Submitted:
08 July 2024
Posted:
10 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
Introduction
Methodology
-
Literature Review – The study has a systematic literature review. This includes:
- Sources of Identification: Research Papers/Industry Reports/White Papers/Recent Publications (within the last 5 years)/eBooks/International Standards/Books/IC/CC/DC can be used. Synonyms and terms used are Enterprise Architecture, COBIT, LEAN, TOGAF, IAF, business process redesign, strategic alignment.
- Selection Criteria: Relevancy, recency (published within the past five years) and credibility Criteria: Research on the field that offers insights on the application and impact of EA frameworks on performance and strategic alignment.
- Critical Analysis: Each source is more deeply assessed to identify main themes, dynamics, and gaps existing within current research. Special attention is devoted to studies that explore the perspectives of business managers, and the practical use of EA frameworks.
-
Case Study Analysis - several case studies of organizations successfully introducing consistent frameworks against which EA can be assessed and steered –– namely.
- Selection of Case Studies: Case studies are chosen because they relate to the goals of the research. Sources have been collected that report on the implementation of EA initiatives and their outcomes, including company reports and press releases and articles in academic publications.
- Collection: Information on how, when, why and what happens during implementation; what are the problems that occur, are there any solutions offered, what has been done about restoring normal order; what changes to technology is the organization putting in place, and what measures is it taking to ensure the success of the change initiative. Key performance indicators (KPIs) such as efficiency, agility, customer satisfaction, strategic alignment are part of the ‘as is’ state.
- Comparative Analysis: The case studies are compared to identify factors that are important for the success or failure of EA and generate insights about the practical impacts of different EA frameworks and the relevance of these frameworks to business executives.
-
Framework Justification - COBIT, LEAN, TOGAF and IAF are the core EA frameworks considered and compared for this research because of their recognition and applicability.
- COBIT: COBIT is an IT governance and management framework which offers best practices for aligning IT activities with business objectives and ensuring regulatory compliance (The State of Enterprise Architecture Report 2023 – Enterprise Architecture Professional Journal [online publication date n.d)
- LEAN: Focuses on improving waste and eliminating variability. Perfect for optimizing business processes and improving efficiency (The State of Enterprise Architecture Report 2023 – Enterprise Architecture Professional Journal, n.d.)
- TOGAF: A method and framework for developing and managing enterprise architecture in a systematic manner that involves multiple and diverse stakeholders to generate strategy alignment (The Open Group, 2018)
- IAF: Augments the Zachman Framework with additional perspectives focused on governance, policy, and strategy to create a concept of enterprise architecture across the enterprise (Gøtze and Truex, 2013).
Literature Review
Recent Studies and Trends
- Adaptability and Agility
- 2.
- AI and Machine Learning Integration
- 3.
- Sustainability and Compliance
- 4.
- Resource Challenges and Strategic Insights
- 5.
- Customer Experience (CX) and Emerging Technologies
Critical Evaluation and Gap Identification
- Business Executive Perspective - There remains a strong tendency in today’s literature to emphasize solely the technical aspects of EA. There are many opportunities for more research that explains EA from the perspective of the business executive, demonstrating how they can use EA to drive business strategy and how EA can enhance executive decision-making.
- Practical Application of AI in EA - While there is a lot of discourse around how AI and ML can be implemented in EA, there is limited research and little literature review about practical applications and case studies that demonstrate the actual usage and real impact of these technologies on different areas of EA practices.
- Sustainability Metrics and EA - The role of EA in promoting sustainability is acknowledged only in theory, and detailed frameworks and methodologies that describe how an organization’s EA practice can be used to integrate sustainability metrics are scarce.
- Resource Optimization and Strategic Insights - What could EA teams do to increase their strategic sustainability or further enable them to infuse strategic insights to support business needs?
- A.
- Enterprise Architecture Framework Diagram

-
Governance Architecture:
- Governance Framework: This is a continuous effort whereby the principles, policies and guidelines of EA development, implementation and governance are formulated. It details the processes of decision making, roles and responsibilities, as well as accountability of the different functions concerned within the governance structure.
- Governance Board: Includes stakeholders who oversee EA activities. Responsible for setting strategic direction, authorizing architectural decisions, ensuring EA is on track with the business, and to function as a neutral arbiter in conflicts.
- Compliance and Audit: it consists of checking if technological operations comply with relevant legal regulations and industry standards; if there are any present risks; if they are controlled; regulating access to the system; and ensuring the protection of data (Whitman & Mattord, 2019).
- Change Management: Keeps track of all changes to the EA, laying down rules for how such changes will be made and keeping change requests, impact assessments, maintenance decisions and their changes under control.
-
Business Architecture:
- Business Strategy: Describes the organization’s respective strategic direction and objectives; used to determine how business processes should be designed, and which capabilities should be fulfilled.
- Business Processes: Activities, workflows, and interactions that define and enable an organization’s operation. Describe how work is completed and whom, what, where, when, why, and which relate to that process. Business architecture seeks to map and enhance business processes for improved efficiency, productivity, and customer value (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006).
- Business Capabilities: Capture the organization’s abilities to carry out its strategy and achieve its goals, as described above. Include which competencies, assets, technologies, and knowledge the organization possesses to perform certain business tasks.
- Organizational Structure: Defines the hierarchical structure, reporting relationships, and responsibilities of the organization to facilitate the execution of business processes. Organizational Structure: Categorizes the design of organizational environments based on roles, responsibilities, and tasks to enable decision making, coordination, and collaboration within the organization (Laudon and Laudon, 2020). (Laudon & Laudon, 2020).
-
Information Architecture:
- Data Governance: Policies, processes, and procedures related to management of corporate data assets such as data quality management, data security, data integration, and data lifecycle management.
- Data Models: Data model specifications of the conceptual/scheme model and the logical/physical data model, specify the structure (attributes of an entity), relationship, and constraints to be enforced for the respective functional model of a respective system. This is a conceptual and logical representation of the organization’s data, which allows for uniform maintenance of data.
- Information Systems: Applications, systems, and technologies that support information capture, retrieval, and processing. Examples include databases, data warehouses, content management systems, and other information management tools.
- Data Integration: Ensures seamless integration of data between two systems and applications. Data integration technologies, interfaces, and exchange protocols ensure interaction between different systems and produce a consistent and accurate reflection of the information landscape in the enterprise. It involves integration of data from all sources and systems and produces a unified view of information across the enterprise. (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006).
-
Technical Architecture:
- Hardware and Infrastructure: The physical infrastructure of the organization consists of servers, networks, storage, and other hardware components required to support IT operations. Technical architecture: hardware, software, networks, and other infrastructure components required to support technology operations (Laudon & Laudon, 2020).
- Software Systems: Applications, platforms, and software components that enable and support business processes and information management. These software components include enterprise resource-planning (ERP) systems, customer-relationship-management (CRM) systems, and other specialized software. It refers to the selection, integration and management of application systems that enable process and information management. (From Ross, Weill, Robertson, 2006, reprinted in IT Governance Handbook, Rosemann, 2008 - Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006).
- Application Integration: Application-to-application or system-to-system integration to allow data communication and process automation. Examples include middleware, application programming interfaces (APIs), and service-oriented architecture (SOA) policies. This layer also manages selection, integration, and management of application systems to support business processes and data management (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006).
-
Security Architecture:
- Security Policies:Governs the rules and procedures to be followed to protect an organization’s platform or critical infrastructure for information and technology assets. This can include details such as access controls, data privacy requirements, risk management methodologies, incident response protocols and compliance processes.
- Security Controls:Refers to the technical and procedural controls used to protect the organization’s assets. These are typically firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, data, and configuration encryption mechanisms, as well as authentication and authorization mechanisms, and security awareness training programs.
- Data Protection:Data protection is required for defending the confidentiality of information from unauthorized access, or disclosure. This element acts like a shield towards third parties where information is encrypted, access controls are in place, as is data loss prevention, backup, and recovery (Kizza, 2016).
- Security Monitoring and Incident Response: Security monitoring and auditing typically entails reviewing systems and networks for any signs of disturbance. This component comprises of real-time log analysis, intrusion detection systems, security event correlation, and frequent security audits (Whitman & Mattord, 2019).
-
Human Capital Architecture:
- Skills and Competencies:Assessment and development of needed skills and competencies to support the organization’s strategic goals, which entails defining the needs for job roles, assessing employees’ skill sets and competencies, and offering training and development programs to develop and enhance employee capabilities.
- Organizational Structure:Establishes the hierarchical structure, reporting lines and roles of the organization. It also formalizes job descriptions, roles, and responsibilities: this allows for coordination and collaboration.
- Talent Acquisition and Management:Talent development refers to building skills, knowledge, and capabilities among employees through training, coaching, mentoring, developmental assignments, and different career development opportunities. This component safeguards employee growth and engagement while rationalizing their competencies along organizational needs (Noe et al., 2019).
- Leadership Development:Focuses on identifying and developing leadership strengths internally, through leadership development programs, mentoring, succession planning and any other mechanisms to ensure the development of a strong pipeline for leadership.
- B.
- Enterprise Architecture Frameworks for Business Process Redesign
- Process Alignment: COBIT offers a standardized collection of processes and control objectives, which could serve as a baseline for determining how business processes are mapped to IT activities. For example, an organization’s current processes could be mapped to COBIT’s process coverage matrix to identify deficiencies, redundancies, and inefficiencies. Furthermore, the COBIT processes and related control objectives could be used during process redesign to make sure that processes are aligned with best practice.
- Governance and Control: COBIT stresses effective governance and control of the IT function and provides a governance framework, which includes management guidelines, control objectives and performance indicators, that can assist organizations to identify clearly who is accountable for what, who makes decisions regarding people, processes and technology, and how these decisions are implemented through effective controls to achieve efficient operations.
- Risk Management: BPR and EAD initiatives mandate process, system, and technology architecture changes. COBIT can help organizations identify, assess, and monitor these risks. Reviewing COBIT risk management practices, and implementing these controls where needed, helps mitigate new risks that could arise due to redesign.
- Performance Measurement: Since COBIT promotes the development of performance indicators to gauge the adequacy of IT processes, the framework allows an organization from a process perspective to define performance metrics for enhancements in BPR and EAD, followed by implementation of a performance measurement framework to measure initiatives taken to meet the overall business strategy and business process goals. This approach enables them to monitor critical processes, diagnose issues, track performance, provide meaningful feedback to synergize actions, effect improvements and enhance efficiency.
- Compliance and Standards: COBIT utilizes industry standards and regulatory obligations such as ISO 27001, COSO and ITIL. Through its integration with these standards, organizations can promote adherence to the required regulations and industry best practices in BPR and EAD initiatives. Doing so can instill a level of assurance and security within IT systems.
- Continuous Improvement: COBIT promotes a feedback loop for the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, effectively encouraging a state of continuous improvement to IT governance and management. Through the PDCA approach, organizations are ‘always on’ and continuously monitor, measure, evaluate and adjust their BPR and EAD efforts. COBIT’s feedback engineering, where the Design step (analyze current processes, identify, and design future processes) is repeated after Do (deploy and measure), provides for refinement of the PDCA cycle.
Real-Life Case Study: Implementing IT Governance Using the COBIT Framework
Case Study: Financial Institution in Georgia
| Step | Description |
| Assessment and Planning | Performed an in-depth assessment of current IT governance level and practices. Documented existing situation, aligned with COBIT's governance and management principles. Defined gaps, opportunities for improvement, and planned a detailed implementation roadmap, prioritised by institution’s strategic objectives. |
| Governance Framework Establishment | Establish established a formal governance framework that included key representatives from line-of-business (LOB) units and IT functions. Create roles and responsibilities owners with decisions and authority, making it clear for holding accountable governance and control. |
| Risk Management and Compliance | Aligned with ITIL processes for identifying, assessing, and managing IT-based risks. Implemented measures to gain status as Information Security Management System (ISMS) in alignment with ISO 27001 Requirements, along with COSO (an internal control framework for organisations to assess risk). Integrated sustainability considerations throughout the COBIT framework and implemented alignment with ISO 26000 framework. |
| Performance Measurement | Designed performance metrics and a monitoring framework to gauge the effectiveness and efficiency of IT processes. Reviewed the functional operations and procedures on an ongoing basis to improve processes based on feedback and performance metrics. |
- Enhanced IT Governance: Greater understanding of the IT/business nexus = better decision-making for strategy-making.
- Improved Risk Management: Risk management approaches helped mitigate potential IT risks and to respond to obligations under the law.
- Operational Efficiency: The performance measurement framework enabled the institution to track performance, identify areas for improvement and optimise IT processes.
- Business Value: COBIT 2019 helped the company realise business value by improving the governance and management of IT resources.
LEAN Framework
- Waste Reduction: Lean thinking aims to reduce so-called ‘eight kinds of waste’ (known as the ‘8 Wastes’): overproduction; waiting; unnecessary transportation; excess inventory; motion; over-processing; ‘defects’ (by which is meant product waste, such as rejects, reworks, etc.); and unused employee creativity. To identify areas for improvement, organizations currently following a specific process map out all their steps and then apply Lean principles: because of this mapping, they can identify which tasks in the process are wasteful, and the process can be modified and refined to reduce or remove waste.
- Value Stream Mapping: A key Lean technique involves the use of value stream mapping to visualize and analyze flows of materials, information and other process activities in order to identify and eliminate ‘muda’ (waste), or the progress of goods through a process that does not directly contribute to the creation of value from the customer perspective.
- Standardized Work: ‘Lean’ stresses the importance of standardized work. Essentially, this encourages consistent approaches to performing work tasks, namely those processes variations likely to introduce error. By documenting and implementing standardized workflows, organizations can create much-needed design leverage – the ability to scale up changes in design – through architectural design that is capable of redesign, and the continuous improvement of practice.
- Continuous Improvement: Lean emphasizes a ‘constant improvement’ (kaizen) mindset. Empowering staff at all levels to surface opportunities for kaizen leads to ever-improving work processes, a business philosophy that extends to improving business processes and the architecture to support them.
- Customer Focus: Lean stresses responding to customer needs. By using techniques like customer value analysis, it is possible to distil the value chain to the truly relevant, genuinely appreciated parts. This helps to direct the process of evaluating redesign efforts, setting priorities, and aligning architectural choices in support of basic customer requirements.
- Just-in-Time (JIT): This is a Lean concept. Just-in-Time refers to the practice of producing or delivering goods or services exactly when they are required and is another key principle of Lean. If you are using JIT, you consistently time all inputs and outputs at the instant when they are needed by the next process to minimize inventory and lead times, so as to maximize value and minimize non-value-adding activities such as redundant storage.
- Cross-Functional Collaboration: Lean promotes collaborative working across functional areas. Cross-functional collaboration enables better stakeholder involvement during business process redesign and enterprise architectural design, for those involved can bring expertise from different areas (both within and outside the IT department), share knowledge, and design better and more efficient processes and systems.
Real-Life Case Study: Implementing Lean Framework for Efficiency Improvement
Case Study: Deutsche Bahn (DB)
| Step | Description |
| Training and Coaching | Training and coaching were provided to the entire staff population by KEGON, a Scaled Agile Partner. The performed SAFe® Scrum Master and SAFe® Product Owner/Product Manager training on a role-based basis. |
| Value Stream Analysis | Performed a Value Stream analysis resulting in four Value Streams covering vertical products and horizontal services. |
| Program Increment (PI) Planning | Held the first Agile Release Train (ART) with a PI planning event. Report produced Value Stream analysis resulting in clarified incremental release strategy, prioritized business epics, and planned teams’ work. |
| Governance and Budgeting | Moved from the old authority-based governance to Lean budgeting. Adopted a ‘Turnaround Operating Model’ (TOM) to achieve holistic integration into the organisation. |
| Performance Measurement | Leveraged Agile metrics to manage Portfolios and ARTs, ensuring continuous improvement and alignment with strategic goals. |
- Faster Time-to-Market: Reduced lead time from 12 months to 3-4 months.
- Increased Test Automation: Improved test automation coverage from 30% to 80%.
- Better Employee Engagement: Achieved 90% greater collaboration among teams, raising employee satisfaction levels.
- Clearer Fiscal Visibility: Enhanced forecasting for financial requirements and resource allocation.
- Greater Transparency: Achieved a crisper view on portfolio roadmap, work in progress, and financial resources allocation.
- Architecture Vision: TOGAF stresses the importance of creating an Architecture Vision, which represents the future desired state of the enterprise, which mediates between the business strategy and the goals and defines a space representing the future operating environment of the enterprise into which the business wants to migrate.
- Business Architecture: TOGAF’s Business Architecture domain is all about looking at the organization as a business, with the aim of understanding what happens within it and how successful it is. It attempts to comprehend the business strategy, organizational structure, its activities – also known as business ‘as-is,’ ‘to-be’ and ‘out of’ perspective, and its business capabilities – either how it is performing now or how it wants to perform, and so on. Based on this understanding, the business processes can be redesigned so that the business operations are more in line with the organization’s strategic intentions, and the workflows are designed to leverage the latter to deliver the former.
- Process and Information Architecture: TOGAF provides guidance for Process Architecture, how processes are designed, kept coordinated and work together. In addition, users build Information Systems Architecture, which outlines the infrastructure for business processes and the information requirements of users. After upending and redecorating the various buildings on campus, the final step to secure this organization’s future success is to take advantage of TOGAF’s Process and Information Architecture components. This becomes an opportunity to redesign processes, which are well-organized, cost-effective, and automated, and then build critical infrastructure to support them.
- Governance and Change Management: TOGAF defines governance mechanisms and change-management processes and is important for good business process redesign as well as EA design. TOGAF’s governance framework is needed to make transformation projects successful and ensure that the redesigned processes stay in line with the EA strategy. Moreover, its change-management approaches can facilitate the necessary change of attitudes and skills of employees, ensuring that processes work after the transformation.
- Integration with Other Frameworks: TOGAF can be integrated with other frameworks and methods with the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of BPR activities. A natural complement to TOGAF is a service assurance framework such as ITIL or COBIT – although Lean and any other streamlined method also can be integrated with the TOGAF framework. The purpose is to allow the combination of the best practices available with the EA approach, and, thus, make TOGAF a wider set of tools and techniques in order to achieve process improvement and organizational goals.
- Iterative Approach: TOGAF is iterative and phased, and therefore adopts an iterative approach toward implementing EA through the Architecture Development Method (ADM). This iterative process helps the BPR process, allowing the organization to analyze, design, build and implement changes to business processes in an incremental manner. Since technology is integral to most business processes, this iterative nature of TOGAF allows the management of BPR activities, enabling the organization to evaluate and validate changes and incrementally evolve its EA. Therefore, TOGAF provides a set of guidelines for a BPR initiative and helps in outlining a structured roadmap for implementing a BPR process, ensuring that the EA is on track. This cyclic approach enables organizations to constantly reflect and learn from each iteration of a business process design, avoid potential errors, and plan for future enhancements in a progressive manner.
Real-Life Case Study: Challenges in Implementing TOGAF Framework
Case Study: Multinational Corporation's Struggles with TOGAF
| Step | Description |
| Preliminary Phase | Defined the scope and customised TOGAF methodology to fit organisational goals. Hosted series of workshops with stakeholders to align on project goals. |
| Architecture Vision | Provided an initial architecture vision that described the desired future state and the fundamental design constructs or elements for the transformation. |
| Business Architecture | Created detailed models for business processes and operations. Faced difficulties in standardizing processes across diverse global units. |
| Information Systems Architecture | Developed models for data flows and application integration. Encountered issues with data consistency and integration challenges. |
| Technology Architecture | Identified required hardware and software components. Struggled with legacy system integration and technology alignment. |
| Opportunities and Solutions | Identified potential improvements and solutions. Many proposed solutions were not feasible due to resource constraints. |
| Migration Planning | Planned the migration steps, dependencies, and timelines. Faced significant delays due to unforeseen complexities. |
| Implementation Governance | Put in place governance structures to ensure implementation in the absence of buy-in from all sides. Lack of stakeholder engagement required governance approaches that addressed impact. |
| Architecture Change Management | Controlled changes and adaptations. As the implementation progressed, changes took place, challenging the fit of the original idea, and had to be controlled. |
- Complexity and Customization Issues Steffensma states that ‘the problem with TOGAF was that it was just too complex for many people. This inherent complexity was combined with the well-known drawback of frameworks: Frameworks are once again frameworks, but the business is quite different.’ TOGAF is challenging to customise, and the customisation done by the organisation ended up introducing a misalignment between the framework and the realities of its operationality. Steffensma adds: ‘Neither management nor the involved teams had enough commitment to the framework and didn’t drive the use of TOGAF enough. There were not enough incentives, and not enough people felt accountable for making it work.’ All these issues appear to relate to the notion that there was a lack of understanding about how the framework would be properly used and about who would have used it, lying behind these and other issues. (LeanIX, 2023).
- Stakeholder Engagement: Insufficient engagement with important stakeholders and resulting resistance to change and LOE support during implementation (CIO Portal, 2023).
- Resource Constraints: As mentioned earlier, the aim for the project was grand and difficult to achieve with the budget and available personnel they had. They were not able to complete and deliver everything within schedule (CIO Portal, 2023).
- Integration Challenges: Integrating legacy systems with new architecture was more complex than anticipated, resulting in severe turbulence and data and operations integrity issues (LeanIX, 2023).
- Tailoring TOGAF: It is key that enterprises make TOGAF work for them (within the ‘architect the enterprise’ proposition), rather than forcing themselves to adhere slavishly to the TOGAF framework in the hope of perfectly implementing enterprise architecture. Trying to use TOGAF ineffectively can lead to poor matching during the process of tailoring. Enterprises must draw on their existing capabilities – whether modernising legacy systems or cultivating new ones. They need to focus both on the necessary as well as the newly proposed elements and must prioritise stakeholders who are not represented in the business driven itself.
- Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholders’ expectations need to be managed throughout the implementation process, entailing continuous and effective engagement to ensure compliance and support.
- Realistic Planning: Realistic goal setting and proper allocation of resources main the realities of the EA transformation process.
- Flexibility and Adaptation: Greater flexibility and adaptability within an EA framework may help retain normative stability over time in response to continuous disruptions.
- Wider Perspective: IAF adds enterprise vision and process perspectives to those of the Zachman Framework – Governance, Policy, Strategy, Motivation, besides the classic Zachman Framework’s six perspectives of What, How, Where, Who, When and Why. This sets up a wider aperture for developing an enterprise view or understanding, not only of what the enterprise does and how it does it, but also why it does what it does, at what time, and for whom, which can help determine the current and future direction of the enterprise.
- Alignment with Organizational Goals: IAF truly emphasizes alignment of Enterprise Architecture with business objectives. It encourages deriving business goals, strategies, and policies to be the driver for design and optimization of business processes. With strategic goals set in IAF, organizations can constantly align their business process redesign objectives with their higher business goals.
- Layered Approach: IAF provides a layered approach to enterprise architecture, which allows organizations to represent the enterprise in a hierarchical and structured fashion. A layered approach can decompose complex processes into smaller units to be studied and modified in a stepwise process. This layered approach is essential for analyzing dependencies between layers, such as optimizing the process between the business, application, and technology layers of enterprises.
- Traceability and Impact Analysis: Traceability between architectural elements and business processes, and between different architectural elements, is a key concern for IAF, to understand how a change to one part of a system would affect other parts of it. These traces are associated to business processes, applications, data, and infrastructure components. For example, when mapping out detailed business processes, the interested stakeholders will analyze which applications, data and components within the infrastructure are part of the processes.
- Governance and Control: IAF provides idealized approaches for the establishment of governing and controlling structures of the Enterprise Architecture practice. In other words, IAF provides guidelines for the establishment of processes, rules, roles and responsibilities, and review mechanism to ensure proper decision making, use of right use mechanisms or IT applications, and provision of feedback to the decision makers. Governance requirements are more crucial in the context of business processes redesign because they guide who can, how and from where the enterprise processes can be designed in conformity with the architecture principles, standards and guidelines contained in IAF.
- Iterative and Phased Approach: Like the Zachman Framework, but again using a different name, IAF denotes an iterative and phased approach to the development of Enterprise Architecture. This simply means that organizations can progressively develop models of their business operations, such as application designs to support business processes. This approach enables organizations to assess and determine how to change those business processes to conform with the overall enterprise architectural design and apply the changes in a controlled and manageable manner.
Real-Life Case Study: Implementing Capgemini Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF)
Case Study: Swedbank's Implementation of IAF
| Step | Description |
| Preliminary Analysis | Carried out an analysis of the IT and business processes and found inefficiencies and ways to improve the situation. |
| Architecture Vision | Definition of the target state of enterprise architecture that is congruent with Swedbank’s strategic intent |
| Business and Information Architecture | Designed and formalized organizational processes and information flows. Provided technical taxonomy for data management and information system optimization. |
| Technology Architecture | Developed a unified technology infrastructure to enable lean business operations. Installed technologically advanced solutions in place of inefficient legacy systems. |
| Opportunities and Solutions | Identified and prioritized opportunities for improvement. Developed actionable plans for technology and process enhancements. |
| Governance and Control | Established governance structures to oversee the implementation. Defined roles and responsibilities for effective management |
| Continuous Improvement | Introduced a structured approach to continuous improvement, ensuring we set aside time to regularly review, and refresh processes based on observations and performance metrics. |
- Enhanced IT Infrastructure: Modernized IT systems and improved integration across various business units.
- Improved Business Processes: Streamlined business processes leading to increased efficiency and reduced operational costs.
- Better Alignment with Business Goals: Making sure that IT projects were tightly coupled to specific business goals.
- Effective Governance: Established robust governance mechanisms that facilitated better decision-making and risk management.
- C.
- Analysis and Discussion
- 1.
- Comparative Analysis of EA Frameworks
| Framework | Strengths | Applicability | Impact on Organizational Performance |
| COBIT | Comprehensive approach to IT governance and management. Detailed guidelines for risk management and value delivery (ISACA, 2019) | Useful for enhancing IT governance frameworks and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. | Improved IT governance, risk management, and value delivery. Clear IT control objectives and performance metrics (Van Grembergen et al., 2017) |
| LEAN | Emphasizes waste reduction and continuous improvement (Tran, 2012) | Versatile and applicable across various industries. Ideal for streamlining operations and improving process efficiency (Management Events, 2023) | Significant improvements in operational efficiency and customer value delivery. Effective value stream mapping and standardized work processes. |
| TOGAF | Systematic method for developing and managing enterprise architectures. Strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement and strategic alignment (The Open Group, 2018) | Ideal for comprehensive and structured EA implementation, particularly for organizations requiring detailed architectural frameworks (Buckl et al., 2009) | Enhanced strategic planning and alignment, better decision-making, and resource allocation (Hofmann et al., 2013) |
| IAF | Extends the Zachman Framework with additional perspectives such as governance, policy, and strategy (Gøtze & Truex, 2013) | Suitable for organizations needing a holistic and multi-dimensional view of EA. Integrates business processes, technology infrastructure, and strategic goals (Lankhorst, 2013) | Improved alignment between business strategies and IT capabilities. Supports comprehensive impact analysis and decision-making processes. |
- 2.
- Gaps and Future Research
- Gap: Most current studies focus on the technical aspects of EA, with limited research examining the perspective of business executives.
- Future Research: Investigate how business executives perceive the value of EA frameworks and their impact on strategic decision-making. Research should explore how executives can leverage EA to drive business transformation and achieve strategic objectives.
- Gap: There is a lack of practical case studies demonstrating the real-world application of AI and machine learning in EA practices.
- Future Research: Conduct detailed case studies and pilot projects to showcase the implementation of AI-enabled EA tools. Research should focus on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for integrating AI into EA processes.
- Gap: EA has an important role in driving sustainability, but specific frameworks and methodologies on how to integrate sustainability metrics into EA practice are lacking.
- Future Research: Develop and validate metrics-based frameworks incorporating sustainable development indicators into EA. Assess how EA can help organisations achieve their sustainability agenda and enable them to track and monitor progress.
- Gap: How can EA teams better articulate their value to secure both resources and enhance their lines of sight for strategic value?
- Future Research: ‘Dialling down’ may be a big ask, but it would be useful to investigate the forms of communication and tools for demonstrating the role of EA in organisational performance, as well as ways for EA to enhance the provision of strategic insight.
- Gap: EA can enhance the shopping experience, but we need more case studies to show exactly how.
- Future Research: Investigate how EA can aid in designing processes that enhance customer-facing processes and improve customer satisfaction. Better practices for using EA to support customer experience programmes should be identified.
Conclusion
- It can help organizations to leverage from these frameworks to bring out transformations.
- It can aid organizations to create organizational operations efficiently and accomplish desired architectural outcome; and
- It can function as a checklist on the importance of EA to be structured well for effective strategic decision, resource pool management and innovation.
Acknowledgements
References
- Capgemini. (2023). The journey from regeneration to renewable enterprise – part 2. Retrieved from https://www.capgemini.com/news/the-journey-from-regeneration-to-renewable-enterprise-part-2/.
- Capgemini. (2023). Case Study: Capgemini’s Enterprise Architecture method helps Swedbank identify business process hotspots. Retrieved from https://www.capgemini.com/service/case-study-capgeminis-enterprise-architecture-method-helps-swedbank-identify-business-process-hotspots/.
- Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2019). Applied psychology in human resource management (8th ed.). Pearson.
- CIO Portal. (2023). Case Study – Implementing IT Governance Using the COBIT Framework. Retrieved from https://cioindex.com/reference/case-study-implementing-it-governance-using-cobit-2/.
- Enterprise Architecture Trends: 2023 and Beyond. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.valueblue.com/blog/enterprise-architecture-trends-2023-and-beyond.
- Gøtze, J., & Truex, D. P. (2013). Enterprise architecture: An emerging discipline with a common foundation. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 9(3), 28-45.
- Harris, S. (2019). CISSP All-in-One Exam Guide (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
- ISACA. (2019). COBIT 2019 Framework: Introduction and Methodology. ISACA.
- Kendall, K. E., & Kendall, J. E. (2018). Systems Analysis and Design (10th ed.). Pearson Education (US). Retrieved from https://aiu.vitalsource.com/books/9780134817378.
- Kizza, J. M. (2016). Guide to Computer Network Security (4th ed.). Springer International Publishing.
- Lankhorst, M. (2013). Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis (3rd ed.). Springer.
- Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2020). Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm (16th ed.). Pearson.
- Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2019). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
- Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Şişman, G. (2022). Implementing Lean Six Sigma methodology to reduce the logistics cost: a case study in Turkey. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 14(3), 610–629. [CrossRef]
- Society for Human Resource Management. (2020). SHRM Body of Competency and Knowledge. SHRM Publishing.
- The Open Group. (2018). TOGAF® 9.2. The Open Group Standard. Retrieved from https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/.
- The State of Enterprise Architecture 2023. (2023, June 27). Bizzdesign. Retrieved from https://bizzdesign.com/blog/the-state-of-enterprise-architecture-report-reveals-enterprise-architectures-top-priorities-for-2023/.
- The State of Enterprise Architecture Report 2023 – Enterprise Architecture Professional Journal. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://eapj.org/the-state-of-enterprise-architecture-report-2023/.
- Tran, Y. (2012). Frameworks for business process redesign: A proposed integrated framework. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(23), 76-84.
- Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & Guldentops, E. (2017). COBIT 5 and Enterprise Governance of IT: Building Blocks and Research Opportunities. Journal of Information Systems Management, 34(4), 307-322.
- Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results. Harvard Business School Press.
- Whitman, M. E., & Mattord, H. J. (2019). Principles of Information Security (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- 7 Enterprise Architecture Trends to Watch in 2024 | News. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://managementevents.com/news/enterprise-architecture-trends-2024/.
- 1 Case Study - Deutsche Bahn - Scaled Agile Framework. (2019, February 4). Retrieved from https://v5.scaledagileframework.com/case-study-deutsche-bahn/.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
