In this important book, Hamel continues the argumentation known from his 2007 bestseller The Future of Management. There, Hamel discussed the various forms of innovation – operational innovation, product innovation, strategy innovation, and, of course, management innovation. The new book continues in the same direction. His argument is that innovators “pay close attention to emerging trends”, to “the nascent discontinuities that have the potential to reinvigorate old businesses or create new ones”.

He lists five questions that can help a team to zero in on potentially important discontinuities:

1. As you think about culture, politics, technology, and so on, what are the things you’ve read, seen, or experienced in recent months that have been surprising, perplexing, or disconcerting?
2. Which of these anomalies seem to have some momentum behind them? When you look across the world, or back over the last few months, do you see these trends expanding in scope or accelerating? Are they blooming if not yet booming?
3. If you ‘‘run the movie forward,’’ how might these discontinuities play out? What are the chain reactions that might be set in motion?
4. Which of these discontinuities aren’t yet topics of conversation within your industry? Which ones were missing from the agenda of the last industry confab you attended?
5. How might we exploit these discontinuities in ways that would wrong-foot our competitors?

The challenge is that people need to view the world around them with fresh eyes:

 I can’t state the point strongly enough: the first and most important step for any organization intent on building a capacity for continuous, gamechanging innovation is to teach its people how to view the world around them with fresh eyes.

To put it bluntly, the conversation about “where to go next” should be dominated by individuals who have their emotional equity invested in the future rather than the past. It needs to be led by individuals who don’t feel the need to defend decisions that were taken ten or twenty years ago.

And from the conclusion, with reference to Vineet Nayar:

The world has become too complex for the CEO to play the role of “visionary-in-chief.” Instead, the CEO must become a “management architect” – someone who continually asks, “What are the principles and processes that can help us surface the best ideas and unleash the talents of everyone who works here?”

“Management architect” is a great concept, I think. Hamel doesn’t provide more details about what he sees in this role, unfortunately. Nor does Nayar, as far as I can see.

Both gentlemen – and readers of their books – really should look into enterprise architecture.

As an enterprise architect, most of my emotional equity is invested in the future, but I am also deeply concerned about the present, but not so much about the past. My mission: future-proofing enterprises. My vision: The coherent enterprise which thrives on discontinuities in a continuous way.

In a recent memo for the federal CIOs, the US Federal CIO, Steven VanRoekel, launched a set of important management documents, including the so-called Common Approach, which states:

The role of an enterprise architect is to help facilitate and support a common understanding of needs, help formulate recommendations to meet those needs, and facilitate the development of a plan of action that is grounded in an integrated view of not just technology planning, but the full spectrum of planning disciplines to include mission/business planning, capital planning, security planning, infrastructure planning, human capital planning, performance planning, and records planning. Source: FEAF-II 

 

I wonder when EA will be discussed in Hamel’s new initiative, Management Innovation eXchange. Hopefully soon.

The next number of JEA will contain around 41859 words! We are still working on getting it all together, aiming at getting it out in early-mid May.

I am very pleased to announce that JEA has been awarded formal ISSNs by the US Library of Congress:

ISSN 2166-6792 (Online)
ISSN 2166-6768 (Print)

Editor’s Corner
John Gøtze introduces this number.

Architect in the Spotlight: Tom Graves
Interview with Tom Graves.

Reinterpreting TOGAF’s Enterprise Architecture Principles Using a Cybernetic Lens
Mohammad Esmaeil Zadeh, Gary Millar and Edward Lewis
In the literature, there are many definitions of Enterprise Architecture (EA), but most of them have three items in common: elements, relationships and principles. Among these, principles represent an essential element in the definition of EA, and some researchers posit that they are the main element in this definition. However, despite the recent advances in defining enterprise architecture principles (EAPs), this notion is suffering from the lack of a theoretical foundation that provides a logical framework for defining them. Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM) and its application to IT governance, the Viable Governance Model (VGM), have shown to be comprehensive blueprints for designing viable organizations and IT governance arrangements, respectively. Similarly, in recent realizations of EA, the design of the whole organization, and not just the IT, is brought into consideration. Therefore, this paper aims to establish whether the laws and principles of cybernetics, especially those embodied in the VSM and the VGM, can provide a sound theoretical basis for deriving EA principles. This paper investigates the principles defined in the Open Group’s TOGAF based on the theoretical concepts drawn from the VSM/VGM and cybernetics more broadly. This investigation demonstrates that the principles in TOGAF can be derived from the laws and principles of cybernetics.

The Social Dimension of Enterprise Architecture in Government
Jouko Poutanen
Citizens’ rising demands and expectations concerning both the quality and equality of public services are increasing pressure on the Finnish public administration to improve its efficiency and responsiveness. An enacted act on Information Management Governance in public administration declares Enterprise Architecture (abbreviated EA) as a central tool for developing administration’s services. EA is seen as a strategic management tool standardising the development of administration and exploitation of Information and Communication Technologies (abbreviated ICT). The new act demands agencies to apply EA yet there exists relatively limited knowledge and experience of the concept. Since EA is an abstract and complex tool there is great risk that the expectations put on EA are not met. The large numbers of agencies demanded to apply this tool increases the significance of the problem. This article is based on a case study research where the goal was to identify issues of EA use and adoption, to gain understanding why these issues exist and to recommend ways of improving the perceived value of EA. The focus was on the social dimension of alignment since most existing studies have emphasised the technical dimension. The study approaches the problem from the perspective of strategic management and organisational learning. EA is treated as a mechanism and a strategy tool to enable alignment of business and IT. EA adoption presents a learning challenge to an organisation – it has to learn the intellectual content but more importantly, it has to learn how to cooperate and share information across functional, hierarchical and professional boundaries.

Measuring the Realization of Benefits from Enterprise Architecture Management
Matthias Lange, Jan Mendling and Jan Recker
Enterprise architecture management (EAM) has become an intensively discussed approach to manage enterprise transformations. While many organizations employ EAM, a notable insecurity about the value of EAM remains. In this paper*, we propose a model to measure the realization of benefits from EAM. We identify EAM success factors and EAM benefits through a comprehensive literature review and eleven explorative expert interviews. Based on our findings, we integrate the EAM success factors and benefits with the established DeLone & McLean IS success model resulting in a model that explains the realization of EAM benefits. This model aids organizations as a benchmark and framework for identifying and assessing the setup of their EAM initiatives and whether and how EAM benefits are materialized. We see our model also as a first step to gain insights in and start a discussion on the theory of EAM benefit realization.

Enterprise Architecture, IT Service Management and Service Oriented Architecture: Relationships, Approaches and Operative Guidelines. Part 1
Carlo Randone
Enterprise Architecture, IT Service Management (and Governance) and Service Oriented Architecture are current topics, widely discussed in the information technology departments and professional publications. In addition, many companies have been (or are) involved with the adoption of at least one of these innovations. While each of these elements can be considered in its own right, it is in their relationships, and more or less strong intersections, that interesting opportunities and synergies can emerge, potentially even with some specific issues to manage. The focus of this two-part article is just that: to show the relationships, approaches and operative guidelines related to the synergic adoption in an IT organization and/or in an Enterprise of concepts from the Enterprise Architecture (EA), IT Service Management (ITSM) and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) domains.

An Enterprise Framework for Operationally Effective System of Systems Design
Joseph Bobinis and Thomas Herald
This paper proposes a transformation of traditional engineering design methods for Enabling System Design from “influence” to “synthesis” through an enterprise focus of both the primary system functionality as well as the required enabling systems, concurrently during design. An architectural transformation is required to improve the affordable, full life cycle operational effectiveness of customer solutions. Challenged is the notion of the primary and enabling support systems as separate in achieving enterprise operational effectiveness. Enterprise-level, integrated requirements and trade studies drive optimal user performance while still embracing the independent development of each system. This work proposes that operational effectiveness can be enhanced through leverage of an enterprise framework of primary and enabling systems entitled: Systems of Systems – System Design for Operational Effectiveness (SOS-SDOE). The initial driver of this research began with improving the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition and sustainment of complex and network-centric systems. The description of traditional approaches to design are framed by industrial and commercial methods, the International Council on Systems Engineering methods and the recent evolution for sustainment represented by System Design and Operational Effectiveness (SDOE) model from military and academic literature. The framework proposes performing a System of Systems (SOS) trade-space analysis as a logical extension of proven traditional methods. To convey this message, a soft system analysis, using systemigram methods developed by Dr. John Boardman, is implemented to examine the transition from the traditional practices to address customer and user needs with SOS-SDOE. The SOS-SDOE enterprise framework emerges from expanding the system design boundary to capture the causal relationships, which are relevant to system operational effectiveness. There is a shared contribution of primary and enabling systems and in the framework, creates a more complete trade space that facilitates improved long-term user effectiveness. The SOS-SDOE architectural framework embraces and captures the emergent system behaviors of the combined enterprise in addition to the traditional behaviors of the independent systems. In an attempt to address the historically persistent problem of measuring and improving operational effectiveness, this approach embraces the fundamentals of an enterprise system framework: 1. Structured and explicit relational views, through the use of Systemigram representations, which provide an accepted methodology for communicating information about the relationships, which are relevant to the architectural objective of managing the causal mechanisms which effect operational outcomes of an enterprise; 2. Explicit methods and trade space definitions which enable the system design discipline to gather and organize the data and construct the design solution in ways that help ensure integrity, accuracy and completeness of the design over its life cycle; and 3. Abstracting of empirical and heuristic phenomenon (system behaviors) in support of the method and as a utility verification of the framework.

Making Use of a Target Technical Architecture to Support Acquisition Business Decisions
Russell S. Boyd and Brian Boynton
Enterprise architecture (EA) documents current conditions, future visions, and the transition plan between them. It pertains to and encompasses one or all of the following: programs, offices, segments, solutions, departments, lines of business, and agencies. IT acquisition management (ITAM) includes the set of tasks required to accomplish the directed and funded efforts to provide a new, improved, or continuing information system or services capability to satisfy a business need. Thus, an EA contains business operation information for decision support and communication and informs decision-makers about what technology to acquire and when. This article illustrates how a technical architecture can both provide a clear picture of the technical goals that lie ahead for the enterprise, as well as providing decision support to selecting and acquiring a product that will help satisfy the organizational requirements and scheduling needs.

Book Review: Managed Evolution
Michael Linke reviews Managed Systems: A Strategy for Very Large Information Systems by Stephan Murer and Bruno Bonati.

Onwards

As a quarterly journal, JEA is always open for new contributions. JEA reaches a large number of enterprise architects, and is a great platform for sharing experiences and contribute to the growing body of knowledge in enterprise architecture as a discipline and profession.

When preparing your manuscript, please follow the format guidelines. And when submitting it, please fill out this submission form.

Journal of Enterprise Architecture, February 2012

FEATURES
Editor’s Corner: John Gøtze
Architect in the Spotlight: Mark Perry

ARTICLES

SEA Change: How Sustainable EA Enables Business Success in Times of Disruptive Change
Leo Laverdure and Alex Conn
Enterprise Architecture (EA) is a key tool to help businesses transform themselves to meet changing business challenges. To do so, however, architectural methods must themselves be adapted to focus less on technology per se and more on how these technologies enable the business to survive and thrive over the long term – to be sustainable – in the shifting, uncertain business context. We call this shift to Sustainable Enterprise Architecture (SEA) a “SEA change”. The practice of SEA differs from the usual practice of EA in a number of ways. Sustainable architecting emphasizes the long-term perspective, focusing on how the enterprise can identify and respond effectively to a range of strategic disruptions. It is based on systems thinking; is continuous, iterative, and adaptive; and calls for integrated strategic planning, architecting, governance, and learning. It considers sustainability the primary system quality and organizes other system qualities in support of sustainability. The enterprise’s approach to sustainability is recorded in a formal sustainability architecture, which describes the threats to sustainability in the business context and defines sustainability goals, models, principles, policies, and standards to address them. It pays close attention to strategic resources and the pragmatic integration of societal, economic, and environmental considerations. It recognizes that sustainable architecting is a cultural change, and provides a set of essential checklists to guide that change.

Maturity Matters: Generate Value from Enterprise Architecture
Jeanne W. Ross and Cynthia M. Beath
This two-part article is an introduction to MIT’s EA maturity research. This first article[1], introduces a series of research studies at MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research, including survey results from 2004, 2007, and 2010. In the second article, in the next number of JEA, the findings from the 2011-2012 update of the research will be presented.

Improving Government Enterprise Architecture Practice – Maturity Factor Analysis
Adegboyega Ojo, Tomasz Janowski, and Elsa Estevez
Recognized as a critical factor for the whole-of-government capability, many governments have initiated Enterprise Architectures (EA) programs. However, while there is no shortage of EA frameworks, the understanding of what makes EA practice effective in a government enterprise is limited. This article presents the results of empirical research aimed at determining the key factors for raising the maturity of the Government Enterprise Architecture (GEA) practice, part of an effort to guide policy-makers of a particular government on how to develop GEA capabilities in its agencies. By analyzing the data from a survey involving 33 agencies, the relative importance of the factors like top management commitment, participation of business units, and effectiveness of project governance structures on the maturity of the GEA practice was determined. The results confirm that management commitment and participation of business units are critical factors, which in turn are influenced by the perceived usefulness of the GEA efforts.

Architecture Styles
Indranil Bhattacharya
Architecture styles are derived from the design and management criteria used to realize, operate, and evolve enterprise systems. By applying different architecture styles, Enterprise Architects can decide on relevant functional features, extent of process automation, the appropriate management style, and optimal technical infrastructure for an application landscape. As the first part of two, this article provides a theoretical foundation for developing architecture styles by considering the characteristics of an architectural style, some analogies that are useful in explaining architecture styles, and considerations for implementing style diversity in enterprises.

The Impact of Enterprise Architecture Principles on the Management of IT Investments
Mats-Åke Hugoson, Thanos Magoulas, and Kalevi Pessi
The strategic role of IT and its significance throughout the organization increases complexity, variety, and the need forchange. Hence, IT management must deal with uncertainties derived from different, conflicting, and ever-changingdemands. In this sense, Enterprise Architecture (EA) is playing an increasingly important role in improving ITmanagement practice. If contemporary organizations do not succeed in managing architectural issues, there is a clear risk that considerable resources will be invested without achieving desirable effects. This article investigates how EnterpriseArchitecture Principles impact the management of IT investments in the context of large organizations. The purpose of the article is to provide a deeper insight into the relationship between EA and management of IT investments through theelucidation of two significant types of principles: Delineation (differentiation) principles and Interoperability (integration)principles. Our conclusion is that the choice of architectural principles has a major impact both on alignment betweeninformation systems and business demands, and on the management of IT investments. This impact concerns at least four aspects: the responsibility for IT investments; time to value; long-term alignment; and coordination of investments ininformation systems with changes in business processes.

Can a Re-Discovery of Open Socio-Technical Systems Strengthen EA?
James Lapalme and Donald W. de Guerre
Recent publications by reputable market research firms affirm that IT organizations and Enterprise Architecture groups are not doing very well: high project failure rates and low acceptance of the Enterprise Architecture group. These challenges can be attributed to the “mechanistic” worldview of current IT organizations according to socio-technical systems theory, a theory from the 1950s which has only recently started to be integrated in IT. Over the last decade, there has been a quasi-exponential growth in the use of the term “socio-technical systems” in the IT literature. From this, one could suggest that a possible paradigm shift is occurring in the IT space: a shift from a mechanistic view of organizations to a socio-technical one based on the rediscovery that organizations are open socio-technical systems.

CASE STUDY

The Enterprise Architecture Approach to Support Concept Development in a Military Context: A Case Study Evaluation of EA’s Benefits
Jukka Anteroinen and Juha-Matti Lehtonen
The importance of Enterprise Architecture (EA) to enterprise transformation has been identified by an increasing number of companies as well as public sector actors. However, the literature to date does not provide much empirical evidence of the benefits of EA. In this article, we evaluate empirically the potential benefits of the EA approach in Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E), which is considered a tool to drive strategic transformation in the military community. The DeLone and McLean information system success model is used as an evaluation framework. The research method in the article is a case study. The results of the case study are analyzed statistically. The results suggest that the EA approach could benefit CD&E. The EA approach supports the further utilization of the military concept, which is a life-cycle stage preceding military capability development. The applicability of the evaluation framework needs further research.

BOOK REVIEW

Thinking in Systems: A Primer
Review by Leonard Fehskens

• The Alignment Trap
• The EA Profession and the Discipline
• The Value of Enterprise Architecture
• Architecting Work Practice
• Living Enterprise and Metropolis
• Publishing and artifacting

Now, you get to select one piece of literature for each module. Which books/articles would you use?

I will soon share my own more conventional answer to this, but here, I want to offer an unconventional answer, and suggest looking outside the disciplinary EA literature. So, if you should nominate just one author, whom would you choose? 

My nomination goes to Richard Sennett (@richardsennett), professor of sociology at London School of Economics.

The Alignment Trap

Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation
In this brand-new thought-provoking book, Sennett discusses why this has happened and what might be done about it. Sennett contends that cooperation is a craft, and the foundations for skillful cooperation lie in learning to listen well and discuss rather than debate. In Together he explores how people can cooperate online, on street corners, in schools, at work, and in local politics. He traces the evolution of cooperative rituals from medieval times to today, and in situations as diverse as slave communities, socialist groups in Paris, and workers on Wall Street. The book addresses the nature of cooperation, why it has become weak, and how it could be strengthened.

The Profession and the Discipline 

The Craftsman
Defining craftsmanship far more broadly than “skilled manual labor,” Sennett maintains that the computer programmer, the doctor, the artist, and even the parent and citizen engage in a craftsman’s work. Craftsmanship names the basic human impulse to do a job well for its own sake, and good craftsmanship involves developing skills and focusing on the work rather than ourselves. Sennett explores the work of craftsmen past and present, identifies deep connections between material consciousness and ethical values, and challenges received ideas about what constitutes good work in today’s world. Unique in the scope of his thinking, Sennett expands previous notions of crafts and craftsmen and apprises us of the surprising extent to which we can learn about ourselves through the labor of making physical things.

The Value of Enterprise Architecture

The Culture of the New Capitalism
In this provocative book Richard Sennett looks at the ways today’s global, ever-mutable form of capitalism is affecting our lives. He analyzes how changes in work ethic, in our attitudes toward merit and talent, and in public and private institutions have all contributed to what he terms “the specter of uselessness,” and he concludes with suggestions to counter this disturbing new culture.

Architecting Work Practice 

The Corrosion of Character
Drawing on interviews with dismissed IBM executives in Westchester, New York, bakers in a high-tech Boston bakery, a barmaid turned advertising executive, and many others, Sennett explores the disorienting effects of the new capitalism. He reveals the vivid and illuminating contrast between two worlds of work: the vanished world of rigid, hierarchical organizations, where what mattered was a sense of personal character, and the brave new world of corporate re-engineering, risk, flexibility, networking, and short-term teamwork, where what matters is being able to reinvent yourself on a dime. The Corrosion of Character enables us to understand the social and political context for our contemporary confusions and Sennett suggests how we need to re-imagine both community and individual character in order to confront an economy based on the principle of “no long term.”

 Urban Life vs Enterprise Life

The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities
With an eye toward the architecture, the art, the literature, and the technology of urban life, Richard Sennett gives an account of the search for shelter and the fear of exposure to strangers and new experience in Western culture – and how these two concerns have shaped the physical fabric of the city. “Why do we avert our eyes when we encounter the unaccustomed?” asks Sennett. In answer, he moves between past and present from the assembly hall of Athens to the Palladium Club; from Augustine’s City of God to the Turkish baths of the Lower East Side; from eighteenth-century English gardens to the housing projects of East Harlem; from Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy to subway graffiti. The Conscience of the Eye is an exploration of the politics of vision.

Publishing and artifacting

The Fall of Public Man
“Public” life once meant that vital part one’s life outside the circle of family and close friends. Connecting with strangers in an emotionally satisfying way and yet remaining aloof from them was seen as the means by which the human animal was transformed into the social – the civilized – being. Sennett shows how our lives today are bereft of the pleasures and reinforcements of this lost interchange with fellow citizens.  And he makes clear how, because of the change in public life, private life becomes distorted as we of necessity focus more and more on ourselves, on increasingly narcissistic forms of intimacy and self-absorption. Because of this, our personalities cannot fully develop: we lack much of the ease, the spirit of play, the kind of discretion that would allow us real and pleasurable relationships with those whom we may never know intimately.

Having said that, I would like some comments on my “BPM = Scientific Management 2.0″ thought.

I just googled and found: Scientific Management 2.0. OK, so it’s LEAN = Scientific Management 2.0.

Puzzled.

Congratulations to team deathstar! And thanks to all for playing.

Morten has been working on the game engine, and we will now soon launch a new version of the game with additional features.

Until then, I have added a number of running games which updates as various intervals (game “4hours” updates every 4 hours, etc). Feel free to sign up for these games to play your own game. You are welcome to play several games, but you need to select a unique username for each game you play.

I announced The EA Game in a recent Twitter status update:

Shall We Play A Game? Introducing The EA Game http://gotze.eu/projects/the-ea-game/ #entarch #systemthinking

I forgot to blog the link too: The EA Game project page/announcement. Still a good background read, but there’s more:

The #entarch league, the first public, online game session, has now been launched!

To participate:

0. Read http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1881882/AboutTheEAGame.pdf and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1881882/theEAgame.pdf

1. Go to http://www.eagame.net
2. Select “Create a team”. You need to provide some information:
   Team name (publically shown name, also your username)
   Team Captain (you, not shown publically)
   Team Captain Telephone (not shown, not used (but required field, so fill in something))
   Password (not shown, duh)
   Email (not shown)
   Liga (select #entarch league)
3. Login. You should now see the ‘game board’ (a form). This is where you make your decisions.
4. Click “Team Overview” to see the scores you get. Hint: Open this in another window, so you can look at both this and the decision form. (this is more useful after round 1, of course)
5. Remember to save your decisions before the round deadline (weekly, first round a bit shorter).

That’s it, really. Then come back when the round turns, and review your scores and spend some days considering your future decisions. Then do steps 3-5 again.

About the game

The game was originally developed for usage in class room exercises at the IT University of Copenhagen, and version 1 of the game have been tested with succes there. The next phase – version 2 – is to make the game also work in an online, distributed and asynchronous environment. While version 2 is still work-in-progress, we have decided to launch the site now, and invite everyone to participate in the game, and help us gain experience with it and find out what to improve.

Feel free to comment here or in The EA Game Linkedin group.

Journal of Enterprise Architecture

February 2011 - Volume 7, Number 2

Editor’s Corner: John Gøtze
Architect in the Spotlight: Philip Allega

Articles

A conceptual framework for architecture principles
Erik Proper and Danny Greefhorst

A Process Driven Approach to Modelling Leadership
David Tuffley and Patrick Turner

Market-Driven Enterprise Architecture
Hjalte Højsgaard

Better Business-It Alignment Through Enterprise Architecture: An Actor-Network Theory Perspective
Anna Sidorova and Leon A. Kappelman

The Frugal EA
Mark Meyers

Case Study

Auditing the Implementation of Enterprise Architecture at the Federal Railroad Administration
John Grasso

Book Reviews

Book Reviews: RecrEAtion by Chris Potts
Paul Harmon
Len Fehskens

Book Review: Zoom Factor for the Enterprise Architect by Sharon Evans
Paul Kurchina

Here below is a list of titles of ongoing projects by students at the IT University.

Most of the students are always interested in speaking with experts and practitioners in their areas, so if you are such and want to speak to students, let me know. If you are looking for a fresh graduate to hire, also let me know.

I can connect you to specific students, but am also happy to arrange (virtual or local) seminars etc with relevant clusters of students. See also my unofficial ITU Enterprise program.

• Portfolio management as a strategic lever
• Architecture Frameworks and Value Creation.
• An organic change mangement project – a systemic approach
• Customer at the center – enterprise architecture in a media house
• Agile Procurement in Government
• BPMN in a public perspective
• Digitilisation in a system theoretic perspective
• EA in Greenland
• EA in a public company
• Evolving Business Process Management (BPM) Strategies in Enterprise Architecture (EA)
• Free and discout CrewManagementIT
• Policy for securing of It architecture, data and Intellectual property
• Preanalysis of the business and design aspects related to developing a smartphone (web) app.
• Project Portfolio Management in a Strategic Perspective
• SAP NetWeaver Business Process Management Security Policies
• Service Oriented Architechture (SOA) for a small business
• Should one of the leading Faroese IT Enterprises have an IT strategy?
• Strategy, Governance, and Enterprise Architecture in Private and Public Organizations
• The single version of the truth
• The value creation of IT-projects of the Capital Healthcare Region with focus emphasis on Enterprise Architechure
• Analysis of Scrum in practice
• Applied Enterprise Architecture in Ørestad Airways
• Business Opportunities with Cloud Services
• Strategisk IT i Koncernservice – EA med forhindringer
• Private EA. versus public EA. – A comparative analysis
• Digitalization in the name of democracy – potential and barriers
• Establishing an effective project management for outsourcing projects
• Producibility an Industry Paradigm: Reforming the Approach to Enterprise Architecture and Systems Integration
• Public procurement of IT
• Systematic Harnessing of Collective Intelligence and Web 2.0 on the Stock Market
• A Case Study of Applied Enterprise Architecture

Many organisations opening up for students require confidentiality agreements (NDAs), which is understandable and no problem administratively.

Got anything to say about the relationship between government EA and connected government- Consider submitting a chapter!

Call for Chapters

Proposal Submission: 15th February 2011
Full Chapter Submission: 15th May 2011

Enterprise Architecture for Connected E-Government: Practices and Innovations

A Book Edited by Chief Editor, Dr. Pallab Saha, National University of Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Enterprise Architecture (EA) is the inherent design and management approach essential for organizational coherence leading to alignment, agility and assurance1. Structured EA approach is often used to plan and implement efficient and effective transformation efforts. However, the strongest driver for EA is to improve service delivery and overall performance within the organization’s business segments. Most governments worldwide are in the midst of substantial public sector transformation activities. A majority of these initiatives are triggered by the need to have better and seamless government services delivered online. The focus on automating government services often is largely limited to specific ministries and agencies. However, such initiatives lack the cross-ministry / agency viewpoints and coordination. This creates challenges in taking a Whole-of-Government (W-O-G) approach with its concomitant benefits, which are much more than benefits derived by taking agency-centric viewpoints. These shortcomings are clearly evident in the findings of the UN Global E-Government Survey 2010. According to the UN, the value of e-government will be increasingly defined by its contribution to national development. Lack of coherent strategy is often cited as the primary reason for under-development of e-government. Moving forward, more and more countries are adopting national e-government strategies and multi-year action plans, and EA is the strategy that governments are increasingly looking toward.

The United Nations (UN), in its Global E-government Survey of 2008, used connected governance as its primary criteria by which to evaluate and rank national e-government programs. According to the survey report, the concept of connected government is derived from the W-O-g approach which utilizes technology as a strategic tool and enabler for public service innovation and productivity growth, the two key outcomes being innovation and productivity. Government transformation is a long term endeavor that is seldom impacted by any short term technology trends. In their transition toward connected government, all governments typically traverse through the four primary stages of e-government capability and maturity, each stage representing a progressively higher level in the government transformation continuum. EA is a critical success factor for all types, scale and intensities of e-government programs. The key goal of EA in government organizations is to make them citizen-centered, results-oriented and market-based. Governments usually pass through different evolutionary stages in their EA journeys. The MIT Center for Information Systems Research identifies four such evolutionary stages; business silos, standardized technology, rationalized data and applications and business modularity. Interestingly, there exists a positive correlation between the desired level of e-government capability and maturity and the required level of architectural maturity.

OBJECTIVES

This book addresses the gap in current literature in terms of linking and understanding the relationship between e-government and government EA. Within this broader context, the focus is specifically on uncovering and comprehending the relationship between government EA and connected government. The primary reason for focusing on connected government is that it is the area where government EA has the highest potential to influence and as a result the highest levels of benefits derivation. With the intention of balancing theory and practice, this book aims to:

1. Demonstrate and disseminate the importance of government enterprise architecture in elevating the effectiveness of e-government programs.
2. Capture and bring forth the current advancements and thought leadership in the area of enterprise architecture in the context of connected government.
3. Provide national e-government initiatives with evidence-based, credible, field tested and practical guidance in crafting their respective architectures.
4. Showcase case studies and experience reports of innovative use of enterprise architecture in enhancing national e-government initiatives.

INTENDED AUDIENCE AND POTENTIAL USES

1. Government CIOs, IT/IS Managers, Chief Architects, Analysts and Designers seeking better, quicker and easier approaches to respond to needs of their internal and external customers.
2. Line-of-Business Managers concerned with maximizing business value of IT and business competitiveness.
3. CTOs of business software companies interested in incorporating government EA to differentiate their products and services offerings and increasing the value proposition to their customers.
4. Consultants and practitioners desirous of new solutions and technologies to improve the productivity of their government clients.
5. Business management, public policy and IS management educators interested in imparting knowledge about this vital discipline.
6. Academic and consulting researchers looking to uncover and characterize new research problems and programs.
7. E-government professionals involved with organizational technology strategic planning, technology procurement, management of technology projects, consulting and advising on technology issues and management of total cost of IT ownership.

RECOMMENDED TOPICS AND THEMES

In the context of connected government the book intends to include, but is not limited to, chapters in the following broad topics and themes:

1. Government EA for compliance, complexity, innovation and coherency.
2. EA and portfolio management, public sector governance, government performance, investment management.
3. Economic value and impact of connected government.
4. Frameworks, reference models, methodologies, languages, tools and other supporting aspects of government EA.
5. Future of EA and its role in the government.
6. Government 2.0.
7. Government EA in countries with initial levels of e-government capability and maturity.
8. Government interoperability.
9. Government service innovation.
10. Government transformation and modernization, public sector reforms.
11. Open data initiative.
12. Policies, regulations and mandates for driving government enterprise architecture programs.
13. Public private partnerships with EA.
14. Segment architecture (e.g. healthcare, defense, education, disaster management, manufacturing, transportation and services).
15. Strategic (systems) thinking in the public sector.
16. Transparent and open government.
17. Whole of government EA (with emphasis on multi-layered federated structure of government).

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE

Academic Researchers and Senior Industry Practitioners are invited to submit no later than 15th February, 2011, a two paragraph proposal briefly explaining the mission and concerns of the proposed chapter. Authors of accepted proposals will be notified by 15th March, 2011 about the status of their proposals and sent chapter organizational and submission guidelines. Full chapters are expected to be submitted by 15th May, 2011. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis.

PUBLISHER

This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), publisher of the “Information Science Reference” (formerly Idea Group Reference), “Medical Information Science Reference,” “Business Science Reference,” and “Engineering Science Reference” imprints. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit www.igi-global.com. This publication is anticipated to be released in 2012.

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

15th February 2011: Proposal Submission Deadline

15th March 2011: Notification of Proposal Acceptance

15th May 2011: Full Chapter Submission

15th August 2011: Notification of Chapter Acceptance along with Review Comments

15th September 2011: Final Chapter Submission along with signed Copyright Agreement

15th October 2011: Final Deadline

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

The Chief Editor will be advised and supported by an Editorial Advisory Board (EAB), consisting of leading specialized experts from the academia and industry. The current members of the EAB include:

1. Dr. Scott Bernard, Federal Chief Enterprise Architect, Office of E-government and Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, AND Professor of Practice, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
2. Prof. Terry Buss, Executive Director and Distinguished Professor, Heinz College of Public Policy and Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / AUSTRALIA.
3. Dr. Saleem Zoughbi, Regional Adviser, Information and Communication Technology, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, UNITED NATIONS.
4. Prof. Jukka Heikkilä, Vice Dean, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyvaskyla, FINLAND.
5. Dr. John Gøtze, Chief Editor, The Open Group Journal of Enterprise Architecture AND Associate Professor, IT University of Copenhagen, DENMARK.
6. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Habil. Jorge Marx Gómez, Chair of Business Information Systems, Department für Informatik, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, GERMANY.
7. Prof. John Mo, Discipline Head, Manufacturing and Materials Engineering, RMIT University, AUSTRALIA.
8. Dr. Andrzej Sobczak, Consulting Enterprise Architect to the Government of Poland, Warsaw School of Economics, POLAND.

Inquiries and submissions can be forwarded electronically by e-mail to:

Dr. Pallab Saha

National University of Singapore
Institute of Systems Science
25 Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Singapore 119615

Telephone (DID): +65 6516 2516 | Facsimile: +65 6778 2571

E-Mail: pallab@nus.edu.sg

About the Chief Editor: Dr. Pallab Saha is with the National University of Singapore (NUS). His current research, consulting and teaching interests include Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Governance. Dr. Saha has published three books, Handbook of Enterprise Systems Architecture in Practice; Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture; and Coherency Management–Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance. His books are widely referred by practitioners and researchers around the world, making it to the Top Seller list in 2008 and 2009. His papers have been translated and published in Korean, Russian and Polish.

Dr. Saha is the primary author of the Methodology for AGency ENTerprise Architecture (MAGENTA) and Government EA Guidebook for the Government of Singapore and has led them to international prominence. They are available in IDS Scheer’s ARIS Toolset. He is a recipient of the Microsoft research grant in the area of Government EA supported by the UN and the World Bank. He consults extensively both in the public and private sectors. He has provided consulting services to the Ministry of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Agency, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, Integrated Health Information Systems, IP Office of Singapore, CPF Board, Singapore Healthcare Services, Governments of Oman and Kazakhstan and Great Eastern Life Assurance among others. He has been invited as a keynote / distinguished speaker to the World Bank, Carnegie Mellon University, UN University, The Open Group, Microsoft, SAP Labs, Denmark IT Society, Korea Institute for IT Architecture, IEEE, Nanyang Business School, Governments of South Australia, Jordan, UAE, Macau, Korea, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Auditor-general’s Office of Singapore, Singapore Workforce Development Agency and Singapore Government CIO Forums among others. His work has been featured and cited by the UN, WHO, United States Department of Defense, Carlsberg and The Open Group and has contributed to the World Bank’s EA Guidelines for Vietnam. Featured as an Architect in the Spotlight by the Journal of EA he has been an external examiner for doctoral research degree to the University of New South Wales and a Visiting Researcher to the UN University.

Earlier, as Head of Projects and Development he has managed Baxter’s offshore development centre in Bangalore. He has had engagements in several Fortune 100 organizations in various capacities. Dr. Saha holds a Ph.D in Management (Information Systems) from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and has received the best research design and best thesis awards. He is an alumnus of the MIT Sloan Executive Program.