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

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