Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

ECIS 2013 Completed Research ECIS 2013 Proceedings

7-1-2013

Enterprise Architecture Principles In Research AndPractice: Insights From An Exploratory AnalysisMohammad Kazem HakiUniversity of Lausanne, HEC, Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland, kazem.haki@unil.ch

Christine LegnerUniversity of Lausanne, HEC, Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland, christine.legner@unil.ch

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr

This material is brought to you by the ECIS 2013 Proceedings at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in ECIS 2013Completed Research by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org.

Recommended CitationHaki, Mohammad Kazem and Legner, Christine, "Enterprise Architecture Principles In Research And Practice: Insights From AnExploratory Analysis" (2013). ECIS 2013 Completed Research. Paper 204.http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2013_cr/204

ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE PRINCIPLES IN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: INSIGHTS FROM AN

EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS Haki, Mohammad Kazem, Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC), University of

Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, kazem.haki@unil.ch Legner, Christine, Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC), University of

Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, christine.legner@unil.ch

Abstract Even though architecture principles were first discussed in the 1990s, they are still perceived as an underexplored topic in enterprise architecture management research. By now, there is an increasing consensus about EA principles’ nature, as well as guidelines for their formulation. However, the extant literature remains vague about what can be considered suitable EA design and evolution guidance principles. In addition, empirical insights regarding their role and usefulness in practice are still lacking. Accordingly, this research seeks to address three questions: (1) What are suitable principles to guide EA design and evolution? (2) What usage do EA principles have for practitioners? (3) Which propositions can be derived regarding EA principles’ role and application? Opting for exploratory research, we apply a research process covering critical analysis of current publications as well as capturing experts’ perceptions. Our research ontologically distinguishes between principles from nonprinciples, proposes a validated set of meta-principles, and clarifies principles’ application, role, and usefulness in practice. The explored insights can be used as guidelines in defining suitable principles and turning them into an effective bridge between strategy and design and a guide in design decisions.

Keywords: Enterprise architecture management, architecture principles, exploratory research, expert study

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

1

1 Introduction

Enterprise architecture management (EAM) has become one of IT executives’ top priorities (Luftman and Ben-Zvi, 2011), and its foundations have matured over more than 20 years (Niemi, 2007; Radeke, 2010). The most cited definition – that of ANSI/IEEE STD 1471-2000 – defines enterprise architecture as: “the fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and evolution.” According to the aforementioned definition, EA artifacts include (1) representation models, which are conceptualized by means of different EA methods, meta-models and frameworks, as well as (2) principles, which guide architecture’s design and evolution (Winter and Aier, 2011; Fischer et al., 2010; Aier et al., 2011). Compared to the vast body of literature on the first part of the EA definition (Niemi, 2007; Radeke, 2010; Stelzer, 2010), the number of EA principles-related publications is surprisingly very limited, as noted in recent studies (Fischer et al., 2010; Stelzer, 2010; Winter and Aier, 2011; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011a; Haki and Legner, 2012). This lack of literature may mean that we are dealing with either an emerging or an underexplored topic. Since the first publication on architecture principles (Richardson et al., 1990) dates back to the 1990s, we argue that EA principles are an underexplored topic, i.e. a research topic that is still in its infancy. Notwithstanding the consensus on the nature and definition of principles, existing literature remains vague about what can considered as suitable principle for guiding EA design and evolution. There is also a lack of insight regarding principles’ application and usefulness in practice (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b).

This study seeks to address this research gap and to clarify how EA principles can be turned into an effective means to shape the EA: (1) What are suitable principles to guide EA design and evolution? (2) What usage do EA principles have for practitioners? (3) Which propositions can be derived regarding EA principles’ role and application? In view of the early research stage, we opted for an exploratory research design, covering both a literature review and an expert survey. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First, we critically analyze the current status of research so as to illustrate the research gap. We then go on to present the utilized research method and process. The subsequent sections introduce our insights from the literature review as well as expert judgments. Finally, we derive research propositions based on the consolidated findings from both research and practice.

2 Prior Work on EA Principles

To analyze the current state of research on EA principles, we conducted a systematic literature review based on the suggestions of Webster and Watson (2002) as well as Fettke (2006). Using a set of key terms (principle, architecture principle, design principle, guideline), we identified only 19 peer-reviewed publications related to EA principles in the scientific databases (AIS electronic library, ACM Digital Library, DBPL, EBSCOhost, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Science Direct, Web of Science, SpringerLink) and EA-related confe-rences (AIS-supported conferences, TEAR workshops). According to our analysis, Richard-son (1990) was the first to investigate EA principles, defining them as guidelines and rationales for the constant examination of the proposed IT target plan. Almost two decades later, OptLand and Proper (2007) as well as Stelzer (2010) found that no accepted definition of EA principles has emerged. By examining the existing body of literature in relation to their research contribution, we find that prior work concentrates on the fundamental concepts and terms; it investigates principles through: (1) suggesting an exhaustive and comprehensible definition of EA principles and shedding light on the role of principles (Stelzer, 2010; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011a; Proper and Greefhorst, 2010; Proper and Greefhorst, 2011; Fischer et al., 2010; Aier et al., 2011; Winter and Aier, 2011); (2) discussing the formulation of EA principles (Van Bommel et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 1990; Van Bommel et al., 2006; Lindström, 2006); (3) categorizing EA principles into different areas and scopes

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

2

(Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006; OptLand and Proper, 2007; Winter and Fischer, 2007); (4) suggesting a set of EA principles (Nightingale, 2009; Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Wilkinson, 2006; Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006). The most important contribution of research streams (1) and (2) is a shared understanding of EA principles’ role and definition as well as their documentation, as follows (Aier et al., 2011; Fischer et al., 2010): EA principles can be attributed to different architectural layers, should be based on business and IT strategies, and refer to the construction of an organization. Each EA principle should be described in a principle statement along with a rationale that explains why this principle is helpful in attaining a predetermined goal, as well as implications that describe how to implement this principle. Finally, metrics could be identified for each principle to measure its fulfillment. Despite EA principles’ high relevance, we know little about suitable principles and their usefulness in guiding EA design and evolution. Prior work in research streams (3) and (4) propose either company-specific principles (Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006), which may not be generalizable or generic principles, which are not explicitly studied in the EA context (Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Nightingale, 2009; Wilkinson, 2006).

3 Research Approach and Process

Our study addresses two primary research gaps, namely (1) the lack of validated EA principles so as to turn them into an effective means to shape EA (Radeke, 2011; Stelzer, 2010), and (2) the lack of insights about principles’ application, role and usefulness in practice (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b). Since we are examining an underexplored topic, we opted for an exploratory research approach and designed our research process in three phases (see Figure 1). Using a multimethod approach, we combined an extensive literature review with an exploratory expert study. Mixing methods can lead to new insights and modes of analysis that are unlikely to occur if one method is used alone (Kaplan and Duchon, 1988).

In Phase 1, we reviewed the extant literature in order to collect proposed EA principles and extract statements about principles’ application and role in EAM efforts. In total, we identified 152 proposed EA principles and coded them based on their statement, implications, and rationales (Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006; Van Bommel et al., 2006). The results formed the basis of an ontological analysis to distinguish between principles and nonprinciples. We finally consolidated and classified the remaining principles in several rounds so as to synthesize the main categories of principles (meta-principles).

Phase 2 comprised an exploratory expert study, which is suitable for smaller sample sizes to develop and test explanations, particularly in the early research stages (Hakim, 1987). It was conducted in two steps so as to refine and validate or enhance the statements and set of meta-principles. In the first step, exploratory interviews were organized with two experienced enterprise architects in banking and insurance industries. Each interview lasted two hours on average and resulted in complementary statements and principles based on interviewees’ experience and observations. We then conducted a questionnaire-based exploratory survey, which is the most effective way to rigorously collect opinions and ask experts to grade a variety of assessment items about a subject of interest (Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 1993; Ehrliholzer, 1995). For the refined and completed statements and principles from phase 1, we prepared a questionnaire containing scale-response (on a 5-point Likert scale) and open-ended questions -each question followed by an open question asking respondents’ own opinions. The questionnaire encompassed three sections namely general information about the company and usefulness of EA principles in EA projects, the nature and importance of EA principles, and list of principles and their pertinent metrics. Since expert sampling approach delivers more credible results on advanced topics (Bhattacherjee, 2012), respondents were chosen based on their expertise on the subject of interest. As many companies are in the early stages of EA principles adoption, we only targeted experienced practitioners with a reliable back-ground and demonstrated expertise in the field. They were selected from participants at The Open Group Conference (held in October 2012 in Barcelona) as well as from EA expert communities (reached through LinkedIn’s professional database). The sample covers 26

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

3

experts representing different sectors and company sizes. The sectors are consultancy (10), banking/finance, insurance, government (3), health (2), aerospace, defense, telcos, retail, and transportation (1). The nonconsultancy companies cover 7 large (> 5,000), 4 medium to large (1,000 to 5,000), 4 medium (100 to 1,000) and one small (< 100) organization. As (chief) enterprise/IT architects, experts had on average 10 years’ experience in EA. All except one used EA principles, either in their affiliated companies or for clients.

In Phase 3, we synthesized the findings from our literature review and the expert judgments into research propositions.

Figure 1: Research Process

4 Deriving EA Meta-principles from the Literature

As noted, we collected principles from EA literature and coded them. Along with peer-reviewed EA-related publications (Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006; Wilkinson, 2006; Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2012), we also included the principles provided by The Open Group (2011), as the most important professional resource for EA, and the ones proposed by (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b), as the only published book on EA principles. We ended up with 152 principles from seven different sources (see Table 1).

Reference Methodology Suggested principles Documentation Richardson et al., 1990

Case study: Texaco and Star Enterprise

18 principles in four architectural layers: organi-zation, application, data, and infrastructure

Statement, rationale, and implications per principle

Lindström, 2006

Case study: Vattenfall

35 principles classified in governance, out-sourcing, risk management and security, system management, environment, standardization, application, and infrastructure categories

Only list of principles

Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b

Experience-based A catalogue containing 59 principles covering different architectural layers

Type of information, quality attributes, rationale, and impli-cations per principle

Open Group, 2011

Experience-based 21 principles in four architectural layers: business, data, application, and technology

Statement, rationale, and implications per principle

Wilkinson, 2006

Conceptual insights Modularity, simplification, integration, and standardization as the main principles for adaptive EA

General description per principle

Janssen and Kuk, 2006

Insights from 11 e-government projects

8 design principles from a complex adaptive system perspective

General description per principle

Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2012

Conceptual insights 7 principles for dealing with enterprise transformation

General description per principle

Table 1: Overview of the Literature on the Proposed Principles

4.1 Ontological Analysis of EA Principles

Even though different researchers have sought to clarify the notion and the formulation of EA principles (Van Bommel et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 1990; Van Bommel et al., 2006; Lindström, 2006), we observe that there is still confusion about EA principles and its related

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

4

terms. This terminological confusion has been also observed by (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b), who proposed further investigation. We are therefore of the view that an ontological analysis is needed at the outset, to clarify the vocabulary of EA principles through a hierarchy of interrelated terms. As the explicit description of concepts and their relationships that describe the nature of a domain of discourse (Noy and Mcguinness, 2001), ontology concerns the hierarchical conceptualizations that the terms in the vocabulary are intended to capture (Chandrasekaran et al., 1999). We used an ontological analysis to assess the proposed EA principles against the basic definition of EA principles as well as the EA governance spectrum, with the purpose of distinguishing between suitable principles and nonprinciples. Table 2 shows different categories of nonprinciples resulting from our ontological analysis.

According to ANSI/IEEE STD 1471-2000, principles are used to govern architecture design and evolution. EA principles should be used to limit design space and guide design decisions (Van Bommel et al., 2006; Van Bommel et al., 2007; OptLand and Proper, 2007; Stelzer, 2010). They should concern architecture design decision points so as to harmonize IT projects towards predefined goals. Assessing the proposed principles against the definition brings us to two types of nonprinciples: The first category of nonprinciples comprises principles formulated as EA goals. It confuses principles as a means to improve EAM capabilities (Abraham et al., 2012) with the goals expected from EA. For instance, as a principle, modularity could be considered an enabler of specific goals expected from IS in general (Wiederhold, 1992) and EAM in particular (Radeke, 2011), for instance, reuse or flexibility. The expected goals should be reflected in the rationale section of principles’ documentation, but the goal itself could not be perceived as a principle. The second type of nonprinciples comprises EAM practices rather than EA principles. These nonprinciples describe how EA processes are managed effectively (Kaisler et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 2010) so as to support expected goals. Since they do not provide guidance in design decisions, they do not qualify as EA principles.

Nonprinciple Examples Differentiation from principle Confusion of principles and EAM goals (benefits)

§ Most effective use of IT as strategic tool (Richardson et al., 1990)

§ Develop competencies (Janssen and Kuk, 2006) § Maximize benefit to the enterprise (Open Group, 2011)

EAM goals are strongly associated with the rationale of principles, but do not limit the design space or guide the design decisions.

Confusion of principles and EAM practices

§ Collaboration between IT service provider and business units (Richardson et al., 1990)

§ IS planning as integral part of business planning (Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006)

§ Cost of IT/IS as part of decision for merger and acquisition (Lindström, 2006)

§ Primacy of principles (Open Group, 2011; Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2012)

EAM practices describe organizational procedures that are considered as best practices and success factors in adopting EAM. They do not provide guidance or contribute to design decisions.

Confusion with low-level governance means, representing standards and guidelines

§ Access rights must be granted at the lowest level necessary for performing the required operation (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b)

§ Access to IT systems is authenticated and authorized (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b)

§ Using formal planning and software engineering methodologies (Richardson et al., 1990)

EA principles are pervasive and concern high-level design decision points, so as to bridge strategy and design. The level of granularity is important, to define enduring principles that also reflect strategies.

Table 2: Identifying Nonprinciples

The third type of nonprinciples are derived from the EA governance spectrum (Boh and Yellin, 2006; Schmidt and Buxmann, 2011). EA governance comprises a hierarchy of governance tools that ranges from principles (high-level EA policies), to standards (a set of rules and course of action for principles), and specific guidelines (methodologies in implementation). Compared to the hierarchy of law in state governance, principles work as the articles of constitution, while standards and guidelines work as statutes, treaties, and court rules. EA principles therefore represent a high-level EA governance tool (Aziz et al., 2005; Wilkinson, 2006; Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Lindström, 2006) and involve a certain principle granularity in order to govern high-level architecture decisions as well as to guide every design decision towards the overarching architecture. Principles are pervasive in nature and their direct implication should be followed by low-level governance means, for instance standards and guidelines (Korhonen et al., 2009).

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

5

4.2 EA Meta-principles

After distinguishing between principles and nonprinciples, we further consolidated and critically assessed the proposed principles into a set of meta-principles, representing generic EA principles (see Table 3). In other words, each meta-principle could contain a bundle of related principles. The meta-principles have been derived based on the commonalities in implications and rationales of the collected principles. Hence, the principles with the same implications and rationales, supporting the same EAM capabilities (Abraham et al., 2012), were classified into the same category.

Meta-principle Principle/Description Reference Relationship to others

Modularity § Decomposition of business and applications

§ Multitier/Independent architecture § Separation of presentation and business

logic

(Richardson et al., 1990; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Lindström, 2006; Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Wilkinson, 2006)

Opposite of centralization, Prerequisite for reusability

Integration Enterprise, process, data, application, and infrastructure integration

(Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Wilkinson, 2006)

Requires interoperability and data consistency

Interoperability Compatibility and connectivity among all hardware, software, and communication components

(Richardson et al., 1990) Prerequisite for integration

Standardization § Standards for exchange of data, messages, and documents

§ Standardized programming languages, development environment, application server, applications, and processes  

(Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Lindström, 2006; Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Open Group, 2011; Wilkinson, 2006)

Can be enforced through compliance

Data consistency

§ Data maintenance at the source § Shared vocabulary and data definition

(Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Open Group, 2011)

The minimum requirement for integration

Compliance Conformity with corporate, industry-specific, and universal standards as well as existing laws and regulations

(Lindström, 2006; Open Group, 2011)

Supports standardization by setting procedures to enforce standards

Reusability § Common use applications § Reusable services

(Open Group, 2011; Lindström, 2006)

Requires modularity

Portability Operability in different hardware and software platforms

(Richardson et al., 1990; Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2012)

-

Usability § Shared look-and-feel § Ease-of-use of applications

(Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Open Group, 2011)

Requires simplicity in interface architecture

Simplicity Minimal dependencies between different modules in business and application architecture

(Wilkinson, 2006) Supports ease-of-use of applications

Centralization Consolidation and centralization of HW, SW and communication components

(Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b)

-

Table 3: Coverage of Meta-principles in the EA Principles Literature

Even though principles are considered as an advanced and underexplored topic in EA, the explored meta-principles are not new in IS literature. We hence get inspired by extant IS literature to identify their characteristics and relationships. The explored meta-principles and their relationships are as follows.

Integration: Enterprise integration concerns a set of methods, models, and tools to analyze, design, and maintain an enterprise in an integrated state (Panetto and Molina, 2008), which could be approached in different layers, such as process, application or data integration. Companies could follow this principle through, for instance, APIs, enterprise portals, and enterprise service buses that allow one application to access to others’ functionalities, single point of access to all applications, and possibilities of information exchange along the value network (Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Wilkinson, 2006).

Interoperability: Since interoperability problems are mostly detected when integrating appli-cation components, interoperability is a part of early design decisions made for architectural integration (Keshav and Gamble, 1998). Accordingly, most of the proposed principles for integration also consider interoperability among components (Richardson et al., 1990).

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

6

Data consistency: Data consistency refers to the degree to which shared data definitions and consistency in stored data have been established across an organization. It also expresses the degree to which a dataset satisfies a set of integrity constraints (Akoka et al., 2007) so that an integrated system does not lose significant functionality if the flow of services is interrupted (Panetto and Molina, 2008). EA principles relate to data consistency emphasize a shared vocabulary and data definition, seek to ensure that data is captured once and consistently through all channels, provide data by the source, and support business continuity in the case of interruptions (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Open Group, 2011).

Accordingly, interoperability and data consistency are necessary to support system integra-tion. While interoperability means coexistence, autonomy, and a federated environment, inte-gration refers to the concept of coordination (Chen et al., 2008). An integrated family of systems must be interoperable (Klischewski, 2004), but interoperable systems need not be integrated (Panetto and Molina, 2008). Furthermore, interoperable systems are by necessity consistent, but the converse is not necessarily true, i.e. data consistency is the minimum requirement for integration (Panetto and Molina, 2008).

Standardization: Standardization leads to uniformity, facilitates interaction, and provides compatibility (Buxmann et al., 1999). The adoption of this principle has a higher cost for large organizations owing to the heterogeneity of their legacy systems (Markus et al., 2006). Standardization-related EA principles recommend standardized infrastructure and develop-ment approaches throughout the organization, limit technical diversity so as to master organi-zational complexity, and propagate adherence to open standards (Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Lindström, 2006; Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Open Group, 2011). In effect, the goal is to define blueprints and best practices for architects, developers, and integrators (Wilkinson, 2006).

Compliance: EA principles for compliance could consider both the company itself and its (micro-/macro-) environment. At the company level, compliance with corporate IT archi-tecture standards or the security model are of interest (Lindström, 2006). At the environment level, compliance concerns conformity with interorganizational, industry-specific, and univer-sal standards, as well as existing laws and regulations (Lindström, 2006; Open Group, 2011).

Reusability: Reusability is an important approach in IS architecture that leads to the utiliza-tion of well-established modules with minimum error, which in turn improves maintainability, quality, portability, and software productivity (Apte et al., 1990). In EA principles, the development of applications used across the organization is always preferred over the development of deductive applications (Open Group, 2011; Lindström, 2006). It improves productivity (reducing time required for design, development, and testing) and performance, and reduces application maintenance (Apte et al., 1990).

Modularity (decomposition): Modularity is a very general set of principles for managing complexity. It builds on decomposing a complex system into components (Simon, 1962), the idea of “loose coupling” (Weick, 1976), and modular product and organization design (Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). Modularization is applied in the design of both business and IT (Langlois, 2002; Tiwana and Konsynski, 2010). A modular system is a complex of components or subsystems with minimum interdependencies among modules. Modular architecture allows components to be removed, replaced, and reconfigured in a more dynamic fashion (Benbya and McKelvey, 2006). IT architecture modularity, in turn, is the degree of an IT portfolio’s decomposition into loosely coupled subsystems that communicate through standardized interfaces (Tiwana and Konsynski, 2010). It considers each architectural layer as separate services, especially in infrastructure layer that is almost de facto (Wilkinson, 2006). Owing to the importance of modular architecture, proposed EA principles in the literature shed light on modular business and application architectures (Janssen and Kuk, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Wilkinson, 2006) as well as on the multitier/independent architecture (Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Wilkinson, 2006; Richardson et al., 1990) to obtain reusability.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

7

Simplicity: The most successful organizations become simpler over time, not more complex (Miller, 1993); this is also an important principle in EA (Wilkinson, 2006). The value of simplicity lies in managing complexity of both business (Sha, 2001) and IS (Lemberger and Morel, 2013) architectures. Simplicity concerns both interface and IS/business architecture.

Usability (ease-of-use): Simplicity brings about ease-of-use in human-machine interfaces (Lee et al., 2007). Usability has been frequently proposed as an EA principle (Richardson et al., 1990; Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b; Open Group, 2011), in the form of principles for a shared look-and-feel and to support ergonomic requirements (Open Group, 2011). However, a strong emphasis on ease-of-use, particularly at the cost of functionality, is not advisable (Adams et al., 1992).

Portability: Portability denotes the system’s ability to run in different computing environments. It leads to flexibility in hardware and vendor selection, lower cost, as well as facilitating migration to new technologies (Richardson et al., 1990). Portability-related principles also emphasize technology independence (Richardson et al., 1990; Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2012).

Centralization: This meta-principle concerns the centralization of application components throughout the organization (Lindström, 2006; Greefhorst and Proper, 2011b). Some authors question the feasibility of centralization – the opposite of modularity, pointing out the high costs associated with it (e.g. Langlois, 2002).

5 Exploring Expert Opinions of EA Principles

Relying on our insights from interviews with enterprise architects, we refined and completed the extracted statements from literature about principles’ application and role in EAM efforts. We asked experts to grade the predefined statements as well as to provide additional information, by taking advantage of scale-response and open-ended questions (Table 4).

Statement about EA principles (on a 5-point Likert scale) Mean Median

Standard deviation

App

li-ca

tion

Should have an impact on design and implementation decisions (project level) 4.38 5 0.88 Should have an impact on project proposals decisions (project portfolio level) 4.31 4 0.81 Should have impact on budgeting and investment decisions (company level) 4.08 4 1.01 Should be limited in number to be able to enforce and trace them 4.00 4 0.77

Rol

e

To guide EA’s evolution towards the intended EA design 4.31 4 0.85 To keep consistency of the overarching architecture across IT projects 4.31 5 0.95 To purposefully limit design space and architecture variations for suggested IT solutions 4.12 4 0.87

As enabler to obtain predefined benefits from EA 3.65 4 1.09 To master EA complexity 3.62 4 0.98

Use

ful-

ness

EA principles should be an integral part and essential element of EA 4.62 5 0.83 How beneficial or useful are EA principles in EA efforts? 3.8 4 1.06

EA principles are useful, but not a necessity in EA (control question) 2.27 2 1.29

Table 4: Experts’ Perceptions of EA Principles’ Role, Application, and Usefulness

First and foremost, our expert study confirms EA principles’ important role in guiding EA design and evolution. Most experts found principles completely (24%) or very (40%) useful for EA efforts in their affiliated companies or clients, while a minority considered them moderately (12%) or in some cases (24%) useful. As underpinned by a mean equal/over 3.5 and median equal/over 4 (out of 5), most experts believe that EA principles should be an inte-gral part and essential element of EA and should be considered a necessity. They confirm the view of principles as a means to impact architectural decisions at different levels, i.e. design and implementation decisions, project proposals decisions, and budgeting decisions. EA principles’ role also has been perceived as a means to guide EA’s evolution towards the intended EA design and to keep consistency of the overarching architecture across various IT projects. EA principles are used to purposefully limit the design space and manage archi-tecture variations, particularly in application and technology layers.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

8

We also asked experts to provide the most important reasons that led their company to adopt EA principles as well as their own perceptions of principles’ application and role: The most important reason for practitioners is to utilize EA principles as a means for internal and exter-nal coherence and harmonization (as a part of EA governance). Internal harmonization con-cerns principles that shape the target architecture in different architectural layers and avoid inconsistent enterprise-level architecture decisions, in particular for nonfunctional require-ments. By preventing long debates on architecture decisions, EA principles support strategic and operational decision-making. The external harmonization concerns regulatory require-ments and industry standards. The second important reason is to emphasize and guide archi-tecture goals. Other experts believe that EA principles provide a governance model to guide policies and procedures and to develop a shared language to follow common approaches.

Most of the experts strongly emphasize that EA principles should be understandable by key stakeholders; if not, principles would not be implemented throughout the organization. This implies that supporting documents describing principles’ rationale and implications should be extended to include the terminology, which should be understood by stakeholders.

“When people understand EA principles, they say: we are using EA as intended.”

Having the support of organization’s key members and a set of complementary documents to make principles understandable for potential stakeholders guarantees principles’ intended influence on architecture, budgeting, and project proposal decisions.

“I don’t believe that doing an EA principle definition exercise is as important as having a champion for the principles who can apply them and educate the stakeholders.”

The experts believe that EA principles must consider both IT-related and business-related layers, so as to reflect the strategic intent of the business. They pointed to EA principles’ im-pact in improving EA quality through reflecting top management’s vision and supporting business and IT strategies. They also questioned the usefulness of available principles concer-ning their granularity, which are either too generic or too specific. According to experts, principles should be consistent and adequate in number. They also articulated EA principles’ role as lighthouse rather than as mandatory rules, in line with (Polacek et al., 2012).

5.1 Validated Set of Meta-principles

After exploring a set of meta-principles (see Section 4), we asked experts to grade their im-portance. As shown in Table 5, most of the proposed meta-principles were supported by practitioners. Standardization, compliance, data consistency, modularity, and reusability had significant support – as suitable EA principles. The lowest grades were assigned to portability and centralization. Most experts questioned centralization’s importance and feasibility in a modular architecture. As an open question, experts could add new principles. In most cases, they proposed either exactly the principles we proposed or suggested very similar principles, but with different wordings. They suggested encapsulation, decoupling, and decomposition, which are related to modularity; regulatory compliance and compliance to strategy as refine-ments of compliance; avoidance of redundant functions, which complements reusability; or standard orientation for standardization. The only new principles that were frequently propo-sed were technology independence and reduce technology variations. Since technology inde-pendence is highly related but more generalizable than portability, we suggest replacing por-tability with technology independence. Reducing technology variations reinforces the capabi-lities resulting from standardization. We will hence include it in the standardization principle.

Nevertheless, the confusion of EA principles and EA benefits or EA-related practices is clear from the detailed expert feedback. As examples, they proposed the expected benefits such as business flexibility, continuous transformation, maximize IT benefits, create value for shareholders, time to market, and capability generation as principles. Furthermore, some EA-related practices have been proposed as principles, for instance, investment in IT is a capital investment, and technology is an essential element of enterprise capability.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

9

Importance of meta-principles (on a 5-point Likert scale) Mean Median Standard deviation Standardization 4.38 4.5 0.77 Compliance 4.26 4 0.67 Data consistency 4.25 4 0.67 Modularity 4.13 4 0.74 Reusability 4.08 4 0.71 Interoperability 3.88 4 0.74 Integration 3.80 4 0.83 Ease-of-use (usability) of applications 3.80 4 0.85 Simplicity 3.67 3 0.81 Portability 3.33 3 0.70 Centralization 3.17 3 0.95

Table 5: Experts’ Perceptions of Meta-principles

6 Consolidation of Findings and Conclusion

Our study explores suitable meta-principles as well as their usefulness and practical role in EAM endeavors. It builds on a critical literature review along with an exploratory survey. The former ontologically clarifies the application of EA principles and suggests a set of meta-principles, whereas the latter validates and enhances the findings based on expert judgments.

Contribution Proposition EA principles’ role and application

1. In order to turn EA principles into an effective means to guide EA design and evolution, they should guide and limit design decisions.

2. EA principles have the capacity to act as an enabler to reach EA goals and benefits, and keep consistency of the overarching architecture.

3. To bridge strategy and design, principles should have a high level of granularity and should impact EA decisions in the enterprise, project portfolio management, and project levels.

4. The successful adoption of EA principles requires a limited number of principles, to be understandable by key stakeholders, and should have the support of the organization’s key members.

Meta-principles and their relations

5. Suitable EA principles for guiding EA design and evolution are: integration, interoperability, data consistency, standardization, compliance, technology independence, modularity, reusability, simplicity, and usability.

6. Interoperability, data consistency, and integration complement each other in maintaining an enterprise in an integrated state.

7. Compliance and standardization complement each other by enforcing internal and external standards as well as reducing technology variations.

8. Modularity and reusability work together to achieve modular business and IT architecture. 9. Simplicity guides design decisions through supporting applications’ ease-of-use (usability) as well as

minimizing dependencies between different architecture components. Table 6: Research Propositions

In line with literature, our study confirms that EA principles are an integral part of EAM (as a necessity) and guide EA design and evolution. Supported by ontological analysis as well as principles’ expected contribution, two points can be made about EA principles’ application. First, EA principles should be defined so that they impact design decisions and limit design space (Proposition 1). Second, they should be pervasive, enduring, and have a high level of granularity so as to reflect IT/business strategies (Proposition 3). As new insights of our study, principles contribute to prescriptive EA as an enabler to reach EA goals and benefits and keep consistency of the overarching architecture (Proposition 2). To bridge strategy and design, principles should impact EA decisions in enterprise, project portfolio management, and project levels (Proposition 3). According to the answers to open-ended questions, EA principles should be understandable by key stakeholders and have the support of organi-zation’s key members. The communication of EA principles ensures adoption of principles throughout the organization. If principles are limited in number, it is easier to enforce and communicate them (Proposition 4). Supported by findings from the literature, the validated meta-principles (Proposition 5) generate EAM capabilities towards obtaining EA benefits. We also find that certain meta-principles complement each other (Propositions 6 to 9). The experts also highlighted the complementarity of principles. In effect, some of the explored EA principles have complementary and/or contradictory convergence. The contradictory relations are due to the situational nature of EA designs and their pertinent principles, which differ from one organization to another, as outlined in EA literature (Schmidt and Buxmann, 2011; Boh and Yellin, 2006; Haki et al., 2012). According to the expert feedback, we replaced

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

10

portability with technology independence and included technology variations in the standardization principle. Table 6 summarizes the set of propositions representing the main contributions of our study in two categories: the application and role of EA principles as well as the explored set of meta-principles and their relationships.

In sum, this research confirms EA principles’ usefulness in practice and synthesizes know-ledge about how EA principles can be turned into an effective means to shape the EA. It pro-vides an empirically validated set of meta-principles and investigates their contributions to design decisions. Practitioners can benefit from a scientifically sound typology as a basis for developing company- and context-specific principles. Our study’s limitations concern the sample size in our exploratory approach, as well as our focus on EA literature, without con-sidering IS counterparts or standards (e.g. ISO/IEC 9126). We consider both as opportunity for future research. As outlook, we encourage quantitative-empirical studies to further vali-date the set of meta-principles. We also suggest investigating the complexity behind the use of principles and the detailed mechanisms to turn principles into EA capabilities and benefits.

7 References Abraham, R., Aier, S. and Winter, R. (2012). Two Speeds of EAM—A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. In S. Aier, M. Ekstedt,

F. Matthes, E. Proper, and J. L. Sanz (Eds.), Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 111–128.

Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992). Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication. MIS Quarterly, 16 (2), 227–247.

Aier, S., Fischer, C. and Winter, R. (2011). Construction and Evaluation of a Meta-Model for Enterprise Architecture Design Principles. In Proceedings of the Wirtschaftinformatik, paper 51, Zurich, Switzerland.

Akoka, J., Berti-Équille, L. and Boucelma, M. (2007). A Framework for Quality Evaluation in Data Integration Systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2007), Madeira, Portugal.

Apte, U., Sankar, C.S., Thakur, M. and Turner, J.E. (1990). Reusability-Based Strategy for Development of Information Systems: Implementation Experience of a Bank. MIS Quarterly, 14 (4), 421–433.

Aziz, S., Obitz, T., Modi, R. and Sarkar, S. (2005). Enterprise Architecture: A Governance Framework -Part I: Embedding Architecture into the Organization, Technical report, Infosys Technologies Ltd.

Benbya, H. and McKelvey, B. (2006). Toward a Complexity Theory of Information Systems Development. Information Technology & People, 19 (1), 12–34.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. University of South Florida, 2nd edition. Boh, W.F. and Yellin, D. (2006). Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in Managing Information Technology. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 23 (3), 163–207. Van Bommel, P., Buitenhuis, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S. and Proper, E. (2007). Architecture Principles – A Regulative Perspective

on Enterprise Architecture. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (EMISA), p. 47–60, St.Goar, Germany

Van Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H.A. and Weide, T.P. (2006). Giving Meaning to Enterprise Architectures: Architecture Principles with ORM and ORC. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, and P. Herrero (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1138–1147.

Buxmann, P., Weitzel, T., Westarp, F. and König, W. (1999). The Standardization Problem – An Economic Analysis of Standards in Information Systems. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology SIIT’99, p. 157–162, Aachen, Germany

Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R. and Benjamins, V.R. (1999). What are Ontologies, and Why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 14 (1), 20 –26.

Chen, D., Doumeingts, G. and Vernadat, F. (2008). Architectures for Enterprise Integration and Interoperability: Past, Present and Future. Computers in Industry, 59 (7), 647–659.

Dietz, J.L.G. and Hoogervorst, J.A.P. (2012). The Principles of Enterprise Engineering. In A. Albani, D. Aveiro, J. Barjis, W. Aalst, J. Mylopoulos, M. Rosemann, M. J. Shaw, and C. Szyperski (Eds.), Advances in Enterprise Engineering VI. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 15–30.

Ehrliholzer, R. (1995). Quality Assessment in Generalization: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. In Proceedings of the 17th International Cartographic Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Fettke, P. (2006). State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art: Eine Untersuchung der Forschungsmethode "Review" innerhalb der Wirtschaftsinformatik. In Proceedings of the Wirtschaftinformatik, p. 257–266, Vienna, Austria.

Fischer, C., Winter, R. and Aier, S. (2010). What is an Enterprise Architecture Design Principle? Towards a Consolidated Definition. In Proceedings of the Computer and Information Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 193–205.

Greefhorst, D. and Proper, E. (2011a). A Practical Approach to the Formulation and Use of Architecture Principles. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), p. 330–339, Helsinki, Finland.

Greefhorst, D. and Proper, E. (2011b). Architecture Principles: The Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture. 1st Edition. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Haki, M.K. and Legner, C. (2012). New Avenues for Theoretical Contributions in Enterprise Architecture Principles - A Literature Review. In S. Aier, M. Ekstedt, F. Matthes, E. Proper, and J. L. Sanz (Eds.), Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 182–197.

Haki, M.K., Legner, C. and Ahlemann, F. (2012). Beyond EA Frameworks: Towards an Understanding of the Adoption of Enterprise Architecture Management. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Information Systems, paper 241, Barcelona, Spain.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

11

Hakim, C. (1987). Research Design: Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research. Contemporary Social Research, (13). Allen and Unwin, London, UK.

Janssen, M. and Kuk, G. (2006). A Complex Adaptive System Perspective of Enterprise Architecture in Electronic Government. In proceeding of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), p. 71, Hawaii, USA.

Kaisler, S.H., Armour, F. and Valivullah, M. (2005). Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems. In proceeding of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), p. 224, Hawaii, USA.

Kaplan, B. and Duchon, D. (1988). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study. MIS Quarterly, 12 (4), 571–586.

Keshav, R. and Gamble, R. (1998). Towards a Taxonomy of Architecture Integration Strategies. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Software Architecture. ISAW ’98, ACM, p. 89–92, New York, USA.

Klischewski, R. (2004). Information Integration or Process Integration? How to Achieve Interoperability in Administration. In R. Traunmüller (Ed.), Electronic Government. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 57–65.

Korhonen, J.J., Hiekkanen, K. and Lähteenmäki, J. (2009). EA and IT Governance -a Systemic Approach. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, Athens, Greece.

Langlois, R.N. (2002). Modularity in Technology and Organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49 (1), 19–37.

Lee, D., Moon, J. and Kim, Y. (2007). The Effect of Simplicity and Perceived Control on Perceived Ease of Use. In Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems, paper 71, Keystone, Colorado, USA.

Lemberger, P.P. and Morel, M. (2013). Managing Complexity of Information Systems: The value of simplicity. Wiley, NJ, USA. Lindström, Å. (2006). On the Syntax and Semantics of Architectural Principles. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), p. 178, Hawaii, USA. Lucke, C., Krell, S. and Lechner, U. (2010). Critical Issues in Enterprise Architecting – A Literature Review. In Proceedings of

the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, paper 305, Lima, Peru. Luftman, J. and Ben-Zvi, T. (2011). Key Issues for IT Executives 2011: Cautious Optimism in Uncertain Economic Times. MIS

Quarterly Executive, 10 (4), 203–212. Markus, M.L., Steinfield, C.W., Wigand, R.T. and Minton, G. (2006). Industry-wide Information Systems Standardization as

Collective Action: The case of the U.S. Residential Mortgage Industry. MIS Quarterly, 30 (1), 439–465. Miller, D. (1993). The Architecture of Simplicity. The Academy of Management Review, 18 (1), 116–138. Niemi, E. (2007). Enterprise Architecture Stakeholders - a Holistic View. In Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on

Information Systems, paper 41, Keystone, Colorado, USA. Nightingale, D. (2009). Principles of Enterprise Systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Engineering

Systems MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Noy, N. and Mcguinness, D. (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Technical Report

SMI-2001-0880, Stanford Medical Informatics. Open Group (2011). TOGAF Version 9.1 - The Open Group Architecture Framework. The Open Group. OptLand, M. and Proper, E. (2007). Impact of Principles on Enterprise Engineering. In Proceedings of the 15th European

Conference on Information Systems, paper 113, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Panetto, H. and Molina, A. (2008). Enterprise Integration and Interoperability in Manufacturing Systems: Trends and Issues.

Computers in Industry, 59 (7), 641–646. Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K.L. (1993). Survey Research Methodology in Management Information Systems: An

Assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (2), 75-105. Polacek, G.A., Gianetto, D.A., Khashanah, K. and Verma, D. (2012). On Principles and Rules in Complex Adaptive Systems: A

Financial System Case Study. Systems Engineering, 15 (4), 433-447. Proper, E. and Greefhorst, D. (2011). Principles in an Enterprise Architecture Context. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 7 (1),

8–16. Proper, E. and Greefhorst, D. (2010). The Roles of Principles in Enterprise Architecture. In E. Proper, M. M. Lankhorst, M.

Schönherr, J. Barjis, and S. Overbeek (Eds.), Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 57–70.

Radeke, F. (2010). Awaiting Explanation in the Field of Enterprise Architecture Management. In Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, paper 442, Lima, Peru.

Radeke, F. (2011). Toward Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management’s Role in Strategic Change: Antecedents, Processes, Outcomes. In Proceedings of the Wirtschaftinformatik, paper 62, Zurich, Switzerland.

Richardson, G.L., Jackson, B.M. and Dickson, G.W. (1990). A Principles-Based Enterprise Architecture: Lessons from Texaco and Star Enterprise. MIS Quarterly, 14 (4), 385–403.

Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (1996). Modularity, Flexibility and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 63–76.

Schmidt, C. and Buxmann, P. (2011). Outcomes and Success Factors of Enterprise IT Architecture Management: Empirical Insight from the International Financial Services Industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (2), 1–18.

Sha, L. (2001). Using Simplicity to Control Complexity. IEEE Software, 18, 20–28. Simon, H.A. (1962). The Architecture of Complexity. In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (6), 467–482. Stelzer, D. (2010). Enterprise Architecture Principles: Literature Review and Research Directions. In A. Dan, F. Gittler, and F.

Toumani (Eds.), Service-Oriented Computing. ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 12–21. Tiwana, A. and Konsynski, B. (2010). Complementarities Between Organizational IT Architecture and Governance Structure.

Information Systems Research, 21 (2), 288–304. Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly,

26 (2), 13–23. Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (1), 1–19. Wiederhold, G. (1992). Mediators in the Architecture of Future Information Systems. The IEEE Computer Magazine, 25 (3), 38

–49. Wilkinson, M. (2006). Designing an “Adaptive” Enterprise Architecture. BT Technology Journal, 24, 81–92. Winter, R. and Aier, S. (2011). How are Enterprise Architecture Design Principles Used? In Proceeding of the Fifteenth IEEE

International EDOC Conference Workshops, Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR), IEEE, p. 314-321, Helsinki, Finland.

Winter, R. and Fischer, R. (2007). Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3, 1–12.

Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

12