A process reuse identification framework using an alignment model

This thesis explores the potential to unify three emerging disciplines: enterprise engineering, enterprise architecture and enterprise ontology. The current fragmentation that exists in literature on enterprise alignment and design constrains the development and growth of the emerging disciplines. Enterprises need to use a multi-disciplinary approach when they continuously align, design and re-design the enterprise. Although enterprises need to be aligned internally (across various enterprise facets), as well as externally (with the environment), most alignment approaches still focus on business-IT alignment, i.e. aligning the business operations with the information and communication technologies and systems of the enterprise. This study focuses on a popular business-IT alignment approach, called the foundation for execution approach, and its associated artefact, called the operating model. The study acknowledges the theoretical contribution of the operating model to establish the required level of business process integration and standardisation at an enterprise in delivering goods and services to customers. Highlighting the practical problems in selecting an operating model for an enterprise, and more specifically the practical problems of identifying process reuse potential at an enterprise, a thesis statement is formulated: The operating model concept, as part of a business-IT alignment approach, can be enhanced with a process reuse identification framework, when a business-IT alignment contextua/isation is used. The study is divided into two research questions. The first research question addresses the current fragmentation that exists in the literature, which impairs reuse of the existing business-IT alignment knowledge base. An inductive literature review develops the Business-IT Alignment Model to provide a common contextualisation for current business-IT alignment approaches. The second research question addresses the practical problems of the operating model regarding the identification of process reuse potential at an enterprise. Applying the newly developed Business-IT Alignment Model as a contextualisation instrument, the study demonstrates the use of design research in developing the Process Reuse Identification Framework. The conclusion after the investigation of the two research questions is that the thesis statement was confirmed, i.e. the operating model concept, as part of a business-IT alignment approach, can be enhanced with a process reuse identification framework, when a business-IT contextualisation is used.

[1]  Leon A. Kappelman,et al.  Enterprise Architecture: Charting the Territory for Academic Research , 2008, AMCIS.

[2]  Susan Albers Mohrman Having Relevance and Impact , 2007 .

[3]  Victor E. van Reijswoud,et al.  Business Process Re-design with DEMO , 1999 .

[4]  H Prakke,et al.  [Quality criteria for qualitative research]. , 1999, Pflege.

[5]  John Mingers,et al.  Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies , 1997 .

[6]  Claudio U. Ciborra,et al.  The labyrinths of Information , 2002 .

[7]  L. Kappelman Enterprise Architecture: Not Just Another Management Fad , 2010 .

[8]  A. J. Van Rensburg,et al.  EVALUATING AND REFINING THE 'ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE AS STRATEGY' APPROACH AND ARTEFACTS , 2011 .

[9]  Richard A. Parker,et al.  Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide , 1992 .

[10]  A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies , 2010 .

[11]  John Leaney,et al.  The ABACUS architectural approach to computer-based system and enterprise evolution , 2005, 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'05).

[12]  Carol O'Rourke,et al.  Enterprise Architecture Using the Zachman Framework , 2003 .

[13]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  On the semantics of EPCs: Resolving the vicious circle , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[14]  Mark Dumay,et al.  Evaluation of DEMO and the Language / Action Perspective after 10 years of experience , 2005 .

[15]  Paula Kotzé,et al.  USING THE INTERACTION MODEL TO IDENTIFY REPLICATION POTENTIAL BETWEEN BUSINESS UNITS , 2011 .

[16]  Ralph Whittle,et al.  Enterprise Business Architecture: The Formal Link between Strategy and Results , 2004 .

[17]  Robert Winter,et al.  Design science research in Europe , 2008 .

[18]  Fenix Theuerkorn,et al.  Lightweight Enterprise Architectures , 2004 .

[19]  Terry Calmeyer,et al.  How to succeed in your master's and doctoral studies: A South African guide and resource book, Johann Mouton : book review , 2011 .

[20]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Action research and design science research - Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar , 2009, ECIS.

[21]  Jay W. Forrester,et al.  Industrial Dynamics---A Response to Ansoff and Slevin , 1968 .

[22]  Björn Niehaves,et al.  On Episemological Diversity in Design Science: New Vistas for a Design-Oriented IS Research? , 2007, ICIS.

[23]  Hans B. F. Mulder,et al.  Enhancing the Formal Foundations of BPMN by Enterprise Ontology , 2009, CIAO! / EOMAS.

[24]  Paula Kotzé,et al.  A method for identifying process reuse opportunities to enhance the operating model , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[25]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[26]  Daniel Minoli Enterprise Architecture Tools , 2008 .

[27]  Leon A. Kappelman The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture , 2009 .

[28]  Jerry N. Luftman,et al.  Key Issues for IT Executives 2010: Judicious IT Investments Continue Post-Recession , 2010, MIS Q. Executive.

[29]  Mark von Rosing,et al.  Business Process Model and Notation - BPMN , 2015, The Complete Business Process Handbook, Vol. I.

[30]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[31]  M. Goergen,et al.  A governance framework , 2004 .

[32]  Marlon Dumas,et al.  Configurable process models: How to adopt standard practices in your own way? , 2008 .

[33]  James B. Martin The great transition using the seven disciplines of enterprise engineering to align people , 1990 .

[34]  Leon A. Kappelman Why Enterprise Architecture Matters: Surfing the Waves , 2010 .

[35]  D. R. Towill,et al.  Successful business systems engineering. I. The systems approach to business processes , 1997 .

[36]  James Lapalme,et al.  3 Schools of Enterprise Architecture , 2022 .

[37]  Robert Winter,et al.  Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture , 2006, 2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW'06).

[38]  D. Morgan,et al.  Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. , 1983 .

[39]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[40]  Arquitectura Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology , 2013 .

[41]  D. Cabrera,et al.  Systems thinking. , 2008, Evaluation and program planning.

[42]  Colin Sharp Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.) , 2003 .

[43]  Johan F. Hoorn,et al.  Alignment and Maturity Are Siblings in Architecture Assessment , 2005, CAiSE.

[44]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[45]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[46]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  An Enterprise Engineering based Examination of TOGAF 1 , 2011 .

[47]  W. Trochim,et al.  Deduction and Induction , 2006 .

[48]  Paula Kotzé,et al.  Refining the operating model concept to enable systematic growth in operating maturity , 2010 .

[49]  Rika Engelbrecht An enterprise Architecture Approach: Towards a method for standardising processes across different business units at a tertiary education institution , 2011 .

[50]  E. Rechtin,et al.  The art of systems architecting , 1996, IEEE Spectrum.

[51]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains , 1999, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[52]  Jackie MacDonald,et al.  Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review , 2014 .

[53]  John Boardman,et al.  Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century Problems , 2008 .

[54]  J. Lowery,et al.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[55]  Jeanne W. Ross,et al.  Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages , 2003, MIS Q. Executive.

[56]  Janice M. Morse,et al.  Simultaneous and Sequential Qualitative Mixed Method Designs , 2010 .

[57]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[58]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[59]  J. Aken Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management , 2005 .

[60]  Marne De Vires A framework for understanding and comparing enterprise architecture models , 2010 .

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

[62]  William B. Rouse Embracing the enterprise , 2004 .

[63]  E. Brink,et al.  Constructing grounded theory : A practical guide through qualitative analysis , 2006 .

[64]  Charles L. Owen,et al.  Design research: building the knowledge base☆ , 1998 .

[65]  J. Creswell Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 2006 .

[66]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  The process map as an instrument to standardize processes: design and application at a financial service provider , 2009, Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag..

[67]  Leon A. Kappelman A pragmatic Approach to a Highly Effective Enterprise Architecture Program , 2010 .

[68]  Chris Sauer,et al.  Strategic alignment revisited: connecting organizational architecture and IT infrastructure , 2004, 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.

[69]  Michael Uschold,et al.  The Enterprise Ontology , 1998, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[70]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Key Issues for IT Executives , 2004, MIS Q. Executive.

[71]  Margrit Schreier,et al.  Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice , 2012 .

[72]  Nigel Martin,et al.  Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government , 2007, Inf. Technol. People.

[73]  Roel Wagter,et al.  Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: How to Make It Work , 2005 .

[74]  C. H. Kriebel Management information systems , 1970, ACM '70.

[75]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare , 2002 .

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

[77]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Competing by design: the power of organizational architecture , 1998 .

[78]  Wolfram Pietsch,et al.  Business Process Reengineering , 1994, Wirtschaftsinf..

[79]  Leon A. Kappelman Enterprise Architecture as Politics: An Actor-Network Theory Perspective , 2010 .

[80]  José M. Tribolet,et al.  Control Organization: A DEMO Based Specification and Extension , 2011, EEWC.

[81]  Nancy L. Leech Interviews with the Early Developers of Mixed Methods Research1 , 2010 .

[82]  Leon A. Kappelman,et al.  John Zachman’s Concise Definition of the Zachman Framework , 2010 .

[83]  Maria Jirwe,et al.  Analysing qualitative data. , 2011, Nurse researcher.

[84]  Howard Smith,et al.  Business Process Management: The Third Wave , 2003 .

[85]  Leon A. Kappelman,et al.  Using Language to Gain Control of Enterprise Architecture , 2010 .

[86]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  The emergence of design research in information systems in North America , 2008 .

[87]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[88]  D. L. Flarey Reengineering the Corporation , 1994 .

[89]  Jan A. P. Hoogervorst,et al.  Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering , 2009, The Enterprise Engineering Series.

[90]  Vice President,et al.  ALIGNING ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE AND IT INVESTMENTS WITH CORPORATE GOALS , 2002 .

[91]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development , 1991 .

[92]  Derek K. Hitchins Advanced Systems Thinking, Engineering, and Management , 2003 .

[93]  Glenn Cater,et al.  Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) , 2011, Encyclopedia of Information Assurance.

[94]  Ajay S. Vinze,et al.  Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of Software Engineering Research in Information Systems , 2001, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[95]  Alain Wegmann,et al.  Business and IT Alignment with SEAM , 2005 .

[96]  Jerry N. Luftman,et al.  An Update on Business-IT Alignment: "A Line" Has Been Drawn , 2007, MIS Q. Executive.

[97]  Jamshid Gharajedaghi,et al.  Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity - A Platform for Designing Business Architecture , 1999 .

[98]  R. Jewett,et al.  Systems Engineering , 1959, IRE Transactions on Military Electronics.

[99]  Donald H. Liles,et al.  Enterprise engineering discipline , 1996 .

[100]  H. Simon,et al.  The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[101]  L. Diamond IT Governance : How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results , 2005 .