Enterprise Architecture beyond the Enterprise
Extended Enterprise Architecture Revisited
Torben Tambo
Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Birk Centerpark 15, Herning, Denmark
Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, IT Strategy, Inter-Company Relations, Supply Chain Management, Principal Actor
Theory, Extended Enterprise Architecture, Inter-Organisational Information Systems.
Abstract: As the most enterprises are relying on relations to other enterprises, it is relevant to consider enterprise
architecture for inter-organisational relations particularly those relations involving technology. This has
been conceptualised as Extended Enterprise Architecture, and a systematic review of this discipline is the
topic of this paper. This paper is taking a point of departure in general theories of business-to-business
relationships along with inter-organisational information systems, interoperability and business ecosystems.
The general theories are applied to the Extended Enterprise Architecture to emphasize paradoxes, problems
and potentials in extending EA across organisational boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to review the
concept of Extended Enterprise Architecture (EEA) theoretically and empirically to identify viability of
Enterprise Architecture (EA) initiatives spanning across organisational boundaries. A case is presented of an
enterprise engaging in technology-based business process integration that in turn is explicated as enterprise
architecture initiatives with both more and less powerful partners. This paper underlines the necessity to be
able to have EA spanning initiatives across multiple enterprises, but a range of problems is illuminated
related to (lack of) precision, imbalance, heterogeneity, transformation, temporality, and (operational)
maturity. The concept of EEA is seemingly vague, however this paper calls for a strengthen emphasis on
redefining general architectural frameworks to embrace EEA in order to handle typical and modern forms of
organisational designs relying on virtual and cross-company as cornerstones.
1 INTRODUCTION
Most enterprises are increasingly dependent on
integration with its suppliers, customers, partners,
authorities, prospects, the public, and other external
stakeholders (Håkansson and Snehota, 2006).
Integration is driven by needs for efficiency,
digitization of business processes, prompt
information retrieval, and competitive advantages of
insight into partners (Lapalme et al., 2015; Goethals
et al., 2004; Turnbull et al., 1996). Several
dependencies are introduced through necessity or are
simply mandated: The enterprise must be connected
to the supply chain network, the bank, the tax
services, other controlling bodies, environmental
control organisations, etc. Dependence and
integration is, however, not to be confused with
necessarily shared objectives and joint strategies
(Engelsman et al., 2011). Dependence and
integration is more a strategic choice of the
individual organization to posit itself in inter-
organisational fabrics with aims to satisfice its
intrinsic organisational success factors. Inter-
organisational interaction is in this perspective both
representing the necessary evil and the necessary
good. Given that most organisations are highly
relying upon other organisations (Bengtsson and
Kock, 1999), it is relevant to question, if enterprise
architecture (EA) is sufficient frame of reference at
organisational level, or if enterprise architecture
beneficially can be extended to include a broader
organisational environment (Bernard, 2012).
The discipline of extended enterprise
architecture (EEA) is related to the broadening of
strategic motives and technologies from the level of
the enterprise to the enterprise in its broader,
although defined, context (Daclin et al., 2014).
Several contributions are discussing extending EA
across traditional corporate boundaries, such as
mobile computing, cloud computing, distributed
computing, and open enterprises (Lapalme et al.,
2015; Norta et al., 2014; Lee, 2013); such initiatives
are still to be regarded as controlled by the
Tambo, T.
Enterprise Architecture beyond the Enterprise - Extended Enterprise Architecture Revisited.
DOI: 10.5220/0006277103810390
In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 381-390
ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
381
individual enterprise and the EA of the enterprise.
Following in this paper, EEA is not considered as
“the greater spatiality” of the enterprise, but as the
enterprise architectures specifically aimed at
documentation and governance of collaboration and
change across at least two enterprises.
EEA is first mentioned in the scientific
literature by Winans (Winans, 1998). The most cited
contributions on EEA are by Schekkerman
(Schekkerman, 2004; Schekkerman, 2005) and
adhere to his suggestions for an Extended Enterprise
Architecture Framework (E2AF) and the Extended
Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (E2AMM).
Schekkerman is not particularly clear in the
definition of the extended aspect of the enterprise,
however, the E2AF model (4 x 6 matrix) includes a
column on “who” related to EA initiatives. “Who”
states among others definition of collaborative
partners, value generating “nets”, information
exchange and responsibilities in relation to
information, interoperability, and interconnection
between enterprises. With Schekkerman it is not
even fully clear, if it is addressing external relations
or merely extends motivations and dimensions on
existing EA frameworks. However, contributors as
(Schuck, 2010; Drews and Schirmer, 2014; Elmir et
al., 2015; Goethals et al., 2004) are all explicit on
EA with inter-organisational aspects involving a
committed relationship between enterprises.
Boardman and Clegg (2001) are in this sense
different as EEA is used literally as the (business)
architecture of the extended enterprise, and do not
related to EA theory but rather are influenced by
supply chain management. This leads also to some
analytical weaknesses on EEA: By exercising a
qualitative approach, there is a risk that enterprise
architecture, the extended enterprise as well as EEA
becomes colloquialisms with lack of formal
definitions and systematic rigor. A separate
objective of this paper is to introduce more stringent
definitions.
A risk in discussing EEA is that such a
relatively narrow concept tends to become self-
referential. Many contributors are referring to
Schekkerman. Davis et al. (2013) refers to Schuck
(2010), Bernard (2012). Elmir et al. (2015) refers to
Chalmeta and Grangel (2003), Choi et al. (2008).
This paper reviews the literature of EEA and
relates this to selected theories on inter-
organisational relations and technologies. The
further purpose of this is to identify the current state
within the EA literature and theory on how to
address EA initiatives are transcending
organisational boundaries. This entails a critical
discussion of the definition of the extended
enterprise and the feasibility of defining extra- and
inter-organisational EA initiatives.
The methodology of this chapter is qualitative,
case-based, sociologically inspired, and with
elements of interpretivism (Walsham, 1995; Chen &
Hirschheim, 2004). With regard to the elements of
formal methods in EA, the methodology is post-
positivistic and systems-oriented, although
conversion between organisational processes and
their systems representation entails disciplines such
as hermeneutics, structuration, and tacit knowledge
elicitation. This is done in the tradition of
information systems research as stipulated by
Goldkuhl (2012). The literature review of EEA is
done in major search databases (Google Scholar,
IEEE, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, ACM, Wiley,
Taylor and Francis) with EEA as the exact search
phrase. From 1998 to 2016 a total 354 references are
found. As stated above, some references are
however more colloquial in the use of EEA. Several
further references were either lacking precision on
EEA, or were narrowly aimed at using systems
theory as a theoretical frame of analysis.
2 BACKGROUND
Enterprise Architecture (EA) represents the
discipline of managing and developing the business
strategy alongside and narrowly together with the
technology of the enterprise (Bernard, 2012).
Traditionally EA has been aimed at well-defined
business functions or business units. Bernard (2012)
suggests in the EA3 cube framework to design EA
from a perspective of adjacent and strongly
interrelated line-of-businesses (LOBs). With
business strategy as a fulcrum of the EA, the
enterprise has to be regarded as an organisational
entity with the authority, motivation and capability
to define business strategy. A business conglomerate
is most likely to have EA at its LOB level. A trans-
national car manufacturer is most likely to have EA
at its top-most corporate level. In crossing
organisational or inter-firm boundaries create added
requirements for EA.
2.1 Defining the Extended Enterprise
The extended enterprise is a scholarly term for the
network of partners and parties surrounding an
enterprise and with a focus of collaboration or
interaction based on any form of desire, motivation,
need, mutual advantage, or regulatory requirements
(Buhman et al., 2005). Although an academic term,
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
382
the extended enterprise is characterised by a lose
coupling of entities i.e. a relatively vague definition
not clear on leadership or delineation although
Boardman and Clegg (2001) suggest a stronger
definition and a clearer view of the structures
described by extended enterprises. The concept of
the extended enterprise is highly related to
management studies within information systems and
manufacturing and is generally seen quite unrelated
other commonplace theories of organisational
interrelatedness. In the following three other
perspectives are presented: Supply chain
management (SCM), industrial marketing and
purchasing (IMP) and inter-organisational
information systems (IOIS).
2.2 Business Interaction from Supply
Chain Management
In SCM, any organisational activity is seen as a
consecutive order of activities aimed at transforming
any kind of raw material into finished and processed
goods that can be floated into a market (Halldorsson
et al., 2007). SCM is combining transportation,
stocking and manufacturing. To any activity within a
supply chain, a flow of information is expected, and
appropriate systems should generally be in place to
ensure optimal management of information
(Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2004). Differing
perspectives of stakeholders in supply chains are
well recognised with such perspectives ranging from
trust to opportunism to power. The principal agent
theory (PAT) would emphasize asymmetries in
business relations (Halldorsson et al., 2007). The
transaction cost analysis (TCA) is related to observe
any interfirm relation as cost related with connection
motives of cost reduction (Halldorsson et al., 2007).
The resource based view (RBV) paradigm is calling
for a necessary heterogeneity in relations to sustain
viability (Wynstra et al., 2015).
2.3 Business Relationship Management
Network theory (NT) is a lead explanatory
theoretical framework of inter-business interaction,
particularly the IMP school (Håkonsson and
Snehota, 2006) that stresses interfirm relations as
ubiquitous and the foundation of innovation and
wealth. The action is the fundamental event,
business independence is regarded as a myth as all
business depends on relations, and knowledge within
the single business is incomplete, only within
relations knowledge can be actionable. Often
business relations are seen as triads of buyers-
suppliers-costumers (e.g. farmer-diary-retailer)
(Wynstra et al., 2015) that underlines little
difference between physical products and delivery of
services. A network in the IMP sense is not neutral
to the stakeholders: In any network, there is a
centrality defined by necessity, size, elements of
power, and communication (Wynstra et al., 2015).
Depth of integration between partners in business
relations is given by collaboration, involvement,
dependency, behaviour, level of interaction, and the
relatedness between either parties to third and fourth
parties (Håkonsson and Snehota, 2006; Turnbull et
al., 1996).
Despite relationships as positive, relations are
not in any sense stable. Relations are cyclic and do
change although some last for decades. Gadde and
Mattson (1987) describe these processes as
recognised by patterns of entry and exit and describe
that even, if technological necessities bind relations
these can in practice be substituted. Episodes are
critical in establishing, maintaining and closing of
relations more universally rational processes
(Turnbull et al., 1996; Buhman et al., 2005; Wynstra
et al., 2015). The dynamics of business relationships
will constantly necessitate changes of the
technologies supporting the relationship.
2.4 Inter-Organisational Information
Systems (IOIS)
IOIS are systems that enable inter-organisational
exchange of data, integration of business processes,
shared utilisation of infrastructure and resources.
Brandt (2014) is outlining the research agenda on
IOIS recognised by (1) decision making on when to
enter IOIS, (2) measurement of impact and outcome,
(3) a representation of buyer-supplier relations, (4)
technology adoption studies. Chang et al. (2010)
states IOIS as derived from exercised power (from
either parties), executive support, and perceived
complexity; moreover IOIS performance and long-
term business relationships are demonstrated as
tightly related. Other contributors add to the issue of
investments in IOIS and the necessity that all
involved parties bear their own costs (reciprocity).
Others suggest IOIS for supply chain flexibility and
information visibility, and states on asymmetry that
“The results support our main contention that
introducing an IOS system is an uneven process as
the buyer gains more than the seller.”
IOIS generally observes business relations
dyadic or triadic, although engagement of business
communities is recognised as a possibility (Brandt,
2014; Chang et al., 2010; Håkonsson and Snehota,
2006).
Enterprise Architecture beyond the Enterprise - Extended Enterprise Architecture Revisited
383
Key characteristics of IOIS are furthermore
stated as relationship construction, commercial
interdependence, business monitoring, collaborative
platforms, knowledge sharing platforms, and
management of opportunism. Often studies of IOIS
do involve TCA and RBV in recognition and
controlling of asymmetry in the relations.
Above all do IOIS studies describe
technologies transcending organisational boundaries.
IOIS raises issues of necessary business eco-
systems, business complementarity, and technology-
based business relationship management. Related to
governance and strategic adherence of IOIS, EEA is
logically motivated and most likely critical in the
relevant IOIS contexts.
2.5 Extended Enterprise Architecture
The earliest contribution on EEA is related to
technologies suitable for representing business
architectures and inter-business services and is
predominantly technological in its orientation
(Winans, 1998). The E2AF of Schekkerman is
defined as an extension of IEEE 1471-2000 (now
ISO 42010). Its definition of the extended enterprise
is cautious, and narrowly related to the lead
organisation and not “random” networks of
organisational entities. This is expressed at the
frontpage of (Schekkerman, 2004) as the enterprise
surrounded by customers, prospects, partners,
investors, logistics, business relationships etc. The
E2AF is clear on requiring strategy and scope; the
lead organisation perspective is clear as strategy in
this context only can be valid for one organisation,
what is required by other organisations is sharing,
complementarity, and agreed benefits.
Another strong contributor to the EEA field is
(Goethals et al., 2004) Goethals with a least 5
publications. The main technology connecting
enterprises is integration technologies. In Goethals et
al. (2004), it is very precisely described, how the
interaction between business requirements and ICT
traverse the strategic-tactical-operational hierarchy
in the individual organisation, where after it seeks
integration with its congruence in the extended
enterprise. The extended enterprise is regarded as an
enterprise as it, despite its virtual character, does
have a strategically founded objective.
Going further in the literature reviewing process, a
number of analytical considerations on EEA have
been picked up (Lapalme et al., 2015; Goethals et
al., 2004; Schuck, 2010; Chalmeta and Grangel,
2003; Chipriano et al., 2014):
EEA as a foundation for innovation although
separating inhouse and community efforts
Methods and maturity assessment of partner
networks for interoperability
EA maturity models vs enterprise systems;
generic governance framework
Capturing decision making and stakeholder
perspectives in EA modelling frameworks
Comprehensive architectural framework for
Virtual Enterprise Chain Collaboration
Inclusion of external system components in
pseudo-formal EA language
Specific focus on resilience as part of EA in
the EEA context. EEA resilience concluded as
a function of vulnerability; flexibility;
adaptability; agility
Inter-organisational value creation, conflict
resolution, governance
Socio-cultural, functional, structural,
infological and contextual alignment using EA
Mapping of organisational antecedents of the
EEA
Establish important definitions EA
envisioning, planning, enforcing,
documentation and communication.
In general, theory is not strong when it comes
to address the issue of inter-organisational
collaboration. Most contributions view EEA from
the lead-organisations perspective, however several
contributions review EEA much more as a loosely
coupled network or ecosystem. The extended
enterprise is an augmentation to the host EA.
Therefore are joint strategic objectives in risk of
being lost. Some publications are contributing
significantly to the EEA construct by being precise
on the multi-enterprise engagement (Drews and
Schirmer, 2014; Elmir et al., 2015).
For theorising the subsequent study, it is
interesting to consider EA frameworks and the
realised fragments of EEA in the perspective of the
SCM, Network Theory, and IOIS theories presented,
thus, being theoretically explicit in business
motivation, decision making, life cycle, and
governance.
3 CASE STUDY
The focal company of this study is named
“Company B” for purposes of anonymity. Company
B is a trading company mostly based in Northern
Europe buying and selling fashion products.
Products are bought from some hundred suppliers
and sold in 3000 stores and additionally through
several larger retailing and e-business organisations.
Commercial activities are executed in more than 50
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
384
countries. For years, B offered e-mailed printouts
and e-mailed “flat files” for information exchange
with its business partners. Some closer business
partners had computers at their facilities with a
shared disk drive with company B, where data files
for the specific customer would be stored for
potential automatic loading.
Over the years, Company B faced increasing
pressure for streamlining its interorganisational
interfaces to customers and business partners. In an
initiative to deal with the expected challenges, an
organisational unit were created to purely focus on
integration services. The unit had both to ensure
proper technologies in place, but also to align
integration services with corresponding business
processes. A document provisioning system was
made, where sales representatives or customers
themselves could create subscription profiles on
documents like pricing catalogues, delivery
forecasts, dispatch advice, and invoices. With
selected partners, an extensive information flow was
implemented reflecting the guidelines of e.g.
EDIFACT and UBL XML. The integration initiative
was not initially defined as architectural nor an EA
initiative. However, the effort did receive strategic
attention from its inception, and along its
implementation it has gained most characteristics of
being a part of the company’s general EA. As it
relates to a professional discipline of systems and
data integration, the most business decision makers
are not clearly aware of its existence, and only at a
professional and dedicated level, there is strategic
insight in this matter. Typical responses from
customers have been: “We need to integrate our
businesses, but please ask our technology people, as
we don’t know what we need.” Likewise could
technology representatives state: “We know our
business is dependent on this, but please tell us what
to do, and we will do it.” Company B’s integration
initiative is paradoxical as it is regarded by business
decision makers as a technical effort, whereas the
technical staff is grasping for strategic support and
adequacy of business processes both inside and
outside the company.
Of furt her strategic issues within company B’s
inter-firm integration have the following been
raised:
Company B is collaborating closely with
online stores that continuously need to retrieve
data on existing and coming goods, pricing
catalogues and product data. At some point in
history, company B did split data between its
supply chain and its online activities. There is
a vision of to become an important data
provider of high quality product data to online
customers. Here data needs to be collected
from relevant sources and aligned with the
business processes of the (large) online
retailers. There is an architectural vision of
creating a leading European platform of data
exchange between the parties.
Large department store companies have for
years not been fully satisfied with the data
quality from company B. The customers want
to have quite complex and dynamic delivery
patterns to easily redistribute goods between
store and online channels, but company B
can’t fully support delivery patterns, where
goods are rerouted. There is an architectural
vision of enabling better and closer
collaboration with department stores in
ensuring optimal utilisation of logistical
resources and commercial opportunities.
Company B implemented a private bonded
warehouse to avoid paying customs for goods
before actually circulated into the European
market. The tax authorities had created an
open interface for the support of the
information tracking on the goods. This
interface was however expected to be used for
public bonded warehouses and for customs
software providers. Company B was therefore
the only company to implement (and test) the
open interface. The architectural vision of the
tax authority was to digitize business
processes. The reality was more to act as an IT
support office. The architectural vision of
company B was to ensure that no goods had
levied customs upon on them unless they were
specifically shipped to EU destinations.
Company B has from time to time been
requested to support consignment sales with
various resellers or countries having this style
of trade as praxis. Consignment sales (buyer
pays first when products are sold from his
premises) require a detailed setup of electronic
integration processes as stock and product
turnover needs close monitoring, prompt
replenishment, and timely invoicing.
Company B is now having a complex and multi-
faceted toolbox for information exchange along its
supply chain and service partners. The architecture
is supporting a range of business process integration
patterns. With suppliers, the company is considering
itself as having relational power even, if supplier
opportunism is observed from time to time. With
customers, the company is generally subjected to the
power of large customers, whereas smaller
customers are content with having the company to
Enterprise Architecture beyond the Enterprise - Extended Enterprise Architecture Revisited
385
organise and manage information exchange and
integration.
4 DISCUSSION
EEA assumes establishment of shared objectives
among the involved participants in form of formal
B2B relations or informal relationships such as
business ecosystems (Schekkerman, 2004).
ISO42010 states the ‘Architectural Rationales’
justifies ‘Architectural Decisions’ that can be
changed by ‘Concerns’ raised by ‘Stakeholders’ this
is also reflected in TOGAF. In the case above,
shared objectives were derived from shared business
data and sales effort in the first two instances, and
from regulatory requirements in the last instance.
From the literature review, terms are
somewhat broadly defined and the verbalisation of
EEA is soft, broad and quite inclusive. From the
business relationship literature, from the studies of
IOIS, and from the case, it is indicated that EEA has
a range of complexities that is not sufficiently
illuminated in the existing literature. In focusing on
EEA it is problematic not to consider the
architecture of the departing stakeholder-
organisations of the organisational and technological
differences of these. EEA is definitely also exposed
to commercial factors, macro-economic conditions,
regulatory delimitations, commercial foundations of
the stakeholder relationship, and idiosyncrasies of
individuals. As such there is an intrinsic dynamic
and volatility of EEA. In the case this is illustrated
with relationships lasting from 20 years to
relationships not even going into operations due to
commercial issues or lack of maturity in the
execution of architectural transformation. In the
following, a series of key notions are further
discussed in the light of EEA as both cross-
organisational and cross-architectural. The notions
are: (Lack of) Precision, imbalance, heterogeneity,
transformation, temporality, and maturity, and are to
be discussed below. These notions are together
proposed as an analytical framework aimed at
assessing EEA as an early screening of the inter-
organisational bindings in order to ensure benefits of
an EEA-mindset rather than parallel EA not having
explicit shared objectives.
4.1 Critical Case Study Discussion
In discussing EEA, there are several fundamental
issues that must be raised. There is good evidence
that well-planned technological support of business
relationships is beneficial. Many industries are now
strongly dependent on information services
integrated with business partners. But can we
resolve that strong dependency can be supported by
a joint EA? And is EEA actually more than two
parallel EA’s? Can two companies share a joint
strategic objective? From the principal actor theory,
it is relevant to consider, if there should be an
identified lead-organisation in the EEA, and
henceforth if EEA is more a reflection of a power-
relation than it is a “neutral” inter-business
technology. Likewise from the network theory,
should there be a centrality in the network most
likely related to one lead-organisation. It can thus be
questioned, if EEA is only to be seen from the lead-
organisation perspective, or if there can be EEA with
equal partners? The most literature seems to define
EEA from the lead-organisations perspective.
Relevance of EEA must be present. Central
actors in networks and principal actors can pursue
initiatives, but due assessment and viability of such
depends on identified business motivations (Sunkle
et al., 2014). Chapin et al. (Sunkle et al., 2014)
defines such motivations as consisting of well-
defined “Ends and Means of business plans”
including policies, rules, goals and objectives.
(Sunkle et al., 2014) use the term “influencer”
similar to the lead-organisation.
Establishing information flows and business
process integration in Company B have from early
on been following the multi-theoretical patterns of
PAT, TCA, RBV and NT.
Several internal EA activities have over time
been conducted to improve quality of data, technical
solutions and the business integration. A key issue is
if Company B is considering EEA in its technology
governance, of if the integration with external
parties is more “EA with interface designs”. Given
the large number of integration points and electronic
business documents, some interaction with external
parties do have the character of being commoditised
and regarded as everyday business services not
implying strategy. However, EEA must be assessed
from a common understanding among the parties of
sharing strategic objectives and EA artefacts at a
certain level.
4.2 Precision
EEA, ISO42010 and Schekkerman are quite
embracing and inclusive towards stakeholders. As
illuminated from the case, EEA projects must have
precisely defined stakeholders as a lot of
responsibilities lie with stakeholders, in particular,
strategy formulation, definition of mutual
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
386
relationships and obligations, architectural design,
and operational implementation. Definition of
stakeholders should beneficially distinguish between
organisational stakeholders, e.g. suppliers and
customers, and stakeholders of competences that can
provide commercial or technological insight internal
or external to stakeholder organisations. The case
illuminated imprecision as a key factor in delaying
implementation of EEA.
Precision is also tightly connected to the
constraints imposed by existing enterprise
architectures of the involved stakeholders and the
willingness and affordances of acceptance of
changes. Likewise consequences of EEA for existing
or remaining EA in the stakeholders’ organisation
must be precisely defined, also meaning that each
stakeholder is likely to have a non-EEA that
potentially can affect the EAA by lack or precision,
unawareness of impact, and defined cross-
architectural organisational boundaries as presented
in figure 1.
Figure 1: Creation of an EEA and associated EA’s.
4.3 Imbalance
As demonstrated in the business literature,
relationships as well as ecosystems and virtual
organisations are dynamic, fluctuant with elements
of opportunism, but also exhibiting mutual
dependency. When more than one organisation with
one enterprise architecture are involved in changes,
the organisational complexity increases, which in
turn can lead to conflict, abandonment, loss of
stakeholder relevance and disputes in technological
and commercial matters. Clearly, there is a balance
of power between stakeholders on both the
commercial and technological dimensions. In the
case, customers would normally have more power
than suppliers, but as the focal company had more
experience on technology, it was often asked to lead
design processes.
A solid persistence of relationships is implied
in EEA. Important business relationship are
generally expected to last for decades (Håkonsson
and Snehota, 2006; Wynstra et al., 2015). Harrison
(2004) discusses dissolution of business
relationships and highlights a range of causes to this.
Pankowska (2013) is likewise pointing to the need
for designing corporate and inter-corporate
information systems from perspectives of longevity
and business sustainability; a mature EA praxis is
seen as a key prerequisite for this. In clarifying EEA
frameworks, a higher level of specificity must be
introduced, when it comes to the involvement and
interrelatedness between the enterprises this should
also include management of potential and
underlying opportunism.
4.4 Heterogeneity
EEA must assume differences at all organisational
and technological levels of the involved
stakeholders. The activity of creation of an EEA is
under all circumstances based on stakeholder
differences, typically with stakeholders being
positioned along a supply chain or value chain.
Heterogeneity can be surpassed by adopting
standards, although this might also be
incommensurable in complex legacy environments.
The ARDIN framework is suggesting the creation of
a reference architecture that either requires
reengineering of host-architectures or creates a
shared technological infrastructure.
In the case, heterogeneity could range from
misconceptions at data level and up to deviating
understandings of complex supply chains. At the
architectural level, EEA could beneficially augment
traditional architectures with means of adaptation
between stakeholders. Daclin et al. (2014) suggest a
method for enterprise interoperability aimed at both
semantical, syntactical and conceptual layers of
cross-organisational integration, although not
addressing issues of the remaining architecture
within the focal stakeholders.
4.5 Transformation
Multi-stakeholder EA initiatives are restricted by
differences between existing and future architectures
at single-stakeholder level. Efforts in alignment,
sharing and integration are thus likely to require
added architectural components of transformation
between artefacts to fit stakeholder architectures.
Transformation can relate to data, definitions of
systems, networks and similar concrete components,
but also tact within each stakeholder which in turn
leads to a requirement for orchestration between
stakeholders.
Enterprise Architecture beyond the Enterprise - Extended Enterprise Architecture Revisited
387
4.6 Temporality
Several matters of EEA relate to time (Lee, 2013):
The extent of the EEA as a transforming activity, the
overall lifecycle of the EEA including termination,
and the actual timing and synchronisation of the
focal business and technology.
Considering EA to consist of as-is
documentation and to-be transformation, life-cycle
management of EEA is particular critical as EEA is
strategically rooted in a business relationship with a
power balance and probably commercial outcome.
Moreover, indicated in the case study, EEA
initiatives must reach a stable level faster and remain
stable in phases of operations for longer, as changes
are much more complex and typically also impact
non-EEA architectures of the involved stakeholders.
Major events need to be accounted for in the EEA,
typically stakeholder take-overs, mergers and
termination of the focal business area as well as the
business itself.
As focal business processes underlying the
strategic objectives of an EEA are associated with
different organisational and technological contexts
of the involved stakeholders, EEA is thus challenged
by differences in validity of data, information,
systems and processes as a function of time.
4.7 Maturity
In assessing viability, professionalization and
operability of EEA, both EA maturity models could
be considered, such as ACMM, Gartner, CMM, but
also E2AMM (Schekkerman, 2005). The case
however suggests a phase of normalisation after the
managed and optimised stages, where
interorganisational relationships are commoditised at
the technological level, but are as prone to
commercial considerations as any other business
context. Various models suggest ‘optimized’,
‘ubiquitous’ or ‘holistic’ as the highest level of
maturity. It is worthwhile addressing EEA from
perspectives of continuous operations with critical
issues related to
loss of organisational memory of design,
life-cycle/age
technological obsolescence,
insufficient inclusion of new architectural
initiatives within the stakeholders organisation
unrelated to the EEA
lack of clarity and division of responsibilities
at the operational level
Table 1: Factor – influence schematics.
Influences
Funda-
mental
ratio-
nale
Establi-
shing
com-
mon
grounds
Reali-
sation
of the
EEA
EEA in
opera-
tions,
Metrics
Long
term
impr-
ove-
ment
Precision X X
Imbalance X X
Hetero-
geneity
X X
Trans-
formation
X X
Tempo-
rality
X X
Maturity X
EEA life cycle
4.8 EEA as a Research Construct
EEA is a construct reflected in the scientific and (to
a lesser degree) in the practitioners literature. Within
its bridging between commercial issues,
organisational matters and technology, EEA
interacts with the core of business design and
business opportunity creation. Table 1 pinpoints the
relationships and influence at a construct level
between the six factors of business transformation
and the five dimensions of EEA. EEA is recognised
by:
A steady publishing volume since 2006 from
an exact search keyword perspective.
No systematic publishing outlet leading to a
large spread in used outlets, and a following
adherence to terminology in the chosen but
non-systematic outlets.
A relative low number of citations of each
academic contribution. Schekkerman (2004a)
is leading with 482 citations, the very most
other publications have less than 20 citations.
A drift (“buzz”) in focal terms leading to that
“extended enterprise” was seminally defined
in the 1990ies, whereas the general business
literature has over the last 10 years rather used
the term “business eco-system”, which is not
less vague.
A number of publications, where EEA is used
out of EA contexts, partially as a
colloquialism, or referencing one of the top-5
publications, mostly of Schekkerman.
The vagueness of several of the key terms in EEA
represents an academic problem. Likewise is the
terminological shift or focal drift problematic,
especially as illustrated in (Elmir et al., 2015) with
EEA being contested by terms and frameworks like
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
388
“Collaboration Framework for Cross-enterprise
Business Process Management”, “ARDIN Extension
for Virtual Enterprise Integration”, “Virtual
Enterprise Chain Collaboration Framework”,
“Architecture for Collaborative Network of
Reference”.
4.9 Rephrasing EEA
Referring to the fundamental necessary of inter-
organisational collaboration, the practical and
academic need for EEA is justified from
perspectives of SCM and IOIS, the literature review
also demonstrate a range of contributions (partially)
supporting the EEA construct. When looking into
precision of terms and definitions, demonstrated
practical applicability, the terminological drift, and
the lack of defined academic environments, then
EEA is weak as both academic and practical
construct. A stronger and more precise research
agenda is proposed including fundamentals of inter-
organisational technological relations, and studies of
governance of initiatives across and inside the
engaged organisations.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Thinking in terms of EEA, the concept is not
obvious from general learnings of EA. EA generally
relates to internal corporate artefacts and is unique to
the enterprise. However, as many business processes
have dependencies to the Extended Enterprise, it
makes sense, when enterprises can identify common
strategic objectives. However, EEA is not without
problems.
EEA as a current state mapping must uncover
depth, motivation, capabilities and details of the
parties involved. Competitive matters in certain parts
of the extended enterprise can encounter legal and
social barriers where information must be shared
with outright competitors, or less than full insight in
partnering enterprises is given. EEA as a future state
lacks many of the traditional governance measures
related to single-enterprise projects.
EEA could benefit from further research.
More empirical cases and practitioners perspectives
is needed, also more precise analysis of participating
enterprising with respect to insight, competencies,
power, and capabilities.
Given the unevenness of the found literature,
and given the large spread in methodological
approaches in the found literature, EEA can’t be
concluded to be a well-defined concept for
implementation. The literature is however providing
a large range of options and proposals for
construction EEA initiatives. The six notions of this
paper (precision, imbalance, heterogeneity,
transformation, temporality, and maturity) are
proposed to form an analytical apparatus for
soundness of EEA and thus promoting solving inter-
organisational architectural challenges using EEA as
a research and practitioners approach.
REFERENCES
Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (1999). Cooperation and
competition in relationships between competitors in
business networks, Journal of business & industrial
marketing, 14(3), pp. 178-194.
Bernard, S.A. (2012). An introduction to enterprise
architecture. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
Boardman, J. T. and Clegg, B. T. (2001). Structured
engagement in the extended enterprise. International
Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 21(5/6), pp. 795-811.
Brandt, C. J. (2014). Toward a Process View in Adoption
of Interorganizational Information Systems.
In Scandinavian Conference in Information Systems
(SCIS 5/IRIS 37).
Buhman, C., Kekre, S. and Singhal, J. (2005).
Interdisciplinary and interorganizational research:
Establishing the science of enterprise networks,
Production and Operations Management, 14(4), pp.
493-513.
Chang, H., Wang, H. W. and Wei Kao, T. (2010). The
determinants of long-term relationship on inter-
organizational systems performance, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(2), 106-118.
Chalmeta, R. and Grangel, R. (2003). ARDIN extension
for virtual enterprise integration. Journal of Systems
and Software, 67(3), pp. 141-152.
Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and
methodological examination of information systems
research from 1991 to 2001. Information systems
journal, 14(3), 197-235.
Chiprianov, V., Kermarrec, Y., Rouvrais, S. and Simonin,
J. (2014). Extending enterprise architecture modeling
languages for domain specificity and collaboration:
application to telecommunication service
design, Software & Systems Modeling, 13(3), pp. 963-
974.
Choi, Y., Kang, D., Chae, H. and Kim, K. (2008). An
enterprise architecture framework for collaboration of
virtual enterprise chains. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(11-12), pp.
1065-1078.
Daclin, N., Chen, D. and Vallespir, B. (2014) Developing
enterprise collaboration: a methodology to implement
and improve interoperability, Enterprise Information
Systems, 10(5), pp. 1-38.
Enterprise Architecture beyond the Enterprise - Extended Enterprise Architecture Revisited
389
Davis, K., Mazzuchi, T. and Sarkani, S. (2013).
Architecting technology transitions: A sustainability
oriented sociotechnical approach. Systems
Engineering, 16(2), pp. 193-212.
Drews, P. and Schirmer, I. (2014). From Enterprise
Architecture to Business Ecosystem Architecture:
Stages and Challenges for Extending Architectures
beyond Organizational Boundaries. In Enterprise
Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops
and Demonstrations (EDOCW), 2014 IEEE 18th
International (pp. 13-22). IEEE.
Elmir, A., Elmir, B. and Bounabat, B. (2015). Inter
organizational System Management for integrated
service delivery: an Enterprise Architecture
Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.02508.
Engelsman, W., Quartel, D., Jonkers, H. and van Sinderen,
M. (2011) Extending enterprise architecture
modelling with business goals and
requirements, Enterprise Information Systems, 5(1),
pp. 9-36.
Erol, O., Sauser, B. J. and Mansouri, M. (2010). A
framework for investigation into extended enterprise
resilience, Enterprise Information Systems, 4(2), pp.
111-136.
Goethals, F., Vandenbulcke, J., Lemahieu, W., Snoeck,
M., De Backer, M. and Haesen, R. (2004).
Communication and Enterprise Architecture. in
Extended Enterprise Integration, Proceedings of the
ICEIS Conference, 2004.
Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (2006). No business is an
island: The network concept of business
strategy, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(3),
pp. 256-270.
Gadde, L.-E. and Mattson, L.-G. (1987). Stability and
change in network relationships, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 4, pp. 29-41.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2004). Information
systems in supply chain integration and management,
European Journal of Operational Research, 159, pp.
269–295.
Halldorsson, A., Kotzab, H., Mikkola, J. H. and Skjøtt-
Larsen, T. (2007). Complementary theories to supply
chain management, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 12(4), pp. 284-296.
Harrison, D. (2004). Is a Long-term Business Relationship
on Implied Contract? Two Views of Relationship
Disengagement, Journal of Management Studies,
41(1), pp.107-125.
Lapalme, J., Gerber, A., van der Merwe, J., Zachman, J.,
de Vries, M. and Hinkelmann, M.K. (2016) Exploring
the future of enterprise architecture: A Zachman
perspective, Computers in Industry, 79, pp. 103-113.
Lee, M. (2013). Enterprise architecture: beyond business
and IT alignment. In Digital Enterprise Design and
Management 2013, pp. 57-66. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Norta, A., Grefen, P. and Narendra, N. C. (2014). A
reference architecture for managing dynamic inter-
organizational business processes, Data & Knowledge
Engineering, 91, pp. 52-89.
Pankowska, M. (2013). Enterprise Architecture Modelling
for Corporate Sustainability. In Building Sustainable
Information Systems, pp. 365-376). Springer US.
Schuck, T. M. (2010). An extended enterprise architecture
for a networkenabled, effectsbased approach for
national park protection, Systems Engineering, 13(3),
209-216.
Schekkerman, J. (2004b). Extended Enterprise
Architecture Framework (E2AF). Essentials Guide.
IFEAD.
Schekkerman, J. (2005). Another view at extended
enterprise architecture viewpoints. Retrieved
March, 14, 2005.
Sunkle, S., Kholkar, D., Rathod, H., & Kulkarni, V.
(2014). Incorporating directives into enterprise TO-BE
architecture. In Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Conference Workshops and
Demonstrations (EDOCW), 2014 IEEE 18th
International (pp. 57-66). IEEE.
Turnbull, P., Ford, D. and Cunningham, M. (1996)
Interaction, relationships and networks in business
markets: an evolving perspective, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, 11(3/4), pp. 44-62.
Vargas, A., Boza, A., & Cuenca, L. (2011). Towards
interoperability through Inter-enterprise collaboration
architectures. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet
Systems: OTM 2011 Workshops (pp. 102-111).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS
research: nature and method. European Journal of
information systems, 4(2), 74-81.
Winans, T. B. (1998). Object technology in the extended
enterprise. In Enterprise Distributed Object
Computing Workshop, 1998. EDOC'98. Proceedings.
Second International (pp. 378-389). IEEE.
Wynstra, F., Spring, M., & Schoenherr, T. (2015). Service
triads: a research agenda for buyer–supplier–customer
triads in business services. Journal of Operations
Management, 35, 1-20.
ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
390