Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise
Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation
Dimensions
Shoji Konno and Junichi Iijima
Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
Keywords: Business-IT Alignment (BITA), Enterprise Transformation Management (ETM), Business Capability,
Technology Capability, Dimension, Enterprise Model, Literature Review.
Abstract: In the enterprise transformation (ET), there are so many ideal models, blueprints and situations. The ideal
pictures are provided by practitioners and researchers one picture by one change is predicted or occurs on the
business environment, for example, “digital enterprise transformation” by “business model at digital age”,
etc. Indeed, a variety of approaches were proposed in the literature. On the other hand, under our literature
survey, existing management frameworks are addressing one specific perspective of enterprise management
and focusing on one kind of measurement. There is no significant adoption in the state of the enterprise
transformation management systems based on the relationship between architecture and transformation
practices yet. The goal of this work is, therefore, to propose a holistic management framework to support the
transformation based on enterprise engineering. All the dimensions, analysis perspectives, impact analysis of
those change practices together support among adaptable enterprise architecture world and real transformation
world. It aims to enable the framework to be used in state-of-the-art enterprise change environments.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
In the enterprise transformation (Purchase et al.,
2011), there are so many ideal models, blueprints and
situations (Goerzig and Bauernhansl, 2018). The
ideal pictures are provided by practitioners and
researchers one picture by one change is predicted or
occurs on business environment, for example, “digital
enterprise transformation (Weill and Woerner,
2015)” by “business model at digital age”, etc.
Indeed, a variety of approaches were proposed in the
literature concerned with the solution for treating
those transformation. Various ideal frameworks
and/or big pictures are drawn but transformation has
failed (Flyvbjerg and Budzier, 2011) (Kotter, 1995)
(Westerman, 2018) (Davenport and Westerman,
2018) (Bughin et al., 2018). Rather than promoting
change with ad-hoc way blindly, we think that we
should incorporate ideas to support the practice of
enterprise transformation (Labusch et al., 2014)
capability based on multi-dimensional impact
analysis.
On the other hand, under our preliminary
literature survey, existing management frameworks
are addressing one specific perspective of enterprise
management and focusing on one kind of
improvement. There is no significant adoption in state
of the enterprise transformation management systems
based on relationship between architecture and
transformation practices yet. Companies try to
improve and transform in silos according to
individual frameworks and concepts. Evaluate As-Is
in assessments and interviews based on previously
created ideals, and highlight To-Be and ambition.
Close to the frameworks and concepts used at that
time, it seems that the assessment and subsequent
plans have been successfully done. However, isn't
there a situation where the enterprise transformation
that should be achieved does not progress because the
enterprise's interoperability with other related things
is lacking or not? Even if individual frameworks have
formed completed forms, I thought that frameworks
that can be transformed and transformation operation
platforms that embody them would be necessary
while maintaining their interoperability.
256
Konno, S. and Iijima, J.
Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation Dimensions.
DOI: 10.5220/0008070302560265
In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 256-265
ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7
Copyright
c
 2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

The goal of this work is, therefore, to propose a
holistic management framework to support the
transformation by using enterprise engineering (Dietz
and Hoogervorst, 2017) thinking-frame. All the
dimensions, analysis perspectives, impact analysis of
those change practices together support among
adaptable enterprise architecture world and real
transformation world.
Enterprise engineering (Dietz, 2011) (Dietz and
Hoogervorst, 2017) is conceptual thinking
methodology to apply engineering approach to
enterprise architecture management by describing the
model of enterprise, governance model and business
model. Enterprise engineering have the potential for
solve those problems describer in Section 1 between
enterprise model and enterprise transformation
activities on the real business world and/or physical
enterprise. For example, we can use enterprise
engineering method to clarify the influenced area of
enterprise on ET management (ETM) activities.
On the other hand, at the research area of
Enterprise modelling, the formation of the capturing
the enterprise has influenced by the change of
business environments. For example, at the digital
age the form of enterprise has shift from traditional
pyramid style to networked ecosystem style. At the
scene, several research activities have proposed each
sophisticated and specific framework for representing
the structure of ideal enterprise structure.
Those frameworks mentioned above has hard
barriers between each thinking methodology. We are
thinking the combination those method and theories
at the management scene. At the management
activities of those transformation, we must clarify the
mechanism that how to influence the activities for the
transformation to enterprise model at each
transformation scenario. It is important to connect
various frameworks and theory about enterprise
through enterprise dimensions (Bernus et al., 2012)
for supporting the transformation.
1.2 Our Goal
At the end of this work, we will establish the
framework for supporting platform and solution as a
service (Figure 1). At the scene, the start point of the
solution will be definition the requirements for a
transformation activity (Labusch et al., 2017) by
using requirements engineering think-frame
(Ivarsson and Gorschek, 2009), etc (Figure 1).
The solution will take next steps for supporting
the enterprise transformation management;
(Step-1) Clarify requirements of the transformation
(Step-2) Co-create expectation tree of the
transformation
(Step-3) Target enterprise capability for the
transformation based on enterprise engineering
think-frame
(Step-4) Visualize the value network
(Step-5) Take an impact analysis
(Step-6) Execute ETM
Figure 1: Our Goal.
Ultimately, we aim to design, develop and provide
a platform for digital twin on ETM realized on the
own framework proposed in this work. This will
reduce costs and labours on achieving various types
of transform from the traditional ETM world to the
new fully digitally ETM world. We think that the core
components of the platform are to have the ability to
connect with change capability, business model,
architecture and so on.
1.3 Research Questions
After preliminary literature review concerned with
those research areas, we have defined the research
question for our work. These questions are below.
(RQ1) "How does enterprise engineering
methodology support enterprise transformation with
capability maturity framework?"
(RQ2) “How does enterprise capability maturity
affect to enterprise dimensions?”.
(RQ3) “What is a relationship between enterprise
dimensions and enterprise transformation?”
In this paper, we define “enterprise dimensions”
as “a collection of elements related to the enterprise
that cannot be reconstructed as a whole if one is
missing”.
Furthermore, we will clarify the next points in this
work as the secondary research question.
(1) What are there as perspectives and dimensions
related to the enterprise? How do they influence each
Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation Dimensions
257

other during enterprise transformation? How can
enterprise engineering support enterprise
transformation?
(2) The relationship between models related
enterprise, “business model”, “enterprise model” and
“execution (operation) model”, etc.
(3) How to define the dimensions for capturing
organizational transformations
(4) How to apply enterprise engineering approach to
the enterprise transformations
(5) How should I define those dimensions for
modelling and assessing those transformation
including
(6) how to evaluate the impact of each transformation
(7) The relationship between “enterprise model” and
enterprise capability
(8) The relationship between “transformation
dimension” and enterprise capability
(9) For example, how to apply this method to “digital
enterprise transformation”?
1.4 Hypotheses
Based on the research questions and our goal, we
define the following main proposition:
Main Proposition:
Improvements in enterprise capability maturity has a
positive impact on the outcomes of all the components
associated with enterprise transformation with less
effort and faster.
Based on above, we formulate the following
hypotheses for addressing the research questions:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
There are relationships between enterprise
transformation capabilities and others concerned
with enterprise.
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
There are unified enterprise dimensions and
influencers for enterprise transformation.
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
Enterprise dimension reference model and body of
knowledge related to each specific transformation
theme is key contents of ETM framework.
2 BACKGROUND CONCEPTS
2.1 Enterprise
Many frameworks and concepts with "enterprise"
seem to exist. Sometimes it may be a subtle
difference, such as pointing to an enterprise system or
pointing to an enterprise organization. Even without
"enterprise", some seem to be closely related to
enterprise system and enterprise organization. In this
study, we decided to target enterprise defined in (Jan
and Dietz, 2006). The definition is “the term
“enterprise” is used to refer in the most general way
to human cooperatives, like companies, institutes,
projects, etc., as well as to networks of enterprises,
like supply chains.”. According to (Jan and Dietz,
2006), the term “business” is “typically used to refer
to the function perspectives on the enterprise by its
customers (but applies also to other stakeholders).”
And by the “organization” of an enterprise is “strictly
meant the construction perspective (white-box) on the
enter-prise, disregarding all function perspectives
(black-box).”.
2.2 Enterprise Architecture
The enterprise architecture (EA) is “a conceptual
blueprint that defines the structure and operation of
an organization” (Ross et al., 2006). The intent of
enterprise architecture is “to determine how an
organization can most effectively achieve its current
and future objectives” (Tamm et al, 2011). EA is
“often used to frame IS evolution by putting more
focus on future requirements; it is about developing a
long-term IT strategy including multiyear objectives,
activity planning, and staff requirements to support
evolving business needs and interests” (Tamm et al,
2011) (Lange et al., 2016). As we will mention in
Section 6, it is changing its shape as the enterprise
environment changes. It is necessary to consider the
dimension in line with the change of architecture.
2.3 Enterprise Transformation
According to (Purchase, 2011), enterprise
transformation concerns change, not just routine
change but fundamental change that substantially
alters an organization’s relationships with one or
more key constituencies, e.g., customers, employees,
suppliers, and investors. Transformation can involve
new value propositions in terms of products and
services, how these offerings are delivered and
supported, and/or how the enterprise is organized to
provide these offerings. Transformation can also
involve old value propositions provided in
fundamentally new ways.
Enterprise transformation (ET) can involve new
value propositions or change the inner structure of the
enterprise. Further, ET could involve old value
propositions provided in fundamentally new ways
(Rouse, 2005). Examples are significant mergers &
acquisitions, replacements of legacy IT systems or
KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development
258

business model changes (Gollenia et al., 2012). EA
management (ETM) is concerned with the
establishment and coordinated development of EA in
order to consistently respond to business and IT goals,
opportunities, and necessities (Labusch et al., 2014).
2.4 Capability and Dynamic Capability
The definition of “capability” is published by past
research papers and books (Table 1). In (Wißotzki,
2018), the definition is focus on “perform a set of
coordinated tasks, utilizing organizational resources,
for the purposes of achieving a particular end result”.
Table 1: Definitions on capability.
Definition
Source (Ref.)
perform a set of coordinated
tasks, utilizing organizational
resources, for the purposes of
achieving a particular end result.
Dynamic
resource-based
view (Helfat and
Peteraf, 2003)
an ability that an organization,
person, or system possesses.
TOGAF (Open
Group. (2009)
represents the ability of an
enterprise to join information and
roles able to execute a specific
activity with available resources
in order to support strategy goals
under consideration of its context.
Enterprise
Architecture
Capabilities
(Wißotzki and
Sandkuhl, 2015)
the quality of being capable; of
having the capacity or ability to
do something; of being able to
achieve declared goals and
objectives.
IT-CMF
(Capability
Maturity
Framework)
(Curley et al,
2016)
In (Wißotzki, 2015), the types of capability are
already summarized by literature review. We are
updating the summary for our study (Table 2). Those
capabilities have individual perspective and
organization perspective. In our research activities,
the target is organization perspective.
In (Michell, 2011), the focus point of these
capabilities (Figure 2) is a little bit difference from
others (Table 2). The numbers in parentheses in the
figure 2 represent the year in which the definitions
were published.
The capability is linked with enterprise resources
and processes. One focus area on the research is
“Resource-based” relation and the second is
“Operation theory based” relation.
In (Teece, 2010), dynamic capabilities are based
on “the skills, procedures, organizational structures,
and decision rules that firms utilize to create and
capture value.”. We think that the dynamic capability
will be the core engine in enterprise transformation
management because transformation is not to mature
but to change the company's routine business
processes to other suitable ones.
Figure 2: Focus points of capability.
Table 2: Types of capability.
Description
Type (Ref.)
the focus of dynamic capabilities is
broader than of all others since a
dynamic capability deals directly
with the business environment and
its contemporary dynamic
behaviour.
Dynamic
Capability
(Kim, G. et
al, 2011)
they represent the execution of core
competencies within a business
process for the purpose of providing
either products or services.
Core
Capability
(Wißotzki,
2015)
referred to a corporate business goal
the aim of business capabilities is to
activate, use and maintain resources
for specific business activities.
Business
Capability
(Helfat et
al, 2003)
describes the specific combination of
know-how in terms of organizational
knowledge, procedures and resources
able to externalize this knowledge in a
specific process with appropriated and
available resources to achieve a specific
outcome for a defined strategic initiative
that change an EA.
EAM
Capability
(Wißotzki,
2015)
to manage their IT resources in order to
realize agility. The central goal of IT-
capability represents the realization of
business value and maintenance of
competitive advantages in terms of IT
services and/ or IT products.
IT
Capability
(Mithas,
2011)
the capability of enterprise acquisition,
processing and application of
information resources and information
technology, which is also a source of
sustainable competitive advantage.
Information
Capability
(Xu, 2014)
2.5 Dimensions of Enterprise
According to (Bernus et al., 2012), “Structure”,
“Behaviour” and “Value” are illustrated as the major
Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation Dimensions
259

dimensions of architecture. Bernus et al. also pointed
out “all of which are interrelated and understanding
these should improve the enterprise”. At (Bernus et
al., 2012), the focus was on how to subdivide the
enterprise model for improvement in the company's
performance. It has not been defined in anticipation
of relationships or impacts in line with transformation
or other elements.
2.6 Foundation for Execution and
Operating Model
In (Ross et al., 2006), J.Ross has defined the
foundation for execution model for traditional
enterprise. They say that an organization’s operating
model should determine its enterprise architecture,
which, in turn, should guide the building of its
foundation for execution (i.e., the operating
platform). According to (Ross et al., 2006), operating
model is “the necessary level of business process
integration and standardization for delivering goods
and services to customers”. As with other concepts
and frameworks, the operating model has also
changed in response to changes in the environment
surrounding the enterprise, such as digital
transformation (Goerzig and Bauernhansl, 2018)
(Weill and Woerner, 2015). In this study, although the
relationship between EA and Capability is illustrated,
but dimensions on enterprise transformation has not
been mentioned.
In (Hafsi and Assar, 2016), Hafsi, M. etc. pointed
out that execution model should be changed align
with causing digital transformation at enterprise.
2.7 Business Model
In (Gassmann et al., 2013), Gassmann et al.
summarized 55 patterns of business model by the
difference between “What?”, “Who?”, “Why?”, and
“How?” axes and “Value Proposition”, “Value
Chain”, and “Revenue Model”. In enterprise
transformation, these transitions are also treated as
one of the enterprise transformation dimensions.
In (Fleisch, 2015), business models on digital
business has defined. Although some overlap with
general business models, many new models are
presented in the book, for example, “Freemium” and
“Subscription”, et al.
Figure 3: Foundation for execution models.
3 RESEARCH DESIGN
In this research, we choose the methodology based on
the design science research (DSR) (Hevner et al.,
2008) (Wohlin and Aurum, 2015). We have set the
research steps below. Note that these steps do not end
in one direction, and can be reordered or repeated as
needed.
(Step1) - Clarify problems to be Studied: Describe
main research questions and support research
questions.
(Step2) - Propose new Solutions: Study the existing
theory/framework/body of knowledge around the
problem area in order to envision a possible solution,
based on literature review action.
(Step3) - Define Research Model: Build research
model, make hypotheses and familiar with the
selected research methodologies and tools for the
solution.
(Step4) - Realize New Solutions: Define commonly
available artefacts focusing on enterprise
transformation. The main artefacts are enterprise
dimensions for supporting various types of enterprise
transformation, for example, digital transformation.
(Step5) - Collect Data from Case Examples: Define
commonly available enterprise dimensions for
existing frameworks and ideas related to enterprise,
focusing on enterprise transformation.
(Step6) - Validate Hypothesis: Apply to some model
cases on enterprise transformation management such
as digital transformation in Japan, Europe and US. In
this step, we will use design science as primary
method. The detailed process, method, validation
points and measurement for the validation will be
defined in this step, later.
(Step7) - Evaluate Research Results: Evaluate the
artefacts to ensure that all intended goals and benefits
KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development
260

ware achieved. The detailed process, method,
evaluation points and measurement for the evaluation
also will be defined in this step, later.
(Step8) - Extend Research Model: Refine our
research model based on the research results obtained
through research steps described above.
(Step9) - Conclusion: Complete this research with
the evaluation of the results and the presentation. By
posting journals at international conferences, we will
obtain expert opinions and feedbacks in this area, and
will continue to participate in discussions as a
member of the research community in that area.
4 RELATED WORK
4.1 EAM (Enterprise Architecture
Management)
EAM has the holistic perspective of enterprise
architecture management (Labusch et al., 2014). It is
a framework for successful implementation of ETM,
and it is effective for capturing activities to be
implemented. (Labusch et al., 2014) has” eight major
groups of ETM activities”. Those activities are “ET
Meta”, “ET Performance”, “ET Strategy”, “ET
Execution”, “ET HR”, “ET IT”, “ET Structure” and
“ET Relationship”. These perspectives are very
useful in considering the transformation dimensions
in our study.
4.2 Adaptive Enterprise Architecture
Adaptive Enterprise Architecture (Korhonen et al.,
2016) has four perspectives derived from the need for
and underpinnings of a reconceptualization of
enterprise architecture from the enterprise ecological
adaptation (i.e. adaptive enterprise) point of view:
Perspective 1: Enterprise Ecological Adaptation,
Perspective 2: Vertical Contingency,
Perspective 3: Enterprise as Living System,
Perspective 4: Adaptive Enterprise Design.
It is considered to be the latest among the existing
EA forms. It is thought that the transition shown in
the figure 3 has been achieved until this form is
reached. It is used as a material to identify those that
are universal and those that are not in these changes.
In addition, we think that the viewpoints dealt with in
this framework are also useful for the consideration
of our dimensions.
4.3 ACET (Architectural Coordination
of Enterprise Transformation)
ACET (Proper et al., 2017) (de Kinderen, 2017) has
the holistic perspective of enterprise architecture
management. The purpose of the ACET is to
coordinate enterprise transformation. ACET
integrates and aggregates local information and
provides different viewpoints. By using ACET, the
stakeholders of an enterprise transformation can
create and share the understanding.
5 RESEARCH DESIGN FOR OUR
FUTURE WORK
In this research, we will apply enterprise engineering
think-frame to enterprise transformation management
(Figure 4). As first step, we summarised the candidate
of enterprise transformation dimensions in this paper.
Figure 4: Our research approach.
5.1 Historical Review of Enterprise
Architecture
Based on the preliminary historical literature review
(Kotusev, 2016), we can describe the history of the
transformation in the real business world (Figure 5).
Figure 5: History of the shape of enterprise architecture.
Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation Dimensions
261

At the beginning of the history, the enterprise
model formed like a pyramid separated with several
layers, for example infrastructure layer, technology
layer, data layer, information layer, business process
layer. We will extract the characteristics of each
representation for clarifying what dimension is
changing by transform the shape (Rigdon et al., 1989)
(Halley and Bashioum, 2005) (Ferronato, 2007) (De
Vries and Van Rensburg, 2008) (Fritscher and Pigneur,
2011) (Lazarov et al., 2015) (Korhonen et al., 2016). In
these changes, we think that the universal part, the part
that is not so can reveal our dimension.
5.2 Types of Enterprise Organizational
Formation
According to (Korhonen and Halen, 2017),
traditionally enterprise architecture has focused on
process standardization and integration, not on
continuous adaptation to the changing business,
information, social and technological landscape.
Furthermore, (Haffke et al., 2016) has described about
“changing role of EA and technological catalysis along
different phases of the adaptive loop”. Depend on those
change of environments of business, the formation of
enterprise has been transformed like the formation
describer in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Enterprise formation.
We will extract the characteristics of each
formation of enterprise for clarifying which influencers
will impact to the enterprise model at when a
transformation occurs by referring (Chui et al., 2012)
(Srivastava, 2015) (Moreira et al., 2018). These
characteristics is one of the candidates as the
transformation requirements. We can extract some
dimensions of enterprise transformation from the
comparison. In the future, we will continue to study
from two directions and define the dimensions of
enterprise formation, based on a deeper survey of the
literature.
5.3 Enterprise Model, Business Model
and Organization Model
In (Hay, 2011), enterprise model patterns have
summarized. Those patterns are focused on data centric
descriptions of enterprise activities by using some
predefined parts. We think this work is not suitable for
our research because there are no specific patterns on
enterprise transformation. In (Gassmann et al., 2013)
and (Fleisch, 2015), business model patterns have
summarized. We think those patterns are depends on
the requirements for enterprise transformation. In
(Agostinhoa, 2014) and (Santa and Nurcan,2016), we
can find the patterns of organization model. We think
the organization model is similar with “Types of
Enterprise Organizational Formation” in this paper.
These patterns of several models are one of the
candidates as the dimensions for enterprise
transformation.
5.4 Transition on Enterprise Systems
Innovation
In (Kapoor t al., 2015), they described the difference
between SoR (Systems of Record), SoE (Systems of
Engagement) and SoI (Systems of Insight). Based on
the description, we can define the as enterprise systems
innovation dimensions like Figure 7.
Figure 7: Transition on enterprise systems innovation.
SoR is a traditional business support system like an
ERP package for recording the DIK (Data,
Information, Knowledge) of the activities on the
enterprise. The system architecture is defined by using
EA methods.
In next innovated system world, SoE is the key
infrastructure in a connected world like IoT. SoE has
different system architecture and characteristics
between SoR and SoI described in Figure 7. The
transition from SoR to SoE will influence to EA,
models, capabilities and so on related to enterprise
transformation will be changed.
SoI is one of cutting-edge architecture based on
analytics function like AI (Artificial Intelligence) and
Cognitive Computing. SoI must take a collaboration
with SoR and SoE, closely. In the case of transition
from SoR and SoE, the direction of the transformation
is “Business Value” centric. These types of systems
transitions are one of the candidates as the dimensions
for enterprise transformation, too.
KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development
262

5.5 It Capability Maturity Model
As the concept of IT capability maturity was
introduced by (Ross et al., 1996) (Curley, 2016). We
select IT-CMF (Curley, 2016) which more impact on
digital transformation for explaining enterprise
transformation with capability perspective. The
framework has capability maturity model. In the
model, vertical axis is divided into five levels of the
transformation from initial state to optimizing state
and horizontal axis is divided into four key strategic
areas for the management of IT. From these
circumstances, we will clarify what is necessary to
consider our dimensions in the future, based on the
relationship between artefacts treated at each
capability and another dimensions.
At the scope of BITA, IT-CMF has also several
candidates of our dimensions for enterprise
transformation. In the column “Managing IT like a
business” of the maturity model, the direction of the
transformation is from “Cost Centre” to “Value
Centre”. In the case “Managing the IT budget”, the
direction is from “Predicted” to “Sustainable”. Next
case “Managing the IT capability”, the direction is
from technology-centric “Technology Supplier” to
customer-centric “Corporate Core Competency”. In
the final column, the direction is from “TCO” to
“Optimized value”.
These directions of maturity model are one of the
candidates as the dimensions for enterprise
transformation, too.
6 DIMENSIONS FOR ETM
We will define the dimensions related enterprise
transformation based on existing several dimensions
and models (Figure 8). From some literature review
concerned with enterprise transformation, there are so
many styles of representation for figuring out the
characteristics of To-Be picture of future enterprise.
We think the dimensions is key role among enterprise
transformation management with multi-directions
connected influencers. The influencers will be
derived from several theories, frameworks, existing
dimensions and models referred in this paper.
In Figure 8, “Enterprise Governance” represents
the high-level dimension for decision-making style.
The detailed dimensions will be defined in our future
study. Same as “Enterprise Governance”, we can
define the relationship between each high-level
dimension with specific perspective on enterprise
transformation.
Enterprise Model: models related enterprise,
Figure 8: Enterprise perspectives and enterprise
transformation dimensions.
like business models.
Enterprise Capability: capabilities related enterprise,
like IT capability/business capability.
Enterprise System: systems related enterprise, like
SoR/SoE/SoI.
Enterprise Formation: organic styles of enterprise,
like hierarchy/networked/ecosystem/…
Enterprise Resource: resources of enterprise, like
platform/infrastructure/staff…
Enterprise Architecture: architecture of enterprise,
like traditional/…/adaptive.
Enterprise Execution: capability and competency,
like IT-CMF/IT Management Competency
Many companies are focusing digital
transformation at all industries around the world. On
the other hand, many existing issues concerned with
current business model and/or enterprise formation
are still remain. This paper provides overview of the
dimensions. It aims to enable the framework to be
used in state-of-the-art enterprise change
environments. From the recognition that there is
confusion of viewpoints, perspectives and
dimensions, we will formulate our enterprise
transformation dimensions after clarifying the
distinction as shown in Figure 9, based on the
perspectives described in this chapter.
7 CONCLUSIONS
As summary message, we describe the relationship
Ross’s “foundation of execution” (Ross et al., 2006)
and our dimensions in Figure 9. We believe that the
dimensions discussed in this paper promote strategic
transformation of complex entities, such as digital
enterprise transformation.
Many companies are focusing digital
transformation at all industries around the world. On
Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation Dimensions
263

the other hand, many existing issues concerned with
current business model and/or enterprise formation are
still remain. This paper provides overview of ongoing
research results and plan the remaining steps.
It aims to enable the framework to be used in state-
of-the-art enterprise change environments.
Figure 9: Relationship with Ross’s execution model and our
high-level enterprise dimensions.
As future work, we intend to (i) reshape new
enterprise architecture model consist of enterprise
dimensions based management framework as new
enterprise architecture world for supporting enterprise
transformation based on the combination enterprise
engineering and dynamic capabilities; (ii) propose how
to describe the requirements for the transformation;
(iii) examine the clarifying the relationship on
influencing between architecture world and
transformation world by using common dimensions
and influencers for leading the transformation; and
finally, (iv) formalize the prototype management
support tool for the transformation.
REFERENCES
Agostinhoa, O. L. (2015). Proposal of Organization
Framework Model, using Business Processes and
Hierarchical Patterns to provide Agility and Flexibility in
Competitiveness Environments. In Procedia
Engineering. 131, 401-409.
Bernus, P., Nemes, L., Schmidt, G. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook
on enterprise architecture. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Bughin, J., Catlin, T., Hirt, M., Willmott, P. 2018. Why
digital strategies fail. In McKinsey Quarterly, January.
Chui, M., Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C.,
Sarrazin, H., Westergren, M. (2012). The social
economy: Unlocking value and productivity through
social technologies. In McKinsey Global Institute. 4, 35-
58.
Curley, M., Kenneally, J., & Carcary, M. (2016). IT
Capability Maturity Framework (IT-CMF). Van Haren.
Davenport, T. H., Westerman, G. (2018). Why so many high-
profile digital transformations fail. In Harvard Business
Review, 9.
Dietz, J. L. G. Enterprise Engineering Manifesto (2011).
Dietz, J. L., Hoogervorst, J. A. (2017). Foundations of
enterprise engineering.
Ferronato, P. (2007). Architecture for Digital Ecosystems,
beyond Service Oriented Architecture (IEEE-DEST
2007). In 2007 Inaugural IEEE-IES Digital EcoSystems
and Technologies Conference. (pp. 660-665). IEEE.
Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A. (2011). Why your IT project may
be riskier than you think. In Harvard Business Review,
89(9), 23-25.
Fleisch, E., Weinberger, M., & Wortmann, F. (2015).
Business models and the internet of things. In
Interoperability and Open-Source Solutions for the
Internet of Things. (pp. 6-10). Springer, Cham.
Fritscher, B., Pigneur, Y. (2011). Business IT alignment from
business model to enterprise architecture. In
International Conference on Advanced Information
Systems Engineering. pp. 4-15. Springer, Heidelberg.
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., Csik, M. (2013). The St.
Gallen business model navigator. University of St.
Gallen.
Goerzig, D., Bauernhansl, T. (2018). Enterprise architectures
for the digital transformation in small and medium-sized
enterprises. In Procedia CIRP, 67, 540-545.
Gollenia, L. A., Uhl, A., Giovanoli, C. (2012). Next
Generation IT Strategy – Approaching the Digital
Enterprise. In 360° - The Business Transformation
Journal, No. 5, 2012, pp. 32-49.
Haffke, I., Kalgovas, B., Benlian, A. (2016). The Role of the
CIO and the CDO in an Organization’s Digital
Transformation. In Proceedings of the 37th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), pp. 1-20.
Hafsi, M., Assar, S. (2016). What enterprise architecture can
bring for digital transformation: An exploratory study. In
2016 IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics
(CBI) (Vol. 2, pp. 83-89). IEEE.
Halley, M. R., Bashioum, C. (2005). Enterprise
transformation to a service-oriented architecture:
successful patterns. In IEEE International Conference on
Web Services (ICWS'05). IEEE.
Hay, D. C. (2011). Enterprise Model Patterns: Describing
the World. Technics Publications.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic
resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. In Strategic
management journal. 24(10), 997-1010.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., Ram, S. (2008). Design
science in information systems research. In Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1), 6.
Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T. (2009). Technology transfer
decision support in requirements engineering research: a
systematic review of REj. In Requirements engineering,
14(3), 155-175.
Jan, D., Dietz, G. (2006). Enterprise Ontology: Theory and
Methodology. B., Heidelberg, NY: Springer.
Kapoor, S., Mojsilovic, A., Strattner, J. N., Varshney, K. R.
(2015, September). From open data ecosystems to
systems of innovation: A journey to realize the promise
KEOD 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development
264

of open data. In Bloomberg Data for Good Exchange
Conference.
Kim, G., Shin, B., Kim, K. K., & Lee, H. G. (2011). IT
capabilities, process-oriented dynamic capabilities, and
firm financial performance. In Journal of the association
for information systems. 12(7), 487.
de Kinderen, S. (2017). ACET Constructs. In Architectural
Coordination of Enterprise Transformation. pp. 169-
173. Springer, Cham.
Korhonen, J. J., Lapalme, J., McDavid, D., Gill, A. Q. (2016,
August). Adaptive enterprise architecture for the future:
Towards a reconceptualization of EA. In 2016 IEEE 18th
Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). Vol. 1, pp.
272-281. IEEE.
Korhonen, J.J. Halén, M. (2017). Enterprise Architecture for
Digital Transformation. In Business Informatics (CBI),
2017 19th Conference on, pages 349-358. IEEE.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation
efforts fail. In Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Kotusev, S. (2016). The history of enterprise architecture: An
evidence-based review. In Journal of Enterprise
Architecture. Volume, 12(1), 29.
Labusch, N., Aier, S., Winter, R. (2014). A reference model
for the information-based support of enterprise
transformations. In International Conference on Design
Science Research in Information Systems (pp. 194-208).
Springer, Cham.
Labusch, N. (2017). Information Requirements for Enterprise
Transformation. In Architectural Coordination of
Enterprise Transformation, (pp. 111-121). Springer,
Cham.
Lange, M., Mendling, J., Recker, J. (2016). An empirical
analysis of the factors and measures of Enterprise
Architecture Management success. In European Journal
of Information Systems, 25(5), 411-431.
Lazarov, B., Kirov, G., Zlateva, P., Velev, D. (2015).
Network-Centric Operations for Crisis Management Due
to Natural Disasters. In International Journal of
Innovation, Management and Technology, 6(4), 252.
Michell, V. (2011, July). A focussed approach to business
capability. In First International Symposium on Business
Modelling and Software Design BMSD Bulgaria. pp105-
113.
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How
information management capability influences firm
performance. In MIS quarterly. 35(1), 237.
Moreira, F., Ferreira, M. J., Seruca, I. (2018). Enterprise 4.0–
the emerging digital transformed enterprise? In Procedia
computer science. 138, 525-532.
Proper, H. A., Winter, R., Aier, S., de Kinderen, S. (Eds.).
(2017). Architectural Coordination of Enterprise
Transformation. Springer.
Purchase, V., Parry, G., Valerdi, R., Nightingale, D., Mills, J.
(2011). Enterprise transformation: Why are we
interested, what is it, and what are the challenges? In
Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 1(1), 14-33.
Rigdon, W.B. (1989). Architectures and Standards. In
Information Management Directions: The Integration
Challenge (NIST Special Publication 500-167), E.N.
Fong and A.H. Goldfine (eds.). Gaithersburg, MD:
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
pp. 135-150.
Ross, J. W., Beath, C. M., Goodhue, D. L. (1996). Develop
long-term competitiveness through IT assets. In Sloan
management review. 38(1), 31-42.
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise
architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for
business execution. Harvard Business Press.
Rouse, W. B. (2005). A theory of enterprise transformation.
In Systems Engineering, 8(4), 279-295.
Santa, M., Nurcan, S. (2016). Learning organization
modelling patterns. In Knowledge Management
Research & Practice. 14(1), 106-125.
Srivastava, A. (2015). Excuse Me, Can You Tell Me the Way
to Become an Enterprise 3.0?
https://us.nttdata.com/en/blog/2015/september/way-to-
become-an-enterprise-3-dot-0
Tamm, T., Seddon, P. B., Shanks, G., Reynolds, P. (2011).
How does enterprise architecture add value to
organisations? In Communications of the association for
information systems, 28(1), 10.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Technological innovation and the theory
of the firm: the role of enterprise-level knowledge,
complementarities, and (dynamic) capabilities. In
Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. (Vol. 1, pp.
679-730). North-Holland.
Open Group. (2009). TOGAF Version 9. The Open Group
Architecture Framework. Document G091.
De Vries, M., Van Rensburg, A. C. (2008). Enterprise
Architecture-New business value perspectives. In South
African Journal of Industrial Engineering. 19(1), 1-16.
Weill, P., Woerner, S. L. (2015). Thriving in an increasingly
digital ecosystem. In MIT Sloan Management Review,
56(4), 27.
Westerman, G. (2018). Your Company Doesn't Need a
Digital Strategy. In MIT Sloan Management Review,
59(3), 1-5.
Wißotzki, M. (2015). An exploration of capability research.
In 2015 IEEE 19th International Enterprise Distributed
Object Computing Conference. (pp. 179-184). IEEE.
Wißotzki, M., & Sandkuhl, K. (2015). Elements and
characteristics of enterprise architecture capabilities. In
International Conference on Business Informatics
Research. (pp. 82-96). Springer, Cham.
Wißotzki, M. (2018). The Notion of Capability in Literature.
In Capability Management in Digital Enterprises. (pp.
27-39). Springer, Cham.
Wohlin, C., Aurum, A. (2015). Towards a decision-making
structure for selecting a research design in empirical
software engineering. In Empirical Software
Engineering, 20(6), 1427-1455.
Xu, L., Zhou, L. (2014). Formation Model of Enterprise
Information Capability Research Based on Information
Behavior. In Applied Mechanics and Materials. (Vol.
496, pp. 1830-1833). Trans Tech Publications.
Enterprise Transformation Management based on Enterprise Engineering Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation Dimensions
265