=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2234/paper3
|storemode=property
|title=A Socio-Technical Modeling Framework for Designing Enterprise Capabilities
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2234/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2234
|authors=Mohammad Hossein Danesh
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/Danesh18
}}
==A Socio-Technical Modeling Framework for Designing Enterprise Capabilities==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2234/paper3.pdf
A Socio-Technical Modeling Framework for Designing
Enterprise Capabilities
Mohmmad Hossein Danesh
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
danesh@cs.toronto.edu
Abstract. The need for flexible and adaptive IT is ever more pressing as enter-
prises compete in global digital economies and ecosystems. To enable flexibility
and adaptability of IT, one requires tools and techniques that enable co-design of
IT and business. Hence, this research builds on the strategic management litera-
ture, particularly the research on dynamic capabilities, to propose a socio-tech-
nical modeling framework for designing enterprise capabilities. An agent-ori-
ented modeling framework for understanding social and technical requirements
when designing enterprise capabilities is proposed by building on conceptual
modeling practices and techniques. An overview of the research design consist-
ing of objectives, questions, and methodology is presented in this paper.
1 Introduction
The challenge of dynamic and evolving requirements faced by enterprise IT is twofold,
the need for (1) adaptable and reconfigurable software services/systems that can adjust
to changes [1], and (2) a flexible organization that can develop, support and leverage
such systems/services [2–4]. Understanding and analyzing the complexities and behav-
iors of interdependent enterprise actors, systems, processes, and structures are required
to overcome the design hurdles [5]. In this process methods and constructs that enable
co-design of IT and the business organization is key [6].
This research started with the question of “how to architect flexible IT to enable
adaptive enterprises”. The first step in answering the question was to understand what
kinds of flexibilities are needed to design adaptive enterprises, i.e., answer the question
of “flexibility towards what”. An investigation into the literature revealed that enabling
business and enterprise evolution in response to environment dynamism is the primary
concern of flexibility [5, 13].
The above answer provoked an investigation into the strategic management litera-
ture. The flexibility aspect of the research motivation narrows down the scope of the
investigation to inside-out views in strategic management which directed us to the
Dynamic Capability View (DCV) of the firm.
Capabilities in DCV are defined as an organization’s ability to appropriately as-
semble, adapt, integrate, reconfigure and deploy valued resources, usually, in combi-
nation or co-presence [14, 15]. They are created through collaborative learning pro-
cesses that individual agents participate in, and are supported by the norms and culture
Copyright 2018 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted
for private and academic purposes.
J. Ralyté and Y. Wautelet (Eds.): PoEM 2018 Doctoral Consortium Papers, pp. 31-46, 2018.
of the organization [2, 16]. Enterprises succeed by nurturing the ability to continuously
create valuable and difficult-to-replicate capabilities, often referred to as “dynamic
capabilities” [15].
Fig. 1. Journey to Formulate Research Objective
Fig. 1 depicts the described journey from the initial motivating research question
around IT flexibility to the refined question that enterprises are dealing with on a day
to day basis. Therefore, the research objective is defined as enabling enterprises, par-
ticularly managers and architects within enterprises, to answer the question of “How
to design for social and technical flexibility that enables creation, management and
evolution of Enterprise Capabilities?”.
Conceptual modelers and IS designers have raised the abstraction level of the de-
sign artifacts to better understand enterprise context and design higher quality infor-
mation systems [1]. For example, concepts such as value [7], goals [8], actors [9], and
business processes [10] have been used as abstractions to design information systems.
Similar to our quest into the strategic management literature, other practitioners and
32
researchers have also used the notion of capability to identify requirements and infer
strategic direction when designing information systems [1, 11, 12].
2 Research Objectives and Questions
To enable the design of flexible enterprise capabilities, the ability to perform analysis
and answer the questions presented in Table 1, is necessary. In this research, a concep-
tual modeling approach is adopted to develop a framework consisting of modeling con-
structs, methods, and tools that intend to answer the analysis questions of Table 1.
The choice of using conceptual modeling practices is supported by the success of the
IS community in a) developing conduits that can represent and analyze technical, busi-
ness and organizational context [18, 19], b) guiding and enabling socio-technical design
and requirements engineering [20, 21], and c) allowing reuse of design artifacts in terms
of patterns and architectural decisions [1, 22].
Table 1. Research Objective Framed as Questions that Designers Should Answered
How to design for social What Alternatives (including architectural patterns) are there
and technical flexibility available for the evolution/creation of an enterprise capability?
that enables creation, How to identify possible inflexibilities that inhibit evolution/cre-
management and evolu- ation of enterprise capabilities?
tion of Enterprise Capa- What is the impact of choosing one alternative over the other and
bilities? what is the tradeoff?
The above questions that elaborate the research objectives trigger the following re-
search questions as presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Research Questions
What would be an appropriate representation
1-1 of enterprise capabilities for modeling and an-
alyzing competitiveness?
How does the concept relate to other concepts
What are enterprise capabil- within the enterprise such as services, pro-
1 1-2
ities? cesses and resources?
How can one represent and analyze the for-
1-3 mation of enterprise capabilities to enable an-
swering the questions of Table 1?
2-1 What are the different kinds of choices?
How can one identify and
analyze different options 2-2 How does one evaluate capabilities?
2
for evolving enterprise ca- How can one identify and represent the trade-
pabilities? 2-3 offs among alternatives?
How can one understand and balance the impact of investment choices on quality
3
goals such as flexibility?
4 How to identify possible inflexibilities in a given set of capabilities?
33
3 Research Methodology
Design Science Research (DSR) has become a prominent research method in both IS
engineering and IS management communities [23]. Different steps of a typical design
cycle of the DSR methodology is presented in Fig. 2. The approach recommends mul-
tiple cycles of the process to refine and enhance designed solution(s) through evaluation
and feedbacks.
Fig. 2. Phases of the DSR
This thesis has adopted the DSR methodology. Throughout the research, a few
rounds of DSR design cycles with feedback received from both academia and industry
case studies are conducted. As an example, feedback from academia suggested the need
for a holistic understanding of the notion of capability and how it is related to other
modeling constructs and concepts. This feedback triggered a new design cycle. In the
interest of space more in depth discussion of the design cycles are not presented in this
paper, instead, we focus on elaborating the outcomes of the design iterations.
4 Overview of the Framework and its Components
A modeling framework consisting of ten components as laid out in Fig. 3 is proposed
in response to discussed research questions. The first component is the conceptual foun-
dation serving as the main theoretical contribution of the thesis. It builds on an in-depth
review of concepts from literature and proposes an integrated meta-model for enterprise
capability and its relationships. The second component of the framework focuses on
the i* based instantiation of the meta-model. The third and fourth components are prac-
tical guidelines for using and instantiating the modeling framework in the context of an
enterprise. Each component is developed as part of a case study.
The next five components of the framework are analysis techniques that help deci-
sion makers investigate and answer what-if questions. The last component as depicted
at the top of Fig. 3 is an overarching view and categorization of all decisions that must
be made throughout the lifecycle of a capability.
34
Fig. 3. Overview of the Proposed Modeling Framework
In Table 3, the components are described with a specification of their purpose and
contributions to answering the research questions. The last column of Table 3 focuses
on the feedbacks or triggers that initiated the development of the component. The order
of the components presented in the table do not describe the sequence in which they
were developed.
Table 3. Description of the Components
Trigger/
Component DSR Type1 Purpose
Feedback
Design • Explicate capability modeling
Capability requirements
Theory
modeling re- • Categorized maturity stages for Why are there
1 quirements management many ap-
Constructs • Will guide creation and selec-
and maturity proaches?
stages tion of approaches
Methods • Answers Q1-1, Q2, Q3, Q4
Conceptual Design • clarify what enterprise capabili- What are Enter-
ties are
Foundation Theory prise Capabili-
2 • How do they relate to other con-
(Meta- cepts within the organization? ties & how are
Model) Constructs • Answer Q1 they different?
A socio-tech-
Representing • Justify the suitability of i* to nical approach
Constructs represent capabilities
& Reasoning that enables rea-
3 • Describe how to instantiate the
on Capability meta-model using i* soning on capa-
Methods
Formation • Answers Q1, Q2 bility formation
is needed
1 DSR types are described in the Appendix [23]
35
Design • Give a better understanding on
Alternative Theory how to identify, represent and Capability de-
Kinds & reason on the different kinds of
4 alternatives throughout the ca- velopment hap-
Reasoning Constructs
pability lifecycle pens over time
Guidelines
Methods • Answers Q2, Q3
• Test the applicability of Archi-
Identifying Constructs tectural techniques Design for Flex-
5
• Identify possible inflexibilities
Inflexibilities ibility
Method • Make tradeoffs
• Answers Q3, Q4
• How do quality requirements
impact one another, can we
Cause & model causal effects? Need to under-
Design • Demonstrate how capability
6 Effects of Theory models can help us in finding the stand causal re-
casual relations
NFRs Method • How do we study the impacts lations among
and tradeoffs among Quality at-
tributes at the enterprise level? NFRs overtime
• Answer Q2-2, Q2-3, Q3, Q4
• How to analyze what to include How to assign
or exclude from a capability
Boundary responsibilities
boundary?
• What is the social impact of
7 Reconfigura- among capabili-
Method moving an element from one
boundary to another?
tion
• How does moving elements im- ties and teams.
pact alternatives and satisfaction
of goals?
Top-Down
• Guidelines on how to perform
How to use the
modeling starting from strategic
8 Modeling
Method objectives
framework
Approach • Answer Q1, Q2, Q3
Bottom-Up
• Guidelines on how to perform
9 Modeling Method modeling starting from techno- How to use the
logical needs framework
Approach • Answer Q1, Q2, Q3
Instantiations in DSR are used to demonstrate the usage of an approach and validate
the contribution of the research. In Table 4, the series of instantiations, their purpose,
and publication venues are presented. The final item in the table refers to an ongoing
case study in evaluating the usage of the framework.
36
Table 4. Describing Instantiations of Components
Published
Instantiations Purpose
• Used to draft the first version of the framework
An Educational • Used in practice to guide the delivery of IS artifacts
1 [24]
Institute
• Used as the case study for Causal modeling of NFRs
ACORD Insur- • Used as a publicly available reference capability model
2 ance Reference [25]
to demonstrate capability alternatives
Model
• Understand the concept of capability and its relation-
A Maritime Ser- ships in a second case study
3 [26]
vicing Company • Instantiate & validate the meta-model
• Used to describe the future state (visionary) capabilities
• Explicate collaboration requirements & responsibilities
with the intention to onboard all stakeholders
• Serve as a roadmap to define & prescribe solutions
An Internet Ser- No
4 • Serve as a roadmap to define & prescribe KPIs
vice Provider
• Used to develop bottom-up guidelines and methodol-
ogy
• Model a vendor proposal to evaluate
o satisfaction of persona requirements
RFP Evaluation o identification of tool and platform bias No
5 Employee
o identify and propose alternatives for shortcomings
Enablement
• Used to develop top-down guidelines and methodology
6 In-Progress TBD
In the remainder of this section a brief overview of the components of the framework
is presented.
4.1 Conceptual Foundation
The integrated meta-model for the modeling framework is based on different con-
ceptual viewpoints coordinated through the notion of enterprise capabilities as outlined
in Fig. 4. The views enable describing what forms a capability, how it relates to other
enterprise concepts and how one can determine the value of the capability in the
37
ecosystem. Enterprise capabilities (EC) are defined as intentional combination of firm-
specific assets, organizational routines (business processes), and human knowledge
(skillset/know-how) that take advantage of complementary relations and are created
and evolved overtime through social collaboration and learning.
Fig. 4. Overview of the Conceptual Framework with the Central Role of Capability
Examples of enterprise capabilities we have investigated as part of our instantiations
are “Enterprise IT Risk Management”, “Customer Interaction Management”, “Business
Process Management”, “Social Media Analytics”, and “Integrated Information Provi-
sioning”.
The proposed meta-model represents the confluence of the results from two domains
of strategic management and information systems engineering. It serves as the keystone
of a socio-technical approach for developing information systems and has been vali-
dated in more than three case studies. Because of such validations, the meta-model has
been extended particularly in the social view as presented later in Fig. 9.
4.2 Maturity Stages & Their Requirements
Building on the variety of research efforts on using capabilities, a capability modeling
practice is proposed consisting of six maturity stages as presented in Fig. 5. The initial
stage is to use capabilities as blueprints for communicating investment priorities. At
stages two and three the focus is on enabling representation of capability formation and
its alternative evolution paths. At stages four and five, the capability concept is used to
reorganize the enterprise and enable design for flexibility, while exploring different
configurations of roles and responsibilities. At stage six in response to demands of eco-
systems, the capability concept is used to enable re-design and re-alignment of the en-
terprise and its service propositions.
For each of the stages, a set of questions are identified that will guide a) researchers
in developing methods and techniques for reasoning and decision making, and b) prac-
titioners in selecting appropriate methods and performing required analysis for capabil-
ity design.
38
Fig. 5. Maturity Stages of Capability Modeling Practice
4.3 Representing and Reasoning on Capability Formation
This component consists of three parts a) justification of applying an agent-oriented
modeling paradigm, b) guidelines to model and reason on different aspects of capability
formation, and c) the formal specification that enables instantiating the meta-model us-
ing the i* framework. Without these key components, the analysis techniques that help
decision makers and designers will not be applicable.
Adopting an Agent Oriented Modeling Paradigm.
There are five characteristics evident in the definition of EC as reviewed in section 4.1.
(1) ECs are intentionally built and evolved in accordance with enterprise strategy while
striving for survival and relevance at enterprise scale [14, 27]. (2) ECs achieve their
objectives by intelligently coupling enterprise-specific resources and processes [2, 14,
27]. (3) ECs often create value in complementary settings forming a network of inter-
dependent capabilities [15, 27]. (4) ECs are built in the social setting of the enterprise
i.e., they are influenced by the social capital, reputation, and relationships of the re-
sponsible managers and teams [2, 28]. (5) ECs are continuously evolving through meta-
level learning processes that codify and extend enterprise knowledge base [2, 16].
An agent-oriented modeling approach is adopted to model and represent enterprise
capabilities and its characteristics. To this end, in this research ECs are represented as
specialized i* actors. The ability of the i* framework to represent goals, means-ends,
quality attributes, contributions, and tradeoffs are beneficial in capturing the intention-
ality and internal structure of capabilities. The i* dependencies and actor associations
empower understanding of the social and complementary aspects of ECs. An example
of a capability represented with the i* language is presented in Fig. 6. This figure
39
illustrates how goals, resource, business processes, capabilities, and their relationships
are instantiated using i*.
Fig. 6. An Example for Representing Capabilities [25]
Fig. 7 demonstrates the social context in which a capability is built in. The figure
focuses on instantiating the relationships among social actors and capabilities while
capturing different desires and norms of teams within the organization.
Fig. 7. An Example of Representing Social Context of a Capability [25] – legend in Fig. 6
Modeling & Reasoning on Formation of Enterprise Capabilities
This part of the component focuses on guidelines for modeling and reasoning on the
formation of capabilities that will empower understanding of (1) why a capability is
needed, (2) how it is achieved, (3) how it fits within the organizational and social setting
of the enterprise, and (4) what relationships are required for its success. Addressing
these requirements satisfy the second maturity stage presented in Fig. 5.
The guidelines enable a) explication of choices for coupling enterprise-specific re-
sources and processes that differentiate emerging quality attributes, b) expression of the
40
social and organizational setting to empower analyzing the influences and interests of
multiple stakeholders, and c) representation of interdependent networks of capabilities
to enable orchestration of design choices among capabilities, information systems and
organizational structure(s). In Fig. 8, an example of complementary relationships
among capabilities and their impact on alternative are presented.
Fig. 8. Representing Complementary Capabilities using the i* Language– legend in Fig. 6
Domain Specific
Belief Actor i* Actor Resource
Principle
Associations
Name
Consists of 2..*
Historical Value
Skillset Resource
Organizational Norm Shapes 0..* Embedded In 0..*
Uses 0..*
Desired Cultural Organizational Task
Value Shapes 0..* Actor Owns 0..*
Shapes 0..* Consists of 0..* Uses 0..*
Develops 1..* Uses 0..*
Social Relation
Consists of 0..*
Involves 2..* Spends 1..*
Responsible For 0..*
Entails 1..*
Dependency Capability Business Process Value
0..* Uses
Collaborator Connector Provided By 1
Uses 0..*
Depends On 0..*
Goal Produces/Co-Produces 0..*
Goal Satisfy/Have 1..* Service Delivers 0..*
SoftGoal Derived By 1..* Uses 0..* Uses 0..*
Contains 0..* Generates 1..*
Addresses
Meta- Capability Shapes 0..* Capability Context Requirements
Addresses
Legend Requirements
Triggers 0..* Service Context
Caption
Context
Is A Relation
Alters/Designs 0..* 0..* Shapes
Caption Competes In 0..*
Shapes 0..*
Containment
Contains
Relationship Capability 0..*
Capability Ecosystem Ecosystem Service Ecosystem
Caption
Containment Relationship Shapes 0..*
with Attributers & Consists of 2..* Consists of 2..*
Associations
Intentional Dependency
Actor i* Actor
Element Consists of 1..*
Boundary
Name Satisfaction
Name
i* Capability Has 0..* Satisfaction Consists of 1..*
Meta-Model Meta-Model
Concept Concept
Fig. 9. Meta-Model of the Extended i* Framework
41
Formal Description of Framework
The third part of this component focuses on a formal description of the extended i*
language. A set of guidelines accompany the meta-model presented in Fig. 9 to enable
instantiating ECs. The details of the guidelines to perform the instantiation are left for
future publications.
4.4 Analysis Techniques
Supporting analysis techniques are required to understand consequences of decisions
about ECs. An in-depth review of each of the analysis techniques is beyond the scope
of this paper, but a brief overview of each one is discussed:
1. Base i* Qualitative Evaluations: Uses i*to analyze and infer the degree of which
intentions are satisfied within and beyond the boundary of an actor.
2. Reasoning on Alternatives [25]: The analysis technique focuses on demonstrating
different kinds of choices about ECs. The first class of choices are Development
alternatives that focus on (a) options for acquiring/building resources and processes,
and (b) alternative couplings of resources and processes. The second class of choices
refer to options for Deployment Configuration of capabilities both from a technical
and organizational perspective. Finally, the third class of choices refer to Orchestra-
tion alternatives which entail a) coordination among development and deployment
alternatives, b) coordination of choices available for interdependent capabilities, and
c) tradeoffs in employing information systems.
3. Boundary Reconfiguration [29]: The analysis supports answering what-if questions
about the division of roles and responsibilities among i* actors. The analysis ap-
proach is supported by a series of guiding questions. The intention is to identify
potential reconfigurations in actor boundaries leading to better satisfaction of inten-
tions, particularly softgoals.
4. Identifying Inflexibilities [24]: The proposal focuses on identifying critical relation-
ships among capabilities, information systems, and organizational actors by analyz-
ing their propagation effects.
5. Causal Relations among NFRs: The analysis technique consists of a set of guide-
lines that build on the dependency propagations to identify causal relations among
quality goals. The causalities are modeled using the Causal Loop Diagrams (CLD)
[30] and enable asking what-if questions regarding short-term and long-term impacts
of alternatives.
5 Outstanding Research Activities and Future Work
Ongoing activities to finalize the proposed framework are outlined as follows:
• Organizing findings from case studies into playbooks that serve as “Top-Down
Guidelines & Methods” and “Bottom-Up Guidelines & Methods” to facilitate the
modeling activity.
42
• Finalizing an ongoing case study which demonstrates the ability of the framework
to appropriately navigate from high-level capabilities and drill down into the analy-
sis as necessary.
• Applying minor changes and updates received from feedbacks of the DSR design
cycle for the causal modeling technique.
The following components are planned for future iterations of the framework beyond
this thesis as outlined in dark color and white text in Fig. 10. The two new components
on the right intend to enable integration of other researchers’ analysis techniques and
design patterns into the proposed modeling framework with tool support. The three
analysis techniques at the top focus on the external relationships of ECs and how one
should evaluate their value. The two components in the lower part of the figure focus
on conceptual and practical aspects of modeling enterprise structure. The added com-
ponent on the left focuses on decisions on bundling service propositions into platforms.
Fig. 10. Overview of the Next Iteration of the Proposed Framework beyond the Thesis
Acknowledgements
This thesis is supervised by professor Eric Yu.
References
1. Stirna, J., Grabis, J., Henkel, M., Zdravkovic, J.: Capability Driven Development – An Ap-
proach to Support Evolving Organizations. In: Sandkuhl, K., Seigerroth, U., and Stirna, J.
(eds.) The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. pp. 117–131. Springer Berlin Heidelberg
(2012).
2. Leonard-Barton, D.: Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new prod-
uct development. Strategic Management Journal. 13, 111–125 (1992).
43
3. Combs, J.G., Ketchen, Jr, D.J., Ireland, R.D., Webb, J.W.: The Role of Resource Flexibility
in Leveraging Strategic Resources. Journal of Management Studies. 48, 1098–1125 (2011).
4. Nevo, S., Wade, M.: The Formation and Value of IT-Enabled Resources: Antecedents and
Consequences. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 34, 163–183 (2010).
5. Dreyfus, D., Iyer, B.: Managing architectural emergence: A conceptual model and simula-
tion. Decision Support Systems. 46, 115–127 (2008).
6. Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and fu-
ture research challenges. Software & Systems Modeling. 1–22 (2012).
7. Kort, C., Gordijn, J.: Modeling Strategic Partnerships Using the E3value Ontology: A Field
Study in the Banking Industry. Handbook of ontologies for business interaction. (2008).
8. Lamsweerde, A. van: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceed-
ings Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. pp. 249–262
(2001).
9. Yu, E.: Agent orientation as a modelling paradigm. Wirtschaftsinformatik. 43, 123–132
(2001).
10. Allweyer, T.: BPMN 2.0. BoD (2010).
11. Azevedo, C.L.B., Iacob, M.-E., Almeida, J.P.A., Sinderen, M. van, Pires, L.F., Guizzardi,
G.: Modeling resources and capabilities in enterprise architecture: A well-founded ontol-
ogy-based proposal for ArchiMate. Information Systems. 54, 235–262 (2015).
12. Ulrich, W., Rosen, M.: The Business Capability Map: The" Rosetta Stone" of Business/IT
Alignment, (2011).
13. Furukawa, M., Minami, A.: A Study on the ‘Flexibility’ of Information Systems (Part 1):
Why Do They Need to Be Flexible? International Journal of Business and Management. 8,
p48 (2013).
14. Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A.: The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Stra-
tegic Management Journal. 24, 997–1010 (2003).
15. Teece, D.J.: Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustain-
able) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 28, 1319–1350 (2007).
16. Zollo, M., Winter, S.G.: Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities.
Organization Science. 13, 339–351 (2002).
17. Jacobides, M.G.: The architecture and design of organizational capabilities. Industrial and
Corporate Change. 15, 151–171 (2006).
18. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use con-
ceptual modeling in practice? Data & Knowledge Engineering. 58, 358–380 (2006).
19. S. Robinson, G. Arbez, L. G. Birta, A. Tolk, G. Wagner: Conceptual modeling: Definition,
purpose and benefits. In: 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). pp. 2812–2826
(2015).
20. Daneva, M., Damian, D., Marchetto, A., Pastor, O.: Empirical research methodologies and
studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come? Journal of Systems and Soft-
ware. 95, 1–9 (2014).
21. Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Adaptive socio-technical systems: a requirements-
based approach. Requirements Engineering. 18, 1–24 (2013).
22. Chung, L., Cooper, K., Yi, A.: Developing adaptable software architectures using design
patterns: an NFR approach. Computer Standards & Interfaces. 25, 253–260 (2003).
44
23. Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maxi-
mum Impact. MIS Quarterly. 37, 337–355 (2013).
24. Danesh, M., Yu, E.: Analyzing IT Flexibility to Enable Dynamic Capabilities. In: Persson,
A. and Stirna, J. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops. pp. 53–65.
Springer International Publishing (2015).
25. Danesh, M., Yu, E.: Modeling Enterprise Capabilities with i*: Reasoning on Alternatives.
In: Iliadis, L., Papazoglou, M., and Pohl, K. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engi-
neering Workshops. pp. 112–123. Springer International Publishing (2014).
26. Danesh, M.H., Loucopoulos, P., Yu, E.: Dynamic Capabilities for Sustainable Enterprise
IT – A Modeling Framework. In: Johannesson, P. (ed.) Conceptual Modeling. pp. 1–9.
Springer International Publishing (2015).
27. McKelvie, A., Davidsson, P.: From Resource Base to Dynamic Capabilities: an Investiga-
tion of New Firms. British Journal of Management. 20, S63–S80 (2009).
28. Adner, R., Helfat, C.E.: Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal. 24, 1011–1025 (2003).
29. Mahlouji, N.: A Method for Modeling and Analyzing different Approaches to Agile BI,
(2014).
30. Meadows, D.H.: Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing (2008).
Appendix A
45
Appendix B
46