Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry

Abstract

Within the last decades, corporate information technology (IT) environments have approached considerable degrees of complexity. As a consequence, IT has become increasingly difficult to manage resulting in high costs and poor flexibility. Today, it is generally acknowledged that the sustainability of corporate IT environments can only be ensured through a continuous and long-term management on the level of the Enterprise (IT) Architecture (EA). To address this, many firms have implemented a dedicated Enterprise (IT) Architecture Management (EAM) function. However, little is known yet on the effectiveness of such functions and the factors influencing EAM success. Within this research, we thus seek to answer two main questions: (1) do firms adopting EAM perform better with regard to high-level information management objectives like IT flexibility and IT efficiency, and if so, (2) what are the critical success factors in attaining these goals? To answer these questions, a field survey was conducted within the international financial services industry. The results provide evidence that the implementation of an EAM function is in fact supportive in the creation and sustainment of IT efficiency and IT flexibility. Several factors are shown to be of critical importance for achieving these goals with architectural governance being the most important one.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Allen BR and Boynton AC (1991) Information architecture: in search of efficient flexibility. MIS Quarterly 15 (4), 435–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagozzi RP (1979) The role of measurement in theory construction and hypothesis testing: toward a holistic model. In Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing (FERRELL OC, BROWN SW and LAMB CW, Eds), pp 15–32, American Marketing Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ball NL, Adams CR and Xia W (2004) IS/IT architecture: an integrated view and typology. In Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (BULLEN C and STOHR E, Eds), pp 3753–3761, Association for Information Systems, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beimborn D, Franke J, Wagner H and Weitzel T (2006) Strategy matters: the role of strategy type for IT business value. In Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems (CHIDAMBARAM L and RAM S, Eds), pp 588–597, Association for Information Systems, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bernus P and Schmidt G (2006) Architectures of information systems. In Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems (BERNUS P, MERTINS K and SCHMIDT G, Eds), pp 1–9, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boh WF and Yellin D (2006) Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 23 (3), 163–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boh WF, Yellin D, Dill B and Herbsleb JD (2003) Effectively managing information systems architecture standards: an intra-organization perspective. In Proceedings of the MISQ Special Issue Workshop: Standard Making: A Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems (KING JL and LYYTINEN K, Eds), pp 171–187, Association for Information Systems, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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 (JAKOBS K and WILLIAMS R, Eds), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Byrd TA and Turner ED (2000) Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal of Management Information Systems 17 (1), 167–208.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (MARCOULIDES GA, Ed.), pp 295–336, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chin WW and Gopal A (1995) Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs. DATABASE of Advances in Information Systems 26 (2&3), 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chin WW, Marcolin BL and Newsted PR (1996) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems (MAGGI L, ZMUD R and WETHERBE J, Eds), Association for Information Systems, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chung SH, Byrd TA, Lewis BR and Ford FN (2005) An empirical study of the relationships between IT infrastructure flexibility. Mass Customization, and Business Performance. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 36 (3), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chung SH, Rainer R and Lewis BR (2003) The impact of information technology infrastructure flexibility on strategic alignment and applications implementation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 11 (11), 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing 16 (1), 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dibbern J, Chin WW and Heinzl A (2005) The impact of human asset specificity on the sourcing of application services. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Information Systems in a Rapidly Changing Economy (BARTMANN D, RAJOLA F, KALLINIKOS J, AVISON D, WINTER R, EINDOR P, BECKER J, BODENDORF F, WEINHARDT C, Eds), ibi Research, Regensburg.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Doherty NF, Marples CG and Suhaimi A (1999) The relative success of alternative approaches to strategic information systems planning: an empirical analysis. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8, 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Donaldson T and Preston L (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drucker PF (1974) Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Duncan NB (1995) Capturing flexibility of information technology infrastructure: a study of resource characteristics and their measure. Journal of Management Information Systems 12 (2), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Earl MJ (1993) Experiences in strategic information systems planning. MIS Quarterly 17, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferstl OK and Sinz EJ (2006) Modeling of business systems using SOM. In Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems (BERNUS P, MERTINS K and SCHMIDT G, Eds), pp 347–367, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gefen D, Straub DW and Boudreau M (2000) Structural equation modeling techniques and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of AIS 7 (7), 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grover V and Segars AH (2005) An empirical evaluation of stages of strategic information systems planning: patterns of process design and effectiveness. Information & Management 42 (5), 761–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Harman HH (1967) Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Henseler J and Chin WW (2010) A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 17 (1), 82–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hjort-Madsen K (2006) Enterprise architecture implementation and management: a case study on interoperability. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (SPRAGUE R, Ed.), p 71c, IEEE Computing Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hulland JS (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal 20 (2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. IEEE Computer Society. (Ed) (2000) IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems – IEEE Std 1471–2000. IEEE Computer Society, New York.

  32. Koch C (2005) A new blueprint for the enterprise. CIO Magazine March 2005 [WWW document] http://www.cio.com/archive/030105/blueprint.html (last visited on 2006-08-25).

  33. Lehman MM (1997) Laws of software evolution revisited. In Software Process Technology – Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on Software Process Technology (EWSPT ‘96) (MONTANGERO C, Ed.), Nancy, Oktober 1996, pp 108–124, Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lewis B, Templeton G and Byrd TA (2005) A methodology for construct development in MIS research. European Journal of Information Systems 14 (4), 388–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Longepe C (2003) The Enterprise Architecture IT Project – The Urbanisation Paradigm. Kogan Page Science, London, Sterling.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Longepe C (2007) How EA has impacted business transformation in French companies. Presentation at the Open Group EA Practitioners Conference Paris, April 2007 [WWW document] http://urba-ea.com/fichiers/ref/ref0704174359772.ppt (last visited on 2008-02-01).

  37. Luftman J (2005) Key issues for IT executives 2004. MIS Quarterly Executive 4 (2), 269–286.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Martin N, Gregor S and Hart D (2004) Using a common architecture in Australian e-Government: the case of smart service Queensland. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce (JANSSEN M, SOL HG, WAGENAAR RW, Eds), pp 516–525, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Murer S (2005) Architecture management at credit Suisse. Efma(g) 197, 47–49.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Namba Y (2005) City planning approach for rebuilding enterprise information systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology.

  41. Ness LR (2005) Assessing the relationships among IT flexibility, strategic alignment, and IT effectiveness: study overview and findings. Journal of Information Technology Management 16 (2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Niemann KD (2006) From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance: Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Office of Management and Budget. (Ed) (2005) FEA consolidated reference model document. [WWW document] www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/CRM.pdf (last visited on 2006-05-10).

  45. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Porter ME and Millar VE (1985) How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review 63 (4), 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pouloudi A (1999) Aspects of the stakeholder concept and their implication for information systems development. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (SPRAGUE RH, Ed.), pp 7030–7046, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pulkkinen M (2006) Systemic management of architectural decisions in enterprise architecture planning: four dimensions and three abstraction levels. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (SPRAGUE R, Ed.), p 179, IEEE Computing Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rajput VS (2004) The profession of the enterprise architect. Fawcette Technical Publications Online Article from 2004-05-20 [WWW document] http://www.ftponline.com/ea/magazine/spring/online/vrajput_05_20_04 (last visited on 2007-09-25).

  50. Ringle CM, Wende S and Will A (2005) SmartPLS 2.0. University of Hamburg [WWW document] http://www.smartpls.de.

  51. Sassoon J (1998) Urbanisation des Systemes d’Information. Hermes, Paris (in French).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schulte R (2002) Enterprise architecture and IT city planning. Gartner Research Note COM-17-2307.

  53. Sellin N and Keeves JP (1994) Path analysis with latent variables. In International Encyclopedia of Education (HUSEN T and NEVILLE T, Eds), 2nd edn, pp 4352–4359, Elsevier, London.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Stock-Homburg R (2006) Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (3), 558–599.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tallon PP and Kraemer KL (2003) Using Flexibility to Enhance the Alignment between Information Systems and Business Strategy: Implications for IT Business Value. Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRITO), University of California, Irvine.

    Google Scholar 

  56. The Open Group. (Ed.) (2003) TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) V. 8.1 ‘Enterprise Edition’. [WWW document] www.opengroup.org/togaf (last visited on 2006-05-10).

  57. Thompson JD (1968) Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Walbaum J (2005) Urbanisation of the information system. Efma(g) 197, 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wold H (1982) Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions. In Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction (JOERESKOG KG and WOLD H, Eds), Vol. 2, pp 1–54, North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 26, 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christian Schmidt or Peter Buxmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, C., Buxmann, P. Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. Eur J Inf Syst 20, 168–185 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.68

Download citation

Keywords

  • enterprise architecture
  • enterprise architecture management
  • EAM
  • IT architecture
  • IT governance
  • IT complexity
  • IT flexibility
  • IT efficiency