Explanation of the eECA

The 31 GEA requirements, the GEA cohesive elements and the GEA components formed the basis for the eECA. We also used as sources of inspiration characteris- tics of the Architecture Maturity Model embedded in the Dynamic Enterprise Ar- chitecture (DYA) method [103], the IT Architecture Capability Maturity Model [23], the Normalized Architecture Organisation Maturity Index (NAOMI) [99], the Enterprise Architecture Score Card [78], and the NASCIO Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model [62]. These architecture maturity models, like existing architecture approaches and architecture frameworks, focus mainly on information provision or business-IT alignment at the level of organisational structure. We argue that exist- ing approaches and frameworks, such as Zachman [87], DYA [103], Abcouwer [1], Henderson & Venkatraman [36], TOGAF [92], IAF [101] and ArchiMate [48, 42], take an ‘engineering oriented’ style of communicating with senior management and stakeholders in general. The architecture frameworks underlying each of these ap- proaches are very much driven by ‘engineering principles’, and as such correspond to a blue-print style of thinking about change [21]. The aforementioned require- ments, however, suggest the use of another style of thinking. Thinking in terms of stakeholder interests, formal and informal power structures within enterprises, and the associated processes of creating win-win situations and forming coalitions. In the terms of De Caluwé [21], this is more the yellow-print style of thinking about change. Yellow-print thinking according De Caluwé [21] is based on socio- political views on organizations, where interests, conflicts and power play an im- portant role. In our research programme, this line of thinking was taken as a start- ing point, by taking the perspective that the actual social forces and associated stra-

178

14 Modify theory

After developing the GEA theory and executing the case studies we were able to develop an extended ECA (eECA) based on the ECA as discussed in chapter 4.4. The eECA is discussed in chapter 15. Here we give substance to the part ‘modify theory’, as part of the multiple case study research approach of Yin [130], by ex- plaining the differences between the meta models GEA immediately after we de- veloped the GEA theory and the modified meta models of the GEA theory after we had executed the case studies. The differences between these meta models and the way we gave substance to modifying the GEA theory is discussed in chapter 16.

179

15 Extended Enterprise Coherence-governance Assessment

(eECA)

15.1 Introduction

In chapter 4, on enterprise coherence-governance assessment (ECA) we stated we should develop a more comprehensive ECA at the end of the first development cycle of the GEA method. The development of this comprehensive assessment, called the extended enterprise coherence-governance assessment (eECA), was completed at the beginning of 2011 and in the same year it was tested at 54 enter- prises with a total of 120 respondents [118]. In this chapter we discuss both, the content of eECA and the results of its application. These tests gave us a broader range of insights into the eECA method and confirmed the results of our ECA case studies carried out in 2007.

15.2 Explanation of the eECA

The 31 GEA requirements, the GEA cohesive elements and the GEA components formed the basis for the eECA. We also used as sources of inspiration characteris- tics of the Architecture Maturity Model embedded in the Dynamic Enterprise Ar- chitecture (DYA) method [103], the IT Architecture Capability Maturity Model [23], the Normalized Architecture Organisation Maturity Index (NAOMI) [99], the Enterprise Architecture Score Card [78], and the NASCIO Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model [62]. These architecture maturity models, like existing architecture approaches and architecture frameworks, focus mainly on information provision or business-IT alignment at the level of organisational structure. We argue that exist- ing approaches and frameworks, such as Zachman [87], DYA [103], Abcouwer [1], Henderson & Venkatraman [36], TOGAF [92], IAF [101] and ArchiMate [48, 42], take an ‘engineering oriented’ style of communicating with senior management and stakeholders in general. The architecture frameworks underlying each of these ap- proaches are very much driven by ‘engineering principles’, and as such correspond to a blue-print style of thinking about change [21]. The aforementioned require- ments, however, suggest the use of another style of thinking. Thinking in terms of stakeholder interests, formal and informal power structures within enterprises, and the associated processes of creating win-win situations and forming coalitions. In the terms of De Caluwé [21], this is more the yellow-print style of thinking about change. Yellow-print thinking according De Caluwé [21] is based on socio- political views on organizations, where interests, conflicts and power play an im- portant role. In our research programme, this line of thinking was taken as a start- ing point, by taking the perspective that the actual social forces and associated stra-

tegic dialogues within an enterprise should be taken as a starting point, rather than the frameworks of existing architecture approaches suggesting the full make ability of an enterprise. For this reason we have adopted the maturity levels used in the aforementioned architecture maturity models, but as aspects on which the maturity level should be determined we use the GEA components, including the require- ments and cohesive elements which these components are based on. The eECA developed by the members of the research programme for this thesis consists of 3 interrelated parts. See Figure 51.

Figure 51. Application of the eECA (processes and products)

These parts consist of a set of 50 rating questions, see Appendix C, a set of 23 open questions, see Appendix D, and an interview based on these questions. To conduct these 3 parts including the following reporting activities takes a turnaround time of approximately 5 weeks with about 25 respondents. Each of the rating questions must be answered using one of the following ratings: ‘not at all’, ‘minor’, ‘suffi- cient’, ‘largely’, ‘entirely’, ‘do not know’. Choosing the last possibility indicates that the appropriate question does not count and it should not be used in the calcu- lations to determine the maturity level of an enterprise.

Three types of reporting are used for the rating questions: a ‘spider diagram’, a ‘quadrant diagram’ and a ‘maturity matrix’ both at individual level and at organisa- tional level. The answers to the open questions provide the necessary context in- formation, also included in the open questions are a number of cross-reference questions with respect to the rating questions. Interviews of the respondents of the aforementioned questions are planned after receiving the answers to the rating questions and the open questions. During the interviews the interviewer can ask more detailed questions about the interviewee’s ratings and open questions, but they may also ascertain things that the respondents did not initially want to write

EA rating questions EA open questions Individual + organisational positioning: •Spider diagram •Quadrant diagram •Maturity matrix Context information Draft assessment report Make presentation Assessment report Assessment presentation Feedback results Discharge and follow-up Week 1 Week 1 Week 4 Interviews Week 2 - 3 Week 5 Week 5

down. The interview completes the process of gathering of context information using open questions. We will now discuss the diagrams and maturity matrix. 15.3 Spider diagram

The answers to the 50 rating questions obtained from an enterprise are plotted in the spider diagram, on a 4-point scale on the 7 axes representing the 7 GEA com- ponents, see Figure 52. This allows one quickly to see how each of the maturity levels of the GEA components are measured and also the spider diagram gives an insight into the overall maturity level of the enterprise architecture (EA) function for the enterprise in question. If the shaded area in the spider diagram is relatively small one can say that in the opinion of the respondent(s) the enterprise has not done enough to improve/establish its EA. The spider diagram will be completely shaded in the case where all the questions are answered with an ‘entirely’.

Figure 52. Maturity score on the 7 GEA components of employee 1 of organi- sation XYZ. 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0Vision Processes Products People Means Methodology Governance

180

tegic dialogues within an enterprise should be taken as a starting point, rather than the frameworks of existing architecture approaches suggesting the full make ability of an enterprise. For this reason we have adopted the maturity levels used in the aforementioned architecture maturity models, but as aspects on which the maturity level should be determined we use the GEA components, including the require- ments and cohesive elements which these components are based on. The eECA developed by the members of the research programme for this thesis consists of 3 interrelated parts. See Figure 51.

Figure 51. Application of the eECA (processes and products)

These parts consist of a set of 50 rating questions, see Appendix C, a set of 23 open questions, see Appendix D, and an interview based on these questions. To conduct these 3 parts including the following reporting activities takes a turnaround time of approximately 5 weeks with about 25 respondents. Each of the rating questions must be answered using one of the following ratings: ‘not at all’, ‘minor’, ‘suffi- cient’, ‘largely’, ‘entirely’, ‘do not know’. Choosing the last possibility indicates that the appropriate question does not count and it should not be used in the calcu- lations to determine the maturity level of an enterprise.

Three types of reporting are used for the rating questions: a ‘spider diagram’, a ‘quadrant diagram’ and a ‘maturity matrix’ both at individual level and at organisa- tional level. The answers to the open questions provide the necessary context in- formation, also included in the open questions are a number of cross-reference questions with respect to the rating questions. Interviews of the respondents of the aforementioned questions are planned after receiving the answers to the rating questions and the open questions. During the interviews the interviewer can ask more detailed questions about the interviewee’s ratings and open questions, but they may also ascertain things that the respondents did not initially want to write

EA rating questions EA open questions Individual + organisational positioning: •Spider diagram •Quadrant diagram •Maturity matrix Context information Draft assessment report Make presentation Assessment report Assessment presentation Feedback results Discharge and follow-up Week 1 Week 1 Week 4 Interviews Week 2 - 3 Week 5 Week 5 181 down. The interview completes the process of gathering of context information using open questions. We will now discuss the diagrams and maturity matrix.