Modeling the dynamic alignment of business and information systems via the lens of human-centered architecture evolution

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2021.000076

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2021, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (4): 881-888.doi: 10.23919/JSEE.2021.000076

• SYSTEMS ENGINEERING • Previous Articles Next Articles

Modeling the dynamic alignment of business and information systems via the lens of human-centered architecture evolution

Mengmeng ZHANG¹(), Shuanghui YI^2,*(), Honghui CHEN¹(), Aimin LUO¹(), Junxian LIU¹(), Xiaoxue ZHANG¹()

¹ Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410072, China
² National Key Laboratory for Complex System Simulation, Military Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China

Received:2019-11-28 Online:2021-08-18 Published:2021-09-30
Contact: Shuanghui YI E-mail:18670381635@163.com;377019128@qq.com;chh0808@gmail.com;amluo@nudt.edu.cn;18674864900@163.com;snow1126@126.com
About author:|ZHANG Mengmeng was born in 1990. He received his M.S. degree in management science and technology from the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2011. He received his Ph.D. degree from the NUDT, Changsha, China, in 2019. His research interests are information system architecture design, analysis and validation. E-mail: 18670381635@163.com||YI Shuanghui was born in 1978. He received his M.S. degree in computer science and technology in 2003. He has been engaged in distributed computing research for nearly 10 years, software testing for more than three years, and information system architecture design for more than five years at Beijing Institute of System Engineering. Currently, he is the deputy director of the Second Research Department of National Key Laboratory for Complex System Simulation. E-mail: 377019128@qq.com||CHEN Honghui was born in 1969. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the 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 the NUDT. His current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, and enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: chh0808@gmail.com||LUO Aimin was born in 1971. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). She is a professor in the NUDT. Her current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, and enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: amluo@nudt.edu.cn||LIU Junxian was born in 1973. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). He is a professor in the NUDT. His current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, and enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: 18674864900@163.com||ZHANG Xiaoxue was born in 1986. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT). She is an associate professor in the NUDT. Her current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, and enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: snow1126@126.com

Abstract

Abstract:

The complexity of business and information systems (IS) alignment is a growing concern for researchers and practitioners alike. The extant research on alignment architecture fails to consider the human viewpoint, which makes it difficult to embrace emergent complexity. This paper contributes to the extant literature in the following ways. First, we combine an enterprise architecture (EA) framework with a human viewpoint to address alignment issues in the architecture design phase; second, we describe a dynamic alignment model by developing a human-centered meta-model that explains first- and second-order changes and their effects on alignment evolution. This paper provides better support for the theoretical research and the practical application of dynamic alignment.

Key words: business and information systems (IS) alignment, human viewpoint, enterprise architecture (EA), meta-model, dynamic alignment

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.

Figures/Tables 5

Table 1

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Table 2

References 50

1	PARKER M, BENSON R. Information economics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1988.
2	BRANCHEAU J, WETHERBE J Issues in information systems management. MIS Quarterly, 1987, 11 (1): 23- 45. doi: 10.2307/248822
3	DIXON P J, JOHN D A Technology issues facing corporate management in the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13 (3): 247- 255. doi: 10.2307/248998
4	NIEDERMAN F, BRANCHEAU J, WETHERBE J Information systems management issues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 1991, 15 (4): 475- 495. doi: 10.2307/249452
5	LUFTMAN J N. Competing in the information age: practical applications of the strategic alignment model. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
6	AVISON D, JONES J, POWELL P, et al Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2004, 13 (3): 223- 246. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002
7	LUFTMAN J N Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2000, 4, 14.
8	LUFTMAN J, KEMPAIAH R An update on business-IT alignment: “a line” has been drawn. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2007, 6 (3): 165- 175.
9	ESCALONA M J, ARAGON G, LINGER H, et al. Information system development. Berlin: Springer, 2014.
10	WAGNER T H Evolvement of business-IT alignment over time: a situated change perspective. Proc. of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2014, 4366- 4375.
11	OHLSSON J, HAN S, HULTIN M, et al How to achieve sustainable business IT alignment-designing a circular organizational structure at SAAB. Proc. of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2016, 5116- 5125.
12	BAKER W E, NIEDERMAN F Integrating the IS functions after mergers and acquisitions: analyzing business-IT alignment. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2014, 23 (2): 112- 127. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2013.08.002
13	PEREIRA C M, SOUSA P Enterprise architecture: business and IT alignment. Proc. of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2005, 1344- 1345.
14	ZARVIC N, WIERINGA R. An integrated enterprise architecture framework for business-IT alignment. Proc. of the CAISE*6 Workshop on Business/IT Alignment and Interoperability BUSITAL ’06, 2006. DOI: 10.1201/b16417-5.
15	HINKELMANN K, GERBER A A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and IT: combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology. Computers in Industry, 2016, 79, 77- 86. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.009
16	LUFTMAN J N. IT Governance: an alignment maturity perspective. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 2010. DOI: 10.4018/jitbag.2010040102.
17	LUFTMAN J N, LYYTINEN K Enhancing the measurement of information technology business alignment and its influence on company performance. Journal of Information Technology, 2017, 32 (1): 26- 46. doi: 10.1057/jit.2015.23
18	GEROW J E 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
19	BAKER J, SINGH H The roots of misalignment: insights from a system dynamics perspective. Proc. of JAIS Theory Development Workshop, 2015, 1- 37.
20	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
21	HANDLEY H, SMILLIE R J Architecture framework human view: the NATO approach. Systems Engineering, 2008, 11 (2): 156- 164. doi: 10.1002/sys.20093
22	HANDLEY H, SMILLIE R J Human view dynamics—the NATO approach. Systems Engineering, 2010, 13 (1): 72- 79.
23	HANDLEY H Incorporating the NATO human view in the DoDAF 2. 0 meta model. Systems Engineering, 2012, 15 (1): 108- 117.
24	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 38th International Conference on Information Systems, 2017, 1- 21.
25	SABHERWAL R, HIRSCHHELM R, GOLES T The dynamics of alignment: insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 2001, 12 (2): 179- 197. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.2.179.10113
26	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
27	WAGNER H T, WEIZEL T How to achieve operational business-IT alignment: insights from a global aerospace firm. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2012, 11 (1): 1- 11.
28	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
29	SCHLOSSER F, WAGNER H T, COLTMAN T Reconsidering the dimensions of business-IT alignment. Proc. of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2012, 5053- 5061.
30	PAGE S E. Understanding complexity. Chantilly, VA: Teaching Company, 2009.
31	SAWY E, 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
32	ZHANG M M, CHEN H H, LYYTINEN K. Principles of organizational coevolution of business and IT: a complexity perspective. Proc. of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems, 2019. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rip/8.
33	YOO Y, BOLAND R J, LYYTINEN K, et al Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 2012, 23 (5): 1398- 1408. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
34	IEEE Std 1471−2000. IEEE recommended practice for architectural description of software intensive systems. New York: IEEE Computer Society, 2000.
35	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.
36	ROSS J W. Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2003, 2(1): 31−43.
37	SCHEKKERMAN J. How to survive in the jungle of enterprise architecture frameworks—creating or choosing an enterprise architecture framework. Victoria, Canada: Trafford, 2004.
38	SCHONHERR M. Enterprise architecture frameworks. Berlin: GITO, 2004.
39	ZHANG M M, CHEN H H, LUO A M A systematic review of business-IT alignment research with enterprise architecture. IEEE Access, 2018, 6, 18933- 18944. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2819185
40	The Open Group. TOGAF "Enterprise Edition" Version 8.1. New York: Publishing V H, 2003.
41	DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0. Washington D. C.: Department of Defense, 2009.
42	LYYTINEN K, NEWMAN M Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 2008, 17 (6): 589- 613. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2008.50
43	ORI D Misalignment symptom analysis based on enterprise architecture model assessment. IADIS International Journal on Computer Science & Information Systems, 2014, 9 (2): 1- 15.
44	ORI D. On exposing strategic and structural mismatches between business and information systems: misalignment symptom detection based on enterprise architecture model analysis. Budapest: Corvinus University of Budapest, 2017.
45	ZHANG M M, CHEN H H, LI X Y, et al Evolvement of business-IT alignment: a conceptual model and intervening changes from resource allocation. IEEE Access, 2018, 6, 9160- 9172. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2810164
46	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
47	ALLEN P M, VARGA L. A co-evolutionary complex systems perspective on information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 2006, 21(4): 229−238.
48	KANDJANI H, TAVANA M, BERNUS P, et al Co-evolution path model: sustaining enterprises as complex systems on the edge of chaos. Cybernetics and Systems, 2014, 45 (7): 547- 567. doi: 10.1080/01969722.2014.945315
49	ILMUDEEN A, BAO Y, ALHARBI I M How does business-IT strategic alignment dimension impact on organizational performance measures: conjecture and empirical analysis. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2019, 32 (3): 457- 476. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2018-0197
50	GIDEON J, LAZAR R, ERIK P Business-IT alignment in the era of digital transformation: quo vadis? Proc. of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2020, 5563- 5572.

Model	Description	Content
HV-A: concept	A conceptual, high-level representation of the human component of the EA framework	Pictorial depictions Textual descriptions
HV-B: constraints	The expression of capabilities and limitations of humans in systems	Manpower projections Career progression Establishment inventory Health hazards
HV-C: functions	A list of human-specific activities and tasks	Function set Execution criteria of tasks Task-role matrix
HV-D: roles	The roles for humans interacting with systems	Responsibility Authority Competencies
HV-E: human network	Human-to-human communication patterns	Groupings or teams Type of interactions Team performance impacts
HV-F: training	The instruction, education or training that is required	As-is training resources To-be training demands
HV-G: metrics	A repository for human-related values, priorities and performance criteria	Human performance metrics Human function to metrics mapping Target values
HV-H: human dynamics	The dynamic aspects of the human system components defined in above models	States and state changes Triggering events Performance measures

Number	Misalignment symptom
S01	Organizational goals and responsibilities of business processes are unknown.
S02	Responsibilities of business and IS activities are unknown.
S03	Mappings of systems and services are unclear.
S04	There is a lack of required information to support alignment measurement.
S05	There is a lack of required performer information to support day-to-day activities.
S06	Relationship between systems and activities is lacking, insufficient, or multiple.
S07	Relationship between services and activities is lacking, insufficient, or multiple.
S08	Systems have not been manipulated by performers.
S09	Services have not been manipulated by performers.
S10	Business/IS actors have not participated in IS/business organizations.
S11	Business/IS actors have not received relevant training.
S12	Criteria for satisfying capabilities are unclear.
S13	Conditions of executing activities are unknown.
S14	There is a lack of required capabilities for measurement alignment.

[1]	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.
[2]	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.

Modeling the dynamic alignment of business and information systems via the lens of human-centered architecture evolution

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 50

Related Articles 2

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments