Evaluation Concept of the Enterprise Architecture Management Capability Navigator

Matthias Wißotzki, Hasan Koç

2014

Abstract

Organizational knowledge is a crucial aspect for the strategic planning of an enterprise. The enterprise architecture management (EAM) deals with all perspectives of the enterprise architecture with regard to planning, transforming and monitoring. Maturity models are established instruments for assessing these processes in organizations. Applying the maturity model development process (MMDP), we are in the course of a new maturity model construction. Within this work, we first concretize the building blocks of the MMDP and present the first initiations of the Enterprise Architecture Capability Navigator (EACN). Afterwards, we discuss the need for an evaluation concept and present the results of the first EACN evaluation iteration.

References

  1. Ahlemann, F. (2012), Strategic enterprise architecture management: Challenges, best practices, and future developments, Springer, Berlin, New York.
  2. Ahlemann, F., Schroeder, C. and Teuteberg, F. (2005), Kompetenz- und Reifegradmodelle für das Projektmanagement: Grundlagen, Vergleich und Einsatz, ISPRI-Arbeitsbericht, 01/2005, Univ. FB Wirtschaftswiss. Organisation u. Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück.
  3. Aier, S., Riege, C. and Winter, R., Unternehmensarchitektur. Literaturüberblick und Stand der Praxis”, Wirtschaftsinformatik, Vol. 2008, pp. 292-304.
  4. Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M.D. and Nielsen, P.A. (1999), “Action research”, Commun. ACM, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 94-97.
  5. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009a), “Developing Maturity Models for IT Management”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 213-222.
  6. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009b), Dokumentationsqualität von Reifegradmodellentwicklungen.
  7. Bruin, T. de, Rosemann, M., Freeze, R. and Kulkarni, U. (2005), “Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model”, in Information Systems Journal, ACIS, pp. 1-10.
  8. Cleven, A., Gubler, P. and Hüner, K.M. (2009), “Design alternatives for the evaluation of design science research artifacts”, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 19:1-19:8.
  9. De Vries Erik J. (2007), “Rigorously Relevant Action Research in Information Systems”, in Hubert Österle, Joachim Schelp and Robert Winter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2007, University of St. Gallen, pp. 1493- 1504.
  10. Garcia-Mireles, G.A., Moraga, M.A. and Garcia, F. (2012), “Development of maturity models: A systematic literature review”, in Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), 16th International Conference on, IEEE, [Piscataway, N.J.
  11. Hamel, F., Herz, T.P., Uebernickel, F. and Brenner, W. (2012), “Facilitating the Performance of IT Evaluation in Business Groups: Towards a Maturity Model”, available at: https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/ Publikationen/214608.
  12. Hevner, A.R. and Chatterjee, S. (2010), Design research in information systems: Theory and practice, Springer, New York, London.
  13. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004), “Design science in information systems research”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-106.
  14. Hörmann, K. (2006), SPICE in der Praxis: Interpretationshilfe für Anwender und Assessoren, 1st ed., Dpunkt-Verl., Heidelberg.
  15. Jan C. Recker (2005), “Conceptual model evaluation. Towards more paradigmatic rigor”, in Jaelson Castro and Ernest Teniente (Eds.), CAiSE'05 Workshops, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Porto, Portugal, pp. 569-580.
  16. Judgev, K. and Thomas, J. (2002), Project management maturity models: The silver bullets of competitive advantage, Project Management Institute; University of Calgary; Civil Engineering; Engineering.
  17. Lundqvist, M., Sandkuhl, K. and Seigerroth, U. (2011), “Modelling Information Demand in an Enterprise Context”, International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 75-95.
  18. Mettler, T. (2011), “Maturity assessment models: a design science research approach”, International Journal of Society Systems Science, Vol. 3 1/2, p. 81.
  19. Mettler, T. and Rohner, P. (2009), “Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design”, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 22:1-22:9.
  20. Meyer, M., Helfert, M. and O'Brien, C. (2011), “An analysis of enterprise architecture maturity frameworks”, in Perspectives in business informatics research, Springer, Berlin [u.a.], pp. 167-177.
  21. Moody, D.L. and Shanks, G.G. (2003), “Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework”, Inf. Syst., Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 619-650.
  22. Niehaves, B., Pöppelbuß, J., Simons, A. and Becker, J., “Maturity Models in Information Systems Research. Literature Search and Analysis”, in Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 29, pp. 505-532.
  23. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. and Chatterjee, S. (2007), “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research”, J. Manage. Inf. Syst., Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 45-77.
  24. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”, Business process management journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 328-346.
  25. Roy Wendler (2012), “The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1317- 1339.
  26. Sarah Beecham, Tracy Hall, Carol Britton, Michaela Cottee and Austen Rainer (2005), “Using an expert panel to validate a requirements process improvement model”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 76.
  27. Scott, J., Cullen, A. and An, M. (2009), Business capabilities provide the rosetta stone for Business-IT Alignment: Capability Maps Are A Foundation For BA, available at: www.forrester.com.
  28. Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M. and Lindgren, R. (2011), “Action design research”, MIS Q, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-56.
  29. Solli-Saether, H. and Gottschalk, P. (2010), “The modeling process for stage models”, Journal of organizational computing and electronic commerce. - Norwood, NJ Ablex Publ., ISSN 1091-9392, ZDB-ID 13313915. - Vol. 20.2010, 3, p. 279-293, pp. 279-293.
  30. Steenbergen, M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S., Weerd, I. and Bekkers, W. (2010), “The design of focus area maturity models”, in Hutchison, The Design of Focus Area Maturity Models, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  31. Stirna, J., Grabis, J., Henkel, M. and Zdravkovic, J. (2012), “Capability driven development. An approach to support evolving organizations”, in PoEM 5th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, 2012, Rostock, Germany, Springer, Heidelberg [u.a.], pp. 117-131.
  32. Tobias Mettler (2009), “A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in Information Systems”.
  33. Venable, J. (2006), “A framework for Design Science research activities”, in Khosrow-Pour, M.((Ed.), Information Resources Management Association International Conference, Washington, DC, May 21, Idea Group Publishing., pp. 184-187.
  34. Venable, J. and Iivari, J. (2009), “Action research and design science research - Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar”, ECIS 2009 Proceedings.
  35. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J. and Baskerville, R. (2012), “A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research”, DESRIST 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, May 14-15, 2012. Proceedings, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 423-438.
  36. Wißotzki, M. and Koç, H. (2013), “A Project Driven Approach for Enhanced Maturity Model Development for EAM Capability Evaluation”, in IEEE-EDOCW, 296-305, Vancouver, Canada.
  37. Wißotzki, M., Koç, H., Weichert, T. and Sandkuhl, K. (2013), “Development of an Enterprise Architecture Management Capability Catalog”, in Kobylinski, A. and Sobczak, A. (Eds.), BIR, Vol. 158, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 112-126.
  38. Wißotzki, M. and Sonnenberger, A. (2012), “Enterprise Architecture Management - State of Research Analysis & A Comparison of Selected Approaches”, PoEM 5th IFIP WG 8.1 Working ConferenceRostock, Germany, November 7-8, 2012, CEUR-WS.org.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Wißotzki M. and Koç H. (2014). Evaluation Concept of the Enterprise Architecture Management Capability Navigator . In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-029-1, pages 319-327. DOI: 10.5220/0004881503190327


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis14,
author={Matthias Wißotzki and Hasan Koç},
title={Evaluation Concept of the Enterprise Architecture Management Capability Navigator},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},
year={2014},
pages={319-327},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004881503190327},
isbn={978-989-758-029-1},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Evaluation Concept of the Enterprise Architecture Management Capability Navigator
SN - 978-989-758-029-1
AU - Wißotzki M.
AU - Koç H.
PY - 2014
SP - 319
EP - 327
DO - 10.5220/0004881503190327