Models and Capabilities for Supporting Transformation based on

Enterprise Dimensions with Enterprise Engineering

Shoji Konno and Junichi Iijima

Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan

Keywords: Enterprise Transformation (ET), Enterprise Engineering (EE), Enterprise Capability, Enterprise

Transformation Management (ETM), Enterprise Dimension, Capability Maturity Framework (CMF),

Evaluate/Direct/Monitor (EDM).

Abstract: In response to changes in the environment surrounding an enterprise, many occasional To-Be models like IT

Governance models and IT service management models have been proposed. Recently, digital enterprise

model has attracted attention. The concepts, frameworks, and methodologies dealing with the enterprise have

also changed in response to the movement. While we are leading enterprises to the transformation to the To-

Be model and/or ambitious picture from various perspectives, and it is difficult to promote transformations

that maintain interoperability across them, while viewing the enterprise from various perspectives. It seems

that we are working on the closed framework of individual frameworks and methodologies that deal with the

same enterprise. The purpose of this position paper is to propose the commonly available dimensions related

to the enterprise and ET-CMF. The mechanism will aim to analyze the influence of the change based on those

dimensions collaborate with the concept of enterprise engineering on enterprise transformation as connectors.

The mechanism, currently in development, could be a holistic management framework to support the

transformation by using Enterprise Engineering.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the enterprise transformation (Purchase et al.,

2011), there are so many ideal models, blueprints and

situations (Goerzig and Bauernhansl, 2018). The

ideal pictures are provided by practitioners and

researchers one picture by one change is predicted or

occurs on business environment, for example, “digital

enterprise transformation (Weill and Woerner,

2015)” by “business model at digital age”, etc.

Indeed, a variety of approaches were proposed in the

literature concerned with the solution for treating

those transformation. Various ideal frameworks

and/or big pictures are drawn but transformation has

failed (Flyvbjerg and Budzier, 2011) (Kotter, 1995)

(Westerman, 2018) (Davenport and Westerman,

2018) (Bughin et al., 2018). Rather than promoting

change with ad-hoc way blindly, we think that we

should incorporate ideas to support the practice of

enterprise transformation (Labusch, 2017) capability

based on multi-dimensional impact analysis.

On the other hand, under our preliminary

literature survey, existing management frameworks

are addressing one specific perspective of enterprise

management and focusing on one kind of

improvement. There is no significant adoption in state

of the enterprise transformation management systems

based on relationship between architecture and

transformation practices yet. Companies try to

improve and transform in silos according to

individual frameworks and concepts. Evaluate As-Is

in assessments and interviews based on previously

created ideals, and highlight To-Be and Ambition.

Close to the frameworks and concepts used at that

time, it seems that the assessment and subsequent

plans have been successfully done. However, isn't

there a situation where the enterprise transformation

that should be achieved does not progress because the

enterprise's interoperability with other related things

is lacking or not? Even if individual frameworks have

formed completed forms, I thought that frameworks

that can be transformed and transformation operation

platforms that embody them would be necessary

while maintaining their interoperability.

The goal of this work is, therefore, to propose a

holistic management framework to support the

transformation based on enterprise dimensions by

using enterprise engineering (EE) (Dietz and

Hoogervorst, 2017) thinking-frame. All the

Konno, S. and Iijima, J.

Models and Capabilities for Supporting Transformation based on Enterprise Dimensions with Enterprise Engineering.

DOI: 10.5220/0008350603750382

In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 375-382

ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7

375

dimensions, analysis perspectives, impact analysis of

those change practices together support among

adaptable enterprise architecture world and real

transformation world. In our research, Enterprise

dimensions is defined as “A collection of elements

related to enterprise that cannot be reconstructed as a

whole if one is missing”.

This paper is structured as follows: section 2

presents the context of this research alongside the

related work and the problem state. section 3 puts

down background theory, hypothesis and the

objectives. In section 4, we describe the models we

propose for supporting enterprise transformation

based on enterprise engineering. Lastly, section 5

includes the conclusions and some reasoning about

our work.

2 RESEARCH CONTEXTS

2.1 Current State of Enterprise

In a nutshell, enterprise is reforming towards digital

transformation. We can find five major states of the

transformation that we found out through paper

research.

 Management scope is shifted from IT to digital

(business technology)

 Management perspective is shifted from IT

organization to customer

 Focus point is shifted from solo Function to

extended enterprise

 Strategy scope is shifted from IT strategy to

digital strategy

 There are so many blueprints for the

transformation

In these cases, enterprise has faced major issues

described below.

 Nobody knows right direction for To-Be blueprint,

 No right steps for transformations,

 There are so many tools and methods for

supporting the transformation,

 There are different perspectives and dimensions

for describing the transformation,

 There is no unified way to design and manage each

blueprint and the transformation,

As the state of enterprise transformation project,

we can summary the target for transformation

management is complicated and mysterious. It is

difficult to control and lead enterprise transformation

with fully orchestrating each activity. Now, many

enterprises are applying existing frameworks to

siloed and/or specific enterprise elements, separated

by architecture, process, model, capability, HR, etc.

Around enterprise transformation projects, we cannot

be done without considering various things, which

requires a lot of time and effort. We think there are no

inter-solution, inter-framework and/or inter-

operability for managing enterprise transformation.

2.2 Related Research Activities

EAM (Enterprise Architecture Management) has the

holistic perspective of enterprise architecture

management (Labusch, 2017). It is a framework for

successful implementation of ETM, and it is effective

for capturing activities to be implemented. From a

program and project management perspective, ETM

sees the following as a summary of how to proceed

with change in enterprise. ACET (Architectural

Coordination of Enterprise Transformation) (Proper

et al., 2017) (de Kinderen, 2017) is one of the

practices to coordinate enterprise transformation.

Adaptive Enterprise Architecture (Korhonen et

al., 2016) has four perspectives derived from the need

for and underpinnings of a reconceptualization of

enterprise architecture from the enterprise ecological

adaptation (i.e. adaptive enterprise) point of view. It

is considered to be the latest among the existing EA

forms. At the beginning of the history of enterprise

model, the model formed like a pyramid separated

with several layers, for example infrastructure layer,

technology layer, data layer, information layer,

business process layer.

(Korhonen, 2018) has proposed “enterprise

transformation capability”. The proposal is to

associate the CIO's capability with the enterprise’s

capability in transformation. The CIO's capability

mainly focuses on skill dimension. This model has

lined up the patterns of capabilities that organizations

and individuals should have during enterprise

transformation. There is no mention of the capability

maturity framework model that we propose.

2.3 Problem Statement

At the research area of enterprise modelling, the

formation of the capturing the enterprise has

influenced by the change of business environments.

For example, at the digital age the form of enterprise

has shift from traditional pyramid style to networked

ecosystem style. At the scene, several research

activities have proposed each sophisticated and

specific framework for representing the structure of

ideal enterprise structure.

Those frameworks mentioned above has hard

barriers between each thinking methodology. We are

thinking the combination those method and theories

KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

376

at the management scene. At the management

activities of those transformation, we must clarify the

mechanism that how to influence the activities for the

transformation to enterprise model at each

transformation scenario. It is important to connect

various frameworks and theory about enterprise

through enterprise dimensions (Bernus et al., 2012)

for supporting the transformation.

3 BACKGROUND CONCEPTS

AND ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 Background Concepts

Enterprise Transformation Management.

According to (Purchase, 2011), enterprise

transformation concerns change, not just routine

change but fundamental change that substantially

alters an organization’s relationships with one or

more key constituencies, e.g., customers, employees,

suppliers, and investors. ET management (ETM) is

concerned with the establishment and coordinated

development of EA in order to consistently respond

to business and IT goals, opportunities, and

necessities (Labusch, 2017).

Enterprise Engineering.

Enterprise engineering (Dietz, 2011) (Dietz and

Hoogervorst, 2017) is conceptual thinking

methodology to apply engineering approach to

enterprise architecture management by describing the

model of enterprise, governance model and business

model. Enterprise engineering have the potential for

solve those problems describer in Section 1 between

enterprise model and enterprise transformation

activities on the real business world and/or physical

enterprise. For example, we can use enterprise

engineering concept to clarify the influenced area of

enterprise on ETM activities.

Enterprise Capability.

The definition of “capability” is published by past

research papers and books. In (Wißotzki, 2018), the

definition is focus on “perform a set of coordinated

tasks, utilizing organizational resources, for the

purposes of achieving a particular end result”. In

(Wißotzki, 2015), the types of capability are already

summarized by literature review. Those capabilities

have individual perspective and organization

perspective. In our research activities, the target is

organization perspective. In (Michell, 2011), the

capability is linked with enterprise resources and

processes. In (Teece, 2010), dynamic capabilities are

based on “the skills, procedures, organizational

structures, and decision rules that firms utilize to

create and capture value”. We think that the dynamic

capability will be the core engine in enterprise

transformation management because transformation

is not to mature but to change the company's routine

business processes to other suitable ones.

Dimensions of Enterprise.

According to (Bernus et al., 2012), “Structure”,

“Behaviour” and “Value” are illustrated as the major

dimensions of architecture. Bernus et al. also pointed

out “all of which are interrelated and understanding

these should improve the enterprise”. At (Bernus et

al., 2012), the focus was on how to subdivide the

enterprise model for improvement in the company's

performance. It has not been defined in anticipation

of relationships or impacts in line with transformation

or other elements.

Foundation for Execution and Operating Model.

In (Ross et al., 2006), J.Ross has defined the

foundation for execution model for traditional

enterprise. They say that an organization’s operating

model should determine its enterprise architecture,

which, in turn, should guide the building of its

foundation for execution (i.e., the operating

platform). As with other concepts and frameworks,

the operating model has also changed in response to

changes in the environment surrounding the

enterprise, such as digital transformation (Goerzig

and Bauernhansl, 2018) (Weill and Woerner, 2015).

In this study, although the relationship between EA

and capability is illustrated, but dimensions on

enterprise transformation has not been mentioned. In

(Hafsi and Assar, 2016), Hafsi, M. etc. pointed out

that execution model should be changed align with

causing digital transformation at enterprise.

Enterprise Transformation Lifecycle.

According to (Giachetti, 2016), the enterprise life-

cycle describes the history of the enterprise from the

initial concept of a business in the mind of an

entrepreneur, through a series of phases as the

enterprise grows, until the business venture ends. The

enterprise life-cycle consists of three generals,

distinct stages: development, deployment, and

operation. Enterprise lifecycle is strongly focusing on

“Enterprise System”. Development covers the

engineering phases to create an enterprise system,

deployment is the change management process to

implement the enterprise system, and operation is the

management of the enterprise system and its

continuous improvement. In our work, it is necessary

to form an enterprise transformation lifecycle in

relation to the existing life cycle definitions.

Models and Capabilities for Supporting Transformation based on Enterprise Dimensions with Enterprise Engineering

377

3.2 Assumptions

Based on the preliminary paper research, we define

the following main proposition:

Main Proposition.

Improvements in enterprise capability maturity has a

positive impact on the outcomes of all the components

associated with enterprise transformation with less

effort and faster.

Based on above, we formulate the following

hypotheses for conducting our research:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

There are relationships between enterprise

transformation capabilities and others concerned

with enterprise.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There are unified enterprise dimensions and

influencers for enterprise transformation.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Capturing the influence between dimensions is what

we are trying to bring about enterprise

transformation to success.

3.3 Our Goal

At the end of this work, we will establish the

framework for supporting platform and solution as a

service (Figure 1). At the scene, the start point of the

solution will be definition the requirements for a

transformation activity (Labusch, 2017) by using

requirements engineering think-frame (Ivarsson and

Gorschek, 2009), etc (Figure 1).

The solution will take next steps for supporting

the enterprise transformation management;

(Step-1) Clarify requirements of the transformation

(Step-2) Co-create expectation tree of the

transformation

(Step-3) Target IT/business capability for the

transformation based on enterprise engineering

think-frame

(Step-4) Visualize the value network

(Step-5) Take an impact analysis

(Step-6) Execute ETM.

We will divide the main goal into the following

three parts: (i) Targeting method for transformation

with enterprise engineering, (ii) Perspectives and

dimensions for ET, and (iii) ET-CMF model. In (i),

we expect to use EE for clarifying the difference

between before transformation and after

transformation. We also expect to see to what extent

the dimensions expressed in other perspectives are

affected. In (ii), we expect to use enterprise

perspectives and dimensions to identify related

perspectives and/or dimensions. For example,

capability maturity framework has practices for

capability improvement. Those practices are related

to some artefacts for the improvement. Other

perspectives and dimensions related to enterprise has

some artefacts. Now we are thinking that some of the

artefacts will be able to connect related perspectives

and dimensions. In(iii), we expect to use enterprise

transformation capability maturity framework model

to lead and support the transformation with low cost

and lightspeed.

Figure 1: Our Goal.

Ultimately, we aim to design, develop and provide

a platform for digital twin on enterprise

transformation management realized on the own

framework proposed in this work. This will reduce

costs and labours on achieving various types of

transform from the traditional ETM world to the new

fully digitally ETM world. We think that the core

components of the platform are to have the ability to

connect with change capability, business model,

architecture and so on.

4 ENTERPRISE ENGINEERING

FOR TRANSFORMATION

4.1 EE for Transformation

In this research, we will apply enterprise engineering

think-frame to enterprise transformation

management. Rather than promoting modelling and

governance focused on a single point of view, we

need enterprise engineering theory that can take into

account the hidden interoperability, interdependence,

and impact of change. As a core engine of the

transformation, we will extend EE collaborate with

enterprise transformation capability maturity

framework model to make the transformation more

KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

378

effective. We propose to support ET at the following

points with EE:

 Govern from single enterprise to virtual

extended enterprise,

 Support for various style of business with

lightspeed,

 Support business innovation rather than control,

 Visualization of business value and information

stream,

 Interoperable modelling and management rather

than siloed and limited.

4.2 Perspectives and Dimensions

As first step, we summarised the candidate of

enterprise transformation dimensions (Figure 2):

Enterprise Model: models related enterprise, like

business models.

Enterprise Capability:

capabilities related enterprise, like IT

capability/business capability.

Enterprise System: systems related enterprise, like

“System of Record/Engagement”.

Enterprise Formation: organic styles of enterprise,

like hierarchy/networked/ecosystem/…

Enterprise Resource: resources of enterprise, like

platform/infrastructure/staff…

Enterprise Architecture: architecture of enterprise,

like traditional/…/adaptive.

Enterprise Execution: capability and competency,

like IT-CMF/IT management competency.

Figure 2: Enterprise Perspectives and Enterprise

Transformation Dimensions.

Based on the preliminary historical literature

review (Kotusev, 2016), we can describe the history

of the transformation in the real business world. We

will extract the characteristics of each representation

for clarifying what dimension is changing by

transform the shape (Rigdon et al., 1989) (Halley and

Bashioum, 2005) (Ferronato, 2007) (De Vries and

Van Rensburg, 2008) (Fritscher and Pigneur, 2011)

(Lazarov et al., 2015) (Korhonen et al., 2016).

According to (Korhonen and Halen, 2017),

traditionally enterprise architecture has focused on

process standardization and integration, not on

continuous adaptation to the changing business,

information, social and technological landscape.

Furthermore, (Haffke et al., 2016) has described

about “changing role of EA and technological

catalysis along different phases of the adaptive loop”.

We define the characteristics of each enterprise

formation by referring (Chui et al., 2012) (Srivastava,

2015) (Moreira et al., 2018). In (Hay, 2011),

enterprise model patterns have summarized. Those

patterns are focused on data centric descriptions of

enterprise activities by using some predefined parts.

We think this work is not suitable for our research

because there are no specific patterns on enterprise

transformation. In (Gassmann et al., 2013) and

(Fleisch, 2015), business model patterns have

summarized. As you can see the model patterns, wet

think those patterns are depends on the requirements

for enterprise transformation. In (Agostinhoa, 2014)

and (Santa and Nurcan,2016), we can find the

patterns of organization model. We think the

organization model is similar with “Types of

Enterprise Organizational Formation” in this paper.

We will define the dimensions related enterprise

governance based on (DeLone et al., 2018) as

business-IT alignment (BITA) perspective. In the

paper, they described it as stages of governance

model, do not mention dimensions in the context of

transformation among business-it alignment focus

point. In our future study, we will define the details

of those dimensions’ specifications.

In (Kapoor et al., 2015), they described the

difference between SoR (Systems of Record), SoE

(Systems of Engagement) and SoI (Systems of

Insight). Based on the description, we can define the

as enterprise systems innovation dimensions. SoR is

a traditional business support system like an ERP

package for recording the DIK (Data, Information,

Knowledge) of the activities on the enterprise. In next

innovated system world, SoE is the key infrastructure

in a connected world like IoT. SoE has different

system architecture and characteristics between SoR

and SoI. The transition from SoR to SoE will

influence to EA, models, capabilities and so on

related to enterprise transformation will be changed.

SoI is one of cutting-edge architecture based on

analytics function like AI (Artificial Intelligence) and

cognitive computing. SoI must take a collaboration

Models and Capabilities for Supporting Transformation based on Enterprise Dimensions with Enterprise Engineering

379

Figure 3: Overview of Enterprise Transformation Capability Maturity Framework.

Figure 4: Relationship between Ross’s Execution model and our ET-CMF and dimensions.

with SoR and SoE, closely. In the case of transition

from SoR and SoE, the direction of the transformation

is “Business Value” centric.

We will define the dimensions related enterprise

transformation based on existing several dimensions

and models. From some literature review concerned

with enterprise transformation, there are so many

styles of representation for figuring out the

characteristics of To-Be picture of future enterprise.

We think the dimensions is key role among enterprise

transformation management with multi-directions

connected influencers. The influencers will be

derived from several theories, frameworks, existing

dimensions and models referred in this paper.

In Figure 2, “Enterprise Governance” represents

the high-level dimension for decision-making style.

The detailed dimensions will be defined in our future

study. Same as “Enterprise Governance”, we can

define the relationship between each high-level

dimension with specific perspective on enterprise

transformation. From the recognition that there is

confusion of viewpoints, perspectives and

dimensions, we will formulate our enterprise

transformation dimensions.

KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

380

4.3 ET-CMF

As the concept of IT capability maturity was

introduced by (Ross et al., 1996) (Curley, et al.,

2016). We select IT-CMF as the material to consider

practices for enterprise transformation. IT-CMF is

representing maturity model with two axes, vertical

axis is divided into five levels of the transformation

from initial state to optimizing state and horizontal

axis is divided into four key strategic areas for the

management of IT. The perspective of IT-CMF is

business and IT alignment. By referencing that

framework, we will clarify what is necessary to

consider practices with our dimensions in the future,

based on the relationship between artefacts treated at

each capability and another dimensions. Finally, we

will propose ET-CMF model (Figure 3).

ET-CMF consists of three layers, (i) ET

Governance, (ii) ET Management, and (iii) ET

Operation. ET Governance will be based on It

Governance EDM model. ET Management will be

established based on enterprise dimensions and

related models. Management issues will be changed

flexibly due to the increase or decrease of dimension.

ET Operation will be conducted like a lifecycle

management of enterprise. Those activity will be

“Define”, “Visualize”, “Analyse”, “Optimize” and

“Control” on physical enterprise.

5 CONCLUSIONS

As summary message, we describe the relationship

Ross’s “foundation of execution” (Ross et al., 2006)

and our ET-CMF and dimensions in Figure 4. We

believe that the models described in this paper

promote strategic transformation of complex entities,

such as digital enterprise transformation.

Many companies are focusing digital

transformation at all industries around the world. On

the other hand, many existing issues concerned with

current business model and/or enterprise formation

are still remain. This paper provides overview of

ongoing research results and plan the remaining steps.

It aims to enable the framework to be used in state-

of-the-art enterprise change environments.

As future work, we intend to (i) accelerate

literature review on perspectives and dimensions

related to enterprise transformation based on the

related frameworks and models; (ii) propose full

scope of ET-CMF in detail; (iii) examine the

clarifying the relationship on influencing between

architecture world and transformation world by using

common dimensions and influencers for leading the

transformation; and finally, (iv) formalize the

prototype management support tool for the

transformation.

REFERENCES

Agostinhoa, O. L. (2015). Proposal of Organization

Framework Model, using Business Processes and

Hierarchical Patterns to provide Agility and Flexibility

in Competitiveness Environments. In Procedia

Engineering. 131, 401-409.

Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (Eds.). (2012).

Handbook on enterprise architecture. Springer Science

& Business Media.

Bughin, J., Catlin, T., Hirt, M., Willmott, P. 2018. Why

digital strategies fail. In McKinsey Quarterly, January.

Chui, M., Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, ...,

Westergren, M. (2012). The social economy:

Unlocking value and productivity through social

technologies. In McKinsey Global Institute. 4, 35-58.

Curley, M., Kenneally, J., & Carcary, M. (2016). IT

Capability Maturity Framework (IT-CMF). Van Haren.

Davenport, T. H., Westerman, G. (2018). Why so many

high-profile digital transformations fail. In Harvard

Business Review, 9.

DeLone, W., Migliorati, D., Vaia, G. (2018). Digital IT

governance. In CIOs and the Digital Transformation

(pp. 205-230). Springer, Cham.

Dietz, J. L. G. Enterprise Engineering Manifesto (2011).

Dietz, J. L., Hoogervorst, J. A. (2017). Foundations of

enterprise engineering.

Ferronato, P. (2007). Architecture for Digital Ecosystems,

beyond Service Oriented Architecture (IEEE-DEST

2007). In 2007 Inaugural IEEE-IES Digital EcoSystems

and Technologies Conference. (pp. 660-665). IEEE.

Fleisch, E., Weinberger, M., & Wortmann, F. (2015).

Business models and the internet of things. In

Interoperability and Open-Source Solutions for the

Internet of Things. (pp. 6-10). Springer, Cham.

Fritscher, B., Pigneur, Y. (2011). Business IT alignment

from business model to enterprise architecture. In

International Conference on Advanced Information

Systems Engineering. pp. 4-15. Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A. (2011). Why your IT project may

be riskier than you think. In Harvard Business Review,

89(9), 23-25.

Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., Csik, M. (2013). The St.

Gallen business model navigator. University of St.

Gallen.

Giachetti, R. E. (2016). Design of enterprise systems:

Theory, architecture, and methods. CRC Press.

Goerzig, D., Bauernhansl, T. (2018). Enterprise

architectures for the digital transformation in small and

medium-sized enterprises. In Procedia CIRP, 67, 540-

545.

Haffke, I., Kalgovas, B., Benlian, A. (2016). The Role of

the CIO and the CDO in an Organization’s Digital

Models and Capabilities for Supporting Transformation based on Enterprise Dimensions with Enterprise Engineering

381

Transformation. In Proceedings of the 37th

International Conference on Information Systems

(ICIS), pp. 1-20.

Hafsi, M., Assar, S. (2016). What enterprise architecture

can bring for digital transformation: An exploratory

study. In 2016 IEEE 18th Conference on Business

Informatics (CBI) (Vol. 2, pp. 83-89). IEEE.

Halley, M. R., Bashioum, C. (2005). Enterprise

transformation to a service-oriented architecture:

successful patterns. In IEEE International Conference

on Web Services (ICWS'05). IEEE.

Hay, D. C. (2011). Enterprise Model Patterns: Describing

the World. Technics Publications.

Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T. (2009). Technology transfer

decision support in requirements engineering research:

a systematic review of REj. In Requirements

engineering, 14(3), 155-175.

Kapoor, S., Mojsilovic, A., Strattner, J. N., Varshney, K. R.

(2015, September). From open data ecosystems to

systems of innovation: A journey to realize the promise

of open data. In Bloomberg Data for Good Exchange

Conference.

de Kinderen, S. (2017). ACET Constructs. In Architectural

Coordination of Enterprise Transformation. pp. 169-

173. Springer, Cham.

Korhonen, J. J., Lapalme, J., McDavid, D., Gill, A. Q.

(2016, August). Adaptive enterprise architecture for the

future: Towards a reconceptualization of EA. In 2016

IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI).

Vol. 1, pp. 272-281. IEEE.

Korhonen, J.J. Halén, M. (2017). Enterprise Architecture

for Digital Transformation. In Business Informatics,

2017 IEEE 19th Conference on, pages 349-358. IEEE.

Korhonen, J. J. (2018). Enterprise transformation

capability for the digital era-Demands for

organizations and CIOs (Doctoral dissertation, Aalto

University).

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation

efforts fail. In Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

Kotusev, S. (2016). The history of enterprise architecture:

An evidence-based review. In Journal of Enterprise

Architecture. Volume, 12(1), 29.

Labusch, N. (2017). Information Requirements for

Enterprise Transformation. In Architectural

Coordination of Enterprise Transformation, (pp. 111-

121). Springer, Cham. Flyvbjerg

Lazarov, B., Kirov, G., Zlateva, P., Velev, D. (2015).

Network-Centric Operations for Crisis Management

Due to Natural Disasters. In International Journal of

Innovation, Management and Technology, 6(4), 252.

Michell, V. (2011, July). A focussed approach to business

capability. In First International Symposium on

Business Modelling and Software Design BMSD

Bulgaria. pp105-113.

Moreira, F., Ferreira, M. J., Seruca, I. (2018). Enterprise

4.0–the emerging digital transformed enterprise?. In

Procedia computer science. 138, 525-532.

Proper, H. A., Winter, R., Aier, S., de Kinderen, S. (Eds.).

(2017). Architectural Coordination of Enterprise

Transformation. Springer.

Purchase, V., Parry, G., Valerdi, R., Nightingale, D., Mills,

J. (2011). Enterprise transformation: Why are we

interested, what is it, and what are the challenges? In

Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 1(1), 14-33.

Rigdon, W.B. (1989). Architectures and Standards. In

Information Management Directions: The Integration

Challenge (NIST Special Publication 500-167), E.N.

Fong and A.H. Goldfine (eds.). Gaithersburg, MD:

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

pp. 135-150.

Ross, J. W., Beath, C. M., Goodhue, D. L. (1996). Develop

long-term competitiveness through IT assets. In Sloan

management review. 38(1), 31-42.

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise

architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for

business execution. Harvard Business Press.

Santa, M., Nurcan, S. (2016). Learning organization

modelling patterns. In Knowledge Management

Research & Practice. 14(1), 106-125.

Srivastava, A. (2015). Excuse Me, Can You Tell Me the

Way to Become an Enterprise 3.0?

https://us.nttdata.com/en/blog/2015/september/way-to-

become-an-enterprise-3-dot-0

Teece, D. J. (2010). Technological innovation and the

theory of the firm: the role of enterprise-level

knowledge, complementarities, and (dynamic)

capabilities. In Handbook of the Economics of

Innovation. (Vol. 1, pp. 679-730). North-Holland.

De Vries, M., Van Rensburg, A. C. (2008). Enterprise

Architecture-New business value perspectives. In South

African Journal of Industrial Engineering. 19(1), 1-16.

Weill, P., Woerner, S. L. (2015). Thriving in an

increasingly digital ecosystem. In MIT Sloan

Management Review, 56(4), 27.

Westerman, G. (2018). Your Company Doesn't Need a

Digital Strategy. In MIT Sloan Management Review,

59(3), 1-5.

Wißotzki, M. (2015). An exploration of capability research.

In 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed

Object Computing Conference. (pp. 179-184). IEEE.

Wißotzki, M. (2018). The Notion of Capability in

Literature. In Capability Management in Digital

Enterprises. (pp. 27-39). Springer, Cham.

KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

382