=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3804/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Enterprise Architecture Management value creation mechanisms
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3804/paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3804
|authors=Sofia Tiitinen,Jarkko Nurmi,Ville Seppänen
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bir/TiitinenNS24
}}
==Enterprise Architecture Management value creation mechanisms==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3804/paper1.pdf
Enterprise Architecture Management value creation
mechanisms
Sofia Tiitinen1, Jarkko Nurmi1,∗ and Ville Seppänen1
1 University of Jyväskylä, Seminaarinkatu 15, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
Abstract
This study explores the value-creation mechanisms of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM). By
synthesizing various models from existing literature, we identify key constructs —EA product quality,
EA service quality, EA culture/attitude, EA product use, and EA service use— that influence EAM value
creation. We further contextualize these constructs, comprehensively understanding how EAM
generates strategic, operational, transformational, and other benefits. Our empirical analysis, based on
survey data from Finnish EAM stakeholders, reveals moderate acknowledgment of EAM benefits,
tempered by factors such as organizational context, economic conditions, and industry-specific
considerations. The findings underscore the need for a multi-method approach in future studies,
triangulating subjective data with objective metrics like decision audit trails, customer satisfaction
scores, and compliance rates. This approach aims to provide a more balanced and accurate assessment
of EAM's value, addressing both tangible and intangible benefits.
Keywords
Enterprise Architecture, Value Creation, Survey 1
1. Introduction
Enterprise Architecture (EA) is one of the most prevalent methodologies organizations employ
to harmonize their strategies, business processes, and information technology (IT). By providing
a comprehensive blueprint of an organization's structure, EA management (EAM) facilitates a
holistic view that enables better understanding and management of complex organizational
structures and processes [23].
EAM offers a multitude of benefits, including enhanced efficiency and alignment between
business and IT capabilities, improved responsiveness to changes in the business environment,
and more informed decision-making and project management [29], [31]. Over recent years, the
benefits of EAM have been studied, with numerous benefits and their corresponding value
realization mechanisms being identified [29], [30], [31], [12], [18], [34], [19], [10], [11]. These
studies suggest that EAM can lead to strategic alignment, operational efficiency, enhanced agility,
and improved communication and knowledge management within organizations. However, the
mechanisms through which EAM benefits are realized remain not fully understood, and the
literature provides inconclusive results regarding the direct impact of EAM practices (see e.g.,
[33])
One significant challenge in understanding EAM benefits is the scarcity of empirical research
focused on their measurement and quantification. Although some studies have attempted to
address this issue [22], [19] the diverse and often intangible nature of EAM benefits poses
substantial challenges to their accurate assessment. Consequently, organizations find it difficult
to justify investments in EAM initiatives due to the lack of clear, quantifiable returns on
BIR-WS 2024: BIR 2024 Workshops and Doctoral Consortium, 23rd International Conference on Perspectives in
Business Informatics Research (BIR 2024), September 11-13, 2024, Prague, Czech Rep.
∗ Corresponding author.
sopatiit@student.jyu.fi (S. Tiitinen); jarkko.s.nurmi@jyu.fi (J. Nurmi); ville.r.seppanen@jyu.fi (V. Seppänen)
0000-0002-6010-814X (J. Nurmi); 0000-0003-3843-4843 (V. Seppänen)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
investment (ROI). This challenge is compounded by the multifaceted impacts of EAM, which
include not only direct financial benefits but also strategic, operational, and transformational
advantages that are harder to measure.
Moreover, the effectiveness of EA practices is significantly influenced by contextual and
organizational factors, such as corporate culture, organizational structure, and maturity in EAM
practices [10], [11]. These factors can greatly impact the realization of EAM benefits, yet they are
often overlooked in existing studies. This oversight can lead to a one-size-fits-all approach that
fails to consider the unique characteristics of different organizational contexts, thereby limiting
the applicability and effectiveness of EAM practices across various settings.
Despite the recognition of EAM's potential benefits, there remains an incomplete
understanding of what these benefits precisely entail, the actual benefits that are realized, the
conditions under which they manifest, and the appropriate methods for theorizing and
measuring them. This gap in understanding hinders the development of actionable strategies for
organizations seeking to leverage EAM for value creation.
In this quantitative study, we aim to address these gaps by exploring the factors that precede
different achievable EAM benefits. We seek to establish a tentative framework for EAM value
creation mechanisms, providing a more detailed and nuanced understanding of how EAM can
create value for organizations. This study contributes to the existing literature by integrating
insights from various models and empirical data, offering a comprehensive approach to
understanding and measuring the benefits of EAM. Through this exploration, we aim to provide
organizations with practical insights and strategies to enhance their EAM practices and realize
the full potential of their EA investments.
2. Previous research on the value and value creation of EAM
Understanding EAM's value potential is essential for setting realistic expectations, determining
risks and returns in EAM investments, and ensuring necessary and tendentious commitment to
EAM [25], [5], [12]. According [24] (p. 164), EAM serves as a tool for uncovering various
organizational and operational aspects, including challenges such as bureaucratic inefficiencies
identified through documented business processes, strengths such as technological capabilities
identified through technology inventories, deficiencies such as unmet business requirements
highlighted by dissatisfied customers, and opportunities such as untapped potential identified
through performance results. By identifying capability gaps between the current and the desired
states, EAM can help establish a roadmap for addressing the organizational transformation
needs [24]. [4] observe that EAM encompasses both managerial and technological concerns, and
its objectives evolve from solely enhancing IT utilization to a comprehensive approach
encompassing all dimensions of enterprise management. This demonstrates that EAM
transcends traditional IT management practices and aligns more closely with methodologies of
strategic planning and decision-making [27]
In addition to the monetary worth and financial benefits, the value of something can be
understood by using concepts such as usefulness, advantage, benefit, or desirability [32].
According to Gong and Janssen [12] empirical evidence suggests EAM is able to produce benefits
that can be positioned in the following categories: 1) strategic and political, 2) transformational,
3) communicational, 4) economic, 5) flexibility and agility, 6) integration and interoperability, 7)
inter-organizational, 8) knowledge management. Several studies have suggested that EAM value
comes realized through mechanisms that are indirectly related to the EAM function (such as the
company's increased market value) and can be intangible and difficult to measure (such as
improved decision-making) (e.g., [20], [30], [15], [21], [26]).
EAM value can be realized immediately or in the long term [21]. In addition, value can be
potential, perceived, or realized. The potential value refers to the intrinsic value of EAM that has
the capacity to be actualized [16]. An example of potential value within EAM pertains to the
enhanced quality of development projects [10]. Perceived value denotes the value experienced
by both EAM users and stakeholders [16]. For instance, from the perspective of a project team,
the use of EA artifacts may enhance the transparency of dependencies [21]. Realized value, on
the other hand, represents the net positive impact or benefit derived [16]. A concrete instance of
realized value from EAM could be the enhancement of the systems environment [30]. EAM
contributes value not only to individual projects but also to entire organizations [30], [11]. It
facilitates improved availability of information concerning the current architecture of the
enterprise [21], as well as its desired future state [10]. Moreover, EAM aids projects in aligning
with the broader enterprise strategy [16]. It also serves as a catalyst for successful
transformative projects within organizations [12]. Furthermore, at the organizational level, EAM
is purported to enhance an organization's responsiveness to evolving customer and market
demands [30], elevate operational excellence [14], and reduce operational costs [8].
Table 1 summarizes the EAM value propositions presented in the previous studies, further
classified into the categories adopted from the systematic literature review by Gong and Janssen
[12]. Value propositions are specific benefits that organizations aim to achieve through the
implementation of EAM, i.e. the desired outcomes that drive EAM initiatives within
organizations. Value creation mechanisms, trough which we later analyze the value proposition,
are the processes, activities, and factors that enable these value propositions to be realized.
Table 1
EAM value proposition categorization
EAM Value Category EAM Value
Strategic and political Increased business-IT alignment: [24], [8], [30], [11], [21], [28]
Improved decision-making: [30], [17], [21], [28]
Increased control of organizational complexity: [11]
Improved operational excellence: [14], [30]
Better compliance with regulations, standards, and quality requirements: [7]
Improved business continuity: [7]
Improved risk management: [7], [30], [11]
Increased business stability: [30]
Better resources management: [30], [6]
Knowledge Management Improved organizational learning: [17]
Clear overview of an organization: [27], [21]
Improved transparency on dependencies: [21]
Better understanding of organization’s vision:[10], [17], [27]
Communicational Better communication and information sharing: [9]
Availability of information on EA: [21]
Common vocabulary: [21]
Transformational Better project efforts alignment with overall corporate strategy: [16], [27]
Increased project quality: [10], [11]
Better management of complexity in projects: [6], [10], [11]
Easier scoping of development projects: [10]
Faster project initialization: [11], [21]
Timely completion of projects: [11]
Improved innovation capabilities: [17]
Improved organizational capability to change: [7]
Faster time-to-market and delivery: [9]
Clear requirements and restrictions: [21]
Inter-organizational Better management of external relationships: [8]
Increased customer intimacy: [30]
Increased external collaboration: [11]
Integration and Higher solutions integration: [6], [21]
interoperability
Increased organization-wide standardization, integration, and deduplication of assets: [11]
Improved and harmonized business processes: [14], [24], [10], [30]
Increased reusability of IT assets: [13], [7], [2]
Increased process synergies: [13], [27]
Less inconsistency and redundancy in IT: [13], [10], [2], [21]
Flexibility and agility Increased ability to respond to customer and market needs: [6], [2]
Increased strategic agility: [3], [24], [8], [30]
Economic Lower operational costs: [8]
Lower IT costs: [30], [15], [21], [28]
Lower project costs: [11]
2.1. EAM value creation mechanisms
In exploring EAM value creation mechanisms, various models have been proposed. Niemi and
Pekkola [21] propose a model that emphasizes the role of EA artifacts and their use in creating
value. They identify several constructs influencing EAM value: EA product quality, EA service
quality, EA culture/attitude, EA product use, and EA service use. Their model suggests that high-
quality EA artifacts and services, along with a supportive culture, lead to greater use of EA
products and services, which in turn generates value through improved decision-making,
strategic alignment, and operational efficiency. Foorthuis et al. [11] present a benefit delivery
model focusing on the processes and activities that drive EAM benefits. They argue that EAM
contributes to organizational value through activities like standardization, integration, and
strategic alignment. The model highlights the importance of EA practices in facilitating better
project outcomes, operational efficiency, and strategic initiatives. Lange et al. [17] discuss a
benefits realization model that underscores the mechanisms through which EAM leads to
organizational benefits. Their model outlines how EA descriptions and practices enhance project
quality, speed up project delivery, and improve organizational adaptability. They emphasize the
indirect nature of EAM value, suggesting that benefits often materialize through intermediate
activities such as better project management and enhanced communication. Tamm et al. [31]
propose a framework linking EA service provision quality to organizational benefits. They
identify three primary mechanisms: improving IS decision-making, guiding IS project delivery,
and building a better IS platform. These mechanisms are facilitated by high-quality EA services,
which help organizations achieve cost savings, strategic agility, and competitive differentiation.
Kurnia et al. [34] focus on the role of EA in enabling digital transformation. Their model
highlights how EAM supports strategic initiatives through enhanced integration and
interoperability of systems, leading to improved business processes and agility. They argue that
EAM facilitates organizational change and innovation, driving long-term value creation.
The main constructs of all the models discuss similar sets of factors—EA products, EA
services, the use of EA[M] results, and EAM benefits that contribute to EAM value creation. This
is supported by numerous studies, including [6], [10], [11], [30], [17], [1] and [21]. Among these,
[21] provide a detailed exploration of the interrelationships between these constructs, resulting
in a model with high explanatory potential but also structural complexity. Conversely, [17] place
less emphasis on the relationships between foundational dimensions such as EA Product Quality,
EA Function Setup Quality, and EA Service Delivery. Organizational characteristics and culture
are less frequently discussed in depth within these models. Although Niemi and Pekkola [21] and
Lange et al. [17] acknowledge and include cultural aspects, the impact of these aspects on EAM
value creation is emphasized more prominently in other models [7], [30], [1]. Models of value
creation must balance accuracy and generalizability. Most models in existing literature, including
those by [10], [1] and [6], focus narrowly on specific contexts such as EA standards use, project
EA compliance, and EA principles, to provide better accuracy. Nonetheless, all identified models
describe EAM value creation through the use of EAM results [6], [10], [11], [30], [17], [1], [21],
[34], [31].
To summarize the numerous models discussed and to provide a generalized understanding,
we propose a synthesized model that includes the foundational dimensions of EA Product
Quality (c.f. [21], [11]), EA Service Quality (c.f. [31], [11]), EA Culture (c.f. [21], [34]), EA Product
Use (c.f. [17], [31]), and EA Service Use (c.f. [31], [21]), which are present in all the studied
models. However, as discussed for general value creation, quality products and services and a
positive EA culture alone do not typically result in value. Therefore, the synthesized model
includes the factors of EA Product Use and EA Service Use, which are assumed to impact EAM
value creation by turning resources into perceived value. The use of EAM results, meaning EA
products and services, is a construct in many models, including [6], [10], [30], [17], [1] and [21].
The table below synthesizes constructs and mechanisms from various EAM value creation
models, categorizing them into dimensions that align with Gong and Janssen's [12] study. By
mapping these constructs to Gong and Janssen's categories, we can see how different aspects of
EA practices contribute to specific types of benefits: (1) EA Product Quality is fundamental for
realizing Strategic and Political, Operational, Transformational, Knowledge Management, and
Integration and Interoperability benefits. High-quality EA artifacts provide the necessary
foundation for strategic decision-making, process improvement, and system integration. (2) EA
Service Quality is crucial for achieving Operational, Economic, Transformational, and Flexibility
and Agility benefits. Effective EA services support project outcomes, operational efficiency, and
the organization's ability to adapt and innovate. (3) EA Culture plays a significant role in realizing
Transformational, Knowledge Management, and Flexibility and Agility benefits. A positive
organizational culture towards EAM ensures the adoption and effective use of EA artifacts and
services. (4) EA Product Use and EA Service Use directly impact the realization of Strategic and
Political, Operational, and Transformational benefits. Regular and effective use of EA products
and services leads to better project management, strategic alignment, and operational outcomes.
Table 2
EAM value creation model categorization
Models Mechanisms EA EA Service EA Culture/ EA EA Service Gong and
Product Quality Attitude Product Use Janssen
Quality Use [12]Categories
Niemi & Quality EA High- Quality EA Supportive Regular Engagemen Strategic and
Pekkola artifacts and quality EA services culture drives use of EA t with EA Political,
[21] services, artifacts facilitate effective use of artifacts services Operational,
supportive enhance better project EA improves enhance Transformationa
culture led to decision- outcomes strategic value l
better making outcomes
decision- and
making and strategic
strategic alignment
alignment
Foorthuis High-quality Focus on Focus on Not explicitly Utilization Effective Operational,
et al. [11] EA products quality EA quality EA mentioned of EA EA service Transformationa
and services products services products delivery l
enhance leads to supports
project project project
success and success success
operational
efficiency
Lange, High-quality High- Effective EA Cultural Effective Not Knowledge
Mendling EA products quality EA services acceptance is use of EA explicitly Management,
& Recker and services, products improve crucial for products mentioned Communicationa
[17] cultural improve project quality realizing improves l,
acceptance, project and delivery benefits project Transformationa
and user quality quality l
satisfaction and
lead to delivery
benefits
Tamm et High-quality Quality EA Quality EA Not explicitly Use of EA Use of EA Economic,
al. [31] EA services services services mentioned services services Strategic and
improve IS enhance improve IS and improve Political,
decision- decision- decision- products decision- Operational
making, making making and improves making and
project and project outcomes project
delivery, and project delivery delivery
IS platform delivery
development
Kurnia et High-quality Supports Supports Organizational Supports Enhances Flexibility and
al. [34] EA supports integratio digital support integratio business Agility,
digital n and transformatio enhances EAM n and processes Integration, and
transformatio business n and implementatio agility and agility Interoperability,
n, integration, processes business n Transformationa
and agility l
interoperabili
ty, enhancing
business
processes and
agility
3. Study design
Due to the challenges in EAM value measurability discussed earlier, the empirical study focuses
on value perceived by EAM stakeholders. EAM stakeholders, who generally are considered EAM
value beneficiaries, are business and IT professionals working in development, planning, and
management roles in organizations where EAM practices are implemented. Data was collected
with a web survey. The web survey and provided answers were in Finnish. The link to the survey
was distributed by email campaigns. Additionally, the link was published on social media
(Linkedin) and distributed via professional networks. The responses were gathered during June-
September 2023. The campaigns were intended to reach EAM stakeholders working in Finland
as this demographic was of special interest.
The email containing the survey link was sent to over a hundred recipients. The recipient list
was gathered through LinkedIn search, searching for professionals with keywords “Enterprise
Architect”, “Solution Architect”, “IT-Architect”, “System Designer”, “Business Analyst”, “Product
Owner”, “IT-Manager”, “Transformation”, “Engineer”, and “Designer”. The list was narrowed
down to suitable persons deemed as EAM stakeholders. For example, graphic designers and
traditional architects (physical infrastructure/buildings/etc.) were excluded from the recipient
list. A total of 47 responses were obtained. The survey was opened 259 times and answering was
started 82 times, meaning 43% of respondents that began answering the survey did not finish
answering it. This could be at least partially explained by the significant length of the survey.
The survey included two major parts: EAM activities, resources, and culture presented as
‘factors impacting perceived EAM value’ and perceived value. As prior noted, the impacting
factors (EA Product Quality (c.f. [21], [11]), EA Service Quality (c.f. [31], [11]), EA Culture (c.f.
[21], [34]), EA Product Use (c.f. [17], [31]), and EA Service Use (c.f. [31], [21]) are based on the
prior literature. Similarly, the value propositions (dependent variables) were based on prior
studies. The first part contained questions determining the EA products and services available
to the respondent, their use, and their own as well as their organization’s culture and attitude
towards EAM. The questions were presented as claims and answers were recorded on a Likert
scale. The scale contained the options of (1) Completely disagree, (2) Somewhat disagree, (3)
Somewhat agree, and (4) Completely agree.
Exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify latent variables and find hidden
structures in the gathered data. The chosen extraction method was Principal Component
Analysis with a hundred iterations, and as many factors as there were variables in the given sets.
As can be seen in the results, the factors with several variables were mainly covered with only
a few variables in the sets. The results also described some variability among the factors.
Meaning, all variables in the factor sets did not sum up to measure one and the same phenomena.
Thus, no factor sums were formulated for further analysis, but rather the effects of the single
independent variables were studied. Additionally, the independent variables each included
highly relevant information on EA actions, resources, and culture, and all this information was
seen as vital for the results of this research. All variables were kept in the scope of the analysis.
(EA Service Quality and EA Service Use factors only had one variable, thus not suitable for or
even requiring the factor analysis stage.)
4. Results
The data (see also Appendix A Perceived EAM Value Results) suggests that EAM stakeholders
do indeed experience value from EAM. The regression analysis highlights several critical EAM
activities that influence perceived value, including access to enterprise architects’ help (SU1)
and involvement of architects in development projects (CA4), and use of application (PU1),
data (PU3), and technology layer (PU5) EA products.
The majority of the respondents either “somewhat agreed” or “completely agreed” with the
notion that “I see EAM work as beneficial for my organization” (V1), and only two respondents
completely or somewhat disagreed with the statement. Still, only 19.2% of respondents see their
organization’s current EAM practices as supporting the whole business. 40.4% see their
organization’s current EAM practices as somewhat supporting the whole business. Further,
72.3% of respondents completely agree with seeing EAM as a possibility for their organization.
None of the respondents completely agree with being satisfied with their organization’s current
EAM practices, and about 70% disagree with the claim.
Moreover, the results bring clarity to the types of value perceived by EAM stakeholders.
Claims for experiencing higher solutions integration (V30), better communication and
information sharing (V17), improved transparency of dependencies (V14), and better decision
making (V3) were on average most agreed with. Thus, it can be stated these types of values were
most experienced by the respondents. The four most experienced value items are of different
categories—integration and interoperability related, communicational, knowledge management
related, and strategic and political. The mentioned categories are in general well represented in
perceived EAM values. However, apart from two exceptions, no obvious patterns arise regarding
the categories of the experienced values. The first exception is ‘economic’ values, which are
somewhat experienced but not significantly. The second exception is the values in the category
‘inter-organizational’ as they are some of the least experienced EAM values in the context of this
study.
A few detailed explanatory relationships were discovered for EAM activities, resources, and
culture and the specific experienced EAM value items. For positive outcomes in these values, a
small set of independent variables were discovered to have explanatory power worth addressing
separately. Discovered results are presented here for explanatory models with a total adjusted
R square of over 0.3.
Easy access to enterprise architects significantly contributes to the overall perceived value of
EAM. This support is crucial for better decision-making and achieving a competitive advantage.
It also enhances innovation capabilities, indicating that architects’ expertise is vital for driving
new initiatives and improving existing processes. The active involvement of architects in
development projects significantly enhances several perceived values. This involvement helps
create a common vocabulary across the organization, which is crucial for effective
communication and alignment between different departments. It also facilitates organizational
learning and the dissolution of information silos, enabling smoother and more efficient project
execution. Better management of project complexity is another significant benefit, as architects
provide essential guidance and oversight.
Using technology layer EA products is associated with improved risk management and better
business continuity. This indicates that detailed and accurate technology documentation helps
organizations anticipate and mitigate risks more effectively. It also enhances the organization’s
ability to respond to customer and market needs, providing a strategic advantage in dynamic
environments. A better understanding of the organization’s vision is facilitated by these
products, ensuring that all stakeholders are aligned with the strategic objectives. Utilizing data
layer EA products leads to increased project quality and better upfront detection of development
problems. This suggests that accurate data models and flow diagrams are essential for
identifying potential issues early in the project lifecycle. These products also contribute to
increased process synergies, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational
processes. The use of application layer EA products improves business/IT alignment, ensuring
that IT initiatives are closely aligned with business goals. It also enhances communication and
information sharing, critical for effective collaboration across departments. Establishing a
common vocabulary is another significant benefit, facilitating better understanding and
cooperation among stakeholders.
Thus, first, from EA Culture/Attitude point of view, it seems that the involvement of architects
in development projects significantly enhances values such as common vocabulary,
organizational learning, and management of complexity. Second, from EA Product Use point of
view, the utilization of technology layer, data layer, and application layer EA products leads to
improved risk management, business continuity, project quality, and alignment between
business and IT. Third, from EA Service Use point of view, the access to enterprise architects'
help is crucial for achieving overall EAM value, better decision-making, competitive advantage,
and innovation capabilities.
Table 3
EAM construct categorization
Construct EAM Activity Perceived Value Adjusted
Category R²
EA Culture/ Involvement of Architects in Common Vocabulary (V19) 0.35
Attitude Development Projects (CA4)
Increased Organizational Learning (V12) 0.32
Dissolution of Information Silos (V15) 0.28
Better Management of Complexity in Projects 0.40
(V22)
EA Product Use Use of Technology Layer EA Products Improved Risk Management (V8) 0.29
(PU5)
Increased Ability to Respond to Customer and 0.34
Market Needs (V38)
Improved Business Continuity (V7) 0.30
Better Understanding of Organization’s Vision 0.33
(V16)
EA Service Use Access to Enterprise Architects’ Help Overall EAM Value (V1) 0.41
(SU1)
Better Decision Making (V3) 0.37
Competitive Advantage (V11) 0.36
Improved Innovation Capabilities (V47) 0.32
EA Product Use Use of Data Layer EA Products (PU3) Increased Project Quality (V21) 0.30
Increased Upfront Detection of Development 0.28
Problems (V43)
Increased Process Synergies (V35) 0.31
Use of Application Layer EA Products Increased Business/IT Alignment (V2) 0.29
(PU1)
Better Communication and Information Sharing 0.36
(V17)
Common Vocabulary (V19) 0.30
5. Discussion
The analysis reveals insights into how EAM activities create value within organizations. The
involvement of architects in development projects, the use of various EA products, and access to
EA services are shown to significantly impact perceived EAM value. These findings align well
with existing literature, highlighting the importance of strategic alignment and effective
communication facilitated by EAM.
The active involvement of architects in development projects emerges as a crucial factor for
several perceived values, such as improved communication, enhanced organizational learning,
and better management of complexity. This underscores the importance of integrating
architectural expertise into project teams to achieve better outcomes. Providing easy access to
enterprise architects' help significantly enhances overall EAM value, decision-making,
competitive advantage, and innovation capabilities. This suggests that organizations should
ensure that stakeholders can readily access architectural support to leverage EAM effectively.
The use of EA products at different layers (technology, data, and application) is strongly
associated with improved risk management, business continuity, and project quality. This
indicates that comprehensive documentation and effective use of EA products are essential for
achieving operational excellence and strategic alignment. However, it's noteworthy that these
products often exclude business architecture components. This trend could be influenced by the
respondent demographics, with 70% of participants self-identifying as IT-focused professionals.
This demographic skew might result in a stronger focus on technical layers, which are more
directly relevant to their roles and potentially easier to quantify in terms of value creation.
Our survey results indicate a general acknowledgment of EAM benefits among stakeholders,
with most items averaging around a score of 3 on a 1-5 scale. However, this raises concerns about
the interpretation of self-reported data. Potential biases, such as confirmation bias and
acquiescence bias, may lead respondents to report benefits they expect to see or default to
neutral responses, particularly in contexts where benefits are multifaceted and not directly
observable.
Despite high agreement rates for some value items, the data also indicate dissatisfaction with
current EAM practices. For instance, while 72.3% of respondents see EAM as a possibility for
their organization, only 19.2% believe their current EAM practices support the entire business,
and about 70% are not satisfied with their organization's current EAM practices. This mixed
feedback suggests that while respondents recognize the potential of EAM, they are critical of its
current implementation.
This divergence indicates that while there may not be a strong confirmation bias, other biases
such as social desirability bias and response bias could still be influencing the results. To mitigate
these biases and gain a more accurate understanding of EAM's effectiveness, incorporating
objective metrics alongside subjective perceptions is crucial. While this is not a unique position,
it is an important one. As noted by e.g. [22] and [30], EA benefit realization research often lacks
empirical evidence, with many prior studies failing to present rich data that includes both
objective metrics and subjective perceptions.
EAM benefits encompass various dimensions, including strategic, operational,
transformational, communicational, and knowledge management. These multifaceted benefits
are challenging to capture comprehensively through self-reported data alone. Different
stakeholders may perceive and value these benefits differently based on their roles, experiences,
and expectations. For example, strategic benefits like improved decision-making (V3) and
increased business/IT alignment (V2) are often abstract and subjective, making them harder to
quantify through surveys. Conversely, operational benefits like better communication and
information sharing (V17) can be more directly observed and measured.
By integrating objective metrics (e.g., decision audit trails, system integration levels) with
subjective perceptions, we can better capture the full range of EAM benefits. This comprehensive
approach allows us to validate self-reported data and identify any discrepancies between
perceived and actual benefits.
The models show significant relationships between specific EAM activities and perceived
benefits. For instance, utilizing Enterprise Architects’ help (SU1) and using business layer EA
products (PU3) positively impact the perceived overall EAM value (V1). However, the adjusted
R² values for these models indicate that other unmeasured factors also influence these
relationships. An adjusted R² of 0.41, for example, means that 41% of the variance in the
perceived overall EAM value (V1) is explained by the model, leaving 59% unexplained. This
suggests that additional factors, not included in the model, contribute to the perceived value of
EAM.
To further understand the unexplained variance, several potential factors can be considered,
such as organizational context and culture, leadership support, EA maturity, and specific EA
activities conducted. For example, depending on the complexity of the organization and its EA,
or the maturity of its IT infrastructure, different EA products should or should not be used
extensively. Concurrently, it is not always clear what specific EA activities are being conducted
and in what specific environments. This lack of clarity can lead to variability in perceived value
as different stakeholders may interpret and implement EA activities differently. Finally, the
specific metrics used to evaluate EAM success can influence perceived value and the feedback
mechanisms and other means of communication used can enhance or hinder the effectiveness of
EAM by either ensuring that practices evolve to meet organizational needs or do not reflect the
stakeholder needs and expectations.
Economic values were less frequently experienced by respondents in this study, highlighting
the importance of quantitative measurement in this category. Economic benefits, such as cost
savings, return on investment (ROI), and productivity improvements, are typically better
assessed through financial data and quantitative analysis. For instance, cost-benefit analysis and
ROI calculations can provide concrete evidence of economic benefits, which might not be
accurately captured through stakeholder surveys alone.
Similarly, inter-organizational values involve benefits derived from external relationships
and collaborations, which may not be fully appreciated or understood by all stakeholders. These
values can include enhanced supplier relationships, improved customer satisfaction, and
increased market competitiveness. Objective metrics, such as customer satisfaction scores,
supplier performance metrics, and market share analysis, can provide a clearer understanding
of these inter-organizational benefits.
To improve the rigor of future studies, we recommend a multi-method approach that
triangulates self-reported data with objective metrics. For example, better decision-making
could be evaluated through decision audit trails and outcomes, while increased customer
intimacy could be assessed using customer satisfaction scores and retention rates. Additionally,
a longitudinal study design could reveal more about the realization of these benefits over time,
mitigating the risk of short-term optimism.
References
[1] S. Aier, The role of organizational culture for grounding, management, guidance, and
effectiveness of enterprise architecture principles. Information Systems and E-Business
Management, 12(1), 43–70, (2014).
[2] S. Aier, B. Gleichauf, R. Winter, Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design
– An Empirical Analysis. Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2011, (2011).
[3] S. Bernard, J. Grasso, A Need for Formalization and Auditing in Enterprise Architecture
Approaches and Programs. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 5(2), 18-30, (2009).
[4] P. Bernardus, T. Goranson, J. Gøtze, A. Jensen-Waud, H. Kandjani, A. Molina, O. Noran, R. J.
Rabelo, D. Romero, P. Saha, P. Turner, Enterprise engineering and management at the
crossroads. Computers in Industry, 79, 87–102, (2016).
[5] P. Bernus, T. Goranson, J. Gøtze, A. Jensen-Waud, H. Kandjani, A. Molina,... & P. Turner,
Enterprise engineering and management at the crossroads. Computers in industry, 79, 87-
102, (2016).
[6] W. F. Boh, D. Yellin, Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in Managing Information
Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 163–207, (2006).
[7] V. Boucharas, M. van Steenbergen, S. Jansen, S. Brinkkemper, The Contribution of Enterprise
Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals: A Review of the Evidence. In E.
Proper, M. M. Lankhorst, M. Schönherr, J. Barjis, & S. Overbeek (Eds.), Trends in Enterprise
Architecture Research (pp. 1–15). Springer. (2010).
[8] R. V. Bradley, R. M. E. Pratt, T. A. Byrd, L. L. Simmons, THE ROLE OF ENTERPRISE
ARCHITECTURE IN THE QUEST FOR IT VALUE. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(2), 73–80,
(2011).
[9] G. Cardwell, The influence of Enterprise Architecture and process hierarchies on company
success. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(1–2), 47–55, (2008).
[10] R. Foorthuis, M. van Steenbergen, N. Mushkudiani, W. Bruls, S. Brinkkemper, R. Bos, On
Course, But Not There Yet: Enterprise Architecture Conformance and Benefits in Systems
Development. ICIS 2010 Proceedings. International Conference on Information Systems
(ICIS), (2010).
[11] R. Foorthuis, M. van Steenbergen, S. Brinkkemper, W. A. G. Bruls, A theory building study of
enterprise architecture practices and benefits. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(3), 541–
564, (2016).
[12] Y. Gong, M. Janssen, The value of and myths about enterprise architecture. International
Journal of Information Management, 46, 1–9, (2019).
[13] M. Janssen, G. Kuk, A complex adaptive system perspective of enterprise architecture in
electronic government. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS'06) (Vol. 4, pp. 71b-71b). IEEE. (2006, January).
[14] S. H. Kaisler, F. Armour, M. Valivullah, Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems.
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 224b–
224b, (2005).
[15] L. A. Kappelman, J. A. Zachman, The enterprise and its architecture: Ontology & challenges.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 87-95, (2013).
[16] C. Kluge, A. Dietzsch, M. Rosemann, How to Realise Corporate Value from Enterprise
Architecture. In J. Ljungberg & M. Andersson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th European
Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–12). IT University of Goteborg, (2006).
[17] M. Lange, J. Mendling, J. Recker, A Comprehensive EA Benefit Realization Model–An
Exploratory Study. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4230–
4239, (2012).
[18] M. Lange, J. Mendling, J. Recker, An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of
Enterprise Architecture Management success. European Journal of Information Systems,
25(5), 411–431, (2016).
[19] M. Möhring, B. Keller, R. Schmidt, K. Sandkuhl, A. Zimmermann, Digitalization and enterprise
architecture management: a perspective on benefits and challenges. SN business &
economics, 3(2), 46, (2023).
[20] E. Niemi, Enterprise architecture Stakeholders-a holistic view. AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, 41,
(2007).
[21] E. I. Niemi, S. Pekkola, Enterprise Architecture Benefit Realization: Review of the Models and
a Case Study of a Public Organization. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances
in Information Systems, 47(3), 55–80, (2016).
[22] E. Niemi, S. Pekkola, The Benefits of Enterprise Architecture in Organizational
Transformation. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 62(6), 585–597, (2020).
[23] J. Nurmi, M. Pulkkinen, V. Seppänen, K. Penttinen, Systems Approaches in the Enterprise
Architecture Field of Research: A Systematic Literature Review. In Lecture Notes in Business
Information Processing (No. 334). Springer International Publishing. (2019).
[24] T. Parker, G. Doucet, The strategic dimension of enterprise architecture. G. Doucet, J. Gøtze,
P. Saha, S. Bernard: Coherency Management–Architecting the Enterprise for Agility,
Alignment and Assurance, 157-177, (2009).
[25] L. S. Rodrigues, L. Amaral, Issues in Enterprise Architecture Value. Journal of Enterprise
Architecture, 6(4), 27–32, (2010).
[26] F. Saleem, B. Fakieh, Enterprise Architecture and Organizational Benefits: A Case Study.
Sustainability, 12(19), Article 19. (2020).
[27] V. Seppänen, From problems to critical success factors of enterprise architecture adoption.
Jyväskylä studies in computing, (201), (2014).
[28] V. Seppänen, K. Penttinen, M. Pulkkinen, Key issues in enterprise architecture adoption in
the public sector. Electronic journal of e-government, 16(1). (2018).
[29] G. Shanks, M. Gloet, I. A. Someh, K. Frampton, T. Tamm, Achieving benefits with enterprise
architecture. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(2), 139-156, (2018).
[30] T. Tamm, P. Seddon, G. Shanks, P. Reynolds, How Does Enterprise Architecture Add Value to
Organisations? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(1). (2011).
[31] T. Tamm, P. Seddon, G. Shanks, P. Reynolds, How Does Enterprise Architecture Add Value to
Organisations? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(1). (2022).
[32] The Open Group. (2018, May 4). TOGAF. The Open Group Website.
[33] R. van de Wetering, S. Kurnia, S. Kotusev, The effect of enterprise architecture deployment
practices on organizational benefits: a dynamic capability perspective. Sustainability,
12(21), 8902, (2020).
[34] S. Kurnia, S. Kotusev, G. Shanks, R. Dilnutt, P. Taylor, S. K. Milton, Enterprise architecture
practice under a magnifying glass: linking artifacts, activities, benefits, and blockers.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 49(1), 34, (2021).
A. Perceived EAM value results
AVG. PERCEIVED EAM VALUE Category after Gong and
Janssen (2019)
Most frequently experienced
3,07 Higher solutions integration (V30) Integration and
interoperability related
3,05 Better communication and information sharing (V17) Communicational
3,02 Improved transparency of dependencies (V14) Knowledge management
related
3,02 Better decision making (V3) Strategic and political
Experienced
2,98 Increased business/IT alignment (V2) Strategic and political
2,98 Better management of complexity in projects (V22) Transformational
2,95 Better compliance with regulations, standards, and Strategic and political
quality requirements (V6)
2,93 Increased control on organizational complexity (V4) Strategic and political
2,93 Increased project quality (V21) Transformational
2,93 Clear requirements and restrictions (V26) Transformational
2,92 Improved operational excellence (V5) Strategic and political
2,89 Common vocabulary (V19) Communicational
2,86 Improved business continuity (V7) Strategic and political
2,85 Better data integration (V32) Integration and
interoperability related
2,85 Increased upfront detection of development problems Other
(V43)
2,85 Easier scoping of development projects (V46) Other
2,84 Improved risk management / less risky operations (V8) Strategic and political
2,83 Increased reusability of IT assets (V34) Integration and
interoperability related
2,82 Increased organization-wide standardization, Integration and
integration, and deduplication of assets interoperability related
(V31)
2,81 Increased organizational learning (V12) Knowledge management
related
2,79 Better project efforts alignment with overall corporate Transformational
strategy (V20)
2,78 Availability of information on EA (V18) Communicational
2,76 Improved/harmonized business processes Integration and
(V33) interoperability related
2,73 Increased process synergies (V35) Integration and
interoperability related
2,71 Create competitive advantage (V11) Strategic and political
2,68 Clear overview of organization (V13) Knowledge management
related
2,67 Less inconsistency and redundancy in IT (V36) Integration and
interoperability related
2,66 Better resource management (V9) Strategic and political
2,65 Lower IT resource heterogeneity (V37) Integration and
interoperability related
2,65 Lower IT costs (V41) Economic
2,59 Dissolution of information silos (V15) Knowledge management
related
2,52 Increased business stability (V10) Strategic and political
2,50 Lower operational costs (V40) Economic
Less frequently experienced
2,49 Improved organizational capability to change Transformational
(V23)
2,47 Increased ability to respond to customer and market Flexibility and agility
needs (V38) related
2,45 Increased adoption of modern technologies Other
(V44)
2,43 Lower project costs (V42) Economic
2,40 Better management of external relationships Inter-organizational
(V27)
2,38 Increased strategic agility (V39) Flexibility and agility
related
2,37 Faster project initialization (V24) Transformational
2,32 Timely completion of projects (V25) Transformational
2,32 Better understanding of organization’s vision Knowledge management
(V16) related
2,31 Faster time-to-market and delivery (V45) Other
2,28 Improved innovation capabilities (V47) Other
2,21 Increased external collaboration (V29) Inter-organizational
2,13 Increased customer intimacy (V28) Inter-organizational