<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Digital Transformation and Operational Agility: Love Story or Conceptual Mismatch</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Konstantinos Tsilionis</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Yves Wautelet</string-name>
          <email>yves.wautelet@kuleuven.be</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David Tupili</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>KU Leuven</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Leuven</addr-line>
          ,
          <country>Belgium konstantinos.tsilionis</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The Digital Transformation (DT) refers to the ongoing process organizations go through in order to integrate digital technologies in all areas of the business, particularly the ones related to delivering high added value to the customer and stakeholders. As such, the DT can be apprehended in different ways. One can simply adopt new digital technologies on the fly when made available on the market or carefully study each new IT development at the light of a set-up of a carefully defined business, IT and/or DT strategy. Moreover, within the context of a structured approach of the DT, innovations can be adopted in a top-down fashion; nevertheless, leaving some space within development for co-creation involving the user/customer is also important to favor innovation leading to competitive advantages. The framework developed in this paper extends a previously built model-driven framework for supporting strategic agility (called StratAMoDrIGo) to allow the evaluation of the added value to the DT of functional elements contained in user stories written by or with the help of the end-user. These user stories depict concrete system behavior associated to more abstract Features themselves being part of strategic opportunities identified at governance level. The approach is thus part of a more comprehensive approach to reconcile operational developments with strategic concerns.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Digital Transformation</kwd>
        <kwd>Strategic Agility</kwd>
        <kwd>Operational Agility</kwd>
        <kwd>User Stories</kwd>
        <kwd>i* framework</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>The Digital Transformation (DT) is an important present-day concern for many
organizations especially within the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. On the one hand, the
DT needs to be driven by strategic concerns meaning that the organization has to
approach it in a top-down fashion to ensure a competitive position in the long run thanks to
the acquisition of relevant digital technologies. On the other hand, the DT is essentially
focused on delivering value to the customer and other stakeholders, therefore, value
streams are often uncovered through an agile software (or digital technology) delivery
approach which is bottom-up by nature. The problem can be approached then in terms
of finding the adequate alignment between which functions to adopt for the delivered
technology and the overall DT strategy. Likewise, organizations also deal with classic
Business and IT strategies that IT acquisitions need to align to or comply with.</p>
      <p>
        Tsilionis &amp; Wautelet [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ] propose StratAMoDrIGo, a conceptual modeling-driven
approach aimed at supporting organizations to achieve a state of strategic agility; the
latter refers to an organization’s capacity to fully enable three main types of dynamic
capabilities, i.e., the capacity to sense and shape opportunities (sensing), the capacity
to seize opportunities (seizing), and the capacity to maintain competitiveness through
reconfiguring the enterprise’s assets (shifting) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. The inclusion of StratAMoDrIGo in
the organization’s practices is intended to enhance i) its sensing capability by creating
an opportunity-aware culture, ii) its seizing capability by offering a concrete way to
evaluate the organizational impact of opportunities’ adoption, and iii) its shifting
capability by highlighting how organizational resources and structures can be reconfigured
for the adoption of the opportunities. Overall, the key idea of StratAMoDrIGo is to
identify so-called Strategic Opportunities; these are technologies having a structural
impact on the organization’s finances as well as the way it conducts its business. The
impact brought by these strategic opportunities in terms of strategic, stakeholder and
user value is studied by the application of the framework. The main drawback of the
approach is that it focuses on agility on a strategic (and tactical) level but essentially
views the user value in terms of coarse-grained features that are set-up in a top-down
fashion. Agility at strategic level can be indeed achieved by the swift and ’rough’
outline of the systems, approaches, techniques that can be adopted and the delineation
of their core features. Nevertheless, StratAMoDrIGo leaves aspects adhering to
operational agility (i.e., the determination of fine-grained functions/elements highly valuable
for the end-users) to be identified later in collaboration with customers. However, these
fine-grained functions are conditioning the system behavior, thusly delivering value not
only on the user but also on other stakeholders and to the entire organization. These
fine-grained elements, captured into user stories within agile methods like Scrum,
deserve a more thorough analysis into a DT context. A bottom-up approach can then be
followed in order to study this impact.
      </p>
      <p>This paper starts by studying theoretically how we can link the user stories within
StratAMoDrIGo and how these low-level functions typically capturing customer value
can impact the business, IT and DT strategies. In this regard, the main research
question of the paper is “How can we refine the StratAMoDrIGo framework to support the
conjunct use of strategic and operational agility in a DT context?”. The main
contribution to this question is the framework enhancing StratAMoDrIGo by incorporating user
stories and the DT strategy directly within the ontology. The proposal is illustrated on
a case study describing an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system enhancement
(upgrade of a formerly deployed SAP system to the SAP S/4HANA one) in the domain
of medical device manufacturing and distribution.</p>
      <p>The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 portrays how the
StratAMoDrIGo’s strategic agility ontology has been enhanced to make the link with
operational agility; it also demonstrates a path for the applicability of the approach via a
process fragment. Section 3 depicts the application of the framework on a case for
evaluation/validation. Section 4 presents some insights that rise from the applicability of the
approach to the case study. Section 5 discusses some threats to validity while Section 6
compares the approach with other relevant contributions in the domain. Finally, Section
7 concludes the paper.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Enhancing the StratAMoDrIGo Ontology to Link Strategic with</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Operational Agility and Supporting the Digital Transformation</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Strategy</title>
      <p>2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Research Paradigm</title>
        <p>
          Our study follows the design science paradigm [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ] in terms of delivering generic
solutions (i.e., artifacts, methods, tools etc.,) for known (or not yet considered) problems. In
accordance with the cycles for design science research defined by Hevner [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
          ], we point
our contribution to cover the following:
– The Relevance Cycle concerns the identification of opportunities/problems in the
application domain. Presently, we identify the problem referring to the lack of a
framework being able to conciliate a governance-level IT adoption approach based
on business, IT and DT-related strategic objectives with operational agility;
– The Rigor Cycle refers to the theories/methods used to ground the construction and
evaluation of our framework. The latter is built upon an existing strategic agility
framework validated in previous research. To support the contribution of this
paper, we have created a so-called ’pseudo-ontology’ [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ] (i.e., not a fully-fledged
ontological construction but the creation of an informal user-friendly ontology). We
indeed use a restricted and structured form of natural language to state and clarify
the definition of its concepts. A UML class diagram is used to formalize the
concepts of our ontology as well as the links between these concepts. The ontology
and its application, through the use of existing models, constitute a contribution to
the knowledge base of agility;
– The Design Cycle refers to the construction and the evaluation of the artifact; it
has been constructed from existing approaches that have evolved to become more
focused on the attainment of operational agility when an organization has already
set in motion the processes to exploit rapidly any internal/external changes in its
business environment. The evaluation is done on a case study within an organization
seeking high added value out of new IT adoptions.
2.2
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>Evolution and Expansion of StratAMoDrIGo’s Ontology</title>
        <p>
          The framework developed in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ] essentially treated the issue of supporting strategic
agility through models. In the original framework, solutions depicted as strategic
opportunities have been seen as broader than software-based only; we nevertheless focus
here on software developments (from scratch or off-the shelf). In that case, ’traditional’
agile development delivers an interesting way of developing the software. Indeed, in
a moving business context, we are seeking for short development cycles, value-based
sprint prioritization as well as a maximum of user input. The strategic agility
framework, as depicted in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ], makes a round trip between the top and the middle-level
Business_Context
triggers
0..n
        </p>
        <p>0..n
0..n
0..1 Strategic_Opportunity 0..n</p>
        <p>Type
impacts</p>
        <p>Stakeholder_goal
0..n 0..1
n
Stakeholder</p>
        <p>User
sustains
sustains</p>
        <p>1
1
0..n
fulfills
uses
expresses</p>
        <p>drives</p>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-1">
          <title>Strategic_Value</title>
          <p>sustains</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-2">
          <title>Stakeholder_Value 1</title>
          <p>delivers</p>
          <p>Management_Task
n
n
1
n Feature
n Epic_User_Story</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-3">
          <title>1..n User_Story</title>
          <p>0..n
0..n
0..n
0..n</p>
          <p>refines
Strategic_Objective
0..n
0..n</p>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-4">
          <title>Business_Objective</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-5">
          <title>IT_Objective DT_Objective</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-6">
          <title>Business_Strategy</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-7">
          <title>IT_Strategy</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-8">
          <title>DT_Strategy</title>
          <p>User_Value
supports
where the value is discussed and evaluated but does not cover the pure operational level
where user desiderata and stakeholder’s wishes are captured. This nevertheless
determines the to-be system behavior which refines the impact of the adopted features on the
strategy/ies. In other words, the lowest functional level of the StratAMoDrIGo
framework is the Feature concept but necessitates a finer-grained-based study which would
lead to a more accurate evaluation of the strategic impact.</p>
          <p>
            Conceptually, the Feature concept can be aligned with the one of an Epic User
Story. Features are the functional coarse-grained elements composing the Strategic
Opportunities allowing to support stakeholders (mostly end-users) into the realization of
their tasks or goals. Several definitions and understandings of the Epic User Story
notion can be found in literature and in practice (e.g., [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref2 ref6">2,10,6</xref>
            ]). Presently, we regard the
Epic User Story in the standard way adopted in agile methodologies and practices (like
Scrum and tools like Jira) which consider this element as a coarse-grained functionality
under the scope of which fine-grained elements (functional or non-functional) can be
placed. In other words, the Epic User Story contains one Feature (the 2 concepts are
perfectly aligned) and under one Epic User Story a collection of User Stories collected
in a bottom-up fashion can be placed. This relationship can be demonstrated visually
within the ontology of Figure 1 where the Feature element is represented as a class
while the Epic User Story can be characterized as a Boolean-type attribute taking the
value ’false’ (i.e., Features are independent of Epic User Stories so we are in the
situation described under the classic StratAMoDrIGo approach) or the value ’true’; the
latter case (i.e., one Feature aligns perfectly with one Epic User Story, and one Epic
User Story is then associated to lower-level user-negotiated specificities) describes the
situation where Features do not act merely as the demarcation of the characteristics of
strategic opportunities but essentially become the departure point for a full-scope
analysis of operational aspects such as the quality/reliability of the software or the usability of
the technologies brought by these strategic opportunities. This way, the extended
version of the StratAMoDrIGo framework can conciliate a high-level strategic approach
founded on strategic agility and stakeholder-based governance with a pure
operationallevel agile development of the identified sources of user value (the Features). Figure 1
refines the ontology model of [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
            ] to represent this refinement in the framework’s
ontology. User Stories are expressed by Users under to scope of a specific Feature itself
being an Epic User Story; a backlog of User Stories is thus be created and managed
using an agile method’s life cycle like the one of Scrum.
          </p>
          <p>
            The implementation and the management of the implementation of User Stories
can be done on a custom fashion, i.e., using any agile development method based on
user stories. This is generally the responsibility of the Product Owner. For illustrative
purposes we have enriched the process fragment found in [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
            ] into Figure 2 to cover the
edition of User Stories. The Product Owner Role has been included and represented as
an i* Actor; it is responsible of the Structure Requirements Phase realized by the Map
Epic User Stories with User Stories Activity, depicted as an i* Task. Further refinements
depend on the agile process that is used each time. In Figure 2, for illustration purposes,
the refining process activities make the use of the Rationale Tree technique depicted in
[
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15 ref16 ref17">16,17,15</xref>
            ] for this special context. The Rationale Tree is a conceptual model aimed to
decompose and link together a set of user stories.
          </p>
          <p>To reiterate, the StratAMoDrIGo framework has primarily been designed to support
strategic agility and extended here to match operational agile development. It does not
focus on supporting a DT path as a strategic concern even if implicitly, within
strategic agility, the support of suitable digital technologies is essential. The meta-model of
Figure 1 has been extended to incorporate specific DT objectives forming altogether a
DT strategy. The latter is perceived within the meta-model as a collection of strategic
objectives and should be envisaged independently of the classic business and IT
strategies. It can also be found in Figure 2 under the scope of the Board of Directors Role
under the Task Determine Digital Transformation Objectives that specific DT
objectives need to be set-up. These will thus later be used for evaluating compliance of new
user story-driven functions.</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>3 Illustrative Example</title>
      <p>3.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Background on the Case</title>
        <p>Our illustrative example has been recreated at a private medical device manufacturer
operating in Europe. MedicalDev Europe &amp; MedicalDev General1 are umbrella
companies under the MedicalDev Group headquartered in Asia. To leverage shared IT
in1 The names have been changed for confidentiality reasons.
Board of
Directors
Deal with
changing
business context</p>
        <p>Set-up Strategy
Determine Strategic</p>
        <p>Objectives
Determine Business</p>
        <p>Objectives</p>
        <p>Determine IT</p>
        <p>Objectives
Determine Digital
Transformation</p>
        <p>Objectives
Analyst</p>
        <p>Determine</p>
        <p>Stakeholder Value
Represent stakeholder’s goals</p>
        <p>and management tasks
Stakeholder</p>
        <p>Intentions
Furnish
Knowledge</p>
        <p>Legend:</p>
        <p>Actor</p>
        <p>User
Actor
Boundary</p>
        <p>Strategic
Objectives
NFR Strategic
Decomposition</p>
        <p>Graph</p>
        <p>Determine Strategic</p>
        <p>Value</p>
        <p>Evaluate Impact of
Strategic Opportunities on</p>
        <p>Strategic Objectives
i-star Strategic
Rationale
Diagram</p>
        <p>Feature
User Story</p>
        <p>Set
Provide</p>
        <p>Feature
Requirements</p>
        <p>Strategic
Opportunity’s
Features</p>
        <p>Rationale
Tree</p>
        <p>Evaluate Strategic</p>
        <p>Opportunities
Determine/overview</p>
        <p>features
Scrum
Master
Determine User</p>
        <p>Value
Define Epic
User Stories</p>
        <p>Epic User</p>
        <p>Stories
Product
Owner</p>
        <p>Structure
Requirements
Map Epic User
Stories with</p>
        <p>User Stories
Ensure Quality Tag
and Consistency (Characterize)
in User Story Set User Story</p>
        <p>Elements
Remove
redundant
requirements</p>
        <p>Find missing
requirements</p>
        <p>Build Rationale</p>
        <p>Tree
Goal</p>
        <p>Task</p>
        <p>Resource</p>
        <p>Softgoal</p>
        <p>Agent</p>
        <p>Dependency Link</p>
        <p>AND Means-End
decomposition decomposition
system in 2015, however, a next-level upgrade was proposed in 2019. The project has
been planned in two phases; Phase 1 describes the Move stage, where the infrastructure
is to be moved towards S/4HANA, an upgrade to the existing system. Phase 2 concerns
the Transformation stage, where new services are to be embedded within the
organization’s existing processes.</p>
        <p>Overall, the upgrade of the existing ERP system is aimed at increasing compliance
and enabling integration capabilities for several processes within the service areas of
finance, logistics, and manufacturing. The upgrade decision has been documented at
governance level and it is considered as an efficiency improvement project to better align
with the current business context and user needs, rather than a full-scale development
project. Since it goes further than a mere technical update and is aimed at leveraging on
high added value streams, the use of agile methods has been proposed for its
development, utilizing user stories for requirements elicitation. The IT department has already
been executing small projects in agile fashion; however, the current ERP
implementation was started in 2015 in a non-agile way. A next-level upgrade was proposed in 2019
but the Covid-19 pandemic gave a radical switch in the business context which resulted
in an opportunity to redefine business processes more aggressively. Indeed, the new
business context led governance members to profoundly rethink the financial processes
2</p>
        <p>More information can be given at: https://www.sap.com/index.html
in collaboration with end-users and focus on automation, integration and the delivery
of performance indicators. Overall, the organization aims to become more agile-driven
(one of its core business objectives) not only in its IT developments but also in the way
it conducts its business and pursues its DT. Our proposed approach is destined to bring
a support for reasoning and relevant knowledge on the alignment of the improved ERP
developments with respect to the business strategy and general DT objectives.
3.2</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>Credit Management as a Strategic Opportunity and the Determination of its</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-3">
        <title>Features</title>
        <p>Overall, we conducted semi-structured interviews to elicit the business strategy (it is
depicted in Figure 3) and identify impending strategic opportunities within the company.
Our sample source consisted of members of the executive board and
department/business units’ directors. Likewise, the IT and DT strategy was elicited from members of
the ICT governance committee as well as the collection of related documents (the DT
strategy is depicted in Figure 4). We were more interested in the illustration of the
company’s DT strategy and how the recognition of strategic opportunities aligns with it; for
this reason and due to the lack of space, the IT strategy will not be depicted in this paper
but a similar alignment evaluation process between the strategic opportunities and the
IT strategy can be assumed following the paradigm of the business strategy.</p>
        <p>The data gathered during the interviews identified specific finance and controlling
activities linked to Record to Report (RTR) processes (SAP Credit Management
FINFSCM-CR - SAP Help Portal, n.d.) as a significant strategic opportunity source within
the upgrade of the new version of the ERP. The importance of adequate credit and cash
management in terms of integrating/centralizing the company’s financial management
for different departments/units/regions was listed as one of the CFO’s top priorities.</p>
        <p>
          As we aim to apply our proposed framework to the aforementioned strategic
opportunity intending to focus mainly on linking strategic with operational agility, we do not
document the entire strategic opportunity’s top-down evaluation that led to the
identification of the Features and would be realized using i* [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
          ] and NFR diagrams [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ];
instead, we focus immediately on the lowest-level functional elements provided by the
StratAMoDrIGo framework, i.e., the Features. Overall, three Features have been
recognized in a top-down fashion by the members of the governance during the application
of the framework; these are mapped to the following epic user stories:
– Feature Delivery Management becomes the Epic User Story As a customer I need
to have consistent delivery from my suppliers. This epic is to describe customers’
accessibility to consistent and reliable product delivery;
– Feature Payment Management becomes the Epic User Story As a Tax and treasury
user I need to reduce delays in payments, non-payments and process costs. The
second epic describes coarse grained credit management functionalities;
– Feature Cash Management becomes the Epic User Story As a manager I need
to make sure the cash status is up-to-date. This epic is linked to the record-setting
functionality within the cash management process; a constantly up-to-date cash
management record is valuable for strategic managers planning for future
investments.
        </p>
        <p>The rest of this paper will exclusively be devoted on the study of the impact of the
user stories falling under the scope of Feature 2 (so the system behavior that will be
adopted for fulfilling the Feature at operational level). This particular Feature was found
to be of primary strategic importance (i.e., the VP and CFO have both recognized the
strategic value attributed by the ability of the new system to provide instantaneous
cash/credit settlements) while the process owners and operations’ managers have emphasized
on the need of the system to accommodate the automation of cash/credit transactions as
a recurrent request of their employees/users (bottom-up specified functionality).
3.3</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-4">
        <title>User Stories’ Support on the Business Strategy under the Specification of the Second Feature</title>
        <p>A set of requirements has been collected from users/stakeholders and the mapping game
led to 5 main user stories under the scope of the Epic User Story corresponding to the
second Feature. A rationale tree has thus been built to show the decomposition from
the Strategic Opportunity to the Epic User Story and the (fine-grained) user stories. The
alignment study has then been performed and validated by internal employees. Figure
3 shows the support of the individual user stories on the overall business strategy. The
study gives a more in depth and accurate identification of the strategic value brought
by the system in terms of effective behavior under the umbrella of the Feature. So
this gives a slightly more in depth study and accurate results when compared to an
immediate alignment study of the Feature with the business strategy earlier when the
Feature remains for some parts a black box. Finer-grained and user-delivered sources
of value are indeed identified.
3.4</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-5">
        <title>User Stories’ Support on the DT Strategy under the Specification of the</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-6">
        <title>Second Feature</title>
        <p>To focus on the DT strategy, an alignment study has also been performed between the
DT strategic objectives and the user stories under the scope of the Epic User Story
corresponding to the second Feature. This alignment study also uses the rationale tree built
previously. The alignment study has here been done on a generic set of DT objectives
found in an informal source3. A custom set of DT objectives has also been built but for
confidentiality reasons we do not want to publish them here and the alignment study to
the generic set. The custom alignment study remains nevertheless very similar. Figure
4 shows the support of the individual user stories on the DT strategy. The study gives
here an in depth complementary identification of the DT-related strategic value brought
under the umbrella of the Feature.
4</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>The recent Covid-19 pandemic (new business context) has created momentum for
rethinking the credit and cash management processes support leading to a (strategic)
opportunity to change the operational tasks of employees through the digitalization of
3 https://ungoti.com/blog/objectives-of-digital-transformation/</p>
      <p>Business Strategy
Promote digitalization
and business model
transformation</p>
      <p>Reinvent core
technologies that
constitute strengths</p>
      <p>Strengthen and optimize
global organization and
oprational capabilitites</p>
      <p>Demonstrate
comprehensive strength
and brand power
Think and act in
sustainable way</p>
      <p>Become
agile</p>
      <p>Increase efficiency and quick
response time in providing
client-centric solutions</p>
      <p>Communicate and share
the knowledge, continue
to build One
Organization</p>
      <p>Break down silos and
opeMraatiinntgaipnrofit crcooslslafbuonrcattieontharlotueagmhs</p>
      <p>Meet customer
requirements
Focus on outcome and
value while maintaining
the highest quality</p>
      <p>Supply and service our
custoinmaenrys acnirdcuthmesirtapnacteients, Legend:</p>
      <p>StrategicObjective
Decomposition Link
StrategicOpportunity
Contribution Link
Epic User Story
(FuncUtisoenraSlEtoleryment)
Credit segmentation of
customers</p>
      <p>Credit exposure status of Auto validation rules in
customers system
supporting services in the case company. The main Features of the credit management
service were conceptualized in a top-down fashion by the company’s executives. These
have been mapped onto Epic User Stories so that users (and other stakeholders such
as the department heads, process owners, and IT managers contributing to further
providing insights on the necessary functions expected in the system) could be involved
to define exactly required, expected or wished system behavior related to the
fulfillment of the epic. The operational elements are expected to ensure that the users are
effectively and efficiently managing their respective tasks. Their critical functions like
auto-validation rules, reporting, customer status, etc., provide the necessary behavior
when approving sales orders from customers. The functions help the realization of
organization’s (strategic) business or DT objectives and provide the necessary agility to
change the course of actions if and when required. In most cases, the management-level
goals are demarcated in the user stories. However, softgoals were not mentioned as they
were implicit for the stakeholders.</p>
      <p>
        The study of the alignment of the (concrete, low-level) user stories with the strategic
business objectives and generic DT objectives provided evidence on an overall
satisfying alignment of the strategic opportunity’s Feature Payment Management through its
expected system behavior. The alignment goes further than the alignment study that
could be performed with MoDrIGo [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] and StratAMoDrIGo in the sense that we study
here the system behavior itself in terms of fine grained functions and not coarse-grained
Features of which the internals are not (yet) defined to keep agility and openness to
      </p>
      <p>Digital Transformation Strategy
ISmeprrvoicvee InCcroellaasbeoIrnatteiornnal POropctiemsiszees EInffcicrieeanscey MBoerecoAmgeile BusCirneeastse MNeowdels RCeodsutcse PeEIrmmfopprrlmooyaveneece DCaotmaSpleycwuritithy KeeApdCvoamntpaegteitive CoFmopCceuotsreenocnies
Creditcsuesgtommenertastion of Credit ecxupsotosumreersstatus of Auto valsidyastteiomn rules in
innovation during development. Alternative scenarios can also be considered when
different user stories can support the fulfillment of the Feature. The different user stories
can then be selected on the basis of the identified value yet fulfilling the Feature.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>5 Threats to Validity</title>
      <p>As with any other approach within the design science domain, a threat to the construct
validity is derived from the risk of misappropriation of the modeling constructs of the
framework by various stakeholders, which may lead to misaligned/inconclusive
strategic insights. This issue was addressed by having the authors of the paper organize a
joint meeting with various members of the company whose case study is depicted in
Section 3 in order to review, discuss and elaborate on each modeling representation and
individual element of the framework.</p>
      <p>The internal validity concerns the question of objectivity of the views gathered
by the subjects during the data acquisition process. Indeed, subjects may report on
their personal view (as opposed to a collective consensus) when giving information on
strategic-, tactical-, or operational-level aspects. This would lead to inconsistent
modeling representations. This risk can be mitigated by the conduct of a considerable number
of interviews and systematic comparison of the views of these actors for knowledge
validation. In our case, the representations of the strategic-/operational-level
configurations within the case study were determined based on a rigorous interview process and
an overall cross-reference of the subjects’ individual opinions.</p>
      <p>
        A threat to the external validity can come from the lack of knowledge and/or
experience with software modeling notations that act as prerequisites for the extended
usability of the framework by a diverse set of roles within the organizational sphere
(from C-level IT executives to domain analysts etc). Therefore, a lack of formation
in specific software modeling techniques may jeopardize the generalized use of the
framework by the corresponding information systems’ community (our population).
Until now, the framework has been applied by the authors of this paper, members of
the research group, and a few consultants all being familiar with conceptual modeling,
goal-based requirements engineering, and i*. Their experience certainly has an impact
on the ability to apply such a framework correctly so not many valuable insights could
be drawn in terms of its generalization. For this reason, the ability of novice modelers
to apply goal-based conceptual modeling has been tested in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11 ref19">19,11</xref>
        ] with other kind of
formalisms. The latter did not reveal any major inconsistencies during the modeling
phase, therefore applying goal-based frameworks with some guidance on real life
problems can be done rather easily allowing the generalization of such frameworks to other
requirements elicitation problems.
6
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Related Work</title>
      <p>
        Tsilionis &amp; Wautelet [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] detail a modeling approach that aims to help organizations
imprint – and reconcile the attainment of – their strategic (business and IT) objectives
within their (operational) agile-driven software development processes. Their approach
lies on the alignment evaluation of top-down abstract in-nature services aiming to
fulfill the strategic business needs through the use of IT capabilities (they are called
business IT services, (see [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14 ref18">18,14</xref>
        ]) with bottom-up specified user stories meaning to display
operational insights to a pending IT development. Such business IT services are
decomposed into one or many (also top-down defined) Epic user stories, in the effort to
link a low-level function to a more aggregate one, contributing to its fulfillment. The
main benefit of the present framework when compared to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] is its orientation towards
the DT meaning that it is not only driven by business process support/improvement as
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. More broadly stated, the present framework is driven by IT innovations in general
essentially centered on the end user and the customer rather than internal functions.
      </p>
      <p>
        At this point, a comparison with other approaches offering strategic value
propositions to agile-operated development cycles –with Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)
being the most prominent– is justified. SAFe 5.1 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] is a method allowing to use
agile software development on huge projects so to scale and diffuse across many teams
the benefits of operational agility. SAFe also covers some elements of organizational
strategy; it distinguishes indeed value streams at a very high level of abstraction that
need to be supported by operational developments as well as Epics as functional
highlevel scope elements; Epics are considered in SAFe – not comparable to the ones
distinguished in Scrum (and our approach) because they are even more abstract – as
functional elements that are by nature so large that they can be developed in a fully
autonomous manner. SAFe also considers strategic alignment on the basis of portfolio
management and does not focus on single software development projects. In that sense,
there is partial alignment between SAFe and the framework explained in this paper
since the latter is also not project-directed but targets the evaluation/funding/evolution
of strategic opportunities encompassing new major functions that need to be supplied by
the IT ecosystem. However, our current approach is fully conceptual modeling-driven
while SAFe not only does not support the use of conceptual models but acts more or
less as the transcript or documentation of directions on how to build-up of a culture of
communication/coordination between the software development teams responsible for
large (agile) product deliveries and the rest of the business function representatives in
the organization.
7
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>By linking long-term objectives with system behavioral aspects, this paper offers an
informal and user-friendly ontology that acts as a mechanism allowing for switching
gears from strategic to operational agility according to the interests of the stakeholders.
This ontology supports a method that can be used top-down for the evaluation of the
value added by the adoption of strategic opportunities. More precisely it can be aligned
with the business, IT or DT strategic objectives at the level of the Feature composing
this opportunity. Also, it can be used in a bottom-up fashion to evaluate the alignment
of the low-level functions depicted in (classical) user stories with the business, IT or DT
strategic objectives. The agile development team can thus use it within the context of
a Scrum (or any other user stories-driven) cycle to chart/implement the operational
aspects of the development, allowing simultaneously to envisage value outside of the
traditional ’user-value-only’ perspective. This gives complementary strategic information
useful notably for the planning game when the priority of user stories’ implementation
needs to be determined.</p>
      <p>
        At this stage, we can get back to the stated RQ (How can we refine the
StratAMoDrIGo framework to support the conjunct use of strategic and operational agility in a DT
context?). To answer this question, we have extended the StratAMoDrIGo framework in
three distinctive ways: first, we have proceed in a refinement of the StratAMoDrIGo
ontology to include a more detailed analysis for the evolution of individual user stories and
their attachment to larger pieces of declared functionality allowing for their fulfillment;
we also show the linkage between such user-driven elements to the overall DT Strategy
and how the evaluation of the alignment of these two should be done dynamically due
to the ever-changing nature of the latter. Second, we have gone through a refinement of
the StratAMoDrIGo process fragment to merge Strategic with Operational agility and
distinguished strategic elements related to the DT, i.e. the DT objectives; we have also
accentuated the roles and their corresponding functionalities/duties in this new layout
as a means to increase the applicability of our approach. Third, we have presented an
application on a specific case study for validation; we have depicted the overall business
strategy of an international organization, its DT strategy as a subset of the company’s
pool of strategic objectives and how the creation of a new credit management system
could be mapped as a strategic opportunity. The latter is analyzed/evaluated when it
comes to its value-attributing characteristics and its overall contribution to the
organization’s business and DT strategy is studied. Finally, we have compared our approach
with other relevant contributions in the related work section. Even if our approach’s
expressiveness and details may suffer in the process, we aim to provide something as
simple as possible to organizations to ease the IT adoption on the largest possible scale
and how the latter can be evaluated with its evolving DT strategy. Accordingly, future
work also involves simplifying the framework so that models hold on a structured sheet
like for the Business Model Canvas [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chung</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nixon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mylopoulos</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <string-name>
            <surname>Non-Functional Requirements</surname>
          </string-name>
          in Software Engineering, Intl. Series in Software Engineering, vol.
          <volume>5</volume>
          . Springer (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cohn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>User stories applied: For agile software development</article-title>
          . Addison-Wesley
          <string-name>
            <surname>Professional</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Glesne</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pedersen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Strategic agility: adapting and renewing strategic direction: an exploratory case study</article-title>
          .
          <source>Master's thesis</source>
          (
          <year>2020</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hevner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.R.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A three cycle view of design science research</article-title>
          .
          <source>Scandinavian journal of information systems 19(2)</source>
          ,
          <volume>4</volume>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hevner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>March</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.T.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Park</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ram</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Design science in information systems research</article-title>
          .
          <source>MIS Q</source>
          .
          <volume>28</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>105</lpage>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Knaster</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leffingwell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>SAFe 5.0 Distilled: Achieving Business Agility with the Scaled Agile Framework</article-title>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Addison-Wesley Professional</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2020</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Osterwalder</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pigneur</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers</article-title>
          , vol.
          <volume>1</volume>
          . John Wiley &amp; Sons (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Richard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leffingwell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Safe 5.0 distilled: Achieving business agility with the scaled agile framework (</article-title>
          <year>2020</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Samavi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Topaloglou</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Strategic reasoning about business models: a conceptual modeling approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information Systems and e-Business Management</source>
          <volume>7</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>171</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>198</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Smart</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>BDD in Action: Behavior-driven development for the whole software lifecycle</article-title>
          .
          <source>Simon and Schuster</source>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tsilionis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maene</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Poelmans</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Conceptual modeling versus user story mapping: Which is the best approach to agile requirements engineering?</article-title>
          <source>Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing</source>
          <volume>415</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>356</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>373</lpage>
          (
          <year>2021</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tsilionis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>From service-orientation to agile development by conceptually likning business it services and user stories: A meta-model and a process fragment</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 23rd IEEE International Conference on Business Informatiics (IEEE CBI)</source>
          (
          <year>2021</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tsilionis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A model-driven framework to support strategic agility: Valueadded perspective</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information and Software Technology</source>
          <volume>141</volume>
          ,
          <issue>106734</issue>
          (
          <year>2022</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A model-driven IT governance process based on the strategic impact evaluation of services</article-title>
          .
          <source>J. Syst. Softw</source>
          .
          <volume>149</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>462</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>475</lpage>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kiv</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kolp</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>User-story driven development of multi-agent systems: A process fragment for agile methods</article-title>
          .
          <source>Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct</source>
          .
          <volume>50</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>159</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>176</lpage>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kolp</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mirbel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Unifying and extending user story models</article-title>
          . In: Jarke,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Mylopoulos</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Quix</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Rolland</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Manolopoulos</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Mouratidis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Horkoff</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>J</surname>
          </string-name>
          . (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering - 26th International Conference, CAiSE
          <year>2014</year>
          , Thessaloniki, Greece, June 16-20,
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <source>Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>8484</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>211</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>225</lpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kolp</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mirbel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Poelmans</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Building a rationale diagram for evaluating user story sets</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Tenth IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          , Grenoble, France, June 1-3,
          <year>2016</year>
          . pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>12</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kolp</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Business and model-driven development of BDI multi-agent systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>Neurocomputing</source>
          <volume>182</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>304</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>321</lpage>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wautelet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Velghe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Poelmans</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kolp</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>On modelers ability to build a visual diagram from a user story set: a goal-oriented approach</article-title>
          . In: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering:
          <article-title>Foundation for Software Quality</article-title>
          . pp.
          <fpage>209</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>226</lpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          20.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giorgini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maiden</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mylopoulos</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering</article-title>
          . MIT Press (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>