Investigating on the Role of EA Management in Mergers and
Acquisitions
Initial Findings from a Literature Analysis and an Expert Survey
Andreas Freitag and Christopher Schulz
Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstraße 3, 85748 Garching b. München, Germany
Keywords: Enterprise Architecture Management, Mergers and Acquisitions, Literature Analysis, Expert Survey.
Abstract: Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) lead to substantial changes for the companies involved. The resulting
enterprise transformation is challenging as it includes, among others, elements like business processes,
organizational units, applications, data, and infrastructure components. Enabling the alignment of business
and information technology (IT), the discipline of Enterprise Architecture (EA) management provides a
holistic perspective on those elements as well as their relationships. Moreover, EA management fosters
communication and provides a consistent information base and therefore is able to contribute to the success
of M&A. However, currently there exists only little work investigating on the role, benefit, and usage of EA
management in M&A. In this paper, we therefore peruse EA management literature to identify tasks and
artifacts beneficial for this type of enterprise transformation. Furthermore, we compare these findings with
the results of a survey conducted among experts at three European EA management conferences. Both,
literature analysis and expert survey help to build a basis for further research regarding the application of
EA management during M&A.
1 MOTIVATION
Over the past century, the appearance of Mergers &
Acquisitions (M&A) remained remarkably high. As
an ongoing trend, enterprises increasingly establish
M&A as a strategic management instrument (Gerds
& Schewe 2009; Jansen 2008). Regarding the future,
analysts likewise predict a high level of M&A
activities (Capital 2011). Consequently, for many
enterprises M&A are not considered as individual
events, but rather represent common instruments of
modern business strategies.
M&A affect the whole enterprise and result in a
multitude of complex transformation projects (Gerds
& Schewe 2009; Jansen 2008; Penzel 1999). The
transformation includes the majority of an
enterprise’s domains, among others, elements like
business strategy, financials, law, products,
processes, applications, and infrastructure. Figure 1
depicts a typical M&A process which consists of
three phases: merger planning, transaction, and post-
merger integration (PMI). Along this way, it
includes activities relating to different
interdependent management disciplines involving a
variety of special experts as well as internal and
external stakeholders (Jansen 2008; Picot 2008).
Figure 1: M&A process.
The merger planning phase typically includes
strategic planning of M&A activities, analysis of the
environment, identification of candidates, and a
high-level valuation of possible target scenarios. The
transaction phase starts with the initial contact and
negotiations with a target enterprise. This phase
includes financial planning, due diligence, pre-
closing integration planning, and corporate
valuation. It ends with the official announcement of
the merger, contract signing, antitrust clearance and
is completed with the final closing that includes the
payment. At this time the formerly independent
enterprises close their deal and legally become one
single company. During the PMI phase, a post-
closing integration plan is worked out allowing to
implement the integration of strategy, organization,
business processes, systems, administration,
107
Freitag A. and Schulz C.
Investigating on the Role of EA Management in Mergers and AcquisitionsInitial Findings from a Literature Analysis and an Expert Survey.
DOI: 10.5220/0004461601070112
In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD 2012), pages 107-112
ISBN: 978-989-8565-26-6
Copyright
c
 2012 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

operations, culture, and external relationships of the
enterprise. Further activities include monitoring of
progress, a formal post-merger audit, and a possible
follow-up restructuring (Jansen 2008; Picot 2008).
Enterprise Architecture (EA) management is an
approach for analyzing, planning, and controlling as-
is and target states of the enterprise in terms of
business, information systems, and technology
architecture, based on an overarching EA model
(Aier, Riege & Winter 2008; Buckl & Schweda
2011). Thereby, the main benefits EA management
offers are (cf. (Aier, Riege & Winter 2008; Buckl &
Schweda 2011; The Open Group 2009)):
 Creation of a holistic perspective on the
enterprise, comprising business & IT elements
 Foster communication by defining a common
language for multidisciplinary stakeholders
 Gathering information from differing sources
and provisioning of consistent decision base
These aspects are considered as challenges
enterprises are confronted with during M&A (Gerds
& Schewe 2009; Picot 2008; Penzel 1999). By
contrast, different authors (e.g., van den Berg & van
Steenbergen 2010; Ross, Weil & Robertson 2006)
explicitly propose EA management as a holistic
approach for enterprise transformation. However,
the application of EA management methods and
models in enterprise transformations like M&A has
not been subject to in-depth research yet. In this
paper we therefore address five central questions
detailing the role of EA management in M&A from
a literature and industry perspective. Thereby, the
questions range from general to specific:
 Is there a general reference to M&A in EA
management literature?
 For which phases of an M&A process is EA
management relevant?
 Which are typical EA management tasks
carried out during M&A?
 Which EA management artifacts are used to
perform these tasks?
 Have these artifacts been designed and/or
evaluated by empirical means?
To answer these questions we follow a three-fold
approach. In the first step, we conducted a literature
analysis covering current EA management books.
Secondly, we captured the opinion of experts
attending three leading European practitioner
conferences for EA management with the help of a
survey. Lastly, we compared their experience with
our findings originating from literature.
The remainder of this article is structured as
follows: Section 2 describes the results gained by
means of the literature study. Section 3 documents
planning and execution of the expert survey and
compares its results with those from the literature
study. Finally, Section 4 concludes with a summary
complemented by a critical reflection and
indications on future research topics in this area.
2 LITERATURE ANALYSIS
2.1 Focus and Method
Over the last years, the body of knowledge with
regards to EA management matured steadily (Aier,
Riege & Winter 2008). However, the application of
this knowledge in the light of an enterprise
transformation such as M&A just starts to be subject
of research (Freitag, Matthes & Schulz, 2010; Ross,
Weill & Robertson 2006). We conducted a literature
study comprising 13 recent English and German EA
management books published between 2005 and
2011, focusing on their contribution towards M&A.
We focused our literature study on EA management
books, as they summarize findings of continuous
and quality-assured research work being gained
throughout years of research and knowledge
accumulation. Thereby, we build a solid foundation
to complement our literature study with journals and
conference papers in a next research step.
We studied EA management literature in five
stages ranging from the relationship to concrete EA
management tasks and artifacts. In Step 1 we
examined the general relationship between EA
management and M&A, i.e., if the books refer to
M&A at all, e.g., as an application domain, a use
case, or a driver. In the course of Step 2 we worked
out if the author(s) refer(s) to a distinct phase of the
M&A process in which EA management can be
applied. In Step 3 we investigated if the author(s)
address(es) a concrete M&A task being supported by
EA management. During Step 4 we identified details
on the specific artifact in terms of concrete methods,
models, or visualizations. Finally, in Step 5 we
examined the sources regarding the usage of
empirical means, e.g., interviews, case studies, or
surveys.
2.2 Analysis Results
Five EA management books, Bernard (2005),
Johnson and Ekstedt (2007), Niemann (2006),
Schekkerman (2008), Wagter et al. (2005) do not
refer to M&A at all. A second group of books refers
to M&A but does not explicitly dwell on this topic.
Proper et al. (2008, p. 6) mention M&A as one
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
108

driver for change, while Hanschke (2009, p. 328)
provides a definition of the term as part of her
book’s glossary.
Two books speak of the PMI phase as an
application domain for EA management and list
corresponding tasks (Engels et al. 2008, p. 84-86,
169, 232, 277; Keller 2006, p. 98). Engels et al.
(2008) list consolidation of business processes and
the application landscape as EA management tasks.
Additionally, they mention M&A as a reason for
data redundancies. Keller (2006, p. 98) considers
application and infrastructure consolidation as EA
management tasks during the PMI phase and
proposes patterns for application consolidation
including influence factors and risks.
Besides integration, Ross et al. (2006, p. 176-
181) mention knowledge transfer and provision of
standardized best practices as relevant EA
management tasks. The authors describe the effects
of M&A on the enterprise’s foundation for execution
and the influence of different architecture maturity
levels at the acquirer and seller company side. They
propose architectural approaches like unification,
replication, coordination that can be applied in
M&A situation. Additionally, the authors illustrate
these strategies by means of three case studies (UPS,
CEMEX, and 7eleven Japan).
In addition to the PMI phase, Schwarzer (2009,
p. 85-86) also refers to the merger planning phase, in
which EA management provides information about
necessary measures that have to be prepared and
implemented. The author points out that IT plays an
important role during M&A since it provides the
basis for the future integration of the business
processes. Furthermore, she emphasizes that EA
management helps to consolidate of IT organization
and IT landscape in the PMI phase by as-is and
target architecture planning.
The work of Lankhorst et al. (2005, p. 108-110)
focuses on EA modeling. The authors name
modeling of processes, organizational structure,
business functions, IT, applications, and services, as
well as the creation of a common understanding
among stakeholders and application consolidation as
EA management tasks during M&A. The authors
include a PMI example from the insurance industry
to demonstrate the applicability of their EA models.
Berg and Steenbergen (2010, p. 4, 25, 27, 37, 50,
134, 137) refer to M&A, including all phases, as one
application domain for EA management. Based on a
fictitious M&A example from the banking industry,
the authors motivate the importance of EA
management and the implementation of an EA
framework. The researchers propose EA
management in order to achieve synergies between
both companies being one key goal of M&A. The
EA framework can be applied to map the
architectural landscape, detect overlaps, and identify
what needs to be changed and what needs to
continue. As concrete tasks, they mention the
homogenization of infrastructure and processes and
the support of standardization.
2.3 Summary
Five authors do not bring up M&A at all, while eight
publications at least mention the topic. However,
these EA management books do not elaborate on
M&A in detail, the description of tasks remains
vague. If M&A is addressed, authors dedicate a
maximum of five pages. Most contributions are
limited to the PMI phase. EA tasks mentioned are
mostly focused on IT consolidation and integration
work as well as support of communication and
modeling. The authors do not provide concrete EA
artifacts explicitly addressing the challenges of
M&A. When it comes to empirical means, the
authors stick to fictitious examples or case studies.
3 EA MANAGEMENT SURVEY
After shedding light on the role of M&A in EA
management from a literature point of view, this
section presents the key results of a survey
conducted among EA management practitioners. In
line with the literature analysis, the survey centered
on how EA management is contributing to M&A
today as well as expectations regarding its future
role. Subsequently, we summarize the results from
the survey and compare them to the literature.
Table 1: EA management survey and participation details.
Conference name Location / Date Issued Returned
EAM Forum 2011 Frankfurt, Germany; Feb 2011 50 14 (28%)
The Open Group Architecture Practitioners Conference London, UK; May 2011 50 16 (32%)
EAMKON 2011 Stuttgart, Germany; May 2011 35 14 (40%)
Investigating on the Role of EA Management in Mergers and Acquisitions - Initial Findings from a Literature Analysis and
an Expert Survey
109

3.1 Survey Setup
In terms of the survey setup we followed the
questionnaire design process suggested by Frazer
and Lawley (2000). Aiming at a high return rate and
completeness of the answers, the survey was limited
to one page, containing 15 concise questions. The
distributed sheet was subdivided into three main
parts: participant’s background, questions about the
company’s EA management, and questions referring
to M&A. The survey was conducted at three
European EA management conferences between
February and May 2011 (cf. Table 1). We selected
these conferences on purpose as their audience
represents a homogenous sample of EA practitioners
in Europe. However, the survey sample cannot be
considered to be formally representative (cf. Mayer
2008). In total, 44 of 135 participants returned the
fully completed survey, resulting in a response rate
of 33%.
3.2 Practitioners’ Perspective and
Comparison to Literature
The first questions addressed the company’s
industry sector and the individual role of the survey
participant. From their industry background, the
participants represent a homogenous group.
Regarding their roles, the majority of participants
follow an EA management profession. Domain
architect subsumes different roles that focus on one
architecture domain (e.g. business, application, and
technology). In both charts (cf. Figure 2, 3), all
responses mentioned only once have been assigned
to the category ‘other’.
Figure 2: Participants’ background (1).
With respect to the overall relevance of M&A,
63.6 % of the participant’s companies have been
involved in M&A in the past, while 56.8 % expect
M&A to be relevant for their company in future.
With a group of four questions, we addressed the
current
role of EA management during M&A. The
Figure 3: Participants’ background (2).
support of M&A projects is seen as a responsibility
for EA management in 29.6 % of the participant’s
companies (47.7 % no, 22.7 % not specified).
Looking back, 23.3 % of the participants indicated
that in their companies, enterprise architects have
been engaged in M&A projects in the past (62.8 %
no, 13.9 % not specified). While for current
literature, M&A is considered as application domain
for EA management, the topic has still not found its
way into the minds of the practitioners.
To go into more detail regarding the role of EA
management, we asked those participants whose
companies did engage enterprise architects in M&A,
to indicate the respective process phase. As Figure 3
displays, enterprise architects mainly contribute to
the PMI phase with minor involvement in the
merger planning and transaction phase. This
situation is accounted for in current EA management
literature, where the majority of publications refer to
the PMI phase while only a small number mentions
earlier process phases.
Figure 4: EA management support per M&A phase.
In the survey we offered an additional free text
field to collect those tasks which are assigned to
enterprise architects during M&A today. The tasks
mentioned by the survey participants are mainly part
of the PMI phase or general EA management tasks,
with one exception. Regarding the PMI phase,
subsequent tasks were mentioned: integration
planning, consolidation or respectively integration of
IT and processes, business and IT integration,
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
110

migration of applications and data, and software
selection. General EA management tasks included
scoping, providing transparency, IT master planning,
target architecture design, governance, and project
management. One participant brought up due
diligence as an activity performed during the
transaction phase.
Complementary, we offered a free text field to
find out how enterprise architects could support
M&A projects in the future. Some of the tasks
mentioned here as future EA management
responsibilities have also been stated as tasks
performed today, namely: due diligence, target
architecture design, consolidation of IT and
processes, providing transparency, and project
management. In addition, the participants mentioned
the review of a target enterprise’s as-is architecture
and support of C-level management (e.g., CIO,
CTO) in decision making (e.g. by pointing out costs
of integration) which are part of the merger planning
phase. Furthermore, they stated the following
general EA management tasks: development of
integration scenarios, preparation of a business
capability roadmap, dependency analysis, providing
a consolidated information base, and mapping of
business and IT capabilities.
Similar to the asked experts, literature considers
 consolidation of organization and business
process, applications, and infrastructure,
 dependency and redundancy analysis,
 identification of focus areas (scoping) and
measures required, and
 as-is and target-architecture planning
as tasks which should be performed in the course of
the PMI phase. However, instead of providing in-
depth details perused sources solely lists those tasks.
Standardization of best-practices as well as
knowledge transfer are considered as being general
EA tasks from both, literature and participants.
Additionally, literature proposes EA modeling and
the creation of a common understanding. Both tasks
were not mentioned by the participants. In turn,
participants considered governance, project
management, due diligence, application and data
migration, preparation of business capability
roadmap, and support of management decision
making as essential EA task during M&A.
Remarkably, these activities were not addressed by
examined EA management literature.
Finally, we approached the participants with our
central question straightforward. We asked for their
opinion on the potential of EA management to
contribute to the success of M&A as a special type
of enterprise transformation. In retrospective, 60.0 %
of our survey participants stated that EA
management would have made an M&A in their
company more successful, while only a very small
percentage of 2.5 % did not see any value in
applying EA management (37.5 % not specified).
These figures show that practitioners see a real value
of EA management in the context of M&A.
Certainly, the outcome for this last question is
biased, as the majority of participants (61.4 %) were
enterprise architects who work in this management
discipline. The literature analyzed does not explicitly
confirm that the application of EA management
improves the success rate of M&A.
3.3 Summary
The survey revealed that the majority of
practitioners think that in retrospective EA
management would have made M&A more
successful. However, today only one out of three
practitioners sees support of M&A as a
responsibility of EA management while even a
smaller number was actively involved in enterprise
transformations. Nonetheless, the survey participants
pointed out several EA management tasks they
consider beneficial for M&A. These tasks were not
limited to the PMI phase. Furthermore, practitioners
stated that today EA management mainly contributes
to the PMI phase with minor involvement in the
merger planning and transaction phase.
4 CONCLUSIONS
As one special type of enterprise transformation,
M&A often struggle to capitalize the initially
expected benefits. EA management is promoted as
an approach of enterprise transformation. Given that
only minor research has been conducted regarding
the role of EA management in M&A, this paper
investigates on the topic. We perused 13 current EA
management books focusing on their contribution
towards M&A. Afterwards, findings were compared
with results from an expert survey conducted at
three European EA practitioner conferences.
As we found out in our studies, examined
literature discusses the role of EA management in
M&A only on a very general level. While current
EA practitioners consider M&A as one of their
application domains, their actual degree of
involvement was low at the time we conducted the
survey.
We are aware of the introductory character of our
results researching on EA management in the
Investigating on the Role of EA Management in Mergers and Acquisitions - Initial Findings from a Literature Analysis and
an Expert Survey
111

context M&A. Our primary goal is to provide a
starting point by incorporating findings from the
literature analysis as well as from a practitioner
survey. For this reason and the page limit constraint
of six pages, the analyzed literature was limited to
recent EA management books. An extension of
literature analysis during further research steps could
include other publication types and sources from
related research domains. Regarding the expert
survey, further work should increase the sample size,
be extended to groups other than enterprise
architects, and could be enhanced with
complementary questions detailing on specific
aspects in more detail.
In all, the expected applicability of EA
management has to be proven in practice. Therefore,
enterprise transformation and in particular M&A
remain an important research field for EA
management. Besides the communication of
empirically gained experience and lessons learned,
future research should include the design and
evaluation of concrete EA management artifacts that
can be applied during M&A.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research findings presented in this paper were
possible thanks to the support of all survey
participants. We wish to acknowledge the experts
for sharing their experiences and their time spent.
REFERENCES
Aier, S., Riege, C., Winter, R. 2008. Unternehmens-
architektur - Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis.
Wirtschaftsinformatik. 50(4):292–304.
van den Berg, M., van Steenbergen, M. 2010. Building an
Enterprise Architecture Practice. 1st ed. Springer,
Dordrecht/Netherlands.
Bernard, S. A. 2005. An Introduction to Enterprise
Architecture. 2nd ed. AuthorHouse, Breinigsville/
USA.
Buckl, S.; Schweda, C.M. 2011. On the State-of-the-Art in
Enterprise Architecture Management Literature.
Technical Report, Chair for Software Engineering of
Business Information Systems. Technische Universität
München, Munich/Germany
Capital 2011. Kenn-Ziffern zu Firmenübernahmen.
Engels, G., Hess, A., Humm, B., Juwig, O., Lohmann, M.,
& Richter, J.-P. 2008. Quasar Enterprise:
Anwendungslandschaften serviceorientiert gestalten.
1st ed.. Dpunkt.Verlag, Heidelberg/Germany.
Frazer, L., Lawley, M. 2000. Questionnaire Design and
Administration: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd, Milton/Australia.
Freitag, A., Matthes, F., & Schulz, C. 2010. A method for
consolidating application landscapes during the post-
merger integration phase. (ABICT). Wisla/Poland.
Gerds, J., Schewe, G. 2009. Post Merger Integration:
Unternehmenserfolg durch Integration Excellence.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Germany.
Hanschke, I. 2009. Strategic IT Management: A Toolkit
for Enterprise Architecture Management. 1st edition.
Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg/Germany.
Jansen, S. A. 2008. Mergers & Acquisitions:
Unternehmensakquisitionen und -kooperationen. Eine
strategische, organisatorische und kapitalmarkt-
theoretische Einführung. 5th ed. Gabler,
Wiesbaden/Germany.
Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M. 2007. Enterprise Architecture:
Models and Analyses for Information Systems
Decision Making. 1st ed. Professional Pub Serv,
Pozkal/Poland.
Keller, W. 2006. IT-Unternehmensarchitektur. Von der
Geschäftsstrategie zur optimalen IT-Unterstützung. 1st
ed. Dpunkt.Verlag; Heidelberg/Germany.
Lankhorst, M. 2005. Enterprise Architecture at Work.
Modeling, Communication and Analysis. 1st ed.
Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg/Germany.
Mayer, H. O. 2008. Interview und schriftliche Befragung.
5th ed. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, München/
Germany.
Niemann, K. 2006. From Enterprise Architecture to IT
Governance: Elements of Effective IT Management.
1st ed. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden/Germany.
Op’t Land, M., Proper, E. 2008. Enterprise Architecture:
Creating Value by Informed Governance. 1st edition.
Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg/Germany.
Penzel, H.-G. 1999. Post Merger Management in Banken
und die Konsequenzen für das IT-Management.
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 41(2):105-115.
Picot, G. 2008. Handbuch Mergers & Acquisitions. 4th ed.
Schäfer-Poeschel, Stuttgart/Germany.
Ross, J. W.; Weill, P.; Robertson, D. 2006. Enterprise
Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for
Business Execution. 1st ed. Mcgraw-Hill Professional,
Boston/USA.
Schekkerman, J. 2008. Enterprise Architecture Good
Practices Guide: How to Manage the Enterprise
Architecture Practice. 1st edition. Trafford Publishing,
Victoria/Canada.
Schwarzer, B. 2009. Einführung in das Enterprise
Architecture Management. 1st edition. Books on
Demand GmbH, Norderstedt/Germany.
The Open Group 2009. TOGAFTM Enterprise Edition
Version 9.http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/
togaf9-doc/arch/. Accessed Aug, 12th 2011.
Wagter, R., van den Berg, M., Luijpers, J., van
Steenbergen, M. 2005. Dynamic Enterprise
Architecture: How to Make It Work. 1st ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken/USA.
Second International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design
112