IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v8y2006i2d10.1007_s10796-006-7972-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A survey on CIO concerns-do enterprise architecture frameworks support them?

Author

Listed:
  • Åsa Lindström

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Pontus Johnson

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Erik Johansson

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Mathias Ekstedt

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

  • Mårten Simonsson

    (Royal Institute of Technology)

Abstract

The challenge of IT management is today considerable. In industry, the organizational role of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) has been promoted as the owner of these challenges. In spite of a general acceptance of the problems associated with the responsibilities of the CIO, very little academic research has been conducted on the issues and constraints of this role. In order to address these shortcomings, this article presents the results of a survey in which Swedish CIOs have prioritized their most important concerns. In academia, a response to the IT system management challenges has presented itself in the discipline of Enterprise Architecture. The article argues that the CIO role is the primary stakeholder of Enterprise Architecture, so his/her need for decision support should guide Enterprise Architecture research and framework development. Therefore, the article presents a brief review over how well two existing Enterprise Architecture frameworks address the surveyed concerns of the CIO. Results from the survey indicate that the three highest prioritized concerns of CIOs are to decrease the cost related to the business organization, to improve the quality of the interplay between the IT organization and the business organization and to provide new computer-aided support to the business organization. The comparison between the CIOs' prioritization and the foci of the frameworks shows some discrepancies. The largest disharmony lies in the lack of decision support for issues related to the IT organization. Furthermore, support for explicitly estimating and managing costs is lacking within the frameworks.

Suggested Citation

  • Åsa Lindström & Pontus Johnson & Erik Johansson & Mathias Ekstedt & Mårten Simonsson, 2006. "A survey on CIO concerns-do enterprise architecture frameworks support them?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 81-90, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:8:y:2006:i:2:d:10.1007_s10796-006-7972-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-006-7972-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-006-7972-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-006-7972-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anonymous, 2002. "Results of Bulletin readers survey," Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin, Reserve Bank of New Zealand, vol. 65, september.
    2. מחקר - ביטוח לאומי, 2002. "Annual Survey 2001," Working Papers 14, National Insurance Institute of Israel.
    3. ., 2002. "Population, sample and survey mode," Chapters, in: Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Morteza Alaeddini & Hamed Asgari & Arash Gharibi & Mona Rashidi Rad, 2017. "Leveraging business-IT alignment through enterprise architecture—an empirical study to estimate the extents," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 55-82, March.
    2. Montree Thirasakthana & Supaporn Kiattisin, 2021. "Sustainable Government Enterprise Architecture Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Morteza Alaeddini & Sepideh Salekfard, 2013. "Investigating the role of an enterprise architecture project in the business-IT alignment in Iran," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 67-88, March.
    4. Chulhwan Chris Bang, 2015. "Information systems frontiers: Keyword analysis and classification," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 217-237, February.
    5. Maxime Bernaert & Geert Poels & Monique Snoeck & Manu Backer, 2016. "CHOOSE: Towards a metamodel for enterprise architecture in small and medium-sized enterprises," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 781-818, August.
    6. Pontus Johnson & Robert Lagerström & Per Närman & Mårten Simonsson, 2007. "Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 163-180, July.
    7. Nino Rurua & Rik Eshuis & Maryam Razavian, 2019. "Representing Variability in Enterprise Architecture," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 61(2), pages 215-227, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gunther Tichy, 2012. "The Sovereign Debt Crisis: Causes and Consequences," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 17(2), pages 95-107, May.
    2. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    3. Anna Wisniewski, 2005. "he impact of Foreign Direct Investment on regional development in Poland," IWE Working Papers 162, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    4. Stefan T. Trautmann & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "Preference Reversals for Ambiguity Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1320-1333, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:8:y:2006:i:2:d:10.1007_s10796-006-7972-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.