Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and

Barriers in the Private Sector

Maryam Alshehri

, Rod Dilnutt

, Sherah Kurnia

and ABM Nayeem

School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, Stakeholder, Engagement, Private Sector, Enablers, Barriers, Financial Industry.

Abstract: Enterprise architecture (EA) is a growing discipline involving IT and business perspectives in organizations.

While EA involves various stakeholders across different levels, challenges persist, particularly in stakeholder

engagement. Most literature focuses on government contexts, but this paper delves into EA in private

organizations, specifically the financial industry. Through in-depth interviews, the study identifies 24 factors

influencing engagement between EA stakeholders and architects, categorized into organizational goals,

organizational structure, and EA users. The study provides a detailed analysis of these factors, offering

insights into both the barriers and enablers of effective EA stakeholder engagement in the private sector. It

offers several implications for research and practice.

1 INTRODUCTION

Enterprise Architecture (EA) represents a critical

organizational activity aimed at enhancing business

and IT alignment (BITA) and fostering collaborative

decision-making through the use of specific EA

artifacts (Kurnia et al., 2021). As a comprehensive

blueprint, EA directs the design, implementation, and

operation of an enterprise’s systems and processes

(The Open Group, 2018). By establishing EA

regulations, organizations can meet their objectives,

advance key information systems (ISs), and support

strategic business initiatives (Kotusev, 2020). EA

plays a vital role in shaping business strategies,

identifying business needs, guiding decision-making

concerning business transformations, and managing

relationships with service providers (Al-Kharusi et

al., 2021). With stakeholders ranging from top

management to software engineers, effective EA

practice necessitates substantial collaboration to

address the impact of EA transformations (Kurnia et

al., 2021). Consequently, the success of EA practice

is closely linked to the level of engagement between

enterprise architects and other EA stakeholders.

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8902-1902

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4617-3743

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4232-3580

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3799-0893

Despite some studies recognizing the importance

of engagement as a success factor in EA, the concept

has received limited attention in current EA literature

(Kotusev, 2020). Research indicates that engagement

between architects and stakeholders often encounters

challenges (Seppänen et al., 2018; Löhe and Legner,

2014). However, detailed examinations of these

engagement issues remain sparse.

A review of the literature on stakeholder

engagement reveals a limited number of studies

addressing the factors that facilitate or hinder EA

stakeholder engagement (Al-Kharusi et al., 2021;

Kurnia et al., 2021; Kotusev and Kurnia, 2019; Levy,

2014). Notably, empirical research on EA stakeholder

engagement has predominantly focused on the public

sector (Al-Kharusi et al., 2021; Kurnia et al., 2021;

Kotusev and Kurnia, 2019). Studies have also

highlighted significant differences between public

and private sectors in EA practices—covering EA

scope, objectives, user attitudes and skills, planning,

and regulations (Seppänen et al., 2018; Dang and

Pekkola, 2017) — indicating that findings from

public sector research may not be directly applicable

to the private sector.

758

Alshehri, M., Dilnutt, R., Kurnia, S. and Nayeem, A.

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector.

DOI: 10.5220/0013431900003929

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2025) - Volume 2, pages 758-770

ISBN: 978-989-758-749-8; ISSN: 2184-4992

Public sector organizations face challenges in EA

implementation due to their long-term, mission-

driven goals and complex bureaucratic structures,

leading to difficulties in achieving agility and EA

objectives (Dang and Pekkola, 2017). In contrast,

private sector organizations, driven by profit and

shareholder value, tend to adopt a more focused and

agile EA approach (Seppänen et al., 2018).

The banking industry's complex stakeholder

networks — including regulators, IT teams, and

business strategists — make it an ideal context for

studying EA stakeholder engagement. According to

Efunniyi et al. (2024), the sector's regulatory

complexity, high-risk exposure, and need for trust and

transparency underscore the importance of effective

engagement to align diverse interests, ensure

compliance, and strengthen risk management.

These knowledge gaps underscore the need for

our empirical investigation, which addresses the

following research question: What are the barriers

and enablers influencing EA stakeholder engagement

in the private sector, with a specific focus on the

banking industry?

To answer the research question and deepen our

understanding of EA stakeholder engagement in the

private sector, we conducted an empirical qualitative

study of EA practices within a banking institution.

Data were gathered through organizational

documents and interviews and analyzed using a

grounded theory approach. Our study identifies

various enablers and barriers to interaction between

EA stakeholders and architects, categorizes them into

three groups — organizational goals, organizational

structure, and EA user — and integrates them into a

comprehensive theoretical model. Arguably, this

research marks the first targeted investigation into the

factors affecting engagement between enterprise

architects and stakeholders in the banking sector.

These findings are crucial for equipping future

practitioners with the skills necessary to be effective

in EA-driven transformations. As organizations

continue to evolve through EA practices,

understanding how to engage and collaborate with

stakeholders becomes increasingly vital.

The paper begins with a review of the existing

literature on EA stakeholder engagement, followed

by a description of the research methodology,

including data collection and analysis procedures. We

then present the study’s findings, make a comparison

with existing literature to highlight similarities,

differences, and novel insights, and discuss practical

contributions. We conclude with a discussion, study

limitations and propose directions for future research.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 EA Practices and the Financial

Industry

EA has garnered significant interest from both

industry and academia due to its extensive application

across various organizations. Recommended for

enhancing change management, decision-making,

and communication, EA is seen as a crucial method

for translating business vision into organizational

success. It achieves this through the development of

core models and principles that guide an

organization’s future state and facilitate its growth

(The Open Group, 2018). EA comprises a set of

coherent techniques, models, and principles designed

to align an organization’s information systems,

business activities, infrastructure, and structure

(Hindarto, 2023). Encompassing processes, people,

technology, and information, EA also considers their

interactions with the external environment (The Open

Group, 2018). It provides a framework for

understanding an organization’s current state,

depicting its desired future, and creating a

comprehensive blueprint for an integrated enterprise

(Kurnia et al., 2020). EA practice involves enhancing

and utilizing specific artifacts — documents that

represent different aspects of EA — to streamline

information systems planning (Kotusev, 2019). These

artifacts can be categorized as guidelines, principles,

and roadmaps, support strategic planning, and project

management within organization (Kotusev, 2019).

Overall, EA practice is essential for setting strategic

trends, developing investment strategies, and

managing projects effectively.

Financial organizations face significant

challenges concerning BITA. Pressures from

technological innovation make it increasingly

difficult for existing market players to sustain

profitable banking services. Banks and insurers are

aware of the potential consequences of these changes

and are thus revising their strategies and business

models to remain relevant in a complex and dynamic

market (Queiroz et al., 2020). The urgency of

addressing these issues has increased following the

financial crisis of 2007 and the subsequent Euro-crisis

in 2011 (van der Beek et al., 2012). Organizations

need direction due to the unpredictability and

complexity of the current environment. Banking

firms must carefully manage their risks, positions,

and costs. However, the IT environments of financial

systems and core systems with limited flexibility

supported by a range of add-on systems (Farzi, 2022;

Queiroz et al., 2020). EA has evolved from a strategy

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector

759

for managing ISs and related business aspects into

various EA practices that aid enterprises in aligning

their business and IT processes (Gong and Janssen,

2019). Further, EA provides the capability to design

the desired architecture, outline the transformation

plan for the future, and offer controls for realization

and decision-making. EA guides management in

business process design and business development

solutions to ensure alignment with organizational

goals, strategy, vision, and mission (Farzi, 2022).

2.2 Stakeholder Engagement in EA

EA stakeholders are defined as individuals or groups

within an organization who are impacted by EA

services, whether through adapting to EA products or

participating in EA decision-making (Al-Kharusi et

al., 2021). These stakeholders pursue specific goals

based on their roles in the EA process and the

organizational stage in which they operate. Niemi and

Pekkola (2020) highlight that the organizational

position and hierarchy of an EA team can vary across

organizations, which may influence the goals,

concerns, and classifications of stakeholders in

different settings. Stakeholders and their concerns can

be organization-specific, with variations depending

on factors such as organizational style (e.g., matrix or

hierarchy), size, industry, domain, and the stage of the

EA program (Niemi and Pekkola, 2020). Each

stakeholder has a unique perspective on the value of

EA relative to their needs and the optimal method for

implementing IT solutions, considering the EA

framework for the enterprise (Verley, 2007). The

introduction of EA into an enterprise remains

challenging due to the complexity and diversity of IS

improvements and the influence of various

stakeholders (Gong and Janssen, 2019). Kluge et al.

(2006) found that stakeholder direction is crucial for

realizing the benefits of EA, emphasizing that EA

initiatives must focus on stakeholders to achieve

success.

Stakeholder engagement is essential for

implementing EA methodologies and principles to

derive value from IT investments. Achieving

stakeholder engagement is an ongoing process critical

at all stages of the enterprise and is a fundamental

aspect of IT investment governance (Verley, 2007).

Kurnia et al. (2021, p. 3) define engagement as

"active communication between architects and EA

stakeholders, conscious participation of stakeholders

in EA-related processes, collaborative decision-

making, and mutual commitment to the planning

decisions". Hjort-Madsen (2006) confirms that

continuous collaboration and communication across

various functions and levels are crucial for EA

success. The importance of engagement between EA

stakeholders and architects is well-recognized in the

EA literature. Researchers have identified

stakeholder engagement, EA acceptance, and

successful collaboration as key elements for EA

success (Kotusev, 2020). However, the concept of

engagement itself has not been thoroughly studied in

the literature.

Collaboration between stakeholders and

enterprise architects is often problematic. Several

studies have documented the challenges in achieving

effective engagement between EA stakeholders and

architects (e.g., Ajer and Olsen, 2019; Seppänen et

al., 2018; Löhe and Legner, 2014). Verley (2007)

notes that a lack of interaction and collaboration

between EA stakeholders and architects during an

EA-driven transformation can lead to a deficit of

mutual understanding and may result in resistance in

EA practice.

2.3 Previous Related Studies

The search for relevant literature was conducted using

the following keywords: "enterprise architecture

AND stakeholder engagement AND (enablers OR

facilitators OR drivers OR success factors OR

catalysts OR supporting factors) AND (barriers OR

challenges OR obstacles OR constraints OR

hindrances OR limitations OR inhibitors)" across

Google Scholar and several databases including

ScienceDirect, IEEE, Scopus, and Springer. The

inclusion and exclusion criteria, as proposed by

Kitchenham and Charters (2007), were applied. Non-

English studies and duplicates were excluded, while

English-language, peer-reviewed articles, including

book chapters, conference proceedings, and journal

articles, were included.

During the process of searching for and selecting

articles, a total of 97 articles were found in the

selected databases. After applying the exclusion

criteria, 52 articles were obtained. The next step

involved selecting only the authoritative venues'

articles (peer-reviewed articles), resulting in 46

articles. A preliminary examination of the articles

was conducted to ensure their relevance to the topic,

leading to the inclusion of 10 articles that covered a

different scope of industries, including both

commercial and government sectors. The remaining

articles were excluded based on considerations such

as the article's focus being inapplicable. The final

number of articles included for in-depth analysis,

considering their industry context, findings, and

limitations, was 10, as shown in Table 1.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

760

Table 1: Summary of publications assessing stakeholder engagement in EA practice.

Publication(s) Industry Findings Limitations

Publications Focusing Directly on Stakeholder Engagement Assessment

1 Banaeianjahromi and

Smolander 2019

Private & public

sectors, not specified

Identifies eight barriers and four

recommendations for communication

Only investigates

large companies

2 Al-Kharusi et al. 2021 Public sector, Oman Suggests 12 factors affecting the

engagement: (organisational, personal

and technical)

Use a public

organization

3 Kotusev and Kurnia 2019 Public sector,

Australia

Finds 18 barriers of initiative-based and

strategic engagement

4 Kurnia et al. 2020 Public sector,

Australia

Provides 15 barriers and 17 enablers to

engagement

5 Verley 2007 Public sector, US Addresses major challenges in building

engagement

6 Levy 2014 Private sector, US Proposes four pillars of engagement:

(psychological, behavioral, procedural

justice, and identity)

An initial view of

engagement

Publications Studying General Challenges in EA Practice

7 Ajer and Olsen 2019 Public sector,

Norway

Identifies a very broad spectrum of

problems associated with EA practice

Focus on broader

issues troubling EA

practice many of

which are unrelated

to engagement

8 Seppänen et al. 2018 Public sector,

Finland

Focusses on broader issues hindering

EA practice

9 Löhe and Legner 2014 Private sector,

Europe

Discusses how obstacles during EA

development

10 Hauder et al. 2013 Both sectors, many

countries

Focusses on 20 EA-related challenges

The first six publications specifically addressed

stakeholder engagement in EA practice, and the

research conclusions were directly related to factors

influencing engagement. Banaeianjahromi and

Smolander (2019) explore the causes and

consequences of inadequate communication in EA

practice and provide four recommendations for

improving collaboration in both sectors. This

research, however, centers on large organizations and

does not consider medium or small organizations,

which might experience different factors affecting

collaboration. Similarly, Levy (2014) proposes four

theoretical aspects of engagement: identity judgment,

procedural justice, behavioral engagement, and

psychological engagement. However, this study

offers only a preliminary overview based on an

individual private case study in the United States,

which limits the generalizability of its findings.

Furthermore, most research discusses the concept

through case studies in the government sector.

Hence, the perspective of private sector

stakeholders is missing. For example, Al-Kharusi et

al. (2021) develop a comprehensive view of the

factors that shape engagement through a

governmental organization case study in Oman.

Kotusev and Kurnia (2019) propose a comprehensive

conceptual model that explains barriers to

engagement and classifies them into direct and

indirect barriers. Kurnia et al. (2020) provide a

somewhat more realistic and theoretically supported

perspective of engagement and alignment, as well as

their correlation. Verley (2007) addresses key

challenges in building stakeholder engagement in a

U.S. government case study. Nevertheless, the

organizations studied in these research efforts belong

to the government sector and represent a somewhat

special case of EA application. Therefore, the inferred

models may be somewhat organization-specific.

Kurnia et al. (2020) further emphasize the importance

of conducting a study of organizations with various

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector

761

contextual aspects, as this might be useful in

evaluating the boundary criteria of their suggested

models for EA practice engagement factors.

The remaining five publications identify general

challenges in EA and were not recognized as factors

influencing engagement. They focus on broader

issues troubling EA practice, many of which are

unrelated to engagement, but they may still provide

valuable insights related to the engagement

assessment (Ajer and Olsen, 2019; Seppänen et al.,

2018; Löhe and Legner, 2014; Hauder et al., 2013).

The notion of engagement has gained insufficient

consideration from EA scholars (Al-Kharusi et al.,

2021; Kurnia et al., 2020; Banaeianjahromi and

Smolander, 2019; Kotusev and Kurnia, 2019; Levy,

2014; Verley, 2007). Despite its recognized

significance, stakeholder engagement in EA practice

is yet to be adequately addressed. Additionally, we

observed limited EA studies in the financial industry,

let alone studies that focus on the engagement of

stakeholders. This gap in the literature is significant,

considering the central role that the financial sector

plays in the global economy (Farzi, 2022).

2.4 Synthesis of Factors Affecting EA

Stakeholders Engagement

Understanding barriers and enablers of stakeholder

engagement in EA is crucial for optimizing BITA. A

synthesis of findings reveals 20 barriers and 27

enablers, as outlined in Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix A).

The synthesis process involved systematically coding

the barriers and enablers identified in the literature.

The first step entailed reading the articles line by line

to identify significant categories and concepts

relevant to the phenomenon under study. Next,

similar codes were grouped into broader themes, such

as combining "strong governance" and "top

management support" under the theme of enablers

related to organizational goals. Finally, the analysis

was refined by focusing on the most significant and

relevant themes, ultimately providing a more focused

and insightful understanding of stakeholder

engagement in EA.

2.4.1 Barriers and Enablers Related to

Organizational Environments

Six key barriers fall under this category. Complexity

arises because government organizations interact

with a multitude of stakeholders, each bringing

distinct expectations and constraints (Ajer and Olsen,

2019). The diversity of business activities and the

lack of a well-defined organization complicate

architects' ability to engage, build relationships, and

achieve consensus on architectural planning (Kurnia

et al., 2020; Ajer and Olsen, 2019). Instability, driven

by political volatility, hampers the development of

long-term architectural plans and goals, as political

cycles demand immediate results rather than long-

term solutions (Ajer and Olsen, 2019). The

susceptibility of public institutions to external forces

such as leadership changes and annual budget

alterations, disrupts engagement and complicates

strategic initiatives (Kotusev and Kurnia, 2019).

To address these barriers, several organizational

enablers are crucial. Effective strategies involve

developing clear EA artifacts (Kurnia et al., 2020;

Banaeianjahromi and Smolander, 2019), managing

stakeholder expectations and facilitating ongoing

discussions, standardizing EA processes (Levy,

2014), and ensuring a well-defined development

scope and adherence to guiding principles (Al-

Kharusi et al., 2021).

2.4.2 Barriers and Enablers Related to

Organizational Goals

Organizational goals in the public sector are often less

defined compared to commercial entities, influenced

by political rather than managerial decisions. This

dynamic leads to conflicting priorities and a lack of

constructive, long-term dialogue about the

organization's strategic vision (Kurnia et al., 2020).

Additionally, public sector organizations are

characterized by higher levels of bureaucracy, which

results in poor transparency and a crisis-driven

culture. This is in contrast to private sector

counterparts, which often prioritize proactive over

reactive planning, further complicating strategic

engagement (Seppänen et al., 2018).

Key enablers for aligning organizational goals

with EA practices to enhance engagement include

focusing on business problems to prioritize core

issues critical to achieving objectives (Kurnia et al.,

2020; Levy, 2014). Setting achievable goals that not

only align with EA practices but also resonate with

the broader organizational objectives is essential

(Kurnia et al., 2020; Levy, 2014). Additionally,

demonstrating EA’s value, maintaining a business

value orientation, ensuring strong governance and top

management support are crucial (Al-Kharusi et al.,

2021; Banaeianjahromi and Smolander, 2019).

2.4.3 Barriers and Enablers Related to

Organizational Structures

Government institutions often face greater

bureaucracy and more rigid decision-making

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

762

processes compared to private sector organizations.

This rigidity hampers flexibility and complicates

strategic engagement, particularly as architects may

struggle to collaborate with external stakeholders

involved in decision-making (Löhe and Legner,

2014). Additionally, governance issues such as

misaligned IT governance and poor change

management further hinder engagement because

improvements in the IT landscape were often

managed independently from corresponding shifts in

business processes (Kurnia et al., 2020). The dynamic

structure and silos within the IT department place

excessive pressure on IT managers and senior

business to fulfil a common attitude and architectural

vision for integrating IT and business plans together

and developing digital strategies (Kurnia et al., 2020;

Verley, 2007).

To mitigate these challenges, several

organizational enablers can enhance stakeholder

engagement, including appointing specialized

engagement managers (Al-Kharusi et al., 2021),

promoting group ownership of EA initiatives (Al-

Kharusi et al., 2021), providing advisory services

(Banaeianjahromi and Smolander, 2019), and

ensuring convincing collaboration between architects

and stakeholders (Al-Kharusi et al., 2021).

Additionally, establishing effective governance

structures that align IT and business plans and support

agile decision-making is essential (Banaeianjahromi

and Smolander, 2019).

2.4.4 Barriers and Enablers Related to EA

Users

Barriers related to EA users include difficulties in

working with EA artifacts, resistance to change, fear

of IT, reluctance to engage with IT, and challenges in

communication with architects (Seppänen et al.,

2018; Löhe and Legner 2014; Verley, 2007). These

issues significantly impede effective engagement and

pose substantial obstacles to the successful

implementation of EA initiatives.

Effective engagement among EA users is

enhanced by several factors. Raising awareness of

EA’s value is crucial (Al-Kharusi et al., 2020).

Leveraging experience and robust change

management helps navigate challenges (Al-Kharusi

et al., 2020). Strong stakeholder commitment is

essential for success, while architects’ ability to

communicate in business terms and understand the

business context improves alignment (Kurnia et al.,

2020). Additionally, proactivity, pragmatism, and

interpersonal skills are vital for successful EA

implementation (Kurnia et al., 2020).

Despite these insights, there remains a notable gap in

understanding how these factors apply to different

contexts, particularly within the private sector.

Existing research predominantly focuses on the

public sector, where characteristics such as higher

bureaucracy and political dynamics significantly

influence engagement factors. Consequently, further

research is needed to explore engagement barriers and

enablers in the private sector to improve EA and

BITA across different organizational contexts.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Since the concept of engagement remains under-

researched and inadequately described in the EA

literature, no rational quantitative hypotheses or

deductive propositions can be formulated. Thus, this

research is exploratory and qualitative in nature. To

comprehend the barriers and enablers affecting

stakeholder engagement and related aspects, this

study aims to evaluate the thoughts and opinions of

individuals who have personally encountered the

phenomenon (Parker, 1992). Data is primarily

gathered through in-depth interviews at a private

banking institution in Australia. According to

Pentland's (1999) terminology, interview transcripts

serve as a text, revealing respondents’ explanations

for what occurred to them, which sheds light on the

underlying research issues, i.e., the characteristics of

private sector engagement and the key factors

influencing engagement in the financial industry.

To answer the research question, we set three

specifications for the case organization: (1) a private

sector organization specializing in the financial

industry in Australia, (2) an organization large and

complex enough to have many internal and external

stakeholders, including an EA function, and (3) an

organization struggling to establish successful

engagement between stakeholders and enterprise

architects. It was desirable to analyze an organization

from the private sector, especially since most

previous studies are focused on the public context.

Data for this research were gathered from

organizational documents and semi-structured

interviews. After obtaining consent, a formal request

was sent to participants that included a description of

the research, a consent form, and information about

participants’ rights. A total of 10 participants,

consisting of representatives of all major players in

the EA practice, were interviewed from September to

October 2022. The average interview ranged between

45 and 60 minutes. The interviews were held in

person and online using Teams (audio only). To keep

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector

763

the interviewees comfortable and encourage them to

share their perspectives and experiences, the

discussion manner remained informal yet

professional (Hermanowicz, 2002). All interviews

were taped and accurately documented for evaluation

purposes with the assistance of a third-party

transcription service provider.

During data analysis, we applied the coding and

categorization procedures suggested by Charmaz

(2006). The process consisted of two fundamental

phases: an initial stage involving the labeling of each

term or sentence, followed by a selective, focused

stage that synthesized, integrated, and organized large

volumes of data using the most relevant or frequently

occurring initial codes. This approach allowed themes

to emerge directly from the interview data without

relying on our predefined classifications, ensuring

that the analysis remained grounded in the data itself.

Notably, most of the interview findings naturally

aligned with the predefined categories. Building on

this, a hybrid classification approach was employed,

aligning the themes identified in the analysis of case

study findings with the classification established from

the literature review. Throughout the analysis, memos

were recorded to capture novel insights and emerging

patterns, enabling the refinement of theoretical

classifications and a reassessment of the significance

of key factors influencing engagement.

4 CASE STUDY ORGANIZATION

The case organization referred to as AuBank

(pseudonym) is one of the leading regional banks in

Australia and offers real competition to those using

and working in Australian financial services. AuBank

has more than 150 branches, including more than 100

corporate branches and owner-managed branches. In

total, AuBank employs more than 48,000 individuals

across Australia. AuBank completed the purchase of

CoBank (pseudonym) for its relatively mature online

capability. The risk of merging technology systems is

mitigated by the fact that AuBank and CoBank are

serviced by the same core technology provider and so

have similar technical platforms and architecture. The

organization is currently in the second year of a multi-

brand, multi-year digital transformation program

after reinvigorating the business and introducing a

new plan in February 2020. A multi-brand strategy

involves different organizations with different

interests from each other. They are still separate, with

their own management structures; sometimes they

have their own buildings, and they have different IT

departments. Therefore, the first challenge facing the

organization is to align the different areas of work

with various interests to ensure that all organizations

are satisfied. CoBank operates as a standalone brand

within the AuBank Group. The digital technology of

AuBank is advanced, and the purchase of CoBank

was intended to speed up the process of developing a

shared, scalable digital technology platform.

5 CASE STUDY FINDINGS

The previously discussed, grounded theory analysis

methodology revealed 24 various factors that

influence engagement between EA stakeholders and

architects in AuBank. Not all of these aspects are

novel, and many of them have already been

highlighted as fundamental issues of EA practice in

general. Some of these factors have been mentioned

in governmental contexts. Nevertheless, some issues

were not earlier demonstrated as specific barriers or

enablers to private sector engagement and were not

placed in a specific context, such as banking industry

activities. The 24 determined factors are divided into

three groups proposed by Fottler (1981):

organizational goals, organizational structure and EA

users. Importantly, while the literature emphasized

the role of the organizational environment,

particularly in public sector contexts, this category

did not emerge as significant in the private sector case

study. Consequently, the final categorization retained

three of the four original classifications, excluding the

organizational environment due to its limited

relevance. Figure 1 illustrates the research model

developed in this study.

5.1 Barriers in EA Stakeholder

Engagement

5.1.1 Related to Organizational Goals

Priority Conflict. The diverse demands and priorities

among AuBank’s sub-units make it difficult to

establish a unified vision for the organization. Each

unit prioritizes differently based on its specific focus,

leading to challenges in creating joint strategic plans.

Budget Constraints. AuBank’s tight budget restricts

its ability to implement long-term strategic changes,

resulting in a focus on small, tactical adjustments.

This budget limitation often frustrates architects and

hinders their ability to develop long-term plans.

Insufficient Coordination. Architects’ involvement

in multiple projects and the resulting time and

resource conflicts impede effective coordination.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

764

This lack of coordination among internal teams and

external partners complicates task completion and

decision-making.

5.1.2 Related to Organizational Structure

Inconsistent IT Governance. Business unit

executives at AuBank often make decisions

independently of IT personnel, leading to a lack of

alignment and complicating the collaboration

between business and IT. This disconnection results

in missed opportunities for cohesive planning and

integration. "We get blindsided a little bit probably

from those initiatives, which are having in the

business unit by themselves, where they’re not

engaging necessarily with EA team” (Participant 4)

Cultural Clash. Participants stated that the presence

of two somewhat different cultures due to the merger

and acquisition affected the quality of engagement. It

was immensely difficult to integrate two companies

with different cultures and manage the impact of

organizational differences between the two parties

and the powers they possess, even if they are in the

same industry.

Unclear Roles and Responsibilities. The merger has

led to confusion about architects’ roles and

responsibilities, increasing the communication gap

between stakeholders and architects and causing

inconsistent expectations.

Continuous Change. Ongoing organizational

changes from the recent acquisition can disrupt

stakeholder engagement and diminish enthusiasm for

long-term planning, especially if employees struggle

to adapt to or maintain new processes.

5.1.3 Related to EA Users

Fear of Change. Fear of change undermines the

enthusiasm of all participants at various stages of the

organizational hierarchy and their belief in the

potential to create an effective EA application given

the lack of knowledge of upcoming changes, fear of

the unknown and comfort with the status quo.

Lack of Business Understanding. Architects often

come from technical backgrounds and lack deep

business knowledge, which impedes their ability to

communicate effectively with stakeholders who may

not be technically inclined. “IT people are not really

communicating on a business level; you’re dealing

with business people that are not necessarily

technical” (Participant 2)

Lack of Communication Skills. Architects

frequently use technical jargon and methods that

business people find difficult to understand, leading

to poor communication, limited trust, and challenges

in aligning objectives.

ure 1: Barriers and enablers influencin

stakeholder en

ement in EA

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector

765

5.2 Enablers in EA Stakeholder

Engagement

5.2.1 Related to Organizational Goals

Clear Business Strategies and Policies. Well-

defined business strategies and policies are crucial for

engaging architects and stakeholders effectively.

Clear objectives and continuous reinforcement of

these goals help align strategies with organizational

change. “Business is all about trust and clear

objectives, to the extent that we establish those early

on and continue to nurture them. It does need

constant reinforcement.” (Participant 3)

Obtaining Commitment to Fund Technology. The

architects emphasized that they were able to engage

technology and business stakeholders by building

their commitment and support to fund technology

components through a long-term strategic plan. “It’s

not the case that people can just turn up and run a

project; they need to get permission, they need to get

funding, they need to get approval. And that will

impact the [extent] to which you can [have]

enterprise architects spend a lot of time on your

project or not.” (Participant 5)

5.2.2 Related to Organizational Structure

Organizational Structure that is Influential, not

Authoritarian. An organizational structure controls

how work is distributed within an organization. Thus,

it allows groups to collaborate to manage tasks within

their respective functions. At AuBank, this was

interpreted as one of the keys to increasing

engagement between the EA program and the

business units, specifically obtaining those outside

the EA program to participate in activities including

monthly meetings and artefact development and

review.

Strong and Collaborative Leadership. Some

participants stressed that transformation is more

likely to be effective and have better sustainability if

management can rely on strong and collaborative

leadership. Although senior management must

articulate the future vision, the direct line managers

must translate it into practical implications for the

people involved.

Intensive Cooperation with Business. Architects

should prioritize understanding the business and

collaborating with business leaders rather than

focusing solely on IT projects. A comprehensive

understanding of business strategy and processes is

crucial for effective digital transformation and

promoting engagement. “As an enterprise architect,

we just have to be interested in their business and

what they do on a daily basis, which will allow us to

have the right level of conversation to influence the

direction of the technology strategy to support

business strategy.” (Participant 6)

Responsibilities Guidance. The participants stressed

the need to guide the architecture group with some

deliverables that would help provide at least some

guidelines for distinguishing between different roles

and responsibilities. Misunderstanding of roles and

responsibilities will lead to conflicts within different

teams and minimize the overall quality of

engagement.

Agile Culture. Adopting an agile methodology post-

merger can facilitate smoother and more sustainable

change. An agile approach supports a holistic

integration into organizational objectives and

strategies, aiding in structural changes and aligning

organizational behaviour.

5.2.3 Related to EA Users

Business Knowledge. The architects acknowledged

the distinct languages that business and technology

speak and considered the possibility that architectural

language and models may be overly complex and

cause misunderstanding and alienation. They coined

the terms ‘business talk’ and ‘technology talk’ after

realizing that their relationships with technology and

business personnel relied on their business

understanding and capacity to speak in a way that

encouraged mutual understanding. “You’re dealing

[with] business people that are not necessarily

technical. Enterprise Architects must consciously try

not to talk like an architect.” (Participant 7)

Broad Communication Skills and Strategies.

Participants discussed a range of broad

communication skills and strategies, highlighting

several that have proven effective. The Design

Thinking strategy involves architects collaborating

with technology vendors and utilizing the Design

Thinking Forum to select appropriate technology

solutions and engage stakeholders, thereby fostering

business growth through collaborative design. The

storytelling strategy was also emphasized, as it aids

in communicating architectural decisions in a way

that business stakeholders can easily understand,

thereby encouraging engagement and addressing any

concerns. Building trusted advisory relationships was

identified as another key strategy, with training and

workshops enabling architects to deepen their

understanding of stakeholders' business goals and

motivations, positioning them as trusted advisors.

Additionally, the need for flexibility was

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

766

underscored, with architects being required to adapt

to unforeseen situations and maintain project

momentum through flexibility, active listening, and

negotiation. Effective communication was also linked

to empathetic communication, where understanding

and addressing the diverse needs of stakeholders

fosters engagement through empathy and respect.

Finally, emotional intelligence was highlighted as

essential, with an awareness of stakeholders'

emotional responses and the ability to manage

relationships with emotional intelligence being

crucial for enhancing engagement and navigating

tense situations effectively.

6 DISCUSSION

This study examines the barriers and enablers

influencing stakeholder engagement in EA practice

within the private sector, specifically through an

exploratory case study of a financial institution in

Australia. Stakeholder engagement is a crucial but

underexplored aspect of EA practice, particularly in

the private sector. The research identifies 14 barriers

and 10 enablers that affect stakeholder engagement

(Figure 1), revealing some factors previously

recognized in government contexts and introducing

new insights specific to the private sector.

Barriers identified include cultural clashes,

priority conflicts, insufficient coordination,

continuous change, inconsistent IT governance, lack

of business understanding, and budget constraints.

These barriers are similar to those found in public

sector EA studies (Kurnia et al., 2020; Ajer and

Olsen, 2019) but have different underlying causes in

the private sector. For example, in the private sector,

budget constraints are often due to limited financial

resources and a focus on tactical goals. In contrast, in

the public sector, they are influenced by political

factors and bureaucratic processes. The study also

identifies new barriers not previously discussed in EA

literature, such as poor communication skills and

unclear roles and responsibilities, which can

significantly hinder engagement.

On the other hand, enablers such as clear business

strategies, committed funding for technology,

leadership roles, intensive cooperation with business

units, and an agile organizational culture facilitated

engagement. Some enablers are consistent with those

identified in the public sector (Levy, 2014; Verley,

2007), while others, such as storytelling, empathetic

communication, emotional intelligence, and design

thinking, are novel contributions to the EA literature.

These new enablers suggest that effective stakeholder

engagement in the private sector may require a

broader set of skills and strategies than previously

recognized.

The findings align with and extend several

established theories, such as Stakeholder Theory (ST)

(Freeman, 1984), Organizational Culture Theory

(OCT) (Schein, 1985), and Resource-Based Theory

(RBT) (Barney, 1991). ST emphasizes the

importance of engaging stakeholders to achieve

successful outcomes, and this study supports that

notion by highlighting the critical role of effective

stakeholder engagement in achieving BITA within

EA practice. However, the study also reveals sector-

specific dynamics, such as the impact of competitive

pressures and profit-oriented goals in the private

sector, which suggests that ST may need refinement

to better account for these nuances (Kotusev and

Kurnia, 2019; Freeman, 1984). Similarly, OCT,

which focuses on the role of culture in organizational

success, is supported by the findings that cultural

factors, including clashes and priority conflicts, are

significant barriers to engagement. The private

sector's competitive and profit-driven culture

introduces complexities not fully addressed by

existing OCT frameworks, indicating a need for a

more nuanced understanding of how cultural factors

impact stakeholder engagement in different sectors

(Ajer and Olsen, 2019; Schein, 1985). The study also

contributes to RBT by identifying enablers like agile

culture and clear business strategies as valuable

resources that enhance stakeholder engagement

(Barney, 1991). However, introducing new enablers,

such as storytelling and emotional intelligence,

suggests that RBT could be expanded to include

behavioural and psychological dimensions to reflect

the complexities of stakeholder engagement better

(Levy, 2014).

Sector-specific differences in barriers and

enablers of stakeholder engagement in EA practice

are also highlighted through our study. In the private

sector, budget constraints are often linked to tight

financial controls and short-term priorities. In

contrast, in the public sector, they are influenced by

political cycles and bureaucratic inefficiencies

(Kotusev and Kurnia, 2019). The study draws on

Public Choice Theory (PCT) (Buchanan and Tullock,

1965) and New Public Management (NPM) (Hood,

1991) to explain these differences, showing that while

both sectors face budget constraints, the underlying

causes and implications vary significantly. By

confirming and extending existing theories and

introducing new insights, the research offers valuable

contributions to understanding EA practices and

stakeholder engagement, suggesting that

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector

767

organizations should prioritize enhancing

communication skills and strategies to address

individual issues and promote effective dialogue.

This study contributes to EA from both theoretical

and practical perspectives. Theoretically, it presents

the first investigation into the factors influencing the

engagement of architects and stakeholders in private

banking organizations. The identified factors

represent the first research using a case study

approach in this sector as previous research has not

addressed banking-specific stakeholder engagement

issues, creating a research gap. Thus, this paper

provides insights into barriers and enablers related to

organizational characteristics such as goals, structure,

and EA users in the financial sector. Practically, the

findings aid organizations in improving EA practices,

with the suggested model serving as a guideline for

identifying engagement variables. This model can

help pinpoint problematic EA practices and

implement corrective actions. Behavioural and

psychological engagement skills (e.g., emotional

intelligence, flexibility, empathy) and strategies (e.g.,

Design Thinking Forum, trusted advisor workshops)

among enablers suggest potential improvements and

offer specific recommendations for architects,

making the insights both valuable and actionable for

a diverse range of organizations aiming to enhance

their EA practices. The findings from the banking

case study hold broad applicability to other private

sector organizations due to their shared core attributes

of profitability, efficiency, and market

responsiveness, indicating that the barriers and

enablers of stakeholder engagement identified in the

study may similarly manifest across various

industries.

7 CONCLUSION

EA practice involves employing EA artifacts to

facilitate decision-making and enhance BITA. It is a

sophisticated and multidimensional organizational

activity (Ajer and Olsen, 2019). As organizations

continue to face engagement challenges hindering the

realization of anticipated EA outputs, this research

evaluates EA stakeholders' engagement in the private

sector banking industry, focusing on organizational

structure, goals, and people. The study investigates

barriers and enablers influencing engagement in EA

application and the effect of organizational contextual

factors. This study identified 14 barriers and 10

enablers of engagement.

However, there are limitations to this study.

Firstly, since the chosen organization is a financial

institution in one of the Australian states, the results

may not be applicable to other banking organizations

in Australia or other countries. Secondly, the study

relies on participants' responses and a grounded

theory approach, which may introduce inaccuracies

and biases. Conducting a larger-scale study with more

diverse banks using a mixed-method approach could

enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Regarding future research directions, considering

the analysis of different promoting and inhibiting

factors, emphasizing the reasons for their occurrence,

and addressing the governance strategies for these

factors could provide valuable insights. Exploring the

transitional relationships between promoting and

inhibiting factors at different stages or investigating

their mutual influences could further advance the

understanding of EA stakeholder engagement.

REFERENCES

Ajer, A. K. S., Olsen, D. H. (2019). Enterprise architecture

implementation is a bumpy ride: A case study in the

Norwegian public sector. Electronic Journal of E-

Government, 17(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.34190/

EJEG.17.2.002

Al-Kharusi, H., Miskon, S., Bahari, M. (2021). Enterprise

architects and stakeholders alignment framework in

enterprise architecture development. Information

Systems and e-Business Management, 19, 137–181.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-020-00484-2

Banaeianjahromi, N., Smolander, K. (2019). Lack of

communication and collaboration in enterprise

architecture development. Information Systems

Frontiers, 21(4), 877–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10796-017-9779-6

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive

advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Buchanan, J. M., Tullock, G. (1965). The calculus of

consent: Logical foundations of constitutional

democracy. University of Michigan Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A

practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

Chuang, C.-H., van Loggerenberg, J. (2010). Challenges

facing enterprise architects: A South African

perspective. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–

10). https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2010.449

Dang, D. D., Pekkola, S. (2017). Problems of enterprise

architecture adoption in the public sector: Root causes

and some solutions. Integrated Series in Information

Systems (pp. 177–198). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-58978-7_8

Efunniyi, C. P., Abhulimen, A. O., Obiki-Osafiele, A. N.,

Osundare, O. S., Agu, E. E., Adeniran, I. A. (2024).

Strengthening corporate governance and financial

compliance: Enhancing accountability and

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

768

transparency. Finance & Accounting Research Journal,

6(8), 1597–1616.

Farzi, N. (2022). Investigation of the place of BIAN

standard in digital banking enterprise architecture.

Technium Social Sciences Journal, 27, 920–931.

https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v27i1.1816

Fottler, M. D. (1981). Is management really generic? The

Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4287972

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A

stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing Inc.

Gong, Y., Janssen, M. (2019). The value of and myths about

enterprise architecture. International Journal of

Information Management, 46, 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.006

Hauder, M., Roth, S., Matthes, F. (2013). Organizational

factors influencing enterprise architecture management

challenges. In ECIS 2013 Proceedings: 21st European

Conference on Information Systems.

Hermanowicz, J. C. (2002). The great interview: 25

strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative

Sociology, 25(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1023/

A:1021062932081

Hindarto, D. (2023). The management of projects is

improved through enterprise architecture on project

management application systems. International Journal

Software Engineering and Computer Science (IJSECS),

3(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.

2010.02503.x

Hjort-Madsen, K. (2006). Enterprise architecture

implementation and management: A case study on

interoperability. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

(HICSS'06) (Vol. 4, p. 71c). https://doi.org/10.1109/

HICSS.2006.154

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?

Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for

performing systematic literature reviews in software

engineering. Information and Software Technology,

51(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009

Kluge, C., Rosemann, M., Dietzsch, A. (2006). Fostering

an enterprise architecture’s value proposition using

dedicated presentation strategies. CEUR Workshop

Proceedings, 237, 240–243.

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

architecture artifacts: Questioning the old concept in

light of new findings. Journal of Information

Technology, 34(2), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0268396218816273

Kotusev, S., Kurnia, S. (2019). The problem of engagement

in enterprise architecture practice: An exploratory case

study. In Proceedings of the International Conference

on Information Systems (ICIS) (pp. 1–17).

Kotusev, S. (2020). The hard side of business and IT

alignment. IT Professional, 22(1), 47–55.

https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2019.2912136

Kurnia, S., Kotusev, S., Dilnutt, R. (2020). The role of

engagement in achieving business-IT alignment

through practicing enterprise architecture. In

Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on

Information Systems (ECIS) (pp. 1–12).

Kurnia, S., Kotusev, S., Shanks, G., Dilnutt, R., Milton, S.

(2021). Stakeholder engagement in enterprise

architecture practice: What inhibitors are there?

Information and Software Technology, 134, 106536.

Levy, M. (2014). Shelfware or strategic alignment? An

enquiry into the design of enterprise architecture

programs. In Proceedings of the 20th Americas

Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–12).

Lohe, J., Legner, C. (2014). Overcoming implementation

challenges in enterprise architecture management: A

design theory for architecture-driven IT management

(ADRIMA). Information Systems & e-Business

Management, 12(1), 101–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10257-012-0211-y

Niemi, E., Pekkola, S. (2020). The benefits of enterprise

architecture in organizational transformation. Business

& Information Systems Engineering, 62(6), 585–597.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00605-3

Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics (Psychology

Revivals): Critical analysis for social and individual

psychology (1st ed.). Routledge.

Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with

narrative: From description to explanation. The

Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711–724.

https://doi.org/10.2307/259350

Queiroz, M., Tallon, P. P., Coltman, T., Sharma, R.,

Reynolds, P. (2020). Aligning the IT portfolio with

business strategy: Evidence for complementarity of

corporate and business unit alignment. The Journal of

Strategic Information Systems, 29(3), 101623.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101623

Seppänen, V., Penttinen, K., Pulkkinen, M. (2018). Key

issues in enterprise architecture adoption in the public

sector. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 16(1), 46–

58.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership.

Jossey-Bass.

The Open Group. (2018). The TOGAF® standard, version

9.2 (4th ed.). Van Haren Publishing. https://research.

ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=3d009a28-1a57-3fe

7-add4-5482cdf1cd36

Van der Beek, W., Trienekens, J., Grefen, P. (2012). The

application of enterprise reference architecture in the

financial industry. In Trends in enterprise architecture

research and practice-driven research on enterprise

transformation (pp. 93–110). Springer. https://doi.org/

10.1007/978-3-642-34163-2_6

Verley, G. (2007). Improving stakeholder communications

and IT engagement: A case study perspective. In P.

Saha (Ed.), Handbook of enterprise systems

architecture in practice (pp. 160–171). IGI Global.

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-189-6.ch009

Stakeholder Engagement in Enterprise Architecture: Enablers and Barriers in the Private Sector

769

APPENDIX A

Table 2: Synthesis of barriers to EA stakeholder engagement.

Categor

References

Barriers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Organizational environments Multitude of stakeholders X X

Diversity of business activity X X X

Environmental instability X X

Leadership changes X

Annual budget alterations X

Absence of a clearly defined structure

Organizational goals Lack of a well-defined goals X X

Conflicting priorities X X X X X

Crisis-driven culture X X X X

Poor transparency X

Organizational structures Presence of external stakeholders X

IT governance misalignment X X X X

Poor change management X X X

Dynamic structure X X X X

Silos within the IT departmen

EA users Difficulties working with EA artifacts X X

Resistance to change X X X

General fear of IT X

Reluctance to engage with IT X X

Difficulty communicating with architects X X

Table 3: Synthesis of enablers of EA stakeholder engagement.

Categor

References

Enablers 1 2 3 4

Organizational Environments Appealing EA artefacts X

Managing stakeholder expectations X X

Standardizing EA processes X X

Defining development scope X X

Adhering to principles X X

Organizational Goals Focusing on business problems X

Achievable goals and values X

Demonstrating the value of EA X

Maintaining a business value orientation X

Strong governance X

Top management suppor

Organizational Structures Specialized engagement managers X X

Group ownership X

Provision advisory services X

Ensuring convincing collaboration X X

Effective governance structure X X

EA users Awareness of the value of EA X

Experience X

Change management capability X

Commitment X

Speaking in business language X X

Business understanding X

Proactivity and pragmatism X

Drive to build relationships X X

Interpersonal skills X

Social engagemen

Reference mapping: 01: Verley 2007 02: Kotusev and Kurnia 2019 03: Kurnia et al. 2020

04: Hauder et al. 2013 05: Ajer and Olsen 2019 06: Löhe and Legner 2014

07: Seppänen et al. 2018 08: Banaeianjahromi and Smolander 2019

Reference mapping: 01: Al-Kharusi et al. 2021 02: Kurnia et al. 2020

03: Levy 2014. 04: Banaeianjahromi and Smolander 2019

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

770