Ea Configurations: Interplay of EA Design Factors, Strategy Types, and Environments

Since late 1990’s, organizations have been increasingly implementing enterprise architecture (EA) to address the problems of fragmented systems of processes, applications, data, and technologies. Despite this growing adoption of EA, there has been little academic research that provides compelling empirical evidence of the impact of EA on organizational performance and prescriptive design principles for EA. As a result, scholars and practitioners are not well informed about the business value of EA as well as about effective design approaches to EA. We argue that the lack of strong empirical evidence is partly and importantly due to the complexity of EA configurations and to the limitations of the traditional correlation-based methods used for uncovering the complex causal relationships between heterogeneous EA configurations and organizational performance. This research intends to examine how EA elements combine with organizational and environmental elements to produce high organizational performance and to suggest ways to design effective EA configurations. We propose that it is the holistic dynamics of the EA design factors and organizational and environmental elements that determine the impact of EA on organizational performance. First, based on the EA literature we define four EA design factors such as centralization, modularity, standardization, and open platforms, which represent crucial decisions an enterprise architect should make. Then, with fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), an emerging set-theoretic configurational methodology, we analyze empirical field data to examine multiple EA configurations that have different structures but result in the same outcome. Especially, we focus on explaining how the EA design factors play different roles over the multiple equifinal configurations in achieving high organizational performance while interacting with organizational and environmental factors. Based on the fsQCA findings, we develop design principles for implementing effective enterprise architecture in terms of the four EA design factors.

[1]  V. Narayanan,et al.  Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed , 2007 .

[2]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[3]  Omar A. El Sawy,et al.  Chapter 9 The Value of Configurational Approaches for Studying Digital Business Strategy , 2013 .

[4]  W. DeSarbo,et al.  Revisiting the Miles and Snow Strategic Framework: Uncovering Interrelationships between Strategic Types, Capabilities, Environmental Uncertainty, and Firm Performance , 2005 .

[5]  Andrew C. Boynton,et al.  Information Architecture: In Search of Efficient Flexibility , 1991, MIS Q..

[6]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Alignment Between Business and IS Strategies: A Study of Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  A. H. Segars,et al.  Realizing the Promise of E-Business: Developing and Leveraging Electronic Partnering Options , 2006 .

[8]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  Discovering the Multifaceted Roles of Information Technologies with a Holistic Configurational Theory Approach , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[9]  Andrew McAfee Will web services really transform collaboration , 2005 .

[10]  Bala Iyer,et al.  The Four-Domain Architecture: An approach to support enterprise architecture design , 2004, IBM Syst. J..

[11]  A. Abbott Transcending General Linear Reality , 1988 .

[12]  D. Hambrick On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors , 2003 .

[13]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Bounded Rationality and the Search for Organizational Architecture: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Design of Organizations and Their Evolvability , 2004 .

[14]  Varun Grover,et al.  An Empirically Derived Taxonomy of Information Technology Structure and Its Relationship to Organizational Structure , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[15]  D. Hambrick Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types. , 1983, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[16]  L RichardsonGary,et al.  A principles-based enterprise architecture , 1990 .

[17]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Complementarities Between Organizational IT Architecture and Governance Structure , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[18]  Brian R. Gordon,et al.  A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Environmental Velocity , 2010 .

[19]  Peer C. Fiss Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research , 2011 .

[20]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  Rapid Information Technology Change, Coping Mechanisms, and the Emerging Technologies Group , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Daniel M. Yellin,et al.  Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in Managing Information Technology , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  The Effect of Information Technology-Enabled Flexibility on Formation and Market Value of Alliances , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[23]  R. Langlois Modularity in technology and organization , 2002 .

[24]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[25]  Herbert F. Weisberg,et al.  A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification , 1980 .

[26]  Scott A. Moore,et al.  A Foundation for Flexible Automated Electronic Communication , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  R E Miles,et al.  Organizational strategy, structure, and process. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[28]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[29]  John A. Zachman,et al.  A Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1987, IBM Syst. J..

[30]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  Coordinating for Flexibility in e-Business Supply Chains , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Vibha Gaba,et al.  Organizing Far from Equilibrium: Nonlinear Change in Organizational Fields , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[32]  Jeanne W. Ross,et al.  Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution , 2006 .

[33]  Gary W. Dickson,et al.  A Principles-Based Enterprise Architecture: Lessons from Texaco and Star Enterprise , 1990, MIS Q..

[34]  Jack A. Nickerson,et al.  Being Efficiently Fickle: A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Choice , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[35]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Research Commentary - Seeking the Configurations of Digital Ecodynamics: It Takes Three to Tango , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..