Small(and(medium>sized(enterprises(

The European Commission (2003) defines SMEs as companies that employ less than 250 employees and of which the annual turnover is less than 50 million euros or of which the total assets are less than 43 million euros.

SMEs constitute over 99.8 percent of operating businesses in Europe. SMEs are not a homogeneous group. They can be classified according to size, industry sector, and other factors (e.g., family business or not) (De Nil et al.

2012).

Six criteria for the successful adoption and use of information systems in an SME context were distilled based on relevant literature of characteristics influencing IT adoption in SMEs (Bernaert et al. 2014), allowing to refine the fourth criterion of suitability of an EA approach for SMEs:

CHAPTER 4 130

4.1) The approach should enable SMEs to work in a time efficient manner on strategic issues.

4.2) A person with limited IT skills should be able to apply the approach.

4.3) It should be possible to apply the approach with little assistance of external experts.

4.4) The approach should enable making descriptions of the processes in the company.

4.5) The CEO must be involved in the approach.

4.6) The expected revenues of the approach must exceed the expected costs and risks.

4.2.3 EA(for(SMEs((CHOOSE(approach)(

The derived criteria were integrated to form an evaluation model to which the proposed CHOOSE approach should adhere (section 4.7.1.3).

Figure 4.1: The research scope

The left part of Figure 4.1 shows that in previous research (Bernaert et al. 2015c), the KAOS metamodel (Van Lamsweerde 2009) was chosen as starting point for the development of an initial proposal for a CHOOSE metamodel, based on the criteria for EA for SMEs (sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) and on the essential dimensions and layers of EA metamodels. A feasibility test led to the development of an initial version of the CHOOSE metamodel (Bernaert and Poels 2011b). Figure 4.2 shows the initially developed CHOOSE metamodel from (Bernaert and Poels 2011b). It is based on four dimensions: a Goal dimension, an Actor dimension, an Operation dimension, and an Object dimension. This metamodel is used in this research as a starting point for the action research which was conducted in six case study companies, of which the first case study is the same and the mainly one used in the prior research in (Bernaert et al. 2015c). The initial CHOOSE metamodel enabled us to start making EA models of the SMEs, and thus served as a means to create the CHOOSE method as the focus of this research.

Figure 4.2: Initial CHOOSE metamodel from (Bernaert and Poels 2011b)

4.3 Methodology(

Action research can be seen as an instance of the more general design science research methodology (Järvinen 2007). As we conducted our action research programme via case studies, our research methodology is guided by principles from design science, action research, and case study research. We first present how these different principles are addressed and next we present our concrete research plan.

4.3.1 Design(Science(

Design science (Hevner et al. 2004) is a well-known methodology to develop an artifact, such as the metamodel and method in this research.

The seven guidelines presented in (Hevner et al. 2004) were applied to this research. A method and metamodel are designed (guideline 1: design as an artifact) for EA in SMEs (guideline 2: problem relevance). Because design is inherently an iterative and incremental activity, the evaluation phase provides essential feedback to the construction phase. Hevner et al.

(2004) proposed case study research as an observational design evaluation method. Multiple case studies are therefore used in this research (guideline 3: design evaluation). The design of the CHOOSE approach contributed new knowledge on how to apply EA in the SME context (Bernaert et al. 2014) (guideline 4: research contributions). The method and metamodel development is based on criteria resulting from previous EA and ‘IT in SME’ research (Bernaert et al. 2014) (guideline 5: research rigor). The iterative cycles of action research are used to develop and refine the method and to refine the metamodel (guideline 6: search process). Simon (1996) describes the nature of the design process as a Generate/Test Cycle. This

CHAPTER 4 132

corresponds with the cycles for development and evaluation of the CHOOSE method and metamodel. Finally, the approach is implemented and tested in several SMEs and communicated in this chapter (guideline 7:

communication of research).

As Järvinen (2007) concluded that action research and design science are similar research approaches, the action research methodology is the main guideline of our research.

4.3.2 Action(Research(

The six characteristics of action research, presented by Susman and Evered (1978), also apply to our research:

1) Future-oriented: The research is oriented at creating a robust and refined method and metamodel.

2) Collaborative/participatory: The researcher and CEO of each case study company worked together to apply the CHOOSE metamodel in order to make an EA model of the SME, i.e. implementing the CHOOSE method.

3) Implies system development: The research is structured around the cyclical process of action research (diagnosing the problem, action planning, action taking, evaluating the consequences of the action, and specifying learning) (Susman and Evered 1978) in order to develop a new ‘system’ in the form of new EA artifacts.

4) Generates theory grounded in action: The research contributes to the development of a theory for design and action (Gregor 2006) (i.e., CHOOSE as a design theory for EA models for SMEs) by taking actions guided by theory (sections 4.5 and 4.6) and evaluating the consequences (section 4.7). Theory may be supported or revised on the basis of the evaluation.

5) Agnostic: During the research, the prescriptions for action and theories to refine the CHOOSE method and metamodel are also the product of previously taken action and are subject to re-examination and reformulation upon entering a new research situation (sections 4.5 and 4.6). these phases are necessary for a comprehensive definition of action research (Baskerville 1997):

• Diagnosing: Corresponds to the identification of the primary problems that are the underlying causes of the organization’s desire for change: as a first step, every case study starts with diagnosing

the characteristics of the particular enterprise and its particular challenges.

• Action planning: Specifies organizational actions that should relieve or improve these primary problems: during the CHOOSE implementation process at a particular case study company, different actions (e.g., introduce new model constructs) are proposed to improve the CHOOSE method and/or metamodel to deal with these challenges.

• Action taking: Then implements the planned action: after careful analysis, the planned actions are also incorporated in the CHOOSE method and/or metamodel (e.g., new metamodel constructs).

• Evaluating: Includes determining whether the theoretical effects of the action were realized, and whether these effects relieved the problems: after implementing the actions, the CHOOSE method and models (as instantiations of the metamodel) are evaluated by the CEOs and an expert.

• Specifying learning: The action research cycle can continue, whether the action proved successful or not, to develop further knowledge about the organization and the validity of relevant theoretical frameworks: if the actions are evaluated, the evaluation results (section 4.7.2) will influence the adoption of the actions in the CHOOSE method and/or metamodel.

The refinement process (sections 4.5 and 4.6) is structured around the first three phases (diagnosing, action planning, action taking). In addition, the evaluation of both artifacts (section 4.7) is organized around the two other phases (evaluating, specifying learning).