IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infsem/v19y2021i1d10.1007_s10257-020-00484-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enterprise architects and stakeholders alignment framework in enterprise architecture development

Author

Listed:
  • Hamood Al-Kharusi

    (Alumni of Middle East College)

  • Suraya Miskon

    (Universiti Teknologi Malaysia)

  • Mahadi Bahari

    (Universiti Teknologi Malaysia)

Abstract

Literature has highlighted the need for an alignment framework to support enterprise architects to align the development process of EA with the stakeholders’ goals. Hence, this study developed an alignment framework to align the EA development process with the stakeholders to produce an agreed architecture. Multiple Perspectives Theory (MPT) was used to develop an initial research model that provided the guidance in data collection and analysis. The Government Architecture Framework (GAF) of the Omani public sector was used as a qualitative case study and 15 interviews conducted with the architects and the stakeholders who participated in the development of GAF. The findings showed that 12 alignment factors influenced the development of GAF which are standardization, development scope, principles, governance, top management support, culture, commitment, awareness, communication, value of EA, change management capability and experience. These factors were used as the base to develop the alignment framework. The framework was validated through a focus group session with GAF architects. As a conclusion, the study has shown that the alignment framework provides a comprehensive understanding for the practitioners and the academicians about the factors and their influences at each EA development step in the public sector of Oman.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamood Al-Kharusi & Suraya Miskon & Mahadi Bahari, 2021. "Enterprise architects and stakeholders alignment framework in enterprise architecture development," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 137-181, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infsem:v:19:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10257-020-00484-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10257-020-00484-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10257-020-00484-2
    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/s10257-020-00484-2?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. Hamood Al-Kharusi & Suraya Miskon & Mahadi Bahari, 2018. "Enterprise Architecture Development Approach in the Public Sector," International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS), IGI Global, vol. 14(4), pages 124-141, October.
    2. Mitroff, Ian I. & Linstone, Harold A., 1993. "The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 88-89.
    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. Bokolo Anthony Jnr & Sobah Abbas Petersen, 2023. "Using an extended technology acceptance model to predict enterprise architecture adoption in making cities smarter," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 36-53, March.
    2. Yiwei Gong & Marijn Janssen, 2023. "Why Organizations Fail in Implementing Enterprise Architecture Initiatives?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1401-1419, August.

    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. Gu, Jifa & Tang, Xijin, 2005. "Meta-synthesis approach to complex system modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(3), pages 597-614, November.
    2. Gerald Zaltman, 2016. "Marketing’s forthcoming Age of imagination," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(3), pages 99-115, December.
    3. Wilburn, Kathleen M. & Wilburn, H. Ralph, 2016. "Asking “What Else?” to identify unintended negative consequences," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 213-221.
    4. Sandra M. Richardson & James F. Courtney & David B. Paradice, 2001. "An Assessment of the Singerian Inquiring Organizational Model: Cases from Academia and the Utility Industry," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 49-62, March.
    5. Georgios K. Vasios & Andreas Y. Troumbis & Yiannis Zevgolis & Maria N. Hatziantoniou & Marios F. Balis, 2019. "Environmental choices in the era of ecological modernization: siting of common interest facilities as a multi-alternative decision field problem in insular setups," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 49-64, March.
    6. Steven Way & Yufei Yuan, 2014. "Transitioning From Dynamic Decision Support to Context-Aware Multi-Party Coordination: A Case for Emergency Response," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 649-672, July.
    7. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    8. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    9. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.
    10. David Ing, 2013. "Rethinking Systems Thinking: Learning and Coevolving with the World," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 527-547, September.
    11. Mark Stubbs, 2000. "Action, knowledge and business–environment research: a case for grounded constitutive process theories and a sense of audience," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 24-35, January.
    12. H V Vo & B Chae & D L Olson, 2007. "Developing unbounded systems thinking: using causal mapping with multiple stakeholders within a Vietnamese company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 655-668, May.
    13. Vidgen, Richard & Hindle, Giles & Randolph, Ian, 2020. "Exploring the ethical implications of business analytics with a business ethics canvas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(3), pages 491-501.
    14. Edison Atencio & Guillermo Bustos & Mauro Mancini, 2022. "Enterprise Architecture Approach for Project Management and Project-Based Organizations: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-25, August.
    15. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    16. Keidel, Robert W., 2013. "Strategy made simple: Thinking in threes," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 105-111.
    17. Mark Stubbs & Mark Lemon & Phil Longhurst, 2000. "Intelligent Urban Management: Learning to Manage and Managing to Learn Together for a Change," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(10), pages 1801-1811, September.
    18. Gerald Midgley & Erik Lindhult, 2021. "A systems perspective on systemic innovation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 635-670, October.
    19. HULPUȘ Ioana & HULPUȘ Alexandru, 2023. "Sustainable Development Perspectives Of Romanian Justice System In The 2030 Agenda Context," Management of Sustainable Development, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 15(2), pages 87-93, December.
    20. Claudiu BOCEAN, 2006. "Pledging for New Conceptual Perspectives in Decision-Making Process," Management and Marketing Journal, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 4(1), pages 107-112, November.

    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:infsem:v:19:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10257-020-00484-2. 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.