Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of Enterprise Architecture Management success

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) is discussed in academia and industry as a vehicle to guide IT implementations, alignment, compliance assessment, or technology management. Still, a lack of knowledge prevails about how EAM can be successfully used, and how positive impact can be realized from EAM. To determine these factors, we identify EAM success factors and measures through literature reviews and exploratory interviews and propose a theoretical model that explains key factors and measures of EAM success. We test our model with data collected from a cross-sectional survey of 133 EAM practitioners. The results confirm the existence of an impact of four distinct EAM success factors, ‘EAM product quality’, ‘EAM infrastructure quality’, ‘EAM service delivery quality’, and ‘EAM organizational anchoring’, and two important EAM success measures, ‘intentions to use EAM’ and ‘Organizational and Project Benefits’ in a confirmatory analysis of the model. We found the construct ‘EAM organizational anchoring’ to be a core focal concept that mediated the effect of success factors such as ‘EAM infrastructure quality’ and ‘EAM service quality’ on the success measures. We also found that ‘EAM satisfaction’ was irrelevant to determining or measuring success. We discuss implications for theory and EAM practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aier S (2014) The role of organizational culture for grounding, management, guidance and effectiveness of enterprise architecture principles. Information Systems and e-Business Management 12(1), 43–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aier S, Gleichauf B and Winter R (2011) Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design – An Empirical Analysis. 10th International Conference Wirtschaftsinformatik. Association for Information Systems, Zurich, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aier S and Winter R (2009) Virtual decoupling for IT/Business alignment – conceptual foundations, architecture design and implementation example. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1(2), 150–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1981) Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology 76(5), 732–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Phillips LW (1982) Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(3), 459–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantine J, Bonner M, Levy M, Martin A, Munro I and Powell P (1996) The 3-D model of information systems success: the search for the dependent variable continues. Information Resources Management Journal 9(4), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara W (2006) Using Nvivo as a research management tool: a case narrative. In 3rd International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT and IT in Qualitative Research (Ruth A, Ed), pp 6–19, Institute for Integrated and Intelligent Systems, Brisbane, Australia.

  • Bandara W, Gable GG and Rosemann M (2005) Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. European Journal of Information Systems 14(4), 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara W and Rosemann M (2005) What are the secrets of successful process modeling? Insights from an australian case study. Systèmes d’Information et Management 10(3), 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean S (2010) Re-thinking enterprise architecture using systems and complexity approaches. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 6(4), 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 25(3), 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boh WF and Yellin D (2007) Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3), 163–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen KA and Lennox R (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110(2), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucharas V, Van Steenbergen M, Jansen S and Brinkkemper S (2010a) The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: a review of the evidence. In Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research – TEAR2010 (Proper E, Lankhorst MM, Schönherr M, Barjis J and Overbeek S, Eds), pp 1–15, Springer, Delft, the Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boucharas V, Van Steenbergen M, Jansen S and Brinkkemper S (2010b) The Contribution of Enterprise Architecture to the Achievement of Organizational Goals: Establishing the Enterprise Architecture Benefits Framework. Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown SA, Massey AP, Montoya-Weiss MM and Burkman JR (2002) Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of Information Systems 11(4), 283–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruls WAG, van Steenbergen M, Foorthuis RM, Bos R and Brinkkemper S (2010) Domain architectures as an instrument to refine enterprise architecture. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 27(27), 517–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones A and Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: a multilevel perspective. MIS Quarterly 31(4), 657–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centefelli RT and Bassellier G (2009) Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 33(4), 689–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (Marcoulides GA, Ed), pp 295–336, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claver E, Llopis J, González MR and Gascó JL (2001) The performance of information systems through organizational culture. Information Technology & People 14(3), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland DI and King WR (1974) Developing a planning culture for more effective strategic planning. Long Range Planning 7(3), 70–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotteleer MJ and Bendoly E (2006) Order lead-time improvement following enterprise information technology implementation: an empirical study. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 643–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ and Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52(4), 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (2003) The delone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLone WH and McLean ER (2004) Measuring e-commerce success: applying the DeLone & McLean information systems success model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9(1), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos A (2011) Incorporating formative measures into covariance-based structural equation models. MIS Quarterly 35(2), 335–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz JLG (2007) Architecture: Building Strategy into Design. Academic Service, the Hague, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JR (2001) Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods 4(2), 144–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evermann J and Tate M (2011) Fitting covariance models for theory generation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12(9), 632–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eversole J and Barr RC (Eds.) (2003) The Fire Chief’s Handbook. PennWell, Tulsa, OK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G and Axel B (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorthuis RM, Hofman F, Brinkkemper S and Bos R (2012) Compliance assessments of projects adhering to enterprise architecture. Journal of Database Management 23(2), 44–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorthuis RM, Van Steenbergen M, Mushkudiani N, Bruls WAG, Brinkkemper S and Bos R (2010) On course, but not there yet: enterprise architecture conformance and benefits in systems development. 31st International Conference on Information Systems, Assocation for Information Systems, St. Louis, Missouri.

  • Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gable GG, Sedera D and Chan T (2008) Re-conceptualizing information system Success: the IS-impact measurement model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(7), 377–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub DW and Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4(7), 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman PS (2000) Missing Organizational Linkages: Tools for Cross-Level Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM and Mena JA (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40(3), 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JC and Venkatraman N (1999) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal 38(2–3), 472–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin TR and Tracey JB (1999) An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods 2(2), 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoerl R and Snee RD (2012) Statistical Thinking: Improving Business Performance. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasperson J, Carter PE and Zmud RW (2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly 29(3), 525–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaisler SH, Armour F and Valivullah M (2005) Enterprise architecting: critical problems. 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Big Island, Hawaii, p 224b.

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge C, Dietzsch A and Rosemann M (2006) How to realise corporate value from enterprise architecture. 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, Goeteborg, Sweden, pp 1572–1581.

  • Kock N (2011) WarpPLS 2.0 User Manual. ScriptWarp Systems, Laredo, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock N and Lynn GS (2012) Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(7), 546–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni UR, Ravindran S and Freeze R (2007) A knowledge management success model: theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3), 309–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange M (2012) Evaluating the Realization of Benefits from Enterprise Architecture Management. Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange M, Mendling J and Recker J (2012) Measuring the realization of benefits from enterprise architecture management. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 8(2), 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SKJ and Yu K (2004) Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(4), 340–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löhe J and Legner C (2014) Overcoming implementation challenges in Enterprise Architecture Management: a design theory for architecture-driven IT management (ADRIMA). Information Systems and e-Business Management 12(1), 101–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luftman J and Zadeh HS (2011) Key information technology and management issues 2010–11: an international study. Journal of Information Technology 26(3), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie KD and House R (1978) Paradigm development in the social sciences: a proposed research strategy. Academy of Management Review 3(1), 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM and Podsakoff NP (2011) Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly 35(2), 293–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes R, Zacarias M and Tribolet J (2007) Making sense of enterprise architectures as tools of organizational self-awareness. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 3(4), 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides GA and Saunders C (2006) Editor’s comments: PLS: a silver bullet? MIS Quarterly 30(2), iii–ix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieson K, Peacock E and Chin WW (2001) Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. ACM SIGMIS Database 32(3), 86–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGill T, Hobbs V and Klobas J (2003) User developed applications and information systems success: a test of DeLone and McLean’s model. Information Resources Management Journal 16(1), 24–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morganwalp JM and Sage AP (2004) Enterprise architecture measures of effectiveness. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 4(1), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemann KD (2006) From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance: Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi E and Pekkola S (2009) Adapting the DeLone and McLean Model for the Enterprise Architecture Benefit Realization Process. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Waikoloa, Big Island.

  • Op’t Land M, Proper E, Waage M, Cloo J and Steghuis C (2009) Enterprise Architecture: Creating Value by Informed Governance. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne AF, Storbacka K and Frow P (2008) Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, DeLone WH and McLean ER (2008) Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17(3), 236–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, DeLone WH and McLean ER (2012) The past, present, and future of ‚‘IS success’. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(5), 341–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, DeLone WH and McLean ER (2013) Information systems success: the quest for the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems 29(4), 7–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S and McLean ER (2009) A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS success model: an examination of IS Success at the individual level. Information & Management 46(3), 159–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, Straub DW and Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in IS research. MIS Quarterly 31(4), 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar G and Bhattacherjee A (2008) Explaining information systems usage: a test of competing models. Omega 36(1), 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker J (2010) Continued use of process modeling grammars: the impact of individual difference factors. European Journal of Information Systems 19(1), 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GL, Jackson BM and Dickson GW (1990) A principles-based enterprise architecture: lessons from texaco and star enterprise. MIS Quarterly 14(4), 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle CM, Sarstedt M and Straub DW (2012) Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly 36(1), iii–xiv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues LS and Amaral L (2010) Issues in enterprise architecture value. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 6(4), 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross JW, Weill P and Robertson D (2009) Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmans B and Kappelmann LA (2010) The state of EA: progress, not perfection. In The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture (Kappelmann LA, Ed), pp 165–187, CRC Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker S, Sarker S, Sahaym A and Bjørn-Anderson N (2012) Exploring value cocreation in relationships between an ERP vendor and its partners: a revelatory case study. MIS Quarterly 36(1), 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt C and Buxmann P (2011) Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. European Journal of Information Systems 20(2), 168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon PB (1997) A respecification of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS success. Information Systems Research 8(3), 240–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon PB, Calvert C and Yang S (2010) A multi-year model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly 34(2), 305–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedera D and Gable GG (2010) Knowledge management competence for enterprise system success. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(4), 296–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon D, Fischbach K and Schoder D (2013) An exploration of enterprise architecture research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 32(1), 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon D, Fischbach K and Schoder D (2014) Enterprise Architecture Management and its role in corporate strategic management. Information Systems and e-Business Management 12(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolander K, Rossi M and Purao S (2008) Software architectures: blueprint, literature. Language or Decision? European Journal of Information Systems 17(6), 575–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JP (2001) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub DW, Boudreau M-C and Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for is positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13(24), 380–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun Y and Bhattacherjee A (2011) Multi-level analysis in information systems research: the case of enterprise resource planning system usage in China. Enterprise Information Systems 5(4), 469–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallon PP, Kraemer KL and Gurbaxani V (2000) Executives’ perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach. Journal of Management Information Systems 16(4), 145–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamm T, Seddon PB, Shanks G and Reynolds P (2011) How does enterprise architecture add value to organisations? Communications of the Association for Information Systems 28(10), 141–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo TSH and Wong PK (1998) An empirical study of the performance impact of computerization in the retail industry. Omega 16(5), 611–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE, Chatelin Y-M and Lauro C (2005) PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 48(1), 159–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Open Group. (2009) TOGAF Version 9 Enterprise Edition. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel, the Netherlands.

  • Tversky A and Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Chan FKY, Hu PJ and Brown SA (2011) Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal 21(6), 527–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Thong JYL and Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 36(1), 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N and Ramanujam R (1987) Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergence. Journal of Management 13(1), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaar PWL, Van Fenema PC and Tiwari V (2008) Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: how members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Quarterly 32(2), 227–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward J, Taylor P and Bond P (1996) Evaluation and realization of IS/IT benefits: an empirical study of current practice. European Journal of Information Systems 4(4), 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (2012) Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss S, Aier S and Winter R (2013) Institutionalization and the effectiveness of enterprise architecture management. 34th International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, Milan, Italy.

  • Weiss S and Winter R (2012) Development of measurement items for the institutionalization of Enterprise Architecture Management in organizations. In Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation – TEAR 2012 and PRET 2012 (Aier S, Ekstedt M, Matthes F, Proper E and Sanz JL, Eds), pp 268–283, Springer, Barcelona, Spain.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Winter K, Buckl S, Matthes F and Schweda CM (2010) Investigating the state-of-the-art in enterprise architecture management methods in literature and practice. 5th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.

  • Winter R, Legner C and Fischbach K (2014) Introduction to the special issue on Enterprise Architecture Management. Information Systems and e-Business Management 12(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzels M, Odekerken-Schröder G and Van Oppen C (2009) Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly 33(1), 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wixom BH and Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research 16(1), 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright RT, Campbell DE, Thatcher JB and Roberts N (2012) Operationalizing multidimensional constructs in structural equation modeling: recommendations for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 30(23), 367–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao G, Wu C-H and Yang C-T (2008) Examining the content validity of the WHOQOL-BREF from respondents’ perspective by quantitative methods. Social Indicators Research 85(3), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zink G (2009) How to successfully restart an enterprise architecture program after initial failure. Journal of Enterprise Architecture 5(2), 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Systems, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias Lange

  2. Institute for Information Business, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Jan Mendling

  3. Information Systems School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Jan Recker

Authors
  1. Matthias Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Mendling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Recker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Recker.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies this paper on the European Journal of Information Systems website (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis)

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lange, M., Mendling, J. & Recker, J. An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of Enterprise Architecture Management success. Eur J Inf Syst 25, 411–431 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.39

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.39

Keywords

Search

Navigation