A Priority Based Enterprise Architecture Implementation Assessment Model: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach

Authors

  • Nur Azaliah A.Bakar Advanced Informatics School (AIS), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100,Kuala Lumpur.
  • Harihodin S. Advanced Informatics School (AIS), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100,Kuala Lumpur.
  • Nazri Kama Advanced Informatics School (AIS), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100,Kuala Lumpur.

Keywords:

Enterprise Architecture (EA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Balanced Scorecard, Assessment,

Abstract

Despite of many Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks and methodologies available, in reality EA implementation is a challenging process. In order to assure a progressive EA implementation, assessment and monitoring mechanism is required. The existing EA assessment approaches are mostly based on checklist or maturity model and designed to assess post EA implementation. Less EA assessment is found to cater on the pre and during EA implementation process. This indicates that the lack of systematic assessment mechanism, especially for pre and during EA implementation phase. Hence, based on the gap identified, this study proposes a priority based assessment model for pre and during EA implementation process. This integrated model of Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is designed to assess the priority and capability of the organization in implementing EA. The assessment criteria were formulated from findings of an exploratory study. Six main criteria and 27 sub-criteria have been identified as the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in EA implementation. Based on these CSFs, a Priority based EA Implementation Assessment Model (PEAIAM) has been formulated and presented in this paper.

References

EABOK, 2015. Planning an EA - Purpose, Enterprise Architecture Book of Knowledge.

Spewak S. H. and Hill S. C., Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing A Blueprint For Data, Applications And Technology: QED Information Sciences, Inc., 1993.

Hjort-Madsen K., 2009. Architecting Government: Understanding Enterprise Architecture Adoption in the Public Sector.ITUniversitetetiKøbenhavnIT-Universiteteti København.

Fernández H. A. F., 2013. Enterprise Architecture Review, Vínculos. 7:58-69.

Wan H., Johansson B., Luo, X.and Carlsson S., 2013. Realization of Enterprise Architecture (EA) Benefits. in Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, ed: Springer. 92-105.

Ylimäki T., 2008. Potential Critical Success Factors For Enterprise Architecture. Evaluation Of Enterprise And Software Architectures.

Vasconcelos A., Pereira C. M., Sousa P. M. A., and Tribolet J. M., 2004. Open Issues on Information System Architecture Research Domain: The Vision. in ICEIS (3):273-282.

Bullen C. V. and Rockart J. F., 1981. A primer on critical success factors. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.

Ross J. W., Weill P., and Robertson D. C., 2006. Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating A Foundation For Business Execution: Harvard Business Press.

Ojo A., Janowski T., and Estevez E., 2012. Improving Government Enterprise Architecture Practice.Maturity Factor Analysis. in 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS).4260-4269.

Bakar N. A. A., Harihodin S., and Kama N., 2015. A Systematic Review of Enterprise Architecture Assessment Models. in Applied Mechanics and Materials.339-343.

Sobczak A., 2013. Methods of the Assessment of Enterprise Architecture Practice Maturity in an Organization. in Perspectives in Business Informatics Research, ed: Springer. 104-111.

Pruijt L., Slot R., Plessius H., Bos R., and Brinkkemper S., 2012. The Enterprise Architecture Realization Scorecard: A Result Oriented Assessment Instrument. in Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research and Practice-Driven Research on Enterprise Transformation, ed: Springer. 300-318.

Schekkerman J., 2006. Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model Support Guide (Version 2.0). Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments, the Netherlands,

Lange M., Mendling J., and Recker J., 2012. A Comprehensive EA Benefit Realization Model--An Exploratory Study. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference On. 4230-4239.

Meyer M., Helfert M., Donnellan B., and Kenneally J., 2012. Applying Design Science Research For Enterprise Architecture Business Value Assessments. in Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice, ed: Springer. 108-121.

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, ed: Springer. 268-283.

Van der Raadt B., M. Bonnet, Schouten S., and Van Vliet H., 2010. The Relation Between EA Effectiveness And Stakeholder Satisfaction. Journal of Systems and Software. 83:1954-1969.

NASCIO, 2003. NASCIO Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model. ed.

Christiansen P. and Gotze J., 2006. International Enterprise Architecture Survey–Trends in Governmental Enterprise Architecture on a National Level, Available in pdf format at http://easurvey.org/06_easurveyreport_ver01. pdf.

Schekkerman J. 2009.Enterprise Architecture Tool Selection Guide v5. 0. Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments.

Kaplan R. S. and Norton D. P., 1992. The balanced scorecard-Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. 70(1):71-79.

Saaty T. L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kaplan R. S. and Norton D. P., 2001. Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I, Accounting Horizons. 15:87-104.

Bhushan N. and Rai K., 2004. Strategic Decision Making: Applying The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Springer Science & Business Media.

van Steenbergen M., Bos R., Brinkkemper S., van de Weerd I., and Bekkers W., 2010. The Design Of Focus Area Maturity Models. in Global Perspectives on Design Science Research, ed: Springer. 317-332.

Downloads

Published

2017-06-01

How to Cite

A.Bakar, N. A., S., H., & Kama, N. (2017). A Priority Based Enterprise Architecture Implementation Assessment Model: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 9(2-3), 121–125. Retrieved from https://jtec.utem.edu.my/jtec/article/view/2340

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2-3: Circuit and System Advancement in Modern World II

Section

Articles

License

TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT

The manuscript is herewith submitted for publication in the Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC). It has not been published before, and it is not under consideration for publication in any other journals. It contains no material that is scandalous, obscene, libelous or otherwise contrary to law. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, I, as the author, hereby agree to transfer to JTEC, all rights including those pertaining to electronic forms and transmissions, under existing copyright laws, except for the following, which the author(s) specifically retain(s):

  1. All proprietary right other than copyright, such as patent rights
  2. The right to make further copies of all or part of the published article for my use in classroom teaching
  3. The right to reuse all or part of this manuscript in a compilation of my own works or in a textbook of which I am the author; and
  4. The right to make copies of the published work for internal distribution within the institution that employs me

I agree that copies made under these circumstances will continue to carry the copyright notice that appears in the original published work. I agree to inform my co-authors, if any, of the above terms. I certify that I have obtained written permission for the use of text, tables, and/or illustrations from any copyrighted source(s), and I agree to supply such written permission(s) to JTEC upon request.