Resource allocation approach to associate business-IT alignment to enterprise architecture design

doi:10.21629/JSEE.2019.02.13

Abstract

Abstract:

Enterprise architecture (EA) development is always a superior way to address business-IT alignment (BITA) issue. However, most EA design frameworks are inadequate to allocate IT resources, which is an important metric of BITA maturity. Under this situation, the idea of IT resource allocation is combined with the EA design process, in order to extend prior EA research on BITA and to demonstrate EAos capability of implementing IT governance. As an effective resource allocation method, portfolio decision analysis (PDA) is used to align business functions of business architecture and applications of system architecture. Furthermore, this paper exhibits an illustrative case with the proposed framework.

Key words: business-IT alignment (BITA), enterprise architecture (EA), IT resource allocation, portfolio decision analysis (PDA)

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.

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1

Fig 1

Fig 2

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig 3

References 48

1	PARKER M M, BENSON R J, TRAINOR H E. Information economics:linking business performance to information technology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1988.
2	BRANCHEAU J C, WETHERBE J C. Keyissues 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 C, WETHERBE J C. Information systems management issues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 1991, 15 (4): 475- 500. doi: 10.2307/249452
5	HENDERSON J C, VENKATRAMAN N, OLDACH S. Aligning business and IT strategies. LUFTMAN J N ed. Competing in the information age, strategic alignment in practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 21-42.
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. Assessing business-IT allignment maturity. VAN GREMBERGEN W ed. Strategies for information technology governance. California: Idea Group Publishing, 2004: 99-128.
8	LUFTMAN J, KEMPAIAH R. An update on business-IT alignment:"a line" has been drawn. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2007, 6 (3): 165- 177.
9	TRIENEKENS J J M, KUSTERS R J, CUENCA L. Measuring business-IT alignment, framework development and case study results. Information System Development, 2014, 1- 16.
10	WAGNER H T. 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	AMARILLI F, VLIET M, HOOFF B. An explanatory study on the co-evolutionary mechanisms of business IT alignment. Proc. of the 38th International Conference on Information, Systems, 2017, 1- 21.
13	PEREIRA C M, SOUSA P. Enterprise architecture:business and IT alignment. Proc. of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2005, 1344- 1345.
14	ZARVIĆ N, WIERINGA R. An integrated enterprise architec-ture framework for business-IT alignment. https://core.acuk/download/pdf/11470029.pdf.
15	HINKELMANN K, GERBER A, KARAGIANNIS D, et al. 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, BEN-ZVI T, DWIVEDI R, et al. IT governance:an alignment maturity perspective. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 2010, 1 (2): 13- 25. doi: 10.4018/jitbag.2010040102
17	LUFTMAN J, LYYTINEN K, BEN ZVI T. Enhancing the measurement of information technology (IT) business alignment and its influence on company performance. Journal of Information Technology, 2017, 32 (1): 26- 46.
18	GEROW J E, GROVER V, THATCHER J B, 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
19	WEGMANN A, BALABKO P, LÊ L S, et al. A method and tool for business-IT alignment in enterprise architecture. CAiSE Short Paper Proceedings, 2005, 113- 118.
20	WEGMANN A, REGEV G, RYCHKOVA I, et al. Business and IT alignment with SEAM for enterprise architecture. Proc. of the 11th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2007, 111- 121.
21	SAAT J, FRANKE U, LAGERSTROM R, et al. Enterprise architecture meta models for IT/business alignment situations. Proc. of the 14th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2010, 14- 23.
22	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- 130.
23	SOUSA P, PEREIRA C, MARQUES J. Enterprise architecture alignment heuristics. Microsoft Architects Journal, 2004, 4, 34- 39.
24	HENDERSON J C, VENKATRAMAN H. Strategic alignment:leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 1993, 32 (1): 472- 484. doi: 10.1147/sj.382.0472
25	WANG X Y, ZHOU X W, JIANG L B. A method of business and IT alignment based on enterprise architecture. Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, 2008, 740- 745.
26	MALTA P, SOUSA R D. Process oriented approaches in enterprise architecture for business-IT alignment. Procedia Computer Science, 2016, 100, 888- 893. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.239
27	ŐRI D. Misalignment symptom analysis based on enterprise architecture model assessment. IADIS International Journal on Computer Science & Information Systems, 2014, 9 (2): 1- 15.
28	ŐRI D. On exposing strategic and structural mismatches be-tween business and information systems: misalignment symptom detection based on enterprise architecture model analysis. Budapest, Hungary: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, 2017.
29	IACOB M E, QUARTEL D, JONKERS H. Capturing business strategy and value in enterprise architecture to support portfolio valuation. Proc. of the 16th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2012, 11- 20.
30	BUCHANAN R D, SOLEY R M. Aligning enterprise architecture and IT investments with corporate goals. http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/META%200MG%20WP%201-15-03.pdf.
31	CHEN H M. Towards service engineering:service orientation and business-IT alignment. Proc. of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2008, 114.
32	FRITSCHER B, PIGNEUR Y. Business IT alignment from business model to enterprise architecture. Proc. of the International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 2011, 4- 15.
33	HINKELMANN K, PASQUINI A. Supporting business and IT alignment by modeling business and IT strategy and its relations to enterprise architecture. Proc. of the Enterprise Systems Conference, 2014, 149- 154.
34	ARTZNER P, DELBAEN F, EBER J M, et al. Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 1999, 9 (3): 203- 228.
35	SALO A, KEISLER J, MORTON A. An invitation to portfolio decision analysis. SALO A, KEISLER J, MORTON A ed. Portfolio decision analysis: improved methods for resource allocation. New York: Springer, 2011: 3-27.
36	SHANE S A, ULRICH K T. Technological innovation, product development, and enterpreneurship in management science. Management Science, 2004, 50 (2): 133- 144. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0204
37	KLINGEBIEL R, RAMMER C. Resource allocation strategy for innovation portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 2014, 35 (2): 246- 268.
38	LIESIÖ J, MILD P, SALO A. Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, 181 (3): 1488- 1505.
39	LIESIÖ J, SALO A. Scenario-based portfolio selection of investment projects with incomplete probability and utility information. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 217 (1): 162- 172.
40	SALO A, LIESIÖ J. A case study in participatory priority setting for a Scandinavian research program. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 2006, 5 (1): 65- 88.
41	LINDSTEDT M, LIESIÖ J, SALO A. Participatory development of a strategic product portfolio in a telecommunication company. International Journal of Technology Management, 2008, 42 (3): 250- 266. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2008.018106
42	KANGASPUNTA J, LIESIÖ J, SALO A. Cost-efficiency analysis of weapon system portfolios. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 223 (1): 264- 275.
43	HAREN V. TOGAF Version 9.1. New York: Van Haren Publishing, 2011.
44	HAREN V. Archimate 2.0 Specification. Berkshire, UK: The Open Group, 2012.
45	MITLETON-KELLY E, PAPAEFTHIMIOU M C. Coevolution and an enabling infrastructure:a solution to legacy? HENDERSON P ed. Systems engineering for business process change, London:Springer, 2000, 164- 181.
46	NIEMI E, SAMULI P. Using enterprise architecture artefacts in an organisation. Enterprise Information Systems, 2017, 11 (3): 313- 338.
47	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.
48	SIMON D, FISCHBACH K, SCHODER D. Application portfolio management-an integrated framework and a software tool evaluation approach. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2010, 26 (3): 1- 24.

Source	Luftman's six alignment maturity criteria
Source	Communications	Competence/value measurements	IT governance	Partnership	Scope & architecture	Skills
Buchanan and Soley (2002) [30]	$\circ $	-	-	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\circ $
Zarvic and Wieringa (2006) [14]	$\bullet$	-	-	-	$\circ $	-
Wegmann, et al. (2005, 2007) [19, 20]	$\circ $	$\bullet$	-	$\bullet$	$\circ $	-
Plazaola, et al. (2007) [22]	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $
Chen (2008) [31]	$\circ $	$\bullet$	-	-	$\bullet$	$\circ $
Wang, et al. (2008) [25]	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	-	$\circ $	-
Saat, et al. (2010) [21]	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $
Fritscher and Pigneur (2011) [32]	$\circ $	$\circ $	-	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\circ $
Iacob, et al. (2012) [29]	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\bullet$	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\circ $
Hiukelmann and Pasquini (2014) [33]	$\bullet$	-	-	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\circ $
Hinkelmann, et al. (2016) [15]	$\bullet$	$\circ $	-	$\circ$	$\bullet$	-
Malta and Sousa (2016) [26]	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	-
Öri (2014, 2017) [27, 28]	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\circ $	$\bullet$	$\circ $

Application	$F_1 $: Operations management	$F_2 $: Customer management	$F_3 $: Innovation
$A_1 $: Kookaburra	$\times$	$\times$	-
$A_2 $: System applications and products (SAP)	$\times$	-	-
$A_3 $: Online store	$\times$	$\times$	-
$A_4 $: Collection catalogs	$\times$	-	-
$A_5 $: Dashboard metrics data	$\times$	-	-
$A_6 $: Optimiso	$\times$	-	-
$A_7 $: Switcher color system	$\times$	-	-
$A_8 $: Respect inside conformity website	$\times$	-	-
$A_9 $: Business to business (B2B) platform	-	$\times$	-
$A_{10} $: Switcher friends	-	$\times$	-
$A_{11} $: Web presence	-	$\times$	-
$A_{12} $: Respect-code.org	-	$\times$	$\times$
$A_{13}$: Respect inside community website	-	-	$\times$

	$A_1, A_3 $	$A_5, A_6 $	$A_7, A_8 $	$A_1, A_9 $	$A_3, A_{11} $
Discount	-100	-100	-200	-100	-100

Portfolio	Applications
P1	$A_1, A_2, A_4, A_7, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P2	$A_1, A_2, A_4, A_8, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P3	$A_1, A_2, A_5, A_7, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P4	$A_1, A_2, A_5, A_8, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P5	$A_1, A_2, A_6, A_7, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P6	$A_1, A_2, A_6, A_8, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P7	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_4, A_{7, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P8	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_4, A_{8, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P9	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_5, A_{7, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P10	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_5, A_{8, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P11	$A_1, A_2, A_5, A_7, A_{8, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P12	$A_1, A_2, A_6, A_8, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P13	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_6, A_{7, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P14	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_6, A_{8, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P15	$A_1, A_2, A_6, A_7, A_{8, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P16	$A_1, A_2, A_6, A_7, A_{10, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P17	$A_1, A_2, A_6, A_8, A_{10, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P18	$A_1, A_2, A_5, A_7, A_8, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P19	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_4, A_7, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P20	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_4, A_8, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P21	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_5, A_7, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P22	$A_1, A_2, A_3, A_5, A_8, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P23	$A_1, A_2, A_5, A_6, A_8, A_{9, } A_{10}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P24	$A_1, A_2, A_4, A_5, A_7, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P25	$A_1, A_2, A_4, A_5, A_8, A_{9, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P26	$A_1, A_2, A_4, A_7, A_9, A_{10, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P27	$A_1, A_2, A_4, A_8, A_9, A_{10, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $
P28	$A_1, A_2, A_5, A_8, A_9, A_{10, } A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13} $

[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]	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.
[3]	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.