [
Many elements for such decision making - mainly focusing on the process of change - have been contributed already from schools of organization science, product-portfolio-program-project management, architecture and business analysis, also informed by agile and DevOps initiatives. The main thing missing is integration of the di erent elements from a content perspective into a holistic approach { especially in the positioning and scoping of change, where strategic directions should propagate in choices for products and services and e ective collaboration, which in turn has to be done in an e cient way. And this not \once and for all" but continuously, whenever strategic directions change, or new implementation technologies emerge, or new parties o er more attractive capabilities, etc. As long as such an integration from a content perspective hasn't been achieved, true agility cannot reasonably be expected.
As an emerging and practice-driven response for generating and implementing business models, the Enterprise Design (ED) approach has been developed and applied at a limited scale in several industry environments. From a content perspective, ED integrates concepts from ontology about stability and variance with emerging insights from Lean Startup and Business Model Generation, while integrating innovative and disruptive Information Technology with at the same time clear human accountabilities. From a transformation process perspective, ED presents well de ned iteration points, a clear logic for deriving business cases from the design of alternative Target situations and their roadmaps, and an approach to combine elaborations of single change alternatives into multi-case and multi-year plans. Practical experience with ED was gained in several cases, varying from a small (3 month) Lean StartUp, a project at Dutch Tax Services by an Executive Master student of Antwerp Management School, to the starting of multi-year / multi-party programs in complex organizational networks.
Next to gaining practical experience with ED, a test against the Body of
Knowledge of Enterprise Engineering { integrating Organization Science and
Information Science [
From the session, in which three teams elaborated intensively on the themes
purpose, approach, people, decision-making and external validation, a total of
14 research questions emerged. The highest priority from a content perspective
was assigned to ensuring consistency between several elements of Enterprise
Design (e.g. between Strategy, Product De nition and Enterprise collaboration
intention) by strengthening ED's metamodel. The highest priority from a process
perspective was given to creating a governance model for (if necessary: federated)
Enterprise Design, also able to handle interventions in the context of disruptive
innovations. This leads to adopting a research agenda with a focus on continuous
faster transformation, based upon (a) a gradually expanding ED metamodel that
is continuously applied in practical cases (e.g., using low-code platforms) [
The remainder of this forum report is structured as follows. Section 2 summarizes the artefact presented at the forum session, explaining the Enterprise Design approach, and instructing the forum members on the way of working during the forum session. The feed-back thus obtained from the forum session is elaborated in Section 3. Finally Section 4 provides the conclusions of this forum session by the authors, as well as directions for further research. 2
The artefact presented at the forum session is the presentation \Enterprise Design { a practice-driven response for generating and implementing business models5 It starts by making explicit the goals and expected outputs of this session, namely to test and validate the steps in the proposed Enterprise Design approach (e.g., completeness, consistency and required depth) and to nd opportunities for further and collaborative research in the Enterprise Engineering community. Then the reasons for the Enterprise Design approach (as elaborated here in Section 1) are summarized: to enable continuous transformation { fast and robust { in a context of increasingly volatile and complex business models. Next the content of the Enterprise Design approach itself is explained { its individual elements and their mutual coherence { with the well-known pizzeria-case as running didactical example. Finally the assignments for the workshop part of the forum session are formulated, in which each group was asked to bring up research questions and to prioritize these in terms of academic and industry relevance.
We will now summarize the content of the Enterprise Design approach, zoom in on one example of a typical coherence perspective in ED (namely: the derivation of a business case), and phrase the assignments given at the forum session. 2.1
The Enterprise Design approach consists of 11 basic elements { each represented
by a rectangle in \The Enterprise Design diabolo" (Fig. 1). In the gure, each
element is named according to its goal and result (black font in the gure, such
as Strategic Fit ). Some elements are accompanied by a recommended technique
5 See the handout of the complete presentation used at the forum session itself [
See also the practitioner oriented video-explanation of the content of the Enterprise
Design approach in the 40 minutes webinar \Enterprise Design: Engineering the
stable essence to vary on adaptation" { with the pizzeria-case as running example,
and continuously illustrated with real-life examples at the National Agency of Water,
Roads and Infrastructure (Rijkswaterstaat, Netherlands) and Shell) [
Strategic Fit gtroeael
Product De nition BMC Enterprise col aboration
intention DEMO CM
Enterprise col aboration BOM semantics DEMO FM
Enterprise performance
Quality of Service Enterprise coherence
Principles Enterprise implementation Transformation Roadmap Integrated Business Case (Multi) Year / Case
Governance (white font in the gure, such as goal tree). The rst part of the ED approach (upper in the gure, with Product de nition, Strategy and Strategic t and the small horizontal squares with a P for each separate Product) is on Product portfolio level; it typically focuses on de ning di erent products and choosing which of these alternative products t best in the Strategy. The second part of ED (in the middle of the gure, the narrow part of the diabolo, from Enterprise collaboration - intention until Integrated Business Case) focuses on everything needed to be able to deliver one product. In the third part of ED (lowest in the gure, with (Multi) Year / Case Governance), the focus is on Transformation Portfolio level, widening the perspective across many products to programs and projects to deliver the changes needed. The product focus of the second part of ED is partly broken, especially in the element Enterprise coherence - Principles (indicated in the gure with the horizontal ellipse with arrow), since principles tend to have authority across many products, processes and technology. Finally, ED comprises the notion of iteration (indicated in the gure with the vertical ellipse with arrow) { in practice experienced especially from Product De nition back to Strategy, from Enterprise implementation back to Quality of Service, from Integrated Business Case to Quality of Service, and from (Multi) Year / Case governance to Product De nition.
We will brie y illustrate how ED works in the well-known pizzeria-case [
To enable dimensioning choices, Mario now also has to de ne the intended
Enterprise Performance { Quality of Service of the home delivery { how many
orders (peak, average) should the pizzeria be able to deliver, with with quality
(temperature, crispness) and (predictability of) speed, and in which geographic
locations? Now before thinking about implementation alternatives with di
erent mixtures of organization and technology, it is important to become aware
of boundary constraints for that; so what Principles { as conscious restrictions
in design freedom to further Enterprise coherence [
CA01 customer
T01 sale completing
T02 sale paying
AT1 A01 sale completer assortment
AT2
recipes Pizzeria
T03 sale baking
T04 sale transporting
A03 order baker A04 order transporter AT3 customer data
AT4 maps
Fig. 2. Change in Enterprise collaboration { intention, needed for home delivery
sign their own pizza" mean in the context of home delivery? Then Mario's crew
can turn to concrete organizational and ICT Enterprise implementation
alternatives, mixing people and means according to Organization Implementation
Variables (OIVs) [
As an example of a typical research question on coherence, Fig. 3 on the logic of business case derivation was presented to the forum session participants. This diagram shows the same elements as in the diabolo (Fig. 1) { this time numbered { with an example elaboration per ED-element, complemented with an overlay of some of the possible coherence links in ED in di erent colors.
Take as a starting point the Value Proposition, as described by the Business Model Canvas (BMC) (3) in the Product De nition. This BMC discerns 2 sides: what is the o er [proposition] and what is the value it will deliver for customers. The value part is speci ed further in a yellow storyline, the proposition part in a blue storyline. The horizontal bottom part of the BMC addresses the costs and revenues expectation of the value proposition and can be considered as a rst draft of the business case { the red storyline.
Following the value storyline (in yellow) starts with the value side of the BMC. The assessment needs to happen to what degree the value expectations do t in the existing business strategy (2) or whether the business strategy needs further enhancements (1). This value is translated in quantitative and/or qualitative bene ts, as a part of the Integrated Business Case.
Following the proposition storyline (in blue) starts with the left hand part of the BMC (3), providing the main context for the construction of the Enterprise Coherence in Enterprise Design: some example relations affordance – function – product
value proposition 1.Strategy 2.Strategicfit 3.Product definition 4.Enterprise colaboration [intention] 5.Enterprise colaboration [semantics] 6.Enterprise Performance [QoS] 7.Enterprise Coherence– Principles 8.Enterprise Implementation 9.TrRaonasdfomrmapation 10.Integrated BusinessCase 11.[Multi] year/case Governance collaboration - Intention (4). The identi cation of key activities, key resources and key partnerships as per BMC will drive the further de nition of roles and responsibilities, services and dependencies in the DEMO Construction Model, to be elaborated later on in processes.
The main nancial storyline (red) starts from the cost and revenue structures in the BMC (3). The rst re nement of the cost structure is done by elaborating the set-up of collaboration in the value chain, and in the identi cation of roles and activities in the DEMO Construction Model (4). In Quality of Service (6), decisions on the expected or required performance are made, which will inuence both the operational costs and the revenues. Finally, after making the implementation choices (8) on man/machine/location/instances/IT, the total of operational costs (RUN) will become more visible, ready for inclusion in the Integrated Business Case (10).
To achieve the depicted future state, we follow the transformation storyline (purple). With the decisions from the implementation roadmap (9), the approach for realizing the transformation becomes more tangible, as well as its associated costs. The costs of transformation (CHANGE) are included into the Integrated Business Case (10), which completes it from both RUN and CHANGEperspective.
Re ecting on these storylines raises some interesting questions. Indeed a coherence between ED elements is drafted here. At the same time, the individual elements have been taken from di erent `schools' of thinking, which do not necessarily relate to a similar understanding of concepts { even if they use the same term. Are the yellow, blue, red and purple overlays really `true', and is there a seamless coherence in each of them? Is the coherence compelling, `watertight', and complete?
This could lead to research questions such as: 1. What main topics/storylines can be identi ed in the ED - set up in analogy with the yellow / blue / red / purple storylines { ultimately covering all components in ED? 2. In such a depicted topic, is there a seamless coherence { in a way that there is full and complete logic in the decisions that need to be taken? 3. How xed is the sequence of the 11 ED elements - can you or do you need to vary the sequence in working the transformation project, because of the nature of disruptive innovations that need to be dealt with? Detecting these types of research questions, that is the aim of this forum session. 2.3
The following assignment for the one-hour workshop part of the forum session was given to the participants:
On the theme(s) chosen by your team, produce a list of research questions and add to each question an indication of relevance/priority, both from an academic and an industry perspective. Prepare a plenary feed-back, in which questions for understanding can be asked.
Participants could freely choose from the following 5 themes, and compose teams based on their choice (as long as the resulting teams would have a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 participants): 1. External validation/consistency: what is the relationship with other methods and what is the market validity check; does the approach serve the purpose that businesses need in times of disruption and digital transformation? 2. Internal consistency, completeness, redundancy { . . .
a . . . from a People perspective b . . . from a Purpose perspective c . . . from an Approach perspective d . . . from a Decision making perspective (e.g. why make a complete Business Model Canvas (BMC)? answer could be that the goal is mainly to create a dialogue between di erent disciplines, to build enthusiasm, involvement and support, to recognize commonality together, and to build a more robust decision making) Finally, the participants were asked the takeaway question: \What do you consider to be the key potential of Enterprise Design?" 3
In the workshop part of the forum sessions, the 3 teams were constituted as follows:
is is still feasible to look back (for instance, to reconsider the strategy)? P2 How to support matching sub-strategies in encompassing strategies, as in the case of federated entities sharing a global purpose? P3 In the case of federated entities sharing a global purpose and strategy: how to keep the global coherence in Enterprise collaboration - intention and Enterprise collaboration - semantics ? P4 Does the methodology allow splitting up to a number of entities when they do not align in
Strategy? P5 Does the methodology allow checking alignment
between elements? How? P6 Does the methodology allow for entry points triggered by external (and internal) factors allowing interventions (on e.g. Transformation, but can happen any time) as it happens / runs? And how to handle that, e.g., go to start / continue & adapt on-the- y / drop everything? A. team \Purpose" (theme 2b), consisting of 3 persons; B. team \Approach" (theme 2c), consisting of 4 persons; C. team \various", covering external validation/consistency (theme 1), and Internal consistency / completeness / redundancy from a People perspective (theme 2a) and from a Decision making perspective (theme 2d), consisting of 4 persons.
The remainder of this chapter rst provides the feed-back given by these 3 teams, followed by the plenary given answer on the takeaway question. Each part starts with the received input (where appropriate, rephrased by the authors for readability, most of the time in dialogue with participants after the forum session) and ends with a re ection from the authors in terms of underpinned research questions and its relation with the team-input. 3.1
Based upon the output from team A (Table 1), the following candidate research questions have been formulated. The scale applied is: 1 = highest priority/relevance, 6 = lowest priority/relevance.
Q 1 What are reasonable durations / net times for all ED elements { and why?
Clari cation. The question is inspired by P1. A reasonable durations / net time
will determine its (experienced) value and validity. E.g., it should be become
clear: should the preferred duration of one complete EDF cycle be typically 2, 4,
6 weeks? And/or should one complete ED cycle be split up in 3 parts (the rst
one containing at least strategy / strategic t), followed by a re ection part {
comparable with recoding / refactoring in software development?
Q 2 How to ensure inter-entity consistency, i.e. consistency for ED-elements
of the same type (e.g. the Strategy or the Product De nition) between di erent
entities (such as departments)?
Clari cation. The question is inspired by P2 and P3. Following Goldrath's
Theory of Constraints [
A formalization of this question could include the following. Suppose one entity A (e.g. division of a corporate) is going to be split up in 4 smaller entities A.1 until A.4 (e.g. 4 departments). What will be the relationship between several instances of a certain ED-elementtype, e.g. the Construction Model (CM) of A and A.1- A.4? For instance, (when) could the following be true: CM (A:3) \ CM (A:4) 6= ;, CM (A:i) CM (A); i = 1 : : : 4, and CM (A) = Si4=1 CMi?
Example practical cases to consider might include:
1. at reorganization of Dutch police Rotterdam-Rijnmond ( [13, case ROOD]),
DEMO Construction Models were made for the 4 large departments, and
afterwards combined and optimized { e.g., showing optimizing possibilities
for using the Police Dog (K-9) service unit.
2. at a large shipyard, the collaboration and the priorities of collaboration
partners became clear when discussing what-if scenarios, such as \what happens
when new requirements for the ship come in, while already building the
ship?"; this triggered collaboration between people from strategy,
marketing, sales and engineering.
3. in a similar way, the robustness of collaboration and the correctness of its
model was tested by discussing often occurring speci c situations at the Air
France KLM Cargo merger, e.g. \what to do if the actual size of the shipment
doesn't match the size as mentioned during the order taking process" [
A preliminary thought about an answer for inter-entity consistency could be that it depends from the splitting criterion of the entities. Let's take the pizzeria-case as an example.
One extreme could be that the criterion is only \service region", which means that each entity ful lls exactly the same business (with the same value proposition, the same DEMO CM, the same semantics etc) in the regions South, Middle and Nord. In that case it could start with the implementation alternatives looking di erent, e.g. because pizza home delivery in the North of the Netherlands with its beautiful lakes in Frysl^an may very well be done by boats or drones, while home delivery in the South of Limburg might need e-bikes or motorcycles { which could of course lead to di erent business cases per region, implementation roadmaps, etc. But may be also a discussion should take place whether it would be a good idea to enforce in each region the same Quality of Service, especially home delivery time, because it would be easier in the Middle than in the North & South.
Another case could be that the criterion is \functional specialization", in which one entity is ful lling the completer role, one entity is doing the baking, and one entity is doing the home delivery. In that case there would a \minimal coupling" between the entities, also minimizing the risk of inter-entity inconsistencies.
And of course all types of mixtures of criteria could be applicable at the same time in the same organization, e.g. having a pizzeria with one Shared Service Centre for sales completion (including payment handling), and 20 local entities (one per city/region) in which both the baking and home delivery is performed for that area.
Q 3 How to ensure intra-entity consistency, i.e. consistency within the ED for one entity for all its ED-elements (e.g. between Strategy, Product De nition and Enterprise collaboration - intention)? Clari cation. The question is inspired by P2, P3 and P5 (and later A09). In a practical example one could ask \how do I know whether the proposition from the Business Model Canvas has to be changed, now the extra sub-transaction for home delivery in the pizzeria has been added?" To support this, the metamodel for ED should be made explicit (Q4), a governance model for the (if necessary: federated) ED process should be in place (Q5), and this should be supported by tooling. This could be done by elaborating topics and storylines in ED, set up in analogy with the business case storyline in subsection 2.2, ultimately covering all components in ED.
Q 4 What is the metamodel of Enterprise Design?
Clari cation. The question is inspired by P3 and P5 (and later A06, A09). This
is a key enabler for traceability and coherence of ED-elements, e.g. that the
Enterprise collaboration { intention is elaborated for the intended product from
Product De nition, and vice versa. Making the metamodel should with creating
precise semantics for each ED-element, even when its originator (builder of the
method) did not make that explicit, and then connect it with the semantics
of other ED-elements. For example, the result should enable connecting the
value from the BMC's "value proposition" with Strategy via Strategic Fit, and
the proposition of "value proposition" with the product kind from the DEMO
Construction Model { in which case the question has to be answered \is value
proposition from BMC [
A rst suggestion of the ED-metamodel focusing on the business case was
given in "Coherence in Enterprise Design: some example relations" (slide 55 of
the ED-workshop-presentation; see explanation in Ch 2.2), and this certainly
needs formalization and expansion. This can also be connected to recent
metamodels of Organization Implementation Variables [
Q 5 How does a governance model for (if necessary: federated) Enterprise
Design look like?
Clari cation. The question is inspired by P5 and P6. To tune Enterprise Design
programs and projects within and across entities and in di erent life-cycles of
di erent products, di ering in size, impact and development style, a governance
model should be in place. Several frameworks and approaches already contain
governance models, such as TOGAF [
Now in principle ED is neutral about the origination of a trigger for change; ED does not prescribe order, but clari es dependencies. It might be interesting to distinguish typical triggers for change, and try to determine for each kind of trigger the typical heat map in ED for that, e.g.
{ change in human stakeholder eld (human beings entering or leaving, the roles staying the same); { change in stakeholder role eld (roles (dis)appearing, including the human beings assigned to that role); { change in competitive product; { change in implementation technology (e.g. production technology such as self-steering drones, which might be able to transport the pizza order; or ICT technology, when database supplier X stops supporting version Y).
Based upon the output from team C (Table 2), the following candidate research questions have been formulated.
Q 7 How does ED relate to other approaches, such as handling innovation pipelines,
the bimodal approach and architecting?
Clari cation. The question is inspired by V01, V02 and V10. Various other
approaches exist, with di erent degrees of maturity and formalization, and it is
useful to clarify where ED could t in and/or be enriched by these approaches.
Candidate approaches for this include:
{ Innovation pipeline / funnel, being a steering instrument for innovation on
the level of a portfolio (phasing: idea generation, concept testing, edgling
business, mature business; distinguishing level H1/H2/H3);
{ bimodel approach, a \practice of managing two separate but coherent styles
of work: one focused on predictability; the other on exploration" [
Q 8 Where and what iterations does ED facilitate? Clari cation. The question is inspired by V02 and V04. At this moment ED (a) can be executed linear, and (b) has some 4 prede ned iteration points (see subsection 2.1), and (c) the entry point can be middle-out (from product upwards), bottom-up (from issues in a current implementation) or top-down (from V01 How does ED relate to the notion of an innovation pipeline? V02 How does ED relate to the notion of a bimodal approach? V03 To what extent is ED "fail-fast"? Can you stop when things are
no longer meaningful? V04 what are the criteria for each step? iteration points? V05 if ED is a toolkit, tools are missing; if ED is a Way of Thinking
(WoT), theories are missing V06 who are the stakeholders? clarify this for every step, in a step
by step explanation V07 what is the scope for this process? what is the context? V08 is there a need for separating product / service? V09 are the tools suitable for the targeted stakeholders? V10 where is the relation with the architecture? research questions
Q7 Q7 Q9 Q8,9 Q9 Q8 Q9 Q9 Q7 strategic change). So it would be helpful to clarify where ED exactly / preferably is iterative, and how that can be applied in an organization that e.g. for 80% follows a waterfall approach. Expected results: clari ed iteration points and typical iteration conditions for ED, Q 9 What are the exact results of ED, and why and for whom are they produced? Clari cation. The question is inspired by V03, V04, V06, V08, V09 (and later A01, A02, A04, A05, A10 and A11). For each ED-element, it should be determined: { what is its De nition of Done (DoD)? { what question of which stakeholder is answered by it, and why is that relevant? comparable with the question framework for Rijkswaterstaat [22, Table 1]; { what are variations in level of detail, and why should which level be attained? { what are recommended techniques to produce the result, and why? { what it the recommended way of communicating the result versus doing the underlying analysis? Because many times the models needed to answer a certain stakeholder's question might di er from the preferred way of visualizing the answer for the stakeholder; indeed the stakeholder is interested in a certain type of informed governance, and from that should follow the methods & techniques to be chosen; and over-all should be clari ed: { the terminology used (relationship with Q4), e.g. \what is exactly meant by product and/or service?".
The relevance of this that now can be chosen, for the type of question or problem in the enterprise which elaboration of ED-elements with what depth etc. could contribute to answering the question or solving the problem. For example, (a) problems in the area of e ectiveness could probably be supported best by the ED-elements Product De nition in relation to Strategy and Strategic Fit, while (b) problems in the area of e ciency or reduction of operational complexity could probably bene t more by looking at di erent alternatives for Enterprise implementation. 3.3
Based upon the output from team B (Table 3), the following candidate research questions have been formulated. The scale applied is as follows: three academics and one practitioner were voting; 10 points for each academic, 30 points for the practitioner.
Q 10 What order of working should be chosen in ED, and what criteria should determine that? item
A02 When to stop with an ED-element? What elements to include? (which type of results to elaborate? what criteria for choice of depth / detail / granularity within the chosen type of result?) A03 Methods / techniques as plugins to
ED-elements (one could consider each element a kind of method and techniques; and di erent methods & techniques can be plugins to the elements that we have) A04 How to determine which ED-element to use (and with what techniques), e.g., depending on size and type of problem? A05 How to align with stakeholders and their preferences in the choice of ED-elements and -techniques? A06 To ensure traceability: what is the tree of decisions (methods, best practices) between ED-elements, e.g., why did this Business Model Canvas lead to this DEMO
Construction Model? A07 What order of working to follow in EDF? e.g., top-down, bottom-up, bi-directionally, spiral-wise, or no prescribed order at all.
A08 Creative ow in ED di ers from rationalization A09 Meta-models / matching ontologies between
the ED- elements { the GLUE A10 Viewing ED from the perspective of
Situational Method Engineering (SME), ED looks like a con guration of plugins of techniques more than an approach.
Di erentiate between the goal (plug) and the instrument/technique used (plugin).
A11 Requirements between plugins and steps
A12 Speci cation of the projectability [
Q9 0 1 5 3 4 6 4 3
Q9 Q4 Q10 Q3,4 Q9,11 Q9,11 Q11,12 industry academic research priority / priority / questions relevance relevance 3? 2 Q9 3? 2 Q9 Clari cation. This question is inspired by A07. Several ED elements have dependencies, but that still leaves degrees of freedom in order of working. A xed order sounds too rigid, and many approaches leave room for working top-down, bottom-up, bi-directionally, spiral-wise, etc. So the goal should be to make explicit criteria for choosing order of working in ED, given certain types of triggers / entry points, but also style of working (agile / waterfall), organizational cultural, federalization, etc.
Q 11 What is the relationship between Enterprise Design and Situational Method
Engineering?
Clari cation. This question is inspired by A10, A11 and A12. Using the
perspective of Situational Method Engineering (SME) [
At this moment, ED already makes the distinction for each ED element in its goal and a certain instrument; e.g., { the ED-element with goal "Strategic t" can use the instrument "goal tree"; { the ED-element with goal "product de nition" can use the instrument "Business Model Canvas"; { the ED-element with goal "Collaboration network - intention" can use the instrument "DEMO Construction Model"; { the ED-element with goal "Collaboration network - semantics" can use the instruments "Business Object Model" and/or "DEMO Fact Model".
How exactly does this relate to the SME concepts of plug, plugin and approach? Is ED with its 11 elements an approach, each stated goal per ED-step a plug, and a possible instrument a plugin? And ED with " xed" chosen instruments (e.g., achieve goal "semantics" by instrument "Business Object Model") a con guration? And where does the notion of "technique" t in? Q 12 What types of cases is the ED approach able to cover (best), compared with other approaches? How to choose the best approach? Clari cation. The ED approach is able to handle a certain types of cases; which ones? Other approaches could be also able to handle less, more or di erent cases in a better way. It will add value for stakeholders when they are supported in creating the best approach and (in SME terms) con guration for their situation, considering { when choosing very general techniques and very few of them, it is a more generic solution, less speci ed but to more cases applicable; { when choosing more or more speci c techniques, the overall con guration becomes more scoped. 3.4
Based upon the (plenary postit-) answers on the question \What do you consider to be the key potential of Enterprise Design?" (Table 4), the following candidate research questions have been formulated.
Q 13 Support ED by good tooling (based upon its metamodel - Q4) Clari cation. The question is inspired by T12. To let Enterprise Design have value for continuous and sustainable transformation of an enterprise and/or a collaboration of enterprises, it should be supported by good tooling. Of course this has to be based upon a good metamodel (see Q4).
Q 14 In empirical research, explore the causality of relations between the Enterprise Design approach and achieved bene ts.
Clari cation. The question is inspired by T01-T04 and T06-T11. To further improve ED, it is important to study cases in which ED is applied, to nd out the experienced bene ts, and to try to establish a white-box connection between the ED: \what exactly caused this bene t, and why". avoiding obvious mistakes by traceability large scale fundamental innovation! Doing more in the same time Seamless and coordinated "designer" and "engineer" work for strategy led transformation "Enterprise Design" as shown is a speci c con guration to make design journeys, visiting key aspects / concerns along the way { holistic { checking strategic t { adapting "quickly" to changes, because you are aware of the context and how strategy ts in it { analyzing product / service alternatives; see the "dotted lines" in the ED diabolo (Fig. 1) organizational transformation on the basis of strategic changes (solving) problems of IT-business alignment creating a set of shared representations which help multidisciplinary groups of stakeholders to jointly conceptualize the "enterprise" bring structure to the organization change process, while keeping the exibility of elements { e.g., in choosing the instruments to use { governance, implementation, change { traceability, responsibility, transparency { disambiguation { value for society Well applicable now in an enterprise in workshops. To let this have value for continuous and sustainable transformation of an enterprise, it should be supported by good tooling, based upon a good metamodel (see Q4).
The focus of this forum session on Enterprise Design was to establish a research program to further enhance, develop and mature Enterprise Design. We have found the following research questions, summarized and categorized in Table 5. The indicated industry and academic priorities (H=High, M=Medium, L=Low) have been derived as follows: { the questions derived from the team A input (prioritized 1-6, with 1 = high priority and 6= low priority) have been assigned priorities as follows: 1,2 ! H; 3,4 ! M; 5,6 ! L; { the questions derived from the team B input (prioritized by votes, with 6 the highest and 0 the lowest amount) have been assigned priorities as follows: 5,6 ! H; 3-4 ! M; 0-2 ! L; { where one question appeared with more inputs in the same team, then the highest priority has been assigned; { where priorities between team A and B di er, both have been mentioned, with the A-caused priority rst, followed by a hyphen, followed by the Bcaused priority; { the priorities for Q7, Q8, Q13, Q14 are missing, since team C hadn't assigned priorities, and also no prioritizing was done on the takeaways; { for Q1 and Q4 the authors have added their industry priority as H, because of the crucial role of time-to-market in industry.
Looking back at the harvest of research questions, especially from an industry
perspective, one may ask: \To what extent is the nal result of ED, namely a fast
and yet robust approach to continuous transformation, now already achieved?"
Because the maximum speed should be that choices at a more strategic and
product level propagate within an attractive time-to-market { preferably as much as
possible in an automated way [
For industry, this gives a natural emphasis on the \constructional" part of Enterprise Design describing the future state, i.e. from the ED-elements Enterprise collaboration - intention until Enterprise implementation. Indeed, to achieve the future state, the bulk of work and money is invested here. And also the opportunities for formalization are more favorable in this area.
For the research agenda, we therefore recommend the following priorities
from an industry perspective:
{ expand the ED-metamodel, further formalizing the relationships between
the ED-elements (Q3, Q4) with an emphasis on the \constructional" part of
Enterprise Design, such as between the Enterprise collaboration - intention
(DEMO models) and Organization Implementation Variables (OIVs) [
We want to acknowledge the program committee of EEWC-2018 for adopting this forum session on Enterprise Design in their program. Also we want to thank all participants of this session for their valuable input, lively discussions and critical mindset. And nally we thank our employers for sponsoring this inspiring meeting of industry with academia.