An approach to measuring business-IT alignment maturity via DoDAF2.0

doi:10.21629/JSEE.2020.01.11

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2020, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (1): 95-108.doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2020.01.11

• Systems Engineering • Previous Articles Next Articles

An approach to measuring business-IT alignment maturity via DoDAF2.0

Mengmeng ZHANG^1,*(), Honghui CHEN¹(), Yi MAO²(), Aimin LUO¹()

¹ Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering Laboratory, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410072, China
² State Key Laboratory of Air Traffic Management System and Technology, Nanjing 210014, China

Received:2019-01-18 Online:2020-02-20 Published:2020-02-25
Contact: Mengmeng ZHANG E-mail:186703816365@163.com;chh0808@gmail.com;mao_y@nuaa.edu.cn;amluo@nudt.edu.cn
About author:ZHANG Mengmeng was born in 1990. He received his M.S. degree in management science and technology from National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), Changsha, China, in 2011. He is pursuing his Ph.D. degree in the School of Information System and Management at NUDT. He was a visiting student in Case Western Reserve University. His research interests include information system architecture design, analysis and validation. E-mail: 186703816365@163.com|CHEN Honghui was born in 1969. He received his M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree from 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|MAO Yi was born in 1985. He received his Ph.D. degree in Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is an engineer in State Key Laboratory of Air Traffic Management System and Technology, China. His research interests include transportation planning and management, information system architecture. E-mail: mao_y@nuaa.edu.cn|LUO Aimin was born in 1971. She received her M.S. degree and Ph.D. degree from NUDT. She is a professor in NUDT now. Her current research interests include requirement engineering, military information system, enterprise architecture design and analysis. E-mail: amluo@nudt.edu.cn
Supported by:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(71571189);the State Key Laboratory of Air Traffic Management System and Technology(SKLATM201806);This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71571189) and the State Key Laboratory of Air Traffic Management System and Technology (SKLATM201806)

Abstract

Abstract:

Measuring the business-IT alignment (BITA) of an organization determines its alignment level, provides directions for further improvements, and consequently promotes the organizational performances. Due to the capabilities of enterprise architecture (EA) in interrelating different business/IT viewpoints and elements, the development of EA is superior to support BITA measurement. Extant BITA measurement literature is sparse when it concerns EA. The literature tends to explain how EA viewpoints or models correlate with BITA, without discussing where to collect and integrate EA data. To address this gap, this paper attempts to propose a specific BITA measurement process through associating a BITA maturity model with a famous EA framework: DoD Architectural Framework 2.0 (DoDAF2.0). The BITA metrics in the maturity model are connected to the meta-models and models of DoDAF2.0. An illustrative ArchiSurance case is conducted to explain the measurement process. Systematically, this paper explores the process of BITA measurement from the viewpoint of EA, which helps to collect the measurement data in an organized way and analyzes the BITA level in the phase of architecture development.

Key words: business-IT alignment (BITA), measurement, enterprise architecture (EA), DoD Architectural Framework 2.0 (DoDAF2.0), meta-model

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.

Figures/Tables 15

Table 1

Fig 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

Fig 9

Table 2

DoDAF models for measuring each BITA metric"

Criterion	Metric	Supportive EA model	Explanation
	C1	OV-4, OV-5b	Check whether business and IT roles share organization structures, and whether IT roles participate in business processes.
	C2	OV-4, SvcV-2, SV-2	Check whether business and IT roles share organization structures, and whether business roles participate in IT processes.
Communications	C3	AV-2, Std-1	Check whether business and IT roles receive education training.
	C4	OV-6a, SvcV-10a, SV-10a	Check whether the agreements in business and IT processes are rigid or not.
	C5	OV-5a	Check whether there exists knowledge sharing process in a firm.
	C6	OV-4	Check whether there are liaison roles between business and IT.
	V1	SvcV-7, SV-7	Check whether there are measures on IT values.
	V2	CV-2, CV-5	Check whether there are measures on business values.
	V3	SvcV-7, SV-7	Check whether there are measures in IT aspects to achieve business.
Competence & value measurements	V4	SvcV-1, SvcV-10a	Check whether there are agreements in service structure and process.
	V5	Std-1	Check whether there are standards on measure benchmarking.
	V6	CV-6, OV5b, SvcV-2, SvcV-7, SV-2, SV-7	Determine whether business process and IT process have realized relative requirements.
	V7	CV-6, SvcV-5, SV-5a, SV-5b	Analyze the weak points of results and provide adjustment demands.
	G1	OV-2, OV-5b, CV-1, CV-3, CV-6	Express the business strategy planning.
	G2	SvcV-2, SV-2, PV-1, PV-2, PV-3	Express the IT strategy planning.
	G3	OV-4	Express the relationships among different person types.
Governance	G4	DIV-2, DIV-3	Check whether there is information on budgets and costs.
	G5	CV-2, DIV-3, PV-2, PV-3	Analyze the IT investment in project executing process.
	G6	OV-4	Check whether there exists steering committee in organizational structure.
	G7	CV-3, OV-6c, SvcV-10c, SV-10c, PV-2	Analyze the time sequence relationships in EA.
	P1	OV-4	Check whether IT participates in business organizational structure.
	P2	OV-4, OV-5b, CV-6, CV-1	Check whether IT participates in business strategy planning.
Partnership	P3	OV-4, PV-1, PV-2, CV3, SvcV-7, SV-7	Check whether business and IT roles share goals and risks in projects executing.
	P4	PV-1, PV-2, PV-3	Analyze the project management activities.
	P5	OV-6a, SvcV-10a, SV-10a, Std-1	Check whether there are rules or standards on trust.
	P6	OV-4, CV1	Check whether there are business sponsors or champions in organizational structure.
	A1	SvcV-5, SV-5a, SV-5b	Determine the enabling or driving factors in IT.
	A2	Std-1	Check the IT standards.
Scope & architecture	A3	SvcV-2, SV-2, OV4	Analyze the architecture integration on functions and structures.
	A4	SvcV-2, SV2, SvcV-3a, SvcV-3b, SV-3, OV-6b, OV-6c	Analyze the performances of IT architecture, such as transparency, agility, and flexibility.
	A5	Std-2	Check whether there are standards on managing new ITs.
	S1	Std-1, OV-6a, SvcV-10a, SV-10a	Check whether there are standards and rules on enterprise innovation.
	S2	OV-4	Analyze the organization types for power structure.
	S3	OV-4, PV-1, PV-2	Analyze the management styles in projects executing.
Skills	S4	Std-1, Std-2	Check whether there are standards on changes.
	S5	AV-2, Std-1	Check whether there are standards on personnel training and education.
	S6	AV-1, AV-2, CV-1, OV-1	Check whether there are illustrations on enterprise environments.
	S7	OV-4, Std-1	Check whether there are standards on personnel retiring and hiring.

Table 2

Table 3

Fig 10

Fig 11

Fig 12

References 49

1	PARKER M, BENSON R. Information economics. Englewood Cliffs, 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	HENDERSON J, VENKATRAMAN N. Aligning business and IT strategies. 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.
7	TRIENEKENS J J, KUSTERS R J, CUENCA L. Measuring business-IT alignment, framework development and case study results. Information System Development, 2014, 1- 16.
8	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
9	HUANG C D, HU Q. Achieving IT-business strategic alignment via enterprise-wide implementation of balanced scorecards. Information Systems Management, 2007, 24 (2): 173- 184.
10	MAGOULAS T, HADZIC A, SAARIKKO T, et al. Alignment in enterprise architecture: a comparative analysis of four architectural approaches. Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 2012, 15 (1): 88- 101.
11	SABHERWAL R, CHAN Y E. Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems Research, 2001, 12 (1): 11- 33.
12	WEILL P, ROSS J W. IT governance: how top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
13	Niemann K D. From enterprise architecture to IT governance. Wiesbaden: Friedr Vieweg & Sohn Verlag, 2006.
14	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.
15	SAAT J, FRANKE U, LAGERSTROM R, et al. Enterprise architecture meta models for IT/business alignment situations. Proc. of the 14th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2010: 14-23.
16	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
17	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
18	ZACHMAN J. The Zachman framework for enterprise architecture. CA Magazine, 2003, 128 (9): 15- 22.
19	HINKELMANN K, PASQUINI A 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.
20	ORI D. Misalignment symptom analysis based on enterprise architecture model assessment. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318239729_Misalignment_symptom_analysis_based_on_enterprise_architecture_model_assessment.
21	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
22	PEREIRA C M, BRANCO E C. Business and information systems alignment: understanding the key issues. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=3506D73C5952B4-CD190D99F1F1CA0F9E?doi=10.1.1.129.5080&rep=rep1&-type=pdf.
23	SOUSA P, PEREIRA C, MARQUES J. Enterprise architecture alignment heuristics. Microsoft Architects Journal, 2004, 4, 34- 39.
24	CARVALHO G, SOUSA P. Using a medical sciences perspective to harness business and information systems misalignment. Proc. of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems, 2008: 2496-2507.
25	CARVALHO R, SOUSA P. Business and information systems MisAlignment model: an holistic model leveraged on misalignment and medical sciences approaches. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-336/paper8.pdf.
26	KANG D, LEE J, KIM K. Alignment of business enterprise architectures using fact-based ontologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 2010, 37 (4): 3274- 3283. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.09.052
27	WAGTER R, PROPER H A, WITTE D. Enterprise coherence assessment version. Proc. of the Working Conference on Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, 2011: 28-52.
28	TAPIA R S, DANEVA M, VAN ECK P. Validating adequacy and suitability of business-IT alignment criteria in an inter-enterprise maturity model 202. Proc. of the 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, 2007: 202-213.
29	PLAZAOLA L, SILVA E, VARGAS N, et al. A metamodel for strategic business and IT alignment assessment. http://www.asdifec.uni.edu.ni/Sitio/NormanVargas/187-Plazaola-A-%20METAMODEL%20FOR%20STRATEGIC%20BUSINE- SS%20AND%20IT%20ALIGNMENT%20ASSESMENT.pdf.
30	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: 1-10.
31	PLAZAOLA L, FLORES J, VARGAS N, et al. Strategic business and IT alignment assessment: a case study applying an enterprise architecture-based metamodel. Proc. of the 41st IEEE Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2008: 398-398.
32	ELHARI K, BOUNABAT B. Platform for assessing strategic alignment using enterprise architecture: application to e-government process assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1104.1132. 2011.
33	CLARK T, BARN B. A model-based approach to aligning business goals with enterprise architecture. Progressions and Innovations in Model-driven Software Engineering, 2013, 252- 253.
34	VASCONCELOS A, SOUSA P, TRIBOLET J. Enterprise architecture analysis-an information system evaluation approach. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 2015, 3 (2): 31- 53.
35	LUFTMAN J. Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Strategies for Information Technology Governance, 2004, 4, 99.
36	LUFTMAN J, KEMPAIAH R. An update on business-IT alignment: "a line" has been drawn. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2007, 6 (3): 165- 175.
37	LUFTMAN J. Handbook on business process management. Berlin: Springer, 2015.
38	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. doi: 10.1057/jit.2015.23
39	MU {N}OZ L, AVILA O. Business and information technology alignment measurement——a recent literature review. Proc. of the International Conference on Business Information Systems, 2018: 112-123.
40	MCADAM R, BITITCI U, GALBRAITH B. Technology alignment and business strategy: a performance measurement and dynamic capability perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 2017, 55 (23): 7168- 7186. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1351633
41	DE HAES S, VAN GREMBERGEN W. An exploratory study into IT governance implementations and its impact on business/IT alignment. Information Systems Management, 2009, 26 (2): 123- 137. doi: 10.1080/10580530902794786
42	CHEN L. Business-IT alignment maturity of companies in China. Information & Management, 2010, 47 (1): 9- 16.
43	ULLAH A, LAI R. A systematic review of business and information technology alignment. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2013, 4 (1): 1- 30.
44	Architecture Working Group of the Software Engineering Committee. Recommended practice for architectural description of software intensive systems. New York: IEEE Standards Department, 2000.
45	The Open Group. TOGAF "Enterprise Edition" Version 8.1. New York: Publishing V H, 2003.
46	DoD Architecture Framework Working Group. DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.0. Washington D. C.: Department of Defense, 2009.
47	BIGGS B. Ministry of defence architectural framework (MODAF). IET Digital Library, 2005, 62 (3): 311- 321.
48	CHAROENSUK S, WONGSURAWAT W, KHANG D B. Business-IT alignment: a practical research approach. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2014, 25 (2): 132- 147. doi: 10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.002
49	IACOB M E, MEERTENS L O, JONKERS H, et al. From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Software & Systems Modeling, 2014, 13 (3): 1059- 1083.

Source	Description	Measurement approach
Pereira and Branco (2004) [22]	Presented a set of questions that are relevant to the alignment issues with regard to varied enterprise roles.	Questionnaire survey
Sousa, et al. (2004) [23]	Explained how alignment can be categorized on the basis of basic components.	Experience analysis
Plazaola, et al. (2006, 2007, 2008) [29-31]	Displayed a process that associates the artifact of a BITA framework to the meta-model of the Zachman framework.	Meta-model
Tapia, et al. (2007) [28]	Developed a value-based BITA maturity model based on inter-enterprise collaborations. EA is a key metric in this model.	Model description Questionnaire survey
Carvalho and Sousa (2008a, 2008b) [24, 25]	Proposed a misalignment model to understand, classify, and manage misalignment through a medical sciences approach.	Experience analysis
Kang, et al. (2010) [26]	Developed a strategy alignment model based on the business EA from strategy, enterprise process, and enterprise resource.	Meta-model
Elhari and Bounabat (2011) [32]	Introduced a platform for modeling EA and assessing strategic alignment on the basis of internal EA metrics.	Questionnaire survey
Wagter, et al. (2011) [27]	Proposed an instrument to assess enterprise coherence from four levels.	Model description Questionnaire survey
Clark and Barn (2013) [33]	Introduced an EA simulation language to validate the conformance between logical EA and physical EA.	Meta-model
Ori (2014) [21]	Combined misalignment analysis to EA models, with the aim to set up an EA-based misalignment assessment method.	Meta-model
Vasconcelos, et al. (2015) [34]	Proposed 16 metrics for assessing information system architecture suitability. Alignment assessment is a key metric.	Model description

Technique	Metric
Automatic measurement	C1, C2, C3, C5, C6, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, G3, G4, G6, P1, P2, P6, A1, A2, S5, S7
Semi-automatic measurement	C4, V6, V7, G1, G2, G5, G7, P3, P4, A3, A4, A5, S2, S3, S4
Manual measurement	P5, S1, S6

[1]	Keyi LI, Zhengkun GUO, Gongjian ZHOU. State estimation in range coordinate using range-only measurements [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(3): 497-510.
[2]	Liting SUN, Xiang WANG, Zhitao HUANG. Unintentional modulation microstructure enlargement [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(3): 522-533.
[3]	Minghui SHA, Erke MAO, Kang ZHANG. Polarization-space joint mainlobe jamming countermeasure technique based on divided dimensions [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(3): 594-599.
[4]	Shengming XU, Shan LU, Yueyang HOU, Shengxian SHI. Accurate 3D geometry measurement for non-cooperative spacecraft with an unfocused light-field camera [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 33(1): 11-21.
[5]	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.
[6]	Yaowei ZHU, Zhaobin XU, Xiaojun JIN, Xiaoxu GUO, Zhonghe JIN. Integrated method for measuring distance and time difference between small satellites [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 32(3): 596-606.
[7]	Han PENG, Ting CHENG, Xi LI. De-correlated unbiased sequential filtering based on best unbiased linear estimation for target tracking in Doppler radar [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(6): 1167-1177.
[8]	Qingsong ZHAO, Junyi DING, Yu GUO, Peng LIU, Kewei YANG. A scenario construction and similarity measurement method for navy combat search and rescue [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(5): 957-968.
[9]	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.
[10]	Zhibin ZHANG, Haibo JI, Jie YANG. Autonomous optical navigation of Mars probe aided by one-way Doppler measurements in capture stage [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(3): 602-611.
[11]	Zezhou WANG, Yunxiang CHEN, Zhongyi CAI, Yangjun GAO, Lili WANG. Methods for predicting the remaining useful life of equipment in consideration of the random failure threshold [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(2): 415-431.
[12]	Zhongyi CAI, Zezhou WANG, Yunxiang CHEN, Jiansheng GUO, Huachun XIANG. Remaining useful lifetime prediction for equipment based on nonlinear implicit degradation modeling [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 31(1): 194-205.
[13]	Hongwei ZHANG, Weixin XIE. Constrained auxiliary particle filtering for bearings-only maneuvering target tracking [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 30(4): 684-695.
[14]	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.
[15]	Jiuling XU, Chaojie ZHANG, Chunhui WANG, Xiaojun JIN. Approach to inter-satellite time synchronization for micro-satellite cluster [J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29(4): 805-815.

An approach to measuring business-IT alignment maturity via DoDAF2.0

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 15

References 49

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments