A coevolutionary framework of business-IT alignment via the lens of enterprise architecture

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2020.000073

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2020, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (5): 983-995.doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2020.000073

• Systems Engineering • Previous Articles Next Articles

A coevolutionary framework of business-IT alignment via the lens of enterprise architecture

Menglong LIN¹(), Shuanghui YI^2,*(), Mengmeng ZHANG¹(), Tao CHEN¹(), Honghui CHEN¹(), Xiaoxue ZHANG¹()

¹ Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha
² National Key Laboratory for Complex System Simulation, Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing 100000, China

Received:2019-12-18 Online:2020-10-30 Published:2020-10-30
Contact: Shuanghui YI E-mail:mllin123@163.com;flyysh@126.com;186703816365@163.com;kd_chentao@163.com;chh0808@gmail.com;snow1126@126.com
About author:LIN Menglong was born in 1993. He received his M.S. degree in control science and technology from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2018. He is pursuing his Ph.D. degree in the College of Systems Engineering at NUDT. His research interests are information system architecture design, analysis and validation. E-mail: mllin123@163.com|YI Shuanghui was born in 1978. He received his M.S. degree in computer science and technology from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2003. He is the deputy director of the Second Research Department of the National Key Laboratory for Complex System Simulation. His research interests include distributed computing, information system architecture design, and software testing. E-mail: flyysh@126.com|ZHANG Mengmeng was born in 1990. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). He is a lecturer in NUDT now. His current research interests include information system architecture design, analysis and validation. E-mail: 186703816365@163.com|CHEN Tao was born in 1983. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). He is an associate professor in NUDT now. His current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: kd_chentao@163.com|CHEN Honghui was born in 1969. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). He is a professor and the executive vice director of Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering Laboratory in NUDT now. His current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: chh0808@gmail.com|ZHANG Xiaoxue was born in 1986. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). She is a lecturer in NUDT now. Her current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: snow1126@126.com

Abstract

Abstract:

Due to the turbulent external business environment, the complexity of internal relations of the organization and the emergence of subversive IT roles, the business-IT alignment (BITA) has become increasingly difficult. The unsuccessful realization of BITA will lead to the waste of organizational resources, the reduction of return on investment and eventually the loss of competitive advantage. In recent years, coevolution has received widespread attention due to its ability to describe the dynamic relationship between IT and business. Multiple principles such as quickening learning action loops and adopt suitable organizing principles for achieving business and IT coevolution (BITC) are obtained. However, the continuous BITC is still hard to be achieved because of the lack of complete BITC management. This paper focuses on the management process of the BITC and how to perform it gradually. A coevolution framework combines the enterprise architecture (EA) approach with the coevolution analysis is proposed, which contains the design of EA, the sensing and governance of the misalignment and the procedure of the EA misalignment prevention. The steps for the governance and prevention of misalignment are discussed in particular. Through comparison with the principles, characteristics and methods of coevolution in the literature, the proposed framework is evaluated. The results show that the proposed framework is effective for BITC implementation.

Key words: business-IT alignment (BITA), coevolution, misalignment governance, misalignment prevention, enterprise architecture

Menglong LIN, Shuanghui YI, Mengmeng ZHANG, Tao CHEN, Honghui CHEN, Xiaoxue ZHANG. A coevolutionary framework of business-IT alignment via the lens of enterprise architecture[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(5): 983-995.

Figures/Tables 6

Table 1

Some representative papers on BITC"

Author	Focus	Why	What	How
Agarwaland and Sambamurthy (2002) [40]	Organizing IT functions	Increasing IT roles	Partner modelPlatform model	Organize IT to foster coevolution between business and IT functions
Bendya and McKelvey (2006) [23]	A conceptual model of BITC	Dancing rugged environmentComplex internal relationships	Strategic levelOperational levelIndividual level	Top-down rational design and bottom-up emergent process
Tanriverdi, et al. (2010) [19]	A new quest of BITC	Dancing rugged environment	Strategic alignment quest	Improve the organization's agility and dynamics in repositioning itself
El Sawy, et al. (2010) [22]	The ecosystem of environment, business, and IT systems	Dancing rugged environmentComplex internal relationshipsIncreasingly IT roles	Digital ecodynamicsEnvironmental turbulenceBusiness capabilitiesIT systems	Configuration theory
Nassim and Robert (2013) [24]	Verifying coevolutionary principles	Dancing rugged environmentComplex internal relationships	Adaptive tensionChange rateModular design	Top-down rational design and bottom-up emergent process
Vessey and Ward (2013) [27]	A conceptual model of BITC	Dancing rugged environmentComplex internal relationships	Adaptive IS managementEnabling IS managementAdministrative IS mana-gement	Top-down rational design and bottom-up emergent process
Sandberg (2014) [41]	A shift to digital business strategy	Dancing rugged environmentIncreasing IT roles	Digital business strategyOrganizational performance	Improving organizational performance through coevolution
Peppard (2014, 2003) [16, 42]	A conceptual model of BITC	Dancing rugged environmentComplex internal relationships	"Never go ahead" loop"More of the same" loop	Glaserian form of grounded theory development
Weeger and Haase (2016) [33]	Transformation of BITA	Complex internal relationships	IT activity systemBusiness activity system	Activity theory
Amarilli, et al. (2016) [20]	A conceptual model of BITC and different approaches	Dancing rugged environmentComplex internal relationships	Macro scaleMicro scale	Metaphors, functional comp lexity models, co-evolutionary models, and dynamic complexity models
Kahre, et al. (2017) [36]	A shift to digital business strategy	Dancing rugged environmentIncreasing IT roles	Organizational conditions & changesEnvironmental conditions & changesChanges in the content of strategy	Provide a structured clarification of the current digital business strategies knowledge base

Table 1

Table 2

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Table 3

Misalignment governance and prevention principles"

Principle	Name	Description	Supporting literature
P1	Detect and sense deviations from intended plans.	Firms need to sense and respond to external or internal changes in a timely manner.	Sandberg, 2014 [41]; Weeger and Haase, 2016 [33]; Tanriverdi and Lim, 2017 [65].
P2	Conduct root-cause analyses.	Root causes should be identified on the basis of multiple symptoms.	Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [66]; Weeger and Haase, 2016 [33]; Tanriverdi and Lim, 2017 [65].
P3	Add mechanisms and learn from environmental reaction.	Mechanisms should be added to analyze its reactions to dynamic actions.	Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [23]; Tanriverdi et al., 2010 [19]; Tanriverdi and Lim, 2017 [65].
P4	Consider both exploration and exploitation as part of IT strategies.	Exploration concerns to discover new opportunities, and exploitation increases the productivity of existing capabilities.	Peppard and Karin, 2003 [42]; Zhang et al., 2011 [21]; Vessey and Ward, 2013 [27].
P5	Consider digital IT capabilities as inherent elements of planning business strategies.	IT strategies are no longer subordinate to business strategies but shape them.	Agarwal and Sambamurthy, 2002 [40]; Sandberg, 2014 [41]; Tanriverdi, et al., 2010 [19].
P6	Adopt suitable organizing principles.	An organization should balance the internal coordination and external partnering.	Agarwal and Sambamurthy, 2002 [40]; Amarilli et al., 2016 [20].
P7	Communicate frequently among agents.	Agents should communicate with each other and form a collaborating relationship.	Plazaola et al., 2006 [7]; Peppard and Campbell, 2014 [16]; Baker, 2019 [64].
P8	Own concrete, precise, and detailed intentions.	The intended strategy must be specific and explicit.	Baker, 2019 [64]; Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [23];
P9	Adopt modular design.	Modularity is the ability to easily reconfigure components by minimizing interdependencies among modules.	Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [23]; Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [66]; Nassim and Robert, 2010 [24].
P10	Design IS with sufficient up-front complexity.	A system needs to generate the same degree ofinternal complexity as the external complexity it faces in its environment.	Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [23]; Tanriverdi and Lim, 2017 [65].
P11	Share domain knowledge.	Agents build consensus as to the shared reality of the organization.	Plazaola et al., 2006 [7]; Peppard and Campbell, 2014 [16].
P12	Quickened learning action loops.	Speeding up the learning action loops can increase an organization's competitive advantage.	Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [23]; Tanriverdi and Lim, 2017 [65].
P13	Foster coevolution to improve IS alignment.	The alignment is a dynamic processinvolving continuous adjustments between business and IS.	Benbya and McKelvey, 2006 [23]; Tanriverdi and Lim, 2017 [65].
P14	Predict possible emergent situations in advance.	Possible emergent situations should be examined to speed up future change rates.	Vessey and Ward, 2013 [27]; Amarilli et al., 2016 [20].

Table 3

References 69

1	CHAN Y E, REICH B H. IT alignment: what have we learned?. Journal of Information Technology, 2007, 22 (4): 297- 315. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000109
2	KAPPELMAN L A, MCLEON E, LUFTMAN J N, et al. Key issues of IT organizations and their leadership: the 2013 SIM IT trends study. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2013, 12 (4): 227- 240.
3	GEROW J E, GROVER V, THATCHER J, et al. Looking toward the future of IT-business strategic alignment through the past: a meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 2014, 38 (4): 1059- 1085. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.4.10
4	WEGMANN A, REGEV G, LOISON B. Business and IT alignment with SEAM. Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Business Need, and IT Alignment, 2005, 74- 84.
5	ZARVIC N, WIERINGA R. An integrated enterprise architecture framework for business-IT alignment. Proc. of the Designing Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Integrating Business Processes with IT Infrastructure, 2014, 63- 75.
6	IACOBM E, MEERTENS L O, JONKERSH, et al. From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Software & Systems Modeling, 2014, 13 (3): 1059- 1083.
7	PLAZAOLA L, MOLINA E S, VARGAS N, et al. A metamodel for strategic business and IT alignment assessment. Proc. of the 4th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research, 2006, 187, 1- 10.
8	PLAZAOLA L, FLORES J, SILVA E, et al. An approach to associate strategic business-IT alignment assessment to enterprise architecture. Proc. of the 5th Conference on Systems Engineering, 2007, 121, 1- 10.
9	CARVALHO G L, SOUSA P. Using a medical sciences perspective to harness business and information systems misalignment. Proc. of the 16th European Conference on Information System, 2008, 2496- 2507.
10	CARVALHO G, SOUSA P. Business and information systems misalignment model: an holistic model leveraged on misalignment and medical sciences approaches. Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Business/IT Alignment and Inter Operability, 2008, 104- 119.
11	CHEN H M. Towards service engineering: service orientation and business-IT alignment. Proc. of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2008, 1- 10.
12	FISCHER R, AIER S, WINTER R. A federated approach to enterprise architecture model maintenance. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 2015, 2 (2): 14- 22.
13	BRADLEY R V, PRATT R M, BYRD T, et al. Enterprise architecture, IT effectiveness and the mediating role of IT alignment in US hospitals. Information Systems Journal, 2012, 22 (2): 97- 127. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00379.x
14	ALAEDDINI M, SALEKFARD S. Investigating the role of an enterprise architecture project in the business-IT alignment in Iran. Information Systems Frontiers, 2013, 15 (1): 67- 88.
15	PRESTON D, KARAHANNA E. Antecedents of IS strategic alignment: a nomological network. Information Systems Research, 2009, 20 (2): 159- 179. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0159
16	PEPPARD J, CAMPBELL B. The co-evolution of business/information systems strategic alignment: an exploratory study. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.599.3089&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
17	GEROW J E, THATCHER J B, GROVER V. Six types of IT-business strategic alignment: an investigation of the constructs and their measurement. European Journal of Information Systems, 2015, 24 (5): 465- 491. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.6
18	ULLAH A, RICHARD L. A systematic review of business and information technology alignment. ACM Trans. on Management Information Systems, 2013, 4 (1): 4.
19	TANRIVERDI H, RAI A, VENKATRAMAN N. Research commentary-reframing the dominant quests of information systems strategy research for complex adaptive business systems. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21 (4): 822- 834. doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0317
20	AMARILLI F, VAN VLIET M, VAN DEN H B. Business IT alignment through the lens of complexity science. Proc. of the International Conference of Information System, 2016, 1- 10.
21	ZHANG N, YV Y, DONG X Y. A coevolutionary journey of strategic knowledge management alignment: a Chinese case. Proc. of the International Conference on Information System, 2011, 1- 19.
22	EL SAWY O A, MALHOTRA A, PARK Y, et al. Research commentary-seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21 (4): 835- 848. doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0326
23	BENBYA H, MCKELVEY B. Using coevolutionary and complexity theories to improve IS alignment: a multi-level approach. Journal of Information technology, 2006, 21 (4): 284- 298. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000080
24	NASSIM B, ROBERT F. IS alignment improved with coevolutionary principles: an open source approach. Proc. of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2010, 1- 10.
25	LEWIN A Y, LONG C P, CAROLL T N. The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 1999, 10 (5): 535- 550. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.5.535
26	REICH B H, BENBASAT I. Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 2000, 24 (1): 81- 113. doi: 10.2307/3250980
27	VESSEY I, WARD K. The dynamics of sustainable IS alignment: the case for IS adaptivity. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2013, 14 (6): 283- 311. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00336
28	VOLBERDA H W, LEWIN A Y. Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: from evolution to co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 2003, 40 (8): 2111- 2136. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00414.x
29	HUGOSON M A, PESSI K. Operational and structural business IT alignment. Proc. of the International Conference on Business Information Systems, 2011, 196- 207.
30	BALHARETH H, LIU K, MANWANI S. Aligning business and IT from multi-level learning perspectives. Proc. of the 17th UK International Conference on Information Systems, 2012, 36, 1- 11.
31	FISS P C. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54 (2): 393- 420. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
32	KANDJANI H, TAVANA M, BERNUS P, et al. Co-evolution path model (CePM): sustaining enterprises as complex systems on the edge of chaos. Cybernetics and Systems, 2014, 45 (7): 547- 567. doi: 10.1080/01969722.2014.945315
33	WEEGER A, HAASE U. How contradictions facilitate evolutionary transformation: an exploration into the dynamics of business-IT alignment from the perspective of activity theory. Proc. of the European Conference on Information System, 2016, 173, 1- 16.
34	WALENTOWITZ K, BEIMBORN D, SCHROIFF A, et al. The social network structure of alignment: a literature review. Proc. of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2011, 1- 10.
35	GUTIERREZ A, LYCETT M. IS alignment factors: dynamic relationships at strategic, tactical and operational level. Proc. of the UK Academy for Information Systems Conference, 2011, 11605- 11616.
36	KAHRE C, HOFFMANN D, AHLEMANN F. Beyond business-IT alignment-digital business strategies as a paradigmatic shift: a review and research agenda. Proc. of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2017. doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2017.574
37	LEONARD J. What are we aligning? Implications of a dynamic approach to alignment. Proc. of the Australasian Conference on Information System, 2008, 560- 568.
38	HIEKKANEN K, HELENIUS M, KORHONEN J J, et al. Aligning alignment with strategic context: a literature review. Proc. of the Digital Enterprise Design and Management, 2013, 81- 98.
39	BHARADWAJ A, EL SAWY O A, PAVLOU P A, et al. Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 2013, 37 (2): 471- 482. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3
40	AGARWAL R, SAMBAMURTHY V. Principles and models for organizing the IT function. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2002, 1 (1): 1- 16.
41	SANDBERG J. Digital capability: investigating coevolution of IT and business strategies. Umea, Sweden: Umea University, 2014.
42	PEPPARD J, KARIN B. Beyond alignment: a coevolutionary view of the information systems strategy process. Proc. of the International Conference of Information System, 2003, 743- 750.
43	International Standardization Organization/International Electrotechnical Committee. Systems and software engineering-recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems: ISO/IEC 42010: 2007. Geneva: ISO, 2007.
44	NIEMANN K D. From enterprise architecture to IT governance (Vol. 1). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien, 2006.
45	MACRO V. Using ArchiMate and TOGAF to understand the enterprise architecture and ITIL relationship. Proc. of the Lecture Notes in Business Information, 2013, 148, 134- 145.
46	KAPPELMAN L A. The SIM guide to enterprise architecture. New York, United States: CRC Press, 2009, 106- 110.
47	BILL B. Ministry of defence architectural framework (MODAF). Proc. of the IEE Seminar on UML Systems Engineering, 2005, 43- 82.
48	DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0. Washington DC: Department of Defense, 2009.
49	HAREN V. TOGAF version 9.1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing, 2011.
50	WEGMANN A. The systemic enterprise architecture methodology (SEAM). Business and IT Alignment for Competitiveness: LAMS-REPORT-2002-009, 2002.
51	DUFFY J. IT/business alignment: delivering result. http://www.cio.com/analyst/123101idc.html.
52	WINTER R, SCHELP J. Enterprise architecture governance: the need for a business-to-IT approach. Proc. of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2008, 548- 552.
53	PARCHAMI P. Enterprise architecture & alignment. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, 2011.
54	JENSEN C T, CHARTERS I, AMSDEN J, et al. Leveraging SOA, BPM and EA for strategic business and IT alignment. South Miami, United States: IBM Corporation, 2008.
55	AIER S, KURPJUWEIT S, SAAT J, et al. Enterprise architecture design as an engineering discipline. AIS Trans. on Enterprise Systems, 2009, 1 (1): 36- 43.
56	IEEE. IEEE recommended practice for architectural description of software intensive systems: IEEE Std 14712000. New York: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.
57	WINTER R, FISCHER R. Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 2007, 3 (2): 7- 18.
58	AIER S, KURPJUWEIT S, SCHMITZ O, et al. An engineering approach to enterprise architecture design and its application at a financial service provider. Proc. of the Conference on Modeling Operational Information System, 2008, 115- 130.
59	IYER B, GOTTLIEB R. The four-domain architecture: an approach to support enterprise architecture design. IBM Systems Journal, 2004, 43 (3): 587- 597. doi: 10.1147/sj.433.0587
60	DAM S H. DoD architecture framework: a guide to applying system engineering to develop integrated, executable architectures. Washington DC: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2015.
61	ZEIGLER B P, MITTAL S. Enhancing DoDAF with a DEVS-based system lifecycle development process. Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005, 4, 3244- 3251.
62	ROTT J, WEIXLER J. Integrating hierarchical task analysis into model-based system design using Airbus XHTA and IBM rational rhapsody. Proc. of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2018, 1856- 1860.
63	ORI D. Misalignment symptom analysis based on enterprise architecture model assessment. IADIS International Journal on Computer Science & Information Systems, 2014, 9 (2): 146- 158.
64	BAKER J. The roots of misalignment: insights from a systems dynamics perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information System, 2019, 28 (4): 1- 19.
65	TANRIVERDI H, LIM S Y. How to survive and thrive in complex, hypercompetitive and disruptive ecosystems? The roles of IS-enabled capabilities. Proc. of the International Conference on Information Systems, 2017, 1- 21.
66	BENBYA H, MCKELVEY B. Toward a complexity theory of information systems development. Information Technology & People, 2006, 19 (1): 12- 34.
67	SIMON H A. The sciences of the artificial. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1962.
68	RAADT J D. Ashby's law of requisite variety: an empirical study. Cybernetics and Systems, 1987, 18 (6): 517- 536. doi: 10.1080/01969728708902152
69	HEVNER A R, MARCH S T, PARK J, et al. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 2004, 28 (1): 75- 105. doi: 10.2307/25148625

Topic	Description	Example
The relationship between BITA and EA	What are the correlations of BITA and EA?	[13, 14, 53]
BITA achievement with EA	How can we achieve BITA with EA methods?	[4, 5, 50]
BITA measurement with EA	How can we measure BITA with EA methods?	[7-10]
BITA governance with EA	How can we maintain BITA with EA methods?	[11, 12, 54]

[1]	Mengmeng ZHANG, Shuanghui YI, Honghui CHEN, Aimin LUO, Junxian LIU, Xiaoxue ZHANG. Modeling the dynamic alignment of business and information systems via the lens of human-centered architecture evolution [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 32(4): 881-888.
[2]	Mengmeng ZHANG, Honghui CHEN, Yi MAO, Aimin LUO. An approach to measuring business-IT alignment maturity via DoDAF2.0 [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(1): 95-108.
[3]	Mengmeng ZHANG, Honghui CHEN, Junxian LIU. Resource allocation approach to associate business-IT alignment to enterprise architecture design [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 30(2): 343-351.

A coevolutionary framework of business-IT alignment via the lens of enterprise architecture

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 69

Related Articles 3

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments