Advertisement

Stakeholder Perception of Enterprise Architecture

  • Bas van der Raadt
  • Sander Schouten
  • Hans van Vliet
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5292)

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture (EA) is increasingly being used by large organizations to get a grip on the complexity and inflexibility of their business processes, information systems and technical infrastructure. Although seen as an important instrument to help solve major organizational problems, effectively applying EA seems no easy task. Efficient collaboration between architects and EA stakeholders is one of the main critical success factors for EA. The basis for efficient collaboration between architects and EA stakeholders is mutual understanding. In EA research, there has been much focus on the role of the architect; there is little research on the EA stakeholder. In this article we present the cognitive structure of four EA stakeholder groups, revealing how they expect the EA function to help them achieve their goals. With this we gain understanding of the EA stakeholder and provide the basis for better collaboration between architects and EA stakeholders.

Keywords

Enterprise Architecture Organizational Function Stakeholder Perception Efficiency Effectiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pablo, A.L.: Determinants of Acquisition Integration Level: A Decision-Making Perspective. The Academy of Management Journal 37(4), 803–836 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myers, B.L., Kappelman, L.A., Prybutok, V.R.: A comprehensive model for assessing the quality and productivity of the information systems function: toward a theory for information systems assessment. In information Systems Success Measurement. In: Garrity, E.J., Sanders, G.L. (eds.) Idea Group Information Technology Management Series, pp. 94–121. IGI Publishing, Hershey (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore, G.A.: Strategy and your stronger hand. Harvard Business Review 83(12), 62–71 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    April, A., Huffman Hayes, J., Abran, A., Dumke, R.: Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SMmm): the software maintenance process model. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 17(13), 197–223 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van der Raadt, B., Van Vliet, J.C.: Designing the Enterprise Architecture Function. In: Fourth International Conference on the Quality of Software-Architectures (QoSA 2008) (March 2008) (to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van der Raadt, B., Soetendal, J., Perdeck, M., Van Vliet, H.: Polyphony in Architecture. In: Proceedings 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), pp. 533–542. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Raadt, B., Slot, R., Van Vliet, H.: Experience Report: Assessing a Global Financial Services Company on its Enterprise Architecture Effectiveness Using NAOMI. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2007), p. 218b. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (January 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mulholland, A., Macaulay, A.L.: Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework. Capgemini (2006), http://www.capgemini.com/services/soa/ent_architecture/iaf/
  9. 9.
    Kruchten, P.: The Software Architect. In: Donohoe, P. (ed.) Software Architecture (WICSA1), pp. 565–583. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peterson, R.: Crafting Information Technology Governance. Information Systems Management 21(4), 7–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nutt, P.C.: Types of Organizational Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(3), 414–450 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L.: Delivering quality service: balancing customer perceptions and expectations. The Free Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutman, J.: Means–End Chains as Goal Hierarchies. Psychology & Marketing 14(6), 545–560 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boh, W., Yellin, D.: Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in Managing Information Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3), 163–207 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smolander, K., Päivärinta, T.: Describing and Communicating Software Architecture in Practice: Observations on Stakeholders and Rationale. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, pp. 117–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Voss, R., et al.: Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. J. Bus Res. (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weick, K.E.: The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading (1979)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brewer, G.D.: Assessing Outcomes and Effects. In: Cameron, K.S., Whetten, D.A. (eds.) Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. Academic Press, San Diego (1983)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bettis, R.A., Prahalad, C.K.: The Dominant Logic: Retrospective and Extension. Strategic Management Journal 16(1), 5–14 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindström, Å., Johnson, P., Johansson, E., Ekstedt, M., Simonsson, M.: A survey on CIO concerns-do enterprise architecture frameworks support them? Information Systems Frontiers 8(2), 81–90 (2006) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clerc, V., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: The Architect’s Mindset. In: Overhage, S., Szyperski, C.A., Reussner, R., Stafford, J.A. (eds.) QoSA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4880, pp. 231–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bas van der Raadt
    • 1
  • Sander Schouten
    • 1
  • Hans van Vliet
    • 2
  1. 1.CapgeminiGlobal Financial Services / Architecture & Governance ImprovementUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations