Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering:

Literature Review and Research Directions

Shoji Konno

and Junichi Iijima

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

Tokyo University of Science, 1-11-2 Fujimi, Chiyoda-city, Tokyo 102-0071, Japan

Keywords: Enterprise Engineering, Enterprise Transformation, Enterprise Transformation Capability, Enterprise

Dimension, Transformation Stage, Transformation Capability, Transformation Maturity Model, Literature

Review.

Abstract: In response to the rapid changes in the world, such as digital transformation, there is a growing demand for

efficient and effective enterprise transformation. Research artifacts related to the transformation have been

increasingly emerging as new standardized several description artifacts suitable to provide practices for

particular enterprise transformations. Enterprise has many aspects, such as their architecture, processes, and

organizational form, but their efforts in transformation are focused on silos such as enterprise system

modelling, and dynamic capabilities. In this study, we assess the availability of topics that support the

transformation and the fitness of enterprise engineering for fulfilling the modelling and managing

requirements. The review was carried out, finding 349 relevant papers and a list of the few aspects and topics

for classifying the focus points of enterprise transformation. Based on the analysis and results of the review,

brief suggestions to stimulate further research on the design, improvement, and application of the enterprise

transformation management framework are also derived.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the past, many ideal forms of enterprise

transformation have been drawn by consultants,

practitioners, and researchers. The latest example is

digital enterprise transformations (Purchase et al.,

2011) (Weill and Woerner, 2015). Various ideal

frameworks and big pictures, or both, are drawn, but

the transformation has failed (Kotter, 1995)

(Davenport and Westerman, 2018) (Bughin et al.,

2018).

Enterprise has many aspects, such as their

architecture, processes, and organizational form, but

their efforts in transformation are focused on silos

such as enterprise system modelling, and dynamic

capabilities. Companies try to improve and transform

in silos according to individual frameworks and

concepts (Konno and Iijima, 2019). Research artifacts

related to the transformation have been increasingly

emerging as new standardized several description

artifacts suitable to provide practices for particular

enterprise transformations. In this study, we assess

the availability of topics that support the

transformation by fitting enterprise engineering to

fulfil the modelling and managing requirements.

Today, as we support corporate transformation, we

interview with pre-made questions based on some

ideal form of digital transformation, assess the current

status, and set future goals and ambition goals.

However, it may be that enterprise transformation

will fail due to the lack of interoperability with other

related perspectives and things, or both. In order to

improve this situation, it is necessary to determine

what research results are related to enterprise

transformation, what is lacking, and where research

should be concentrated (Konno and Iijima, 2019).

In order to provide an outline for this literature

review, Section 2. gives background and related work

around the capability of supporting enterprise

transformation. Section 3 describes the overall

process of the literature review, including a further

specification of the research goals by defining

research questions. Additionally, the process and

results of the paper selection are described. Section 4

deeply analyses the literature. A summary and

outlook are provided in Section 5.

136

Konno, S. and Iijima, J.

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions.

DOI: 10.5220/0011529300003335

In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2022) - Volume 2: KEOD, pages 136-147

ISBN: 978-989-758-614-9; ISSN: 2184-3228

2 BACKGROUNDS

In a nutshell, an enterprise is reforming towards

digital transformation. We can find five central states

of the transformation through paper research.

1. Management scope is shifted from IT to

digital (business technology): Compared to the peak

of the literature on IT management (the year 2012), it

has decreased by 57%. In contrast, literature on

digital technology increased 2.4 times from the year

2012.

2. Management perspective is shifted from IT

organization to the customer: Compared to the peak

of literature on IT organizations (the year 2015), it is

now down 20%. In contrast, the literature on

customers has increased 1.7 times.

3. Focus point is shifted from solo function to

extended enterprise: Compared to when the literature

related to digital began to rise (the year 2015), the

number of solo function literature remained flat. In

contrast, literature on extended enterprise increased

3.3 times.

4. Strategy scope is shifted from IT strategy to

digital strategy: Compared to when digital literature

began to rise (the year 2015), the number of works of

literature on IT strategy decreased by 26%. In

contrast, literature on digital strategy has doubled.

5. A great many blueprints for change have

been proposed. For example, the digital

transformation literature has grown rapidly since

2015. (Fig. 2).

In these cases, the enterprise has faced significant

issues described below.

1. Nobody knows the right direction for the

To-Be blueprint.

2. No proper steps for transformations,

3. You need to master a wide variety of tools

and methods designed to support the transformation,

4. There are different perspectives and

dimensions for describing the transformation,

5. There is no unified way to design and

manage each blueprint and the transformation.

As the state of an enterprise transformation

project, we can summarize the target for

transformation management is complicated and

mysterious. Many enterprises are applying existing

frameworks to siloed and specific enterprise elements

(such as architecture, process, model, capability, HR)

or both. It is difficult to control and lead enterprise

transformation by fully orchestrating each activity.

Around enterprise transformation projects, we cannot

be done without considering various things that

require a lot of time and effort. We think there is no

inter-solution, inter-framework, inter-operability, or

both for managing enterprise transformation.

Before this study, we examined and classified the

perspectives, dimensions, and capabilities described

in the enterprise transformation. Only one paper

currently describes a literature survey on enterprise

transformation, targeting the soviet enterprises in

1999 (Liuhto, 1999). In this study, we will investigate

the literature related to enterprise transformation

further and identify several research areas, ideas, and

framework approaches.

2.1 Enterprise Engineering

According to the Enterprise Engineering Manifesto

(Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2011), Enterprise

Engineering is an emerging discipline that deals with

developing theories, models, methods, and other

artifacts for the analysis, design, implementation, and

governance of enterprises in a theoretically rigorous

and practically relevant manner. In this case,

“Engineering” means the “activity of constructing the

implementation model of a system from its

ontological model” (Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2017).

In (Yildiran et al., 2018), they have described an

example of enterprise engineering framework

application and related issues such as a business

process, workforce management, diversity,

international collaboration, collaboration system, the

business model in India, etc.

In (Ross et al., 2006), EA is defined as the

“fundamental organization of a system, embodied

in its components, their relationships to each other

and the environment, and the principles governing its

design and evolution.”

EAM (Enterprise Architecture Management) has

a holistic perspective of enterprise architecture

management (Labusch and Winter, 2013). It is a

framework for the successful implementation of

ETM, and it is effective for capturing activities to be

implemented. ACET (Architectural Coordination of

Enterprise Transformation) (Proper et al., 2017)

(Kinderen, 2017) is one of the practices to coordinate

enterprise transformation. Based on a program and

project management perspective, ETM has content on

how change is promoted within the enterprise.

Adaptive Enterprise Architecture (Korhonen et

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

for and underpinnings of a reconceptualization of

enterprise architecture from the enterprise ecological

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

is considered to be the latest among the existing EA

forms. At the beginning of the history of the

enterprise model, the model formed like a pyramid

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions

137

with several layers, for example, infrastructure,

technology, data, information, and business process.

Korhonen has proposed “enterprise

transformation capability” (Korhonen, 2018). The

proposal is to associate the CIO's capability with the

enterprise’s capability in transformation. The CIO's

capability mainly focuses on the skill dimension.

There is no mention of the capability maturity

framework model that we propose. This model has

lined up the organizational and individuals’

capabilities patterns during enterprise transformation.

3 SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE

REVIEW

3.1 Objectives of this Review

Although many academics and professionals use the

term "enterprise transformation" in their publications,

it remains vague what is meant. At present, it seems

that there is no comprehensive view of the term

“enterprise transformation.” As a result of conducting

a preliminary literature survey, at present, no

document summarized a literature review on

enterprise transformation comprehensively. This

research aims to identify the current state of the art in

enterprise transformation research.

Systematic literature reviews aim to provide a

trustworthy and verifiable evaluation of an existing

research topic using a rigorous methodology. This

systematic literature review is based on the guidelines

provided by Kitchenham (Kitchenham, 2004).

Following the guidelines, we organized the review in

three stages: (1) protocol development, (2)

conducting the review, and (3) analysis and reporting.

In this section, we first present the search strategy.

Second, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the

different stages are presented. Third and last, we

detail the data extraction and analysis process. In this

section, we first explain this study’s literature

selection and screening steps.

This review targeted peer-reviewed articles on

something studies on enterprise transformation

published between January 1, 1999, and December

31, 2019. Only articles in English were included.

Given the above scopes and constraints, three

hundred and six papers were collected through

keyword-based searching in the last 20 years ranging

from 1999 to 2019 (but excludes 2019 since our

document collection was in mid-2019). After

performing a personal screening with the above

criteria, 116 papers were removed, and 58 papers

were finally acquired.

3.2 Research Questions

To reach this goal, we pose the following research

questions:

RQ1: How many papers on enterprise transformation

are written per year?

RQ2: What research areas are covered in the papers

related to enterprise transformation per year?

RQ3: What kind of capabilities are associated with

enterprise transformation?

RQ4: What study has been done on modelling and

frameworks that support enterprise transformations?

RQ5: What are the main models, techniques, and

ideas to address modelling for enterprise

transformation?

The selection criteria for “capability,”

“dimension,” and areas to address modelling in the

RQ are as follows.

1. In (Hall & Rosenberg, 2010), the definition

is “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 change management

because change changes the company's routine

business processes. Therefore, the term “capability”

was used as a search word to explore dynamic

capabilities related to enterprise transformation.

2. According to (Bernus et al., 2012),

“Structure,” “Behavior,” and “Value” are illustrated

as the major dimensions. They also pointed out “all

of which are interrelated and understanding these

should improve the Enterprise.” The focus was on

subdividing the enterprise model to improve the

company's performance. It has not been defined in

anticipation of relationships or impacts in line with

transformation or other elements. Therefore,

“dimension” was used as a search word for

dimensions related to enterprise transformation.

3. When transforming a company, there is a

high possibility that various stakeholders will be

involved. That is, things will be seen from various

perspectives. We thought that the difference in

perception at that time would affect the success or

failure of the transformation. We also believe that

enterprise engineering is effective as a way of

thinking to solve these problems. Therefore, we

decided to search for modelling on enterprise

transformation.

KEOD 2022 - 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

138

3.3 Data Sources

The research involved seven online databases as data

sources: ACM Digital Library, Elsevier, IEEEXplore

Digital Library, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis,

Wiley, and Google Scholar.

The analysis process is oriented along the

guidelines for a systematic literature analysis

(Kitchenham, 2004). The review process is divided

into four different parts. The first activity is to

identify conference series, journals, and catalogs

likely to represent state-of-the-art research on the

topic of interest. Here, a base set of papers for review

is extracted by keyword search. The second step is the

exclusion/inclusion of papers based on title and

abstract. Then, the remaining papers have to be

classified, and data about the research questions must

be extracted. The fourth and last step is to analyze the

extracted data.

In order to ensure that the literature gathered

addresses combining “Enterprise transformation”

with several words, useful data sources, keywords,

and criteria should be determined first.

3.4 Data Extraction and Analysis

In the first stage, we entered the search key into

Google Scholar in January 2020, which resulted in

816 articles: 206 (25.25%) published in journals, 247

(30.27%) in conference proceedings, and 399

(44.48%) in books and others. Others include books,

journal articles, tools, presentation files, reports,

working papers, transactions, and university

dissertations. For the journals, we included only those

hits in Academic Accelerator searches. Here, we

conducted a similar search to see if there were any

omissions in data sources other than Google scholar.

For these 102 articles in the journal and 247 articles,

we collected the full documents. The total number of

targets for our review is 349 articles (TABLE 1).

Every article that matched the search criteria was

recorded, and we then reviewed and re-reviewed each

article and was imported into and managed in

Mendeley. Among others, it is found by keyword

search that if it is found that it should be targeted as a

reference, it will be subject to a final review. In

particular, we expect it to be found a lot in books.

Next, a keyword search of titles and abstracts was

used to find relevant articles in the above sources.

Keyword combinations took examples from three

distinct categories: keywords on alignment contents,

including “enterprise transformation,” “modelling,”

keywords on alignment expressions, including

“governance,” “management,” “operation,”

“strategy,” and “plan;” keywords on architecture,

including “enterprise architecture,” “business

architecture,” and “organization architecture.” The

three kinds of keywords ensure the integrity for

collecting modelling related to enterprise

transformation. The keywords for searching should

combine at least one term in each kind. We used the

following search terms, each combined using an

AND operator:

“enterprise transformation” OR (“enterprise” OR

“transformation”)

“Perspectives” OR “dimensions” OR “capability”

OR “maturity model” OR “stage model”

Keywords extracted from each title of 349 papers

like a “theory”, “lean”, “agility”, etc.

Finally, in order to remove studies that only

mention enterprise transformation and modelling in

passing, several criteria were considered for further

screening: the inclusion of the definition of enterprise

transformation; the inclusion of the definition of

modelling; a discussion of the relationship between

modelling and enterprise transformation; and

conclusions that follow from combining modelling

with enterprise transformation.

Every article that matched the search criteria was

recorded (this resulted in 1858 candidate articles),

and the first author then reviewed and re-reviewed

each article. As suggested by (Kitchenham, 2004), we

used the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion:

(1) English peer-reviewed studies applicable to

Academic Accelerator;

(2) Proceedings of conference and workshop;

(3) Studies related to enterprise transformation.

Exclusion:

(1) Studies not in English;

(2) Duplicated studies;

(3) Short articles and case studies.

(4) Studies not related to enterprise transformation

Table 1: Studies Retrieved Through Search Engines.

Source Foun

Journal Proc. Others

ACM DL 12 1 9 2

Elsevie

12 2 8 0

IEEE 90 5 80 3

rin

66 7 38 21

T & F 40 39 0 0

Google

Scholar

585

107

371

Wile

11 3 5 2

Total 816 102 247 399

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions

139

4 RESULTS

In this section, we present the results of our analysis.

First, we indicate the transition of the number of

articles on enterprise transformation submissions per

year. Second, we present the result of having

extracted the line-up of the research area relevant to

enterprise transformation. Third, we provide the

result of extracting the line-up of the capability

relevant to enterprise transformation. Fourth, we

present the result of extracting the line-up of papers

related to the modelling of enterprise transformation.

Fifth, we provide the result of having extracted the

line-up of the paper relevant to the modelling target

related to enterprise transformation. Towards the end,

we show the identified future ideas of enterprise

transformation modelling.

After analyzing each paper’s title, authors, year of

publication, research questions, research domains,

research motivations, research challenges, research

models, and techniques, comparatively analyzing

each paper and classifying the similar terms, we

acquired the results of the above five questions.

4.1 Numbers of Papers That Include

the Term “Enterprise

Transformation” per Year (RQ1)

In this subsection, we present the answer to the RQ1.

Figure 1 shows the number of papers in the last 20

years, from 1999 to 2019. Several findings were

discovered in Figure 1.

Several years from 2004, when represented by the

“IT doesn’t matter,” began to threaten the

significance of the IT department, and companies

were forced to transform IT management (Carr,

2003). On the business side, there have been many

flows of outsourcing IT operations that do not fall

under the core operations. At that time, it can be

understood that the first peak in the number of articles

concerning enterprise transformation had occurred.

The next peak starts from around 2010, and many

contents of change for cloud shift are written (Gill et

al., 2014). The third peak is the content of DX

involving end users by the spread of utilization of

digital technology like smartphones and smart

devices with the Internet of Everything (IoE).

This graph shows that discussions on enterprise

transformation at conferences and the like have been

activated, but journals have not been activated as

expected. This difference is one of the points that

need scrutiny. Regarding enterprise transformation,

the suspension of the journal seems to have had an

Figure 1: Numbers of papers that include the term

“enterprise transformation” (RQ1).

effect, but we would like to work on revival in the

future.

4.2 Research Target Areas Related to

“Enterprise Transformation”

(RQ2)

This section aims to answer RQ2. Each publication’s

research question(s) may be similar or different.

Distinguishing all the research questions of the

samples helps understand the research trends in the

research area modelling for enterprise transformation.

Figure 2 shows the numbers of the nine categories.

In Figure 2, the numbers of the last three

categories far exceed that of the first six categories.

The last three areas attracted attention, but the first

three areas did not. This difference can be said that

the content related to EA and management is more

than the content about enterprise transformation

modelling, how to catch it, and its maturity.

Therefore, the modelling and understanding of

enterprise transformation itself, as well as the study

of their maturity, is valuable.

What is striking is the rapid growth of the

literature on digital transformation. Although not

many in journals, proceedings have increased

considerably. Digital transformation is one of the

enterprise transformations and the hottest topic, so it

is a natural result. We believe that the enterprise

transformation management-related frameworks

(such as methodologies, practices, and theories)

should be further developed to withstand that focus.

The limited number of analysed papers might bias

the results of this study. However, using the method

of a systematic literature review, it is assumed that a

representative cross-section of scientific literature has

been considered. Thus, there is a good possibility of

generalization.

KEOD 2022 - 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

140

Figure 2: Statistical number of nine main research target areas (RQ2).

On the other hand, the following keywords could

be picked up to indicate the inactive area. We would

like to see them as candidates for themes to be

focused on future enterprise transformation research.

Inactive Areas: Metrics, Informatics (Braunstein and

Detmer, 2016), Analytics, Dimension, Requirements,

Governance, Measurement, Enabling, Capability,

Theory, Engineering, Building Blocks.

4.3 Capability Specification Concerns

“Enterprise Transformation”

(RQ3)

This section aims to answer RQ3. Several findings

were discovered in Table 2. At this point, we have

picked up 11 enterprise transformation-related

capabilities.

Hesselberg describes five dimensions of agility

(Hesselberg, 2018). Among the five dimensions

(Technology, Organizational Design, People,

Leadership, and Culture), it will be a reference for the

focus on clarification and research on Leadership and

Culture found in this review. The results of this

research will be beneficial as materials for the

Dimension design for the enterprise transformation

we are promoting. In addition, when applying the

agile/lean concept and style to enterprise

transformation, it is judged to be a valuable reference

by referring.

Karvonen, Sharp, and Barroca refer to the

capability of agile enterprise transformation

(Karvonen et al., 2018). In particular, the concept of

agility is seen as a solution to address problems faced

by an uncertain, quickly changing competitive

environment.

We think that paper dealing with Lean can be

divided into two categories. In our efforts, we decided

to use the latter as a reference and picked up this

document. The contents deal with the transformation

to lean enterprise and apply the lean's concept to

enterprise transformation.

The tool includes three sections (Nightingale and

Srinivasan, 2011): lean transformation leadership,

life cycle processes, and enabling infrastructure.

Fifty-four lean practices are included in the tool.

These practices were chosen as indicators of the

behaviours that lean organizations should engage in

rather than comprehensive. It is judged that it is

effective as a tool for evaluating whether Enterprise

has changed to one with Lean characteristics.

Nightingale and Srinivasan make additional new

principles to the field by moving further away from

the manufacturing sector and redefining lean

principles in the context of enterprise transformation

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions

141

Table 2: Paper Identifications and Selections Related to

Enterprise Transformation Capability (RQ3).

Term of capability Authors and Ref.

Collaborate/Integrate (Petrie, 1992).

Model (Huhns et al., 1992).

Lean Enterprise

Assessment

(Nightingale and Mize,

2002).

Model (McGinnis, 2007).

Lean Enterprise

Transformation

(Nightingale and

Srinivasan, 2011

)

Continuous improvement (Fathallah et al., 2012).

Collaborate/Integrate (Zhang et al., 2012).

Assess

(

Cil and Turkan, 2013

)

Continuous im

rovement

(

Wiseman et al., 2014

)

Govern/Lead

(Korhonen and Molnar,

2014).

Transform

(Henkel, Bider, and Perjons,

2014).

Analyze

(Zimmermann et al.,

2016

)

Agile Enterprise

Transformation

(Hesselberg, 2018).

Enterprise Agility

(Karvonen, Sharp, and

Barroca, 2018).

Plan (Kar and Thakurta, 2018).

Model

(

van Gils et al., 2018

)

Assess

(Zotova and Mantulenko,

2019).

Manage

(Assar and Hafsi, 2019,

July) and (Reichstein et

al. 2019).

Measure

(

Mao, 2019

)

Enable

(

Maasoum

, 2019

)

in general (Nightingale and Srinivasan, 2011). They

suggest the set of seven principles: adopt a holistic

approach to enterprise transformation; secure

leadership commitment to drive and institutionalize

enterprise behaviours; identify relevant stakeholders

and determine their value propositions; focus on

enterprise effectiveness before efficiency; address

internal and external enterprise interdependencies;

ensure stability and flow within and across the

enterprise; and emphasize organizational learning.

Such a holistic systems approach to transformation

highlights enterprise inter-connections, identifies

enterprise waste, and creates strategies to translate

waste into opportunities for value creation.

4.4 What Study Is There on Modelling

(RQ4)?

This section aims to answer RQ4. Several findings

were discovered in Table 3. At this time, we have

picked up 16 items as enterprise transformation-

related dimensions for utilizing the model. The

selection criteria here is whether or not the paper

includes content that can be used as dimensions in the

framework.

In (DeLone et al., 2018) described it as the stage

of the governance model, but do not mention

dimensions in the context of transformation among

Business-IT alignment (BITA) focus points. In our

future study, we will define the details of those

dimensions’ specifications.

In (Hay, 2011), enterprise model patterns have

been summarized. Those patterns are focused on

data-centric descriptions of enterprise activities by

using some predefined parts. We think this work is

unsuitable for our research because there are no

specific patterns in enterprise transformation.

In (Gassmann et al., 2014), business model

patterns have been summarized. The model pattern

appears to depend on the requirements of enterprise

transformation.

Since the model survey takes time, we plan to

clarify the relationship and affinity with enterprise

transformation in another paper in the future.

4.5 What Study Is There on Models,

Techniques, and Ideas (RQ5)?

This section aims to answer the RQ5. Several findings

were discovered from Table 4. We have picked up 13

items as enterprise transformation-related models,

techniques, and ideas for supporting the modelling.

Studies dealing comprehensively with this theme

could pick up the study (Dionísio et al., 2014). It was

seen that new theories and ideas were applied in each

study in order to promote enterprise transformation

effectively. We will respect these achievements and

use them as a reference when considering

organizational capabilities and dimensions within our

framework. In RQ4, we looked at what has been

considered from the perspective of capturing

corporate transformation. Here, we look at what kind

of thinking, ideas, and modelling is effective for

solving problems in corporate change management.

Because enterprise transformation is complex,

long-term, or costly, there have been relatively many

efforts on Lean and Agile (Nightingale and Mize,

2002) (Bondar et al., 2017) (Hesselberg, 2018).

Efforts on this topic are still small. In the future, we

will scrutinize each idea and use it as a reference for

our research.

KEOD 2022 - 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

142

Table 3: Studies Related to Modelling for Each Enterprise Dimensions (RQ4).

Candidates of

Dimensions

Paper found Existing Frameworks Ref. and Year

Enterprise Governance 7

Modelling enterprise strategy. (Doumi et al., 2011)

Stage model of Digital IT Governance. (DeLone et al., 2018)

Enterprise Ontology 15

Using Ontology and Modelling Concepts for

Enterprise Innovation and Transformation.

(Okpurughre et al., 2017)

Enterprise Architecture 115

exploratory analysis of EA management

support.

(Assar and Hafsi, 2019)

Enterprise Process 47 Enterprise Process Modelling. (Hoggett and Shah, 2013)

Enterprise Model 26

Enterprise model patterns. (Hay, 2011)

Business model navigator. (Gassmann et al., 2013)

Enterprise Alignment 1

BITA. (Zhang et al., 2018)

Reasoning on Uncertain Enterprise Technology

Alignment.

(Bunting, 2012)

Enterprise Capability 4

Enterprise Capability Modelling. (Loucopoulos et al., 2015)

Ontological Analysis of Capability Modelling. (Miranda et al., 2016)

Process Innovation, Enterprise Maturity, and

Dynamic Capability Approach.

(Kurniawan and Zander, 2019)

Enterprise Culture 3

Relationship among business model, organization,

and corporate culture.

(Jettern et al., 2009)

Enterprise Business 1

Linking Drivers of ES-enabled Business Value

to the Business Value Created.

(Bhattacharya, 2019)

Enterprise System 23

System-Thinking Development and

Experiential Learning.

(Lopez et al., 2014)

Enterprise

Infrastructure

1 GERAM. (Bernus et al., 2015)

Enterprise Formation 1 Organizational Formation Transition. (Terpening, 2015)

Enterprise Resource 25 Resource Matching. (Wang, Chen, and Ao, 2015)

Enterprise

Management

Radar Management Model. (Zhang et al., 2011)

Enterprise Management Maturity Model

(E3M).

(Li et al., 2012)

Enterprise Execution 6 Business Execution Model. (Ross et al., 2006)

Enterprise Knowledge 29

Enterprise Knowledge Modelling with

CODEC.

(Loucopoulos and Kavakli, 2016)

Enterprise Risk 1 Enterprise Risk Modelling with ArchiMate. (Band et al., 2015)

Table 4: Models, Techniques, and Ideas Retrieved of

Enterprise Modelling (RQ5).

Research Area

Paper

foun

Candidate

Ref. and Year of

Selected Pa

ers

Theor

4 2 (Rouse, 2005).

Lean 33 5

(Nightingale and

Mize, 2002

)

Agility/Agile 6 2

(

Hesselber

, 2018

)

(Bondar et al.,

2017

)

Engineering 10 2

(Whitcomb et al.,

2017).

(

White, 2015

)

Enablin

6 2

(

Hanna, 2009

)

Analysis/Anal

ytics/Anal

15 1

(Zimmermann et al.,

2016).

(Webster and

Watson, 2016

)

Evaluation 3 2

(Xue and Zhu,

2002

)

(

Mao, 2019a

)

Measurement 4 1

(Edgeman, and

Eskildsen, 2014).

Informatics 2 1

(Braunstein, and

Detmer, 2016).

Innovation/In

novative

18 1 (Lazonick, 2002).

Governance/L

eadershi

2 1

(Basole and

Putrevu, 2014

)

Framewor

(

Hanna, 2010

)

Upgrading/Up

grade

18 10 (Mao, 2019b).

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions

143

5 DISCUSSIONS

After answering the above five Research Questions, a

comprehensive understanding of enterprise

transformation research has been acquired. Several

conclusions are extracted from the results.

There were many active announcements at the

conference but unexpectedly few journals. Although

there are many enterprises transformation-related

studies, it is clear that the area is vast, and many

things are involved in a complicated manner, and it is

challenging to clarify them and construct theories for

efficient and effective change. Given the vigour of

research on digital transformation in the last few

years, we believe that theories and frameworks

should be strengthened as soon as possible. Based on

the results of this research, we have decided what

capabilities are needed to make enterprise

transformation work well and what impacts and parts

will have on a specific transformation. We would like

to pursue further research into the extent to which

they must be controlled and what must be well

controlled.

5.1 Lessons Learnt

The purpose of this study is the evaluation the

elements of enterprise related to transformation. In

particular, in the future, we will develop enterprise

transformation management methodologies and

frameworks based on the enterprise engineering

concept. Each answer for five RQs is described

below:

Answer for RQ1: Initially, 816 works of literature

were found. A flat growth rate and a small number of

papers for the first five years from 1999. There were

three peaks in literature growth starting in 2004,

2007, and 2014. Overall, the number of journals is

small, contrary to expectations. On the other hand, the

number of conference proceedings and other articles

is high. It seems that incidents that affect the

operation of the enterprise, such as "IT doesn’t

matter," Cloud, DX, etc., are affecting.

Answer for RQ2: Although “EA/architecture,”

“Model,” “Digital Technology,” and “Management”

are active, there are still many areas to be addressed.

On the other hand, there is significantly less work on

“Measurement,” “Analytics,” “Evaluation,”

“Governance,” “Decision making,” and

“capabilities.”

Answer for RQ3: We have picked up 11 enterprise

transformation-related capabilities. The capabilities

we picked up will be a reference for our capability

design for enterprise transformation management.

Conversely, areas other than those that could be

picked up require a new design in the future. For

example, “Evaluate” (Frank, 2002) (Frank, 2014),

“Innovate”, “Optimize”, “Design”, “Architect”,

“Mature”, etc. are considered as the target.

Answer for RQ4: We have picked up 16 items as

enterprise transformation-related dimensions for

utilizing the model. There are a wide variety of

models, such as Enterprise Engineering (Dietz and

Hoogervorst, 2011) (Dietz and Hoogervorst, 2017)

(Yildiran, 2018), Enterprise Model Patterns (Hay,

2011), etc. In our research activities, these can be

examined to see if they can be interpreted as

dimensions that characterize the transition of

enterprise transformation.

Answer for RQ5: We have picked up 13 items as

enterprise transformation-related models, techniques,

and ideas for supporting the modelling. Lean and

Agile initiatives are relatively high profile, but there

are still a few overall.

Others: Every time new transformational themes

such as sourcing utilization, cloud utilization,

ecosystem development, and DX are raised, new

enterprise modelling, necessary organizational

capabilities, frameworks for management, and

mechanisms for measuring the degree of goal

achievement are considered and proposed each time.

We think that it was necessary to consider (i) how to

proceed with the transition from the current situation

to the desired transformation theme, (ii) how to

visualize how far the transition has progressed, and

(iii) how to define, manage, and improve the

requirements for transformation. We believe that it is

necessary to have a framework and management

method that can be used universally for new

transformation themes that will arise in the future,

rather than methods of transition, evaluation

indicators, and management of requirement

definitions that are specialized for individual

transformation themes.

5.2 Future Research Directions

Based on our analysis, we conclude that separating

the enterprise transformation management capability

and the enterprise transformation stage to form a

model would lead to a successful corporate

transformation. Overall, the current situation is

characterized by a lack of definitions of dimension,

maturity, and capability for driving enterprise

transformation.

In future work, we intend to (i) reshape the new

enterprise transformation management model

consisting of technology, business, BITA, and DX

KEOD 2022 - 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

144

perspectives as a new enterprise transformation

management world based on the combination of

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 platform for the

transformation with low cost and high speed.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this study was to identify the current state

of enterprise transformation research, and mainly it

was research targets, frameworks, concepts, and

theories related to enterprise transformation by using

a systematic literature review method based on

guidelines (Kitchenham, 2004). We identified 816

papers in which enterprise transformation was subject

to something, and we did an in-depth analysis of 349

papers useful for our research.

Our main contributions to this paper are (1)

statistical analysis of state of the art in dimensions,

maturity, and capability related to enterprise

transformation, (2) candidates for future advanced

research themes related to enterprise transformation,

(3) capabilities related to enterprise transformation,

(4) tools and methods related to modelling enterprise

transformation, and (5) resources and artifacts related

to enterprise transformation.

REFERENCES

Assar, S., & Hafsi, M. (2019). Managing strategy in digital

transformation context: an exploratory analysis of

enterprise architecture management support. In 2019

IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI).

1, 165-173. IEEE.

Band, I., Engelsman, W., Feltus, C., Paredes, S. G., Hietala,

J., Jonkers, H., & Massart, S. (2015). Modeling

enterprise risk management and security with the

ArchiMate language.

Basole, R. C., & Putrevu, J. (2014). On leadership, alliance

formation, and enterprise transformation. Journal of

enterprise transformation, 4(1), 28-50.

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

Handbook on enterprise architecture. Springer Science

& Business Media.

Bernus, P., Noran, O., & Molina, A. (2015). Enterprise

architecture: Twenty years of the GERAM framework.

Annual Reviews in Control, 39, 83-93.

Bhattacharya, P. (2019). Digital transformation through

enterprise systems: A variance model linking the

drivers of business value and the value created from

enterprise systems. In Proceedings of The 19th

International Conference on Electronic Business. 164-

177. ICEB.

Bondar, S., Hsu, J. C., Pfouga, A., & Stjepandić, J. (2017).

Agile digitale transformation of enterprise architecture

models in engineering collaboration. Procedia

Manufacturing, 11, 1343-1350.

Braunstein, M. L., & Detmer, D. (2016). Interoperable

informatics for health enterprise transformation.

Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 6(3-4), 110-119.

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

digital strategies fail. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 61-75.

Bunting, W. J. (2012). Reasoning on uncertain enterprise

technology alignment for insight into attainment of

enterprise transformation. Journal of Enterprise

Transformation, 2(1), 50-79.

Carr, N. G. (2003). IT doesn't matter. Educause Review, 38,

24-38.

Cil, I., & Turkan, Y. S. (2013). An ANP-based assessment

model for lean enterprise transformation. The

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

Technology, 64(5), 1113-1130.

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

high-profile digital transformations fail. Harvard

Business Review, 9, 15.

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

governance. In CIOs and the Digital Transformation.

205-230. Springer, Cham.

Dietz, J., & Hoogervorst, J. (2011). Enterprise Engineering

Manifesto: Advances in Enterprise Engineering I.

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 10,

86-114.

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

enterprise engineering.

Dionísio, R., Nunes, J.M., Tribolet, S., Ferrão, A.F., Silva,

M.D., & Rubin, T.I. (2014). The role of Technological

Artefacts and Enterprise Architecture in Enterprise

Transformation.

Doumi, K., Baïna, S., & Baïna, K. (2011). Experimenting a

modeling approach for modeling enterprise strategy in

the context of strategic alignment. In International

Conference on ENTERprise

Information Systems. 356-

368. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Edgeman, R., & Eskildsen, J. (2014). Modeling and

assessing sustainable enterprise excellence. Business

Strategy and the Environment, 23(3), 173-187.

Fathallah, A., Cardinal, J. S. L., Ermine, J. L., & Bocquet,

J. C. (2012). Continuous improvement modeling to

support enterprise transformation. Journal of

Enterprise Transformation, 2(3), 177-200.

Frank, U. (2002). Multi-perspective enterprise modeling

(memo) conceptual framework and modeling

languages. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences.1258-

1267. IEEE.

Frank, U. (2014). Multi-perspective enterprise modeling:

foundational concepts, prospects and future research

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions

145

challenges. Software & Systems Modeling, 13(3), 941-

962.

Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The

business model navigator: 55 models that will

revolutionise your business. Pearson UK.

Gill, A. Q., Smith, S., Beydoun, G., & Sugumaran, V.

(2014). Agile enterprise architecture: a case of a cloud

technology-enabled government enterprise

transformation.

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

architectures for the digital transformation in small and

medium-sized enterprises. Procedia Cirp, 67, 540-545.

Hall, B. H., & Rosenberg, N. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of

the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1). Elsevier.

Hanna, N. K. (2010). A holistic framework for enterprise

and social transformation. In Enabling Enterprise

Transformation. 217-266. Springer, New York, NY.

Hanna, N. K. (2009). Enabling enterprise transformation:

Business and grassroots innovation for the knowledge

economy. Springer Science & Business Media.

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

the World. Bradley Beach.

Henkel, M., Bider, I., & Perjons, E. (2014). Capability-

based business model transformation. In International

Conference on Advanced Information Systems

Engineering. 88-99. Springer, Cham.

Hesselberg, J. (2018). Unlocking agility: An insider's guide

to agile enterprise transformation. Addison-Wesley

Professional.

Hoggett, C., & Shah, P. (2013). Maximizing the value of

Enterprise Process Modeling: Process governance in

large scale transformation programs. BPTrends.

Huhns, M., Jacobs, N., Ksiezyk, T., Shen, W. M., Singh,

M., & Cannata, P. (1992). Enterprise information

modeling and model integration in Carnot. In

Enterprise Integration Modeling: Proceedings of the

first international conference. 290. MIT Press.

Jetter, M., Satzger, G., & Neus, A. (2009). Technological

innovation and its impact on business model,

organization and corporate culture–IBM’s

transformation into a globally integrated, service-

oriented enterprise. Business & Information Systems

Engineering, 1(1), 37-45.

Kar, S., & Thakurta, R. (2018). Planning for digital

transformation: implications for institutional

enterprise architecture.

Karvonen, T., Sharp, H., & Barroca, L. (2018). Enterprise

agility: Why is transformation so hard? In International

Conference on Agile Software Development. 131-145.

Springer, Cham.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing

systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University,

33(2004), 1-26.

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

Coordination of Enterprise Transformation. 169-173.

Springer, Cham.

Konno, S., & Iijima, J. (2019). Enterprise Transformation

Management based on Enterprise Engineering

Approach with Unified Enterprise Transformation

Dimensions. KEOD, 256-265.

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

capability for the digital era-Demands for

organizations and CIOs.

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

(2016). Adaptive enterprise architecture for the future:

Towards a reconceptualization of EA. In 2016 IEEE

18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). 1, 272-

281. IEEE.

Korhonen, J. J., & Molnar, W. A. (2014). Enterprise

architecture as capability: Strategic application of

competencies to govern enterprise transformation. In

2014 IEEE 16th Conference on Business Informatics. 1,

175-182. IEEE.

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

efforts fail.

Kurniawan, E., & Zander, R. (2019). Organizational

Change and Technology Transformation: Impact of

Process Innovation, Enterprise Maturity and Dynamic

Capability Approach.

Labusch, N., Aier, S., & Winter, R. (2013). Beyond

Enterprise Architecture Modeling–What are the

Essentials to Support Enterprise Transformations?.

Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems

Architectures (EMISA 2013).

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. 194-208.

Springer, Cham.

Labusch, N., & Winter, R. (2013). Towards a

conceptualization of architectural support for

enterprise transformation. Association for Information

Systems.

Lazonick, W. (2002). Innovative enterprise and historical

transformation. Enterprise & Society, 3(1), 3-47.

Li, N., Zhang, L., Chen, Y., & Wu, S. (2012). Research of

Strategic Transformation Model of the Fast Moving

Consumer Goods Industry. In 2012 IEEE Asia-Pacific

Services Computing Conference. 369-373. IEEE.

Liuhto, K. T. (1999). The transformation of the Soviet

enterprise and its management: a literature review.

ESRC Centre for Business Research, Department of

Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.

Lopez, G., Mazzuchi, T. A., & Sarkani, S. (2014). The Role

of System-Thinking Development and Experiential

Learning on Enterprise Transformation. Journal of

Information & Knowledge Management, 13(03),

1450021.

Loucopoulos, P., & Kavakli, E. (2016). Capability oriented

enterprise knowledge modeling: the CODEK approach.

In Domain-Specific Conceptual Modeling. 197-215.

Springer, Cham.

Loucopoulos, P., Stratigaki, C., Danesh, M. H., Bravos, G.,

Anagnostopoulos, D., & Dimitrakopoulos, G. (2015).

Enterprise capability modeling: concepts, method, and

application. In 2015 International Conference on

Enterprise Systems (ES). 66-77. IEEE.

Maasoumy, M. (2019). Enterprise-wide AI-enabled Digital

Transformation. In Proceedings of the 2019

International Symposium on Physical Design. 103-103.

KEOD 2022 - 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development

146

Mao, Y. (2019a). Measurement standards and paths of

enterprise transformation and upgrading. In

Transformation and upgrading of Chinese enterprises.

237-268. Springer, Singapore.

Mao, Y. (2019b). Factors that Influence Enterprise

Transformation and Upgrading. In Transformation and

Upgrading of Chinese Enterprises. 223-236. Springer,

Singapore.

McGinnis, L. F. (2007). Enterprise modeling and enterprise

transformation. Information Knowledge Systems

Management, 6(1-2), 123-143.

Miranda, G. M., Almeida, J. P. A., Azevedo, C. L., &

Guizzardi, G. (2016). An Ontological Analysis of

Capability Modeling in Defense Enterprise

Architecture Frameworks. In ONTOBRAS (pp. 11-22).

Nightingale, D., & Srinivasan, J. (2011). Beyond the lean

revolution: achieving successful and sustainable

enterprise transformation. Amacom.

Nightingale, D. J., & Mize, J. H. (2002). Development of a

lean enterprise transformation maturity model.

Information Knowledge Systems Management, 3(1),

15-30.

Okpurughre, P., von Rosing, M., & Grube, D. (2017). Using

ontology and modelling concepts for enterprise

innovation and transformation: example SAL heavylift.

International Journal of Conceptual Structures and

Smart Applications (IJCSSA), 5(1), 70-104.

Petrie, C. J. (Ed.). (1992). Enterprise integration modeling:

proceedings of the first international conference. MIT

Press.

Proper, H. A., Winter, R., Aier, S., & De Kinderen, S.

(Eds.). (2017). Architectural coordination of enterprise

transformation. Springer International Publishing.

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?

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

Reichstein, C., Sandkuhl, K., & Härting, R. C. (2019). How

companies can benefit from Enterprise Architecture

Management in the Digital Transformation Process–An

Extended Research Model. Enterprise Modelling and

Information Systems Architectures (EMISAJ), 14, 6-1.

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.

Systems Engineering, 8(4), 279-295.

Terpening, E., & Littleton, A. (2015). The 2015 State of

Social Business.

van Gils, B., & Proper, H. A. (2018). Enterprise modelling

in the age of digital transformation. In IFIP Working

Conference on The Practice of Enterprise Modeling.

257-273. Springer, Cham.

Wang, J., Chen, H., & Ao, H. (2015). Research on Matching

Degree of Resources and Capabilities of Enterprise

Transformation Based on the Spatial Points Distance.

The Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal, 9(1).

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to

prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS

quarterly, xiii-xxiii.

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

increasingly digital ecosystem. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 56(4), 27.

Whitcomb, C., Khan, R., & Giachetti, R. (2017). Systems

engineering competencies for enterprise

transformation. In 2017 12th System of Systems

Engineering Conference (SoSE). 1-5. IEEE.

White, B. E. (2015). On leadership in the complex adaptive

systems engineering of enterprise transformation.

Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 5(3), 192-217.

Wiseman, L., Eseonu, C., & Doolen, T. (2014).

Development of a framework for evaluating continuous

improvement training within the context of enterprise

transformation. Journal of Enterprise Transformation,

4(3), 251-271.

Xue, J. S., ZHU, Y. L., & LI, L. (2002). Research on

Enterprise Performance Modeling and Evaluating.

COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING

SYSTEMS-BEIJING-, 8(4), 274-278.

Yildiran, P., Kilic, H. S., & Sennaroglu, B. (2018).

Collaborative system approach for enterprise

engineering and enterprise architecture: a literature

review. Enhancing Competitive Advantage With

Dynamic Management and Engineering, 138-216.

Zhang, F., Jiang, P., Zhu, Q., & Cao, W. (2012). Modeling

and analyzing of an enterprise collaboration network

supported by service-oriented manufacturing.

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,

Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 226(9),

1579-1593.

Zhang, L. J., Wu, S. P., Gao, X., Liu, Y. H., & Chen, M. Y.

(2011). Radar Management Model and Its Application

in Enterprise Transformation and Upgrading. In 2011

IEEE World Congress on Services. 33-40. IEEE.

Zhang, M., Chen, H., & Luo, A. (2018). A systematic

review of business-IT alignment research with

enterprise architecture. IEEE Access, 6, 18933-18944.

Zimmermann, A., Schmidt, R., Sandkuhl, K., El-Sheikh, E.,

Jugel, D., Schweda, C., ... & Lantow, B. (2016).

Leveraging analytics for digital transformation of

enterprise services and architectures. In Emerging

Trends in the Evolution of Service-Oriented and

Enterprise Architectures. 91-112. Springer, Cham.

Zotova, A., & Mantulenko, V. (2019). Assessment

Approach of Enterprise Readiness to Digital

Transformation. In Educational and Social Dimensions

of Digital Transformation in Organizations.145-173.

IGI Global.

Enterprise Transformation within Enterprise Engineering: Literature Review and Research Directions

147