Assessing Business Architecture Readiness in Organisations

Tiko Iyamu and Irja Shaanika

Department of Information Technology, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

Keywords: Business Architecture, Readiness Assessment, Actor-Network Theory.

Abstract: Business architecture lags because no theoretical framework or model have yet been validated or tested. This

study empirically tests a business architecture model that was developed to assess readiness of environment.

It is interpretivist research in which the case study approach was employed. Qualitative data was collected

through the semi-structured technique. Actor-network theory (ANT) was employed to interpret the outcome

from testing the readiness assessment model. The findings suggest that the model solidifies foundation for the

deployment of EBA and bring benefits to managers and architects. The result is intended to boost the

confidence of promoters and organisations in the concept and possibly increase implementation and practice.

This research empirically tested a business architecture readiness assessment model in five South African

public and private organisations. The test draws on four main variables: readiness usefulness; value add;

design and automation; and ease of use. The variables purportedly help to detect technical and non-technical

factors that can derail the implementation or practice of business architecture in an organisation.

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports empirical test conducted on

enterprise business architecture (EBA) model

developed by Zondani and Iyamu (2021). The model

is aimed at assessing readiness of environment for the

deployment of EBA. The model has neither been

validated or tested, which is a gap that this study

covers. Thus, we began this paper with momentary

introduction to the concept of business architecture.

The EBA is a domain of enterprise architecture

(EA), which covers the non-technical activities of an

organisation (Kim et al., 2013). Other domains of the

EA are information, application and technology

(Iyamu, 2015). The focus of this study is on EBA,

with particular focus on validating its readiness

assessment model (Zondani & Iyamu, 2021). AL-

Ghamdi and Saleem (2016) explains how the concept

of EBA deals more with business processes and

modelling than with the technical and technological

aspects. The EBA is derived from the business

strategy and its mainly concerned with human’s

resources, business processes and rules (Kitsios &

Kamariotou, 2019). Business architecture can be

described as a strategic tool that enables

organisations, to drive business operations and

determinant for information technology (IT), for

competitiveness purposes. These facets, strategic,

operationalisation and process model are attributed

the reasons why organisations (or enterprises) show

interest and emphasis on the concept.

Furthermore, the deliverables of EBA are said to

inform the design and development of other

architectural domains, which includes information,

application and technology. AL-Ghamdi and Saleem

(2016) argued that even though EBA focus is on

business process, it eventually gets incorporated with

the technical infrastructure, data architecture,

hardware and software of the organisation. Thus,

EBA provides a roadmap for aligning business needs

with IT infrastructures. This aspect of EBA enacts the

fact that business environments should not be studied

in isolation but through a context (Gonzales-Lopez &

Bustos, 2019). The practice of EBA provides the

context that allows for a better understanding,

performance, and control of business operations

(Gonzales-Lopez & Bustos, 2019). Organisations that

have implemented EBA are expected to reap benefits

such as strategic alignment, customer-centric focus

and faster speed to market (Whittle & Myrick, 2016).

However, many organisations have not been able

to implement the concept of EBA. As a result, they

lose out on the benefits, which would have fostered

their competitiveness. The lack of implementation of

the concept can be attributed to two main factors: (1)

there are not many cases, which limit references and

learning from practice. Consequently, it makes some

organisations reluctant in embarking on the process

(Hadaya & Gagnon, 2017); and (2) many of the

506

Iyamu, T. and Shaanika, I.

Assessing Business Architecture Readiness in Organisations.

DOI: 10.5220/0011030800003179

In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2022) - Volume 2, pages 506-514

ISBN: 978-989-758-569-2; ISSN: 2184-4992

organisations that have implemented or attempted to

implement the concept have failed or fail in realising

or articulating the benefits (Gromoff, Bilinkis &

Kazantsev, 2017). These factors are because of lack

of readiness assessment (Zondani & Iyamu, 2021).

Given the strategic significance of EBA, there has

always been a need for assessment, to determine an

organisation’s readiness for the implementation of the

concept. Unfortunately, there seems to be no

readiness assessment models tailored for EBA that

can be used to guide this process. Many of the

assessment models found in literature focus on

enterprise architecture (EA) as whole and not on EBA

as a domain (Zondani & Iyamu, 2021). A study by

Bakar and Kama (2016) developed an enterprise

architecture implementation and priority assessment

model comprising of 27 assessment criteria. Jahani,

Javadein and Jafari (2010) presented a model, based

on analysis of 9 factors and 34 indicators to assess

organisations readiness when implementing EA. Due

to the lack of EBA assessment models, organisations

find themselves deploying EBA even when the

environment is not fit. Jahani et al. (2010) noted that

assessment models are critical as they enable

organisations determine to what extent are they ready

before practising EA concepts and if not ready to

better understand the gaps.

It is not sufficient to merely have an assessment

model. The assessment model needs to be validated

from theory to practice. According to Iyamu (2019),

being theoretical about EA concepts with no

practicality provides limited knowledge which is not

sufficient to apply architectural concepts in

organisations. The validation of models from theory

to practice enable organisations to measure value and

costs of practising EBA. Otherwise, organisations

that are interested in EBA will continue to be

challenged with implementation and practice stages

(Hussein, Mahrin & Maarop, 2020). This paper

presents the result from validation of an assessment

model that specifically focus on EBA readiness,

developed by Zondani and Iyamu (2021).

There are three main, theoretical, empirical and

practical contributions from this research. From the

theoretical front, demonstrate the significance of

readiness assessment model and explain how its

capability leads to organisational benefits. From the

empirical perspective, we conducted test in 5 South

African companies targeting business architects and

other senior managers such as Chief technology

Officer and Architecture managers. Extracts from the

transcripts enhance the validity of the model. Finally,

from a practical angle, we developed model that can

be used to assess the readiness of an environment

before embarking on the development and

implementation of EBA in an organization. In

addition, we provide business and IT managers with

evidence from the test, which will lead the managers

to realistic opportunities for organisational benefits.

This paper is structured into six main sections,

sequentially. The first section introduces the paper.

The section that follows presents a review of

literature, which tries to unpack the gap that exist in

the terrain that this study focuses upon. Next, the

methodology that was applied in the study is

discussed. Analysis and findings from the validation

are presented in the fifth section, thereafter, a

conclusion is drawn in the last section.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Enterprise Business Architecture (EBA) is a domain

of the enterprise architecture (EA), which focuses on

business design, processes, artefacts, and

requirements (Iyamu, 2021). It is believed that

organisation that deploys EA have competitive edge

through consolidation of artefacts and process, to

reduce cost and increases time to market, improves

business environment agility (Ross et al., 2006), and

foster IT-business alignment (Shaanika & Iyamu,

2018). These premises have contributed to the

increasing interest in EBA, over the years.

The EBA is known to be a foundational domain

that direct, guide and integrate all the architectures of

the enterprise (Whittle & Myrick, 2016). According

to AL-Ghamdi and Saleem (2016), EBA is the central

domain from which other architectural domains are

derived from and can be traced back. Significantly,

this means that the EBA provides measurement value

and benchmark for other domains. EBA is a strategic

approach that is responsible for products and services

development and business competition. In

corroboration, EBA enacts processes and other

architectural elements (Iyamu et al., 2016), and

integrates disparate concepts of an organisation

(Chew & Dehbokry, 2014). Thus, EBA holistically

covers organisation’s business processes, activities

and events (Gonzales-Lopez & Bustos, 2019).

Despite the importance of EBA, the practice of the

concept continues to be challenging for many

organisations (Zondani & Iyamu, 2021). Some

organisations encounter challenges across in the

different stages, such as design, development,

implementation, and post-implementation. Also, the

challenges encountered are not purely technical, they

include non-technical factors such as culture,

Assessing Business Architecture Readiness in Organisations

507

administrative, and process (Shaanika & Iyamu,

2018). In their study, Chew and Dehbokry (2014)

revealed that the deployment of EBA is challenging

due to the limitations of frameworks that are specific

to EBA, and difficult to customise to an environment.

Thus, the practise of EBA by organisations remains

slow. This challenges manifest from lack of

assessment of organisations’ readiness (Zondani &

Iyamu, 2021).

Readiness is critical before embarking on the

implementation of EBA. The readiness assessment

determines the implementation success factors, which

appropriateness of requirements and environmental

attributes, which influence practices (Hussein et al.

2020). Assessment for readiness is purposely to

ascertain the possibility of implementing an

innovation in an environment. Although Yusif et al.

(2017) argue that readiness assessment is about taking

stock of relevant factors that can potentially influence

implementation. Pirola et al. (2020) explain the

criticality of readiness assessment in identifying and

resolving potential barriers in an implementation. The

main challenges are that these factors are not

empirically known, other than theorising them

(Zondani & Iyamu, 2021).

ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY:

TRANSATION

Actor-network theory (ANT) is a sociotechnical

theory that focuses on constantly shifting negotiation

between actors and within networks (Callon, 1986).

In ANT, human and non-human are referred to as

actors (Callon, 1986), together, they form a network

of allied interest (Iyamu & Mgudlwa, 2018). The idea

to form alliance is seen as a solution to a problem,

such as embracing an innovation in an environment.

Based on its multiplicity, ANT is an influential of

science and technology, within which the theory is

used to embrace devices and other non-human

entities. One of the strengths of ANT is translation

(Law, 1992).

Translation builds and changes networks (Callon,

1986). It involves the process of reinterpreting

interests (goals, problems, solutions) for other actors

to align to form alliance (Law, 1992). During this

process, the focal actor assigns roles and mobilises

others to enrol in the network (Vickers, Moore &

Vickers, 2018). This was critical for this study

because of the exotic identities of entities and

differentiation of cultures across organisations.

In the scheme of things, translation improve

understanding of original text. It is within this context

that Felski (2016) refers to translation as a vital

mechanism in the creation of transnational networks

of influence for enablers of texts. Also, innovations

are the outcome of negotiations as actors attempt to

extend their networks whilst maintaining the complex

relationship that exists during the process of

translation. Thus, some enablers employ translation

as a source of power in their practices, to explain texts

for implementation purposes. From ANT perspective,

the concept of translation was employed as a lens.

Thus, translation is a key metaphor in ways of

thinking and making sense of the application of the

readiness model in an organisation. This helps to

contact heads of department (units) to assist in

translating the model to their teams’ members, for

evaluation and validation purposes. This is where the

negotiation begins to shift until the evaluation and

validation of the model was complete.

METHODOLOGY

Models can be validated through quantitative and

qualitative approaches. The qualitative method was

employed in the study because of its focus on quality

rather quantity (Conboy, Fitzgerald & Mathiassen,

2012). Thus, the method was most appropriate

because, the aim to test the EBA-RAM was beyond a

‘yes’ or ‘no’; ‘true’ or ‘false’ type of event. The

method is well documented, rationalised and is

increasingly being used in information systems (IS)

research. It therefore does not necessarily need

introduction and explanation in the IS context – see

Markus and Lee (1999); and Gehman et al. (2018).

The method applied in this study primarily because

the objective deters knowing insights in the

rationalities of the participants.

Given the aim of this study to validate (test) the

theoretical model by Zondani and Iyamu (2021), the

case study approach is suitable. A total of five South

African-based organisations partakes in the testing of

the EBA-RAM. A preliminary question (can the

EBA-RAM be applied in your organisation?) was

used in selecting organisations for the study. The

answer was ‘Yes’. This question was accompanied by

with an abstract and the synopsis of the EBA-RAM.

The organisations were selected according to a set of

empirical criteria thought to be most useful to the

objective of the study (Yin, 2017). These are: (1)

thirteen organisations were invited, eight agreed to

partake; and (2) of the eight, five have successfully

implemented the business architecture. The five

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

508

organisations were assigned pseudo names because

the organisations (except the government

administration) strongly opposed to disclosure of

identity.

Four factors were employed in testing (validating)

the model in the organisations. The factors were

abstractions from literature in conjunction with the

objective of the model being validated: (1) The

usefulness of the model for the organisation’s

purposes; (2) The application of the model for

business goal and objectives; (3) Friendliness of the

model to the users in the organisation; and (4) The

value the model can purportedly add to the

organisation. A key observation from validation

exercise is that there are four key functional areas

where the business architect adds unique value in

practice (Hendrickx et al., 2011). To validate the

model, a theoretical construct, determinant factors

were abstracted. According to Molla, Cooper and

Pittayachawan (2009), such factors are convergent to

successful implementation. Peppard and Ward (2004)

suggest that business values are derived through

changes and innovations.

The organisations spent average of three weeks

applying the EBA-RAM in their environments.

Written feedback from each of the organisation was

received. Followed-up interviews were conducted

with the lead-participants, to clarify and confirmation

of responses. Boudreau, Gefen and Straub (2001)

argue that confirmatory approach heightens

reliability and validity of the content. The transcript

of the interviews and the written feedback were

combined, and sent back to each of the organisations,

also via the lead-participants for verification and

confirmation purpose. The authors, Zondani and

Iyamu (2021) provided procedure for applying the

EBA-RAM.

The data was analysed through hermeneutics

following the interpretivist approach. The analysis

was guided by the concept of translation from ANT

perspective. This allowed a two-phase approach.

Phase 1: the written feedbacks were repeatedly read

in conjunction with the interviews’ transcripts to

comprehend how the EBA-RAM was applied.

According to Eisenhardt (1989), this is crucial in the

analysis of qualitative data; and (2) the sets of data

from each of the organisations were also repeatedly

read with the EBA-RAM, to gain an understanding of

conclusions that were reached in the application

(testing) of the model. ANT is used in the analysis of

the result from the testing.

ANT has been embraced and critiqued over the

years (Walsham, 1997), yet it remains a useful lens of

inquiring (Iyamu, 2015). We relied on the concept of

translation from 3 main standpoints, which are: (1) to

broaden the logic of the EBA-RAM, to the

understanding of employees in the organisations; (2)

its translation is a means through which relationship

between actors are established, and understandings

are connected; and (3) it helps actions to be

coordinated, and meanings are transmitted (Felski,

2016). In addition, ANT was employed primarily

because it provides a framework that enables the

analysis of social construct including the interaction

and relationship of actors in a dynamic fashion

(Burga & Rezania, 2017).

TRANSLATION OF THE DATA

The key factors or areas are usefulness, value, design

and automation, and ease of use. The factors require

translation in ascribing them into actors for

implementation purposes. Translation exposes the

way in which the interests of actors change in the

implementation of technology or processes (Heeks &

Stanforth, 2015).

5.1

What Was Translated?

Thus, it is the primary role of a business architect to

have a holistic understanding of the business

direction, context and strategies when developing

EBA. There are multiple levels of translation in the

process of testing the model in the organisations. First

level, the components of the model were translated to

the participants. This was to help them decide on their

participation and provide useful response. at the

second level, the participants translated the

components in the context of their organisations, to

ensure relevance and fit. Some organisations view

business architecture as an interlinked with

organizational goal and objectives towards value

creation and competitiveness (Roelens, Steenacker &

Poels, 2019). Consequently, one of the participants

concluded as follows: “The model clearly presents the

factors of readiness and also outline the weight

associated with these factors” (GASA_02).

Business model design and product design differ

in several theoretically meaningful ways. Hence

translation of the components was critical. According

to one of the participants, “the main value is that it

helps to improve the capabilities to achieve the goals

and objectives of business architecture. Also, it helps

with design, to capture and address all elements

related to customers service such as digitisation of its

services (OBSA_02)”. Unswervingly, the managers

(lead participants) established themselves as

Assessing Business Architecture Readiness in Organisations

509

obligatory passage points by directly enforcing

testing of the model. such action ensures common

understanding among participating employees, which

helps with corroboration of responses from the

employees. In addition, some of the managers used

the study as an opportunity to test employees’

theoretical know-how about the concept of business

architecture which they have inscribed in them as the

organisations’ embarked of the route to developing

the business. From the Reponses and actions, some of

the managers translated employees’ buy-in into

indispensable interest.

5.2

Why and How Translation Happen

The readiness assessment helps an organisation to

understand its resources capacity towards

improvement of the mandatory requirements for

successful implementation of EBA. Hussein et al.

(2020) consider readiness assessment as the first step

for adopting as it can be usefully in identifying gaps

and risks. In successfully implementing business

architecture, a method that detects and traces means

and ends at the domain’s level was needed. One of the

participants briefly explain: “The value stream allows

an organisation to document its processes and

procedures, create and improve business objectives”

(OBSA_05). The business architecture involves the

conceptualization of organizational boundaries and

defines design flows of processes (Amit & Zott,

2015). Through translation, the assessment model is

understood as “useful because it helps the

organisation to deliver end-to-end business value to

its customer” (ARSA_03).

Organizations must be able to assimilate change,

for purposes of value add and realisation. “The model

is useful in that it helps in the overall assessment of

enterprise-wide business architecture model, more so

in the identification key areas when gathering

requirements” (SBSA_03). The factors used for

testing makes the model suitable for assessment of an

environment toward readiness of EBA. The factors

are fundamental for both present and future including

potential changes. Peppard and Ward (2004) argue

that environment evolve to a point where change

emerge, which therefore mechanisms for assessment.

The position of the participants was that the

assessment “. . . helps a great deal as a guiding plan

when building the matrix to assess EBA maturity

level” (GISA_01).

5.3

Where and When Translation

Occur

During test, translation occurred at stages that further

allows us to analyse the proliferation of related

networks (groups within organisations), to gain

explicit fathom on why and how the EBA RAM was

evaluated and accepted as readiness assessment

mechanism in organisations: “the EBA model

designed to help organisations build a better visual

representation of their business environment”

(SBSA_02); “The model is useful because it helps an

organisation to capture and futuristically assess how

business activities fit together, to serve the end-to-end

stakeholders’ needs” (ARSA_02).

The readiness assessment helps an organisation to

identify various factors that can impede successful

operationalisation of the business architecture. The

factors are both technical and non-technical and can

be unique for each organisation. “The model is well

constructed, and it is easy to interpret and used”

(GASA_04). As a result, “it further helped on

establishing the gaps on the current departmental

enterprise architecture effort” (OBSA_02). Pirola et

al. (2020) argue that by conducting EBA readiness

assessment, organisations do not only identify the

risks and potential challenges but also opportunities

that might arise when EBA is implemented.

Fundamentally, translation reduces cognitive

biases and strengthen the proposition to gain

understanding of how the model can improve the

stability, usefulness and value of business

architecture. “In my view the model is useful because

it provides better business definition for every area of

business architecture deployment which can lead to

effective and efficient business processes and

technology solutions within the environment”

(SBSA_01). Assessment requires reconciling means

with ends through translation in which change is

ascribed in the actors within the environment.

Consequently, actors prepare for known and

unpredictable change that relate to both ends and the

means. “The model allow organisation to build

business capability which can add value to the

development and implementation of the business

architecture” (OBSA_03).

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULT

The EBA has been better theorised in literature rather

practice (Kotusev, 2019). This study provides

empirically validated model for organisational

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

510

practice. Testing of the model provides practicable

evidence for implementing EBA in organisations.

The test focused on four fundamental factors, which

are usefulness, value add, design and automation, and

ease of use as shown in Table 1. Typically, these

factors are indicators for IT and business

improvement, risk mitigation (Amit & Zott, 2015),

and alignment (or co-existence) with existing IT

solutions (Őri, 2014). The factors enact structures,

operations, governance, and alignment of the EBA

with the current environment. The EBA-RAM

implies realistic construction of structures and

operationalisation of alignment and translation of

strategies toward implementation of the EBA in an

organisation. The factors are discussed below, and

they should be read with the Table 1, to gain a deeper

understanding of their criticality.

Table 1: Test result of the EBA-RAM.

# Org. Factor

Weight

1 2 3 4 5

1 SBSA

Usefulness X

Value adds X

Design and

automation

Ease of use X

2 OBSA

Usefulness X

Value adds X

Design and

automation

Ease of use X

3 GISA

Usefulness X

Value adds X

Design and

automation

Ease of use X

4 GASA

Usefulness X

Value adds X

Design and

automation

Ease of use X

5 ARSA

Usefulness X

Value adds X

Design and

automation

Ease of use X

This notions of usefulness, value, design and

automation and ease of use were prevalence in the

conversation and written responses from the

participants. These were because of translation of the

business architecture goal and objectives. “The model

also allows the measurement and monitoring of the

key performance indicators within the environment”

(SBSA_02).

6.1

Usefulness of the Assessment Model

An object or system is deemed useful when it

enhances the performance of activities towards

achievement of defined goals. Individuals accept and

use systems to the extend they are better at addressing

their needs. The EBA-RAM was considered useful by

enforcing practicality in assessing organisations

readiness for business architecture implementation.

Also, because it helps to fortify implicit decisions in

business processes, towards achieving the goals and

objectives. Thus, determining areas of an

organization for the EBA focuses, to improve

performance. The absence of this type of model has

made difficult for many organisations to understand

the extent of complexity of their and the readiness

nature of their environments. In addition, the

usefulness of the model also comes from its

generalization because it is not designed for a specific

organisation as it is flexible and can be applied by

different organisations wishing to implement the

concept of business architecture.

The model is useful in providing guidance to both

business and technology managers in assessing

environment to detect factors of influence in the

deployment of EBA. Roelens et al. (2019) argue that

the realisation of strategic fit within the business

architecture is an important challenge for many

organizations, which has not been actualised. The test

conducted in the 5 organisations proceed the model

from a theoretical antecedent into practice.

Significantly, the model illustrates how to carry out

the assessment process. The model, through the

weight associated with each cell provides a valid

reflection about the current business environment,

enabling the identification of the existing gaps and the

analysis of the efforts towards each factor. Also, it

enables detects potential risks in business

architecture’ multi-faceted view of the organization's

key components. The test validates the gap between

an organization's blueprint and the real-world

readiness and capabilities required to deliver EBA.

6.2

Value Adds to EBA Development

Lack of understanding of factors that influence the

deployment contributes to inability to assess the value

of business architecture in organizations (Zondani &

Iyamu, 2021). Significantly, this is one of the

contributions of the EBA-RAM to organisations in

their pursuit of developing and implementing

business architecture. The EBA-RAM brings a fresh

perspective to organisations that enables management

and employees to scrutinise their environments for

Assessing Business Architecture Readiness in Organisations

511

readiness before committing to architecture activities.

Thus, the business architecture is considered the

genesis domain of the enterprise architecture because

it is pivotal to value add. Also, the EBA-RAM can be

viewed as a communication tool through which

alignment of the various components necessary for

successful operation of EA is achieved. This

addresses concern that demonstrating the business

value of architecture has proven elusive as many of

the benefits are intangible (Shanks et al., 2018).

The result from the test clearly shows that the

EBA-RAM is resilient and adaptive to business

architecture in organisations. Hendrickx et al. (2011)

explain how business architecture resolves historical

challenges in organisations and translates objectives

into strategies, thereby aligning technology and

operations. This can hardly be achieved without an

assessment, a significant value which the EBA-RAM

presents. From value aspect, the EBA-RAM clearly

addresses the gap in processes, designs, and

communication within business units, which can be

used to promote quality of business’ functionalities

and supports. The value is fortified through its

provision of managerial approach to reveal reality

about current state and guides processes toward

performance improvement. Consequently, the

approach removes the incessant of going in virtual

circles, without valuable contribution.

6.3

Design and Automation of

Processes

The implementation of EBA-RAM is influenced by

various factors that are of technical and non-technical

nature, which manifest from characteristics and

categorisations. There are challenges of

characteristics, constraints, and categorization of

resources, which often hinder the implementation or

practice of business architecture in organisations.

Without initial assessment, it is difficult to detect

some of these factors because of their uniqueness.

The uniqueness of the factors requires a deep view, to

gain better understanding and their impacts toward

successful development and implementation of the

business architecture. This is critical as it shapes the

business process network and automation. Also, it

enables management to develop a holistic view of an

organisation’s resources necessary for the design and

development of business goal and objectives.

In theory, business architecture defines

fundamental components such as transformation and

strategy (Hendrickx et al., 2011). Through its design,

workflow, and logical artefacts, enables alignment, an

integrated bridge between business units and IT

(Kotusev, 2019). Therefore, its assessment should not

be taken for granted in actualisation for the

objectives. Also, the increasing complexity in

business processes and operations require fixing and

manageability, to promote cohesion and business-IT

alignment (Řepa & Svatoš, 2020). The factors that

influence these aspects can be detected at the

readiness stage, to ensure stability and increase the

chance of fulfilling the objectives for value purposes.

6.4

Ease of Use of the Assessment

Model

In addition to other valuable components, the EBA-

RAM is considered ease of use focus when

performing an assessment in an environment. Davis

(1989) argues that when a system is perceived as ease

of use, there is high possibility that the users will

continue to make use of the system. This is important

for the EBA-RAM, in assessing readiness of an

environment and enhancing the model as technology

and business evolve. The EBA-RAM’s ease of use is

attributed to it making complex environment look

simply, to understand design. The comprehensive

description of each cell in the model enhances

employees’ understanding of factors.

Organisations in all industries operates in

dynamic environments. The constantly changing

environments affects the business and IT structures

make some environment complex. Rakgoale and

Mentz (2015) explained that IT-landscapes continues

to be a challenge due to the constantly changing

requirements and globalisation. These add to complex

environment why numerous research that have been

conducted in the areas of business architecture do not

aim to assess implementation gaps (Gromoff, Bilinkis

& Kazantsev, 2017). Implementation of the EBA has

been slow primarily because many organisations do

not have a clear understanding of how to transform

from it being a concept to practice. Also, it is difficult

to demonstrate and quantify the value of EBA

changes without able to detect the risks and the

bridging mechanism. The EBA-RAM is an easy-to-

use approach that supports business model-driven

migration from a baseline to the deployment of EBA.

CONCLUSION

The business model concept has rich theoretical roots.

The theoretical contribution of the paper is the

validation of the model, which connects findings

from earlier literature and identifies new insights.

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

512

From practice front, the core stakeholders (architects,

IT managers, business managers and project

sponsors) now have a pragmatic tool for decreasing

uncertainty prior and during implementation of the

EBA in their organisations.

Through ANT’s translation concept, we provide

the analysis of the outcome from evaluation of an

assessment model for EBA, by examining the

alliances in the process. The concept of translation

helps to reveal relationship and rationality, based on

which we propose a construct that extends previous

research on how EBA can be deployed for value

purposes. Applying ANT in the study therefore

contribute to the evolving nature of the theory.

REFERENCES

AL-Ghamdi, A.-M., & Saleem, F. (2016). The impact of

ICT applications in the development of business

architecture Enterprises. International Journal of

Managerial Studies and Research, 4(4), 22-28.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture:

The antecedents of business model design. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350.

Bakar, N., S, H., & Kama, N. (2016). Assessment of

Enterprise Architecture Implementation Capability and

Priority in Public Sector Agency. Procedia Computer

Science, 100(1), 198 – 206.

Boudreau, M. C., Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2001).

Validation in information systems research: A state-of-

the-art assessment. MIS quarterly, 25(1),1-16.

Burga, R., & Rezania, D. (2017). Project accountability: An

exploratory case study using actor–network

theory. International journal of project

management, 35(6), 1024-1036.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of

translation: domestication of the scallops and the

fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Law, J. (ed). Power,

Action & Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?

London: Routledge, 196-229.

Chew, E., & Dehbokry, S. (2014). The Strategic

Requirements for an Enterprise Business Architecture

Framework by SMEs. Lecture Notes on Information

Theory, 1-7.

Conboy, K., Fitzgerald, G., & Mathiassen, L. (2012).

Qualitative methods research in information systems:

motivations, themes, and contributions. European

Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 113-118.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study

research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4),

532-550.

Felski, R. (2016). Comparison and translation: a

perspective from actor-network theory. comparative

literature studies, 53(4), 747-765.

Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D.,

Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding theory–

method fit: A comparison of three qualitative

approaches to theory building. Journal of Management

Inquiry, 27(3), 284-300.

Gonzales-Lopez, F., & Bustos, G. (2019). Integration of

Business Process Architectures within Enterprise

Architecture Approaches: A Literature Review.

Management Journal, 00(00), 1-15.

Gromoff, A., Bilinkis, Y. & Kazantsev, N. (2017). Business

architecture flexibility as a result of knowledge-

intensive process management. Global Journal of

Flexible Systems Management, 18(1), 73-86.

Hadaya, P., & Gagnon, B. (2017). Business Architecture:

The Missing Link in Strategy Formulation,

Implementation and Execution. Montreal: ASATE

Publishing, 1-254.

Heeks, R., & Stanforth, C. (2015). Technological change in

developing countries: opening the black box of process

using actor–network theory. Development Studies

Research, 2(1), 33-50.

Hendrickx, H. H., Daley, S. K., Mahakena, M., & von

Rosing, M. (2011, September). Defining the business

architecture profession. In 2011 IEEE 13th Conference

on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (pp. 325-

332). IEEE.

Hussein, S., Mahrin, M., Maarop, N., & Bakar, N. (2020).

Development and Validation of Enterprise Architecture

(EA) Readiness Assessment Model. International

Journal on Advance Science Engineering Information

Technology, 157-163.

Iyamu, T. (2015). Application of Underpinning Theories in

Information Systems, Heidelberg Press, Victoria.

Iyamu, T. (2019). What are the implications of theorizing

the enterprise architecture? Journal of Enterprise

Transformation, 1-22.

Iyamu, T., Nehemia-Maletzky, M., & Shaanika, I. (2016).

The overlapping nature of Business Analysis and

Business Architecture: what we need to know. The

Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation,

19(3), 169-179.

Jahani, B., Javadein, S., & Jafari, H. (2010). Measurement

of enterprise architecture readiness within

organizations. Business Strategies series, 11(3), 177-

191.

Kim, C., Kim, K., Lee, J., Kang, D., & Ryu, K. (2013).

Ontology-based process model for business

architecture of a virtual enterprise. International

Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 26(7),

583-595.

Kitsios, F., & Kamariotou, M. (2019). Business strategy

modelling based on enterprise architecture: a state-of-

the-art review. Business Process Management Journal,

25(4), 606-624.

Kotusev, S. (2019). Enterprise architecture and enterprise

architecture artifacts: Questioning the old concept in

light of new findings. Journal of Information

technology, 34(2), 102-128.

Law, J. (1992). Notes on the Theory of the Actor-network:

Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity, Systems

Practice 5(4), 379–393.

Assessing Business Architecture Readiness in Organisations

513

Markus, M. L., & Lee, A. S. (1999). Special issue on

intensive research in information systems: Using

qualitative, interpretive, and case methods to study

Information Technology: Forward. MIS quarterly, 35-

38.

Molla, A., Cooper, V. A., & Pittayachawan, S. (2009). IT

and eco-sustainability: Developing and validating a

green IT readiness model. ICIS 2009 proceedings, 141.

Nehemia-Maletzky, M., Iyamu, T., & Shaanika, I. (2018).

The use of activity theory and actor network theory as

lenses to underpin information systems studies. Journal

of Systems and Information Technology, 20(2), 191-

206.

Őri, D. (2014). Misalignment symptom analysis based on

enterprise architecture model assessment. IADIS

International Journal on Computer Science &

Information Systems, 9(2), 146-158.

Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic

information systems: towards an IS capability. The

Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 167-

194.

Pirola, F., Cimini , C., & Pinto, R. (2020). Digital readiness

assessment of Italian SMEs: A case-study research.

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,

31(5), 1045-1083.

Rakgoale, M., & Mentz, J. (2015). Proposing a

measurement model to determine enterprise

architecture success as a feasible mechanism to align

business and IT. International Conference on

Enterprise Systems (pp. 214-224). Basel, Switzerland:

IEEE.

Řepa, V., & Svatoš, O. (2020). Adaptive and Resilient

Business Architecture for the Digital Age. In

Architecting the Digital Transformation (pp. 199-221).

Springer, Cham.

Roelens, B., Steenacker, W., & Poels, G. (2019). Realizing

strategic fit within the business architecture: the design

of a Process-Goal Alignment modelling and analysis

technique. Software & Systems Modelling, 18(1), 631-

662.

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

architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for

business execution. Harvard business press.

Shaanika, I., & Iyamu, T. (2018). Developing the enterprise

architecture for the Namibian. The Electronic Journal

of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(3),

1-13.

Shanks, G., Gloet, M., Someh, I., Frampton, K., & Tamm,

T. (2018). Achieving benefits with enterprise

architecture. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

139-156.

Vickers, D. A., Moore, A., & Vickers, L. (2018).

Performative narrative and actor-network theory–a

study of a hotel in administration. International Journal

of Organizational Analysis, 26(5), 972-983.

Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research:

current status and future prospects. In Information

systems and qualitative research (pp. 466-480).

Springer, Boston, MA.

Whittle, R., & Myrick, C. (2016). Enterprise Business

Architecture: The Formal Link between Strategy and

Results. Washington DC: CRC Press.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications:

Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE publications.

Yusif, S., Hafeez-Baig, A., & Soar, J. (2017). e-Health

readiness assessment factors and measuring tools: A

systematic review. International journal of medical

informatics, 107, 56-64.

Zondani, T., & Iyamu, T. (2021). Towards an Enterprise

Business Architecture Readiness Assessment Model.

In Empowering Businesses with Collaborative

Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (pp. 90-109). IGI

Global.

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

514