Development of Measurement Items for the Institutionalization of Enterprise Architecture Management in Organizations

While elaborate enterprise architecture management (EAM) methods and models are at architects’ disposal, it remains an observable and critical challenge to actually anchor, i.e. institutionalize, EAM in the organization and among non-architects. Based on previous work outlining design factors for EAM in light of institutional theory, this work discusses the theoretical grounding of respective design factors and proposes measurement items for assessing the institutionalization of EAM in organizations. The work identifies measurement items for the factors legitimacy, efficiency, stakeholder multiplicity, organizational grounding, goal consistency, content creation, diffusion and trust, contributing to evaluate and inform EAM design from several, partially new perspectives.

[1]  Kristian Hjort-Madsen,et al.  Institutional patterns of enterprise architecture adoption in government , 2007 .

[2]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  Research Notes: Goal Congruence and Employee Orientations: The Substitution Effect , 1980 .

[3]  João Baptista,et al.  Institutionalisation as a process of interplay between technology and its organisational context of use , 2009, J. Inf. Technol..

[4]  C. Stevens,et al.  Goal congruence in project teams: does the fit between members' personal mastery and performance goals matter? , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Sabine Buckl,et al.  On the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise Architecture Management Literature , 2011 .

[6]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study , 1999, MIS Q..

[7]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques , 2011, MIS Q..

[8]  Sabine Buckl,et al.  Charting the landscape of enterprise architecture management , 2011, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[9]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[12]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering , 1996, Inf. Technol. People.

[13]  Peter Buxmann,et al.  Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry , 2011, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Raul P. Lejano,et al.  Technology and Institutions , 2008 .

[15]  Charles D. Barrett.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[16]  Marlies van Steenbergen,et al.  On Course, but not There Yet: Enterprise Architecture Conformance and Benefits in Systems Development , 2020, ICIS.

[17]  Kristian Hjort-Madsen,et al.  Enterprise Architecture Implementation and Management: A Case Study on Interoperability , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[18]  M. Weatherford,et al.  Measuring Political Legitimacy , 1992, American Political Science Review.

[19]  B. Menguc,et al.  Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders , 2006 .

[20]  Mark C. Suchman.  Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[21]  Jan Recker,et al.  Understanding the Process of Constructing Scales Inventories in the Process Modelling Domain , 2007, ECIS.

[22]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[23]  C. Oliver.  STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[24]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, : . , 1995 .

[25]  W. Scott.  Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests , 2007 .

[26]  Stephan Aier,et al.  European Conference on Information Systems ( ECIS ) 5-15-2012 AN INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCHITECTUAL TRANSFORMATION , 2017 .

[27]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? , 2001, MIS Q..

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

[29]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  The dangers of poor construct conceptualization , 2003 .

[30]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective , 2003, MIS Q..

[31]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[32]  Stephan Aier,et al.  Facilitating Enterprise Transformation Through Legitimacy – An Institutional Perspective , 2012, MKWI 2012.

[33]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. , 2005 .

[34]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice , 2010 .

[35]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[37]  L. Zucker.  Institutional Theories of Organization , 1987 .

[38]  Timothy R. Hinkin,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Approach to Content Validation , 1999 .

[39]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[40]  Robert Winter,et al.  Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design - An Empirical Analysis , 2011, Wirtschaftsinformatik.