EVALUATION OF TOGAF AS A MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK · industrial context, where the...

EVALUATION OF TOGAF AS A MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK

TORBEN TAMBO Aarhus University, Department of Business Development and Technology, Denmark

[email protected]

JONAS BARGHOLZ Stofa A/S, Denmark

[email protected]

LARS YDE Stofa A/S, Denmark

[email protected]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the management of technology (MOT) discipline in an industrial context, where the framework of TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) is selected to guide technological change, strategic orientation and technology portfolio realignment after a merger of several companies. Architectural views of studied companies do provide interesting observations on employee and corporate self-perception and potential and relevance for new technologies and change. The studied case provides such a platform for experiments in MOT practice and tentative introduction of TOGAF. The study indicate TOGAF is a viable framework for MOT although with shortcomings related to organizational and human aspects on the one side, and core technologies in form of data, systems and networks, on the other side. To the major findings of this paper are issues of potentials for adding to MOT research and body-of-knowledge in reviewing impact of professional / industrial framework implementation and operation. Moreover there is a duality between using and studying frameworks in organizational contexts, and new knowledge derived and used to develop the frameworks further on.

Keywords: Management of technology studies, TOGAF, frameworks, technological change, governance

Introduction

Research in management of technology (MOT) and technological change is often aimed at developing frameworks for improving strategic coherence, delimitation of focal technologies, governance practices and transitional regimes (Tidd and Bessant, 2013; Schilling, 2010; Drejer, 1997; Gaimon, 2008). Also impact of established or experimental MOT frameworks could be the

International Association for Management of Technology IAMOT 2016 Conference Proceedings

833

object of such research (Kim, 2013). Frameworks represent knowledge and structure of the relationship between technologies and the business model of the enterprise and it’s capabilities (Ulrich and Rosen, 2011). MOT is normally bound to be neutral to specific technologies, but aimed at managing risk and uncertainty (Leon et al., 2013) and structuration and modularity of technology (Kodama, 2014).

In establishing insight in MOT in enterprises, it can be worthwhile considering, if other areas of science and professional practice offer mindsets and solutions that can add to the MOT body of knowledge and associated forms of individual and collective learning (Berg et al., 2015). In this paper, the TOGAF framework (The Open Group Architecture Framework) will be evaluated and assessed as a practitioners approach to practical MOT. TOGAF is an implementation of the family of Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks, and EA often exists in complementarity with MOT (Tambo and Bækgaard, 2011) both from a practical view and as a research agenda.

TOGAF is a highly mature framework and widely used, or at least widely intended or perceived to be in use, in enterprises (Cabrera et al., 2016; The Open Group, 2011) as well as adapted to local implementations in companies. As originating from Information Technology (IT) TOGAF is often regarded narrowly to management of development of IT (Pollard and Geisler, 2014; Cabrera et al., 2016), and TOGAF is therefore normally disregarded for further areas of application unless the technology has a strong content of digital capabilities. In enterprises, where IT is the only, the leading or the primary technology this can serve as a litmus test for the framework (Davis, 2013; Hamunyela, 2013). If it can be used for governance of the full technological portfolio, and this portfolio is IT/ICT, then there is a probability that it can serve in broader technologies also.

This paper aims to demonstrate, how management of technology activities positively can interact with the normativity of TOGAF (ISO/IEC 2011; Proper and Greefhorst, 2011). It is furthermore demonstrated that identification of normative or practice-related frameworks, and the learning given by these, can be precursory to positive impact of technological change by, among others, giving stakeholders common grounds for insight in own positions and requirements. The research question of this paper is thus expressed as: How can management of technology studies learn from industrial and professional frameworks for technological change with TOGAF as example?

In the research on MOT frameworks it is not commonplace to align with professional frameworks, although Kim (2013) discuss Gartner’s Hype-Cycle, and Sarkis et al. (1995) base model development on IDEF0. Lindén (2013) insists on a fuller alignment between IT-based enterprise transformation projects and MOT frameworks including architectural frameworks like TOGAF, Zachman, ITIL and ISO42010. In the following, the analysis, empirical work, and discussion will be viewed in the perspective and the fracture/symbiosis of the relationship between MOT as idealization and the professional frameworks, in casu TOGAF.


834

Theory

Management of technology (MOT) research is often aimed at developing frameworks as methodological approaches for identifying, selecting, qualifying, developing, implementing and organizing technological processes of the enterprise (Tidd and Bessant, 2013; Schilling, 2010). Managing inventories and portfolios also add to MOT (Jolly, 2003) along with temporal and longitudinal perspectives (Kerr et al., 2013) and also found in technology roadmapping (Martin and Daim, 2012).Van Wyk (1988) develops a series of MOT frameworks aimed at (1) analyzing individual technological artefacts, (2) classify technologies, (3) capturing technological trends, (4) charting technological limits, and (5) finding the socio-technical profile. The OECD Oslo Manual is more broadly outlining a framework successful innovation (OECD, 2005) leading from conditions at national levels and into the ability of enterprise to foster, apply and convert innovation to business, called the “innovation dynamo”.

In discussing frameworks, it is important not to regard frameworks as oversimplifications or obscure abstractions from corporate practices. Frameworks are sets of suggested, recommended and potentially applied patterns of processes logically connecting processes from ideas and requirements and into operations and management. Weible and Nohrstedt (2012) express this as “specify the scope of enquiry and establish general conceptual categories along with basic definitions and general relations,” and “narrow the scope of enquiry, offer testable hypotheses and postulate causal relationships among concepts.”

MOT frameworks need to cope with changes, but themselves are changeable. Cetindamar et al. (2009) demonstrate MOT as a dynamic capability with a framework that put relatively high emphasis on processes before an actual “project phase” of the technological transition. Furthermore, all activities are suggested to be connected to technology networks, as well as knowledge management and dissemination activities.

Kim (2013) propose a MOT framework that link technological change to Gartners Hype-Cycle in order to rationalize the process of early capturing of ideas and the conversion of these in to operable products and solution or to abandon unfruitful technologies earliest possible.

Lee and Om (1994) refer to Hellriegel’s framework of ”A systems model of change” encompassing people, task, technology, structure and strategy, from this the constituting elements of technological innovation management are founded.

As a strategic approach to a general MOT framework, Berman et al. (1994) outline planning, organization and control a key “levers”. Here using structured methodologies for identification, selection of technology, and elaborate thoughts of organizational design and motivation. As an example of different perspectives on MOT frameworks, Carayannis and Forbes (2001) emphasize organizational learning, the organization’s openness to react and change, sense-making and the use


835

of non-linear, non-rationalistic planning. Chang et al. (2014) and Demirkan et al. (2009) unfolds issues of “any technology” from the perspective to co-think technological artefacts with associated services. Design of positive work environments by relating systems oriented approaches to information and management of technology is discussed by Melitski et al. (2008).

Along with the “academic” MOT frameworks it is interesting to review practical, enterprise-oriented, hands-on framework for technological change in organizations. Various industries have developed various de facto standards dependent of criticality of operations (aircraft, power, chemistry, medical, automotive), dependent of customer relations, dependent of product and manufacturing complexity, and more. Examples in brief:

(I) Other architectural frameworks than TOGAF, e.g. MODAF, DODAF, CIMOSA, FEA and Zachman (ISO/IEC 2009)

(II) GLP / GMP Good Manufacturing / Laboratory Practice from life sciences (III) ETOM from the telecom industry (Ali et al., 2013) (IV) General quality management related frameworks of ISO9000, Six Sigma, (V) COBIT as adjacent framework to TOGAF however more systems releated (Lindén, 2013)

(VI) Ranges of medical technologies

As stated, the focal framework of this paper is TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) that originated as version 1 in 1995; the current version is 9.1 from 2009. The Open Group develops technology (governance) standards mainly within the area of business computing. Any company or individual can become member, but it is expected that the largest companies are generally having the strongest influence. “Platinum” members are Capgemini, HP, Huawei, IBM, Oracle and Philips (The Open Group, 2016).

TOGAF is describing systematic processes of technological transformation from ideas and strategic requirements and in to workable and documented products, systems or solutions. The fundamental cyclic character as of MOT frameworks is shown in figure 1. TOGAF is a recognized leading framework for Enterprise Architecture (EA) practices (Tambo and Bækgaard, 2011; Long, 2009; Proper and Greefhorst, 2009; Boh and Yellin, 2006), where EA is aimed at the generic activity of aligning strategy and technology and governing transformation. From EA theory, EA requires management leading to the theory of EA Management (EAM) that according to Aier (2014) is strongly rooted in adaptation and interaction with corporate culture divided into group-, hierarchical-, developmental- and rational cultures dependent change and stability.


836

TOGAF Capability Framework

Business Vision

and Drivers

Architecture Capability Framework

Business Capabilite

s

Architecture Developmen

t Method Architecture

Content Framework

TOGAF Reference

Models TOGAF Enterprise Continuum and Tools

Figure 1. TOGAF 9.1 (The Open Group, 2016) Figure 2. TOGAF 9.1, simplified (The Open Group, 2016)

TOGAF is widely regarded as a de facto standard for IT-related technological changes in (mostly) large, private enterprises. As a standard, TOGAF have interacted with the process of defining IEEE 1471 Recommended Practice for Architectural Description (Hilliard, 2000), and ISO/IEC 42010 Systems and software engineering - Architecture description (ISO/IEC, 2011).

In investigating the relationship between theoretical and academically-driven MOT frameworks and a framework like TOGAF, there are some key issues to note. TOGAF is as illustrated in figure 1 cyclic in response to both introduction of new services, and in documentation and repeated improvement on existing technologies.

Certain criticism of TOGAF exists. TOGAF is a very rich framework that is highly complex to implement in its fullest. Barroero et al. (2010) criticize the lack of true connectedness between business requirements and data, application and technology at a concrete level. Deschamps et al. (2012) point to the lack of an extended research agenda in EA and EAM especially in bringing the disciplines of software engineering and enterprise engineering closer through selected and supported modelling methods. Technologists might also claim that EA and TOGAF are unrelated to actual methodologies of technical implementation (Homan and Tobey, 2006). Mitra et al. (2015)


837

emphasize the lack of human resource and organizational change management support in TOGAF as well as other EA frameworks (Zachman and FEA) and propose a framework of Enterprise Transformation Architecture (ETA). The lack of human-factor-attention in the EA frameworks, i.e. TOGAF, is raising questions on the framework’s durability and sustainability, here Weiss et al. (2013) and Chung et al. (2009) discuss the necessity to institutionalize EA and EAM by addressing practices and encouraging transformation using the array of organizational instruments.

Method

This paper is a longitudinal case study using a sociologically-inspired, interpretivistic research approach in order to design appropriate data collection from the focal organization and synthesize these into an improved insight in corporate technological processes.

The case study methodology involve thorough data recording during the empirical processes (Eisenhardt, 1989). The case learning is limited although worthwhile as a contributor to in-depth studies with due reservations of studied cohorts, business typifications, assessment and handling of bias, and systematic practices of pattern finding in observations (Yin, 2013).

The scientific approach has been strong inspired by the abductive research paradigm (Dubois & Gadde, 2009) where empirical studies have had to be correlated to available theory, and revised theoretical models have led to revised empirical designs and vice versa.

Literature search have using a broad array of search engines and databases with keys terms as “technology management framework”, “management of technology framework”, “TOGAF technology management” and various combinations of TOGAF, organization, strategy and governance.

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Pre-2010 Google Scholar

303 361 376 327 291 239 510

Springer 39 45 33 39 35 40 61 Science Direct

12 22 10 11 8 3 8

Table 1. TOGAF is keyword in scientific search databases p.a.

The research approach of this paper has strong elements of action research (Drejer, 1997) and autoethnography as the authors JB and LY have been strongly involved in reviewing the technology infrastructure and portfolio of Company S. JB and LY have furthermore organized TOGAF training, outlined the technological change processes, and continue to lead and participate in the transformation.


838

Case study

Company S is a European broadband services and cable TV provider with 675 employees and 480.000 customers founded in 1959. S is in 2012 merged from the original S that have its roots in cable TV, and SE that developed a fiberoptic broadband business associated with its core business of electricity distribution. Since 2012 a number of smaller local cable TV and broadband providers have been acquired.

The competitive situation of S is that customers and regulators have put pressure on the previously lucrative business of selling TV channel “packages”. Instead customers want flatrate broadband and streaming services. This renders a significant risk of creating technological obsolescence of S’ core technologies and revenue.

The technological infrastructure is consisting of the network infrastructure and a portfolio of IT systems of planning, management and operations of the provided services. The network infrastructure consistent of traditional cobber cables, fiberoptic cables, active distribution components, backbone cables, power suppliers, cooling systems, etc. The IT infrastructure is supporting the value stream of the company with a split focus on customer services and infrastructure management. Within this there exists a range of systems to ensure data exchange between systems, information provision, external connections, and specialty requirements. Customer services are split between systems for customer support, customer service portfolio and subscriptions, customer installations, customer planning, and billing, debtor and debt solutions.

Operational staff on IT systems is generally not having the actual work process as background, but will mostly have been trained in something else, or it can be students. Despite of this, it is commonplace that each associate is strongly engaged on one platform by the most of his working hours.

In 2014 company S initiated an effort to review the inventory of systems and technological platforms. A number of shortcomings were found

(VII) Strong personal “ownerships” of systems created a non-productive environment for a more strategic orientation

(VIII) “Islands of automation” dominated as technological landscape (IX) No written or documented relationship between strategic objectives and technological

change prioritization (X) Significant customer complaints from data errors

(XI) Significant costs for maintaining parallel platforms, manual data transfer, and data error correction


839

(XII) Underused customer service offerings opportunities due to costly and inaccurate data of infrastructure

(XIII) A lot of “unwritten”, tacit knowledge on strategic objectives and technological change

The initiative included developing a framework for management of technological change.

The initiative took the point of departure in identifying selected technical systems, architectures, and review issues of adherence to strategic, tactical and operational expectations, level of integration and dependency between each architecture, and key governance factors.

Within the set of governance factors, it was identified that there was a somewhat clear governance structure in terms of prioritization and funding, but there was little organizational memory of motivation for each system. From the company’s business foundation within digital services, models for improvements where first sought in the eTOM framework (Enhanced Telecom Operations Map) that prescribes the relationship between business models, organization and directives for design of the technological systems. To approach technology and changes processes further, enterprise architecture (EA) was brought in. As EA is generic with several implementations, an actual framework had to be chosen. Company S reviewed what other companies in the area were using. Several of these highlighted TOGAF as a concrete form of governance structure matching the use of the operational framework of ITIL. Many companies had received training in TOGAF, and had several employees certified, but also stated that TOGAF was an idealization of a governance framework still remaining to be fully implemented. Company S decided to follow describing the use of TOGAF as the “tailored architecture framework”.

To create a common language for change, it was decided to organize a training sessions in TOGAF with external competencies. The training was broadly supported by information systems developers, infrastructure planners and developers, services and business developers, and operational stakeholders within IT/IS, infrastructure and services. Along with the training various “pain areas” were investigated, to mention, geographical information systems (GIS), sales planning processes, copper and fiber cable convergence, and technical planning systems. Following TOGAF’s recommendations, work were done on capability assessment, identification of business principles, goals and drivers, architecture vision, and drafting of ‘architecture requirement specifications’.

To keep pace and create a convincing platform for future discussion, a Proof-of-Concept (POC) was developed. The POC laid out an architecture roadmap, specifying data, preprojects, migration plans, quality metrics, and project charters. See figure 3 for scheduled business benefits.


840

Figure 3. Venn diagram of POC activities interrelated with technological domains.

The POC included specific technical activities of change organized as project work packages

1. Automated network single sale 2. Manage Resource Capability Delivery, FiberToTheHome zone layout automation 3. Unification of infrastructure in one GIS 4. Business Process Modelling engine 5. GIS connect using SYS1 as interface 6. Data cleansing, GIS1 and GIS2 7. Background map repository 8. Reporting and elimination of manual work related to information delivery 9. Operational robustness 10. Cable data management and cable service delivery status 11. Infrastructure planning tools 12. Unification of fiber infrastructure in one GIS 13. Phase out legacy GIS platforms

The POC will transform the area of technical data management and technical planning systems in to a more efficient operation requiring less effort.

The organizational reception of the TOGAF implementation is still somewhat relying on the success of POC. The TOGAF initiative has been received with mixed emotions. For some associates, the transition to TOGAF means a professionalization of their work and a generally higher perceived job-market value (proponents); for others it is more annoying and disturbing established and work procedures, practices and individual work-value (opponents). There is therefore no guarantee for a long-term success and lasting transitional value, but rapid changing market conditions also mean both risks and opportunities.

Discussion


841

What can we learn from the presented case on use of TOGAF as MOT framework? As elaborated in Yde and Bargholz (2015), TOGAF is used to change governance practices in a company. This starts from the initial idea. No matter if it is business driven or a consequence of prior technological choices. Architectures for business, information systems, and technology are designed from both visions and elaborate requirements management. Design approaches are selected, and migration, implementation, and change management processes are established. Companies with no issues, or representing different industries with different depths of theoretical orientation will not benefit from TOGAF. Company S represents a typical contemporary organization with a vast range of technologies needing governance structures on an ongoing basis. Thus the case sheds light on issues like

(XIV) Establishing consensus on the necessity for change with or without expressing the consequences of laissez faire (Proper and Geisler, 2014; van Heesch et al., 2012)

(XV) Planning of industrial learning processes for organizational adoption of governance approaches (Gaimon, 2008; Carayannis and Forbes, 2001)

(XVI) Transformation from technological adhocracies to a higher degree of conscious governance (Sarkis et al., 1995) and enterprise engineering methodologies of designing and planning (Erasmus et al., 2015)

(XVII) Coping with silo thinking, not to break down silos, but to create awareness of impact and relevance of silos (Pollard and Geisler, 2014; Demirkan et al. 2008)

(XVIII) Avoiding radical change approaches and having planned focus on documented and sustainable impact expressed as the evolutionary approach (The Open Group, 2011)

(XIX) “The daily fight” to avoid reversal from established agendas and back to “bad habits”, discussed by Foorthuis et al. (2014) as related to maturity, and politics and socio-political processes in enterprise engineering (Bernus et al., 2015)

As such the TOGAF initiative of Company S adheres to a broad range of issues expected to be included in organizationally oriented MOT frameworks.

Is Company S’ initiative of TOGAF to be considered as a MOT initiative? The TOGAF initiative is definitely revolving around managing the broadest range of technologies in Company S for both improvement, change and new technologies (innovation). Compared to several frameworks, the described activities may seem to overlook early stages of innovation (Leon et al., 2013). Ideas, visions, and strategy are prescribed by TOGAF, but the sources of new knowledge might be viewed as left out. This is also related to TOGAF’s dominant approach of evolutionary changes and construct of the enterprise as continuum of systems, processes, people and external relations. Additionally, evolutionary approaches are widely supported in the MOT literature (Bernus et al., 2015; van Wyk, 1988) and conservative elements of this adhere to the concept of ambidexterity in innovation theory (Chang et al., 2014).


842

As stated above, there seems to exist latent perils of reversal of the TOGAF initiative. This calls for a reflection upon the cultural dimension of MOT especially with regards to embrace of diversity, breadth of strategic directives, technology acceptance models, and social conflict related to technologies. TOGAF addresses this as a general construct of culture: Business culture, culture and abilities of focal organization, awareness of change-averse workforce cultures (opponents), establishment of cultures of participation (proponents), cultural acceptance creation in the migration planning, and EA as culture. Indicatively, the low-key concept of culture seems unable to balance towards skepticism on TOGAF although the answer is not straightforwardly presented in EAM (Weiss et al., 2013; Chung et al. 2009). The overall TOGAF capability framework assumes culture as a basic element of capability (The Open Group, 2011). Thus, TOGAF is aware of cultural and human-centered issues as antecedents of technological change. Objectively TOGAF should at its best also convey transparency of the technological change process as requirements are to be managed and documented throughout included processes.

Of apparent shortcomings in using TOGAF as MOT approach seem to be the counter-intuitiveness being experimental in enterprise change. Also, purely technology-driven changes not justified in business strategy are not logical to be done in TOGAF as the business strategy adherence fails, although a technology-strategy is satisfied.

Professional and academic frameworks for MOT are different. The professional frameworks, such as TOGAF, are hands-on, comprehensive, rich, specific, whereas the academic frameworks contain abstractions and idealizations.

In reviewing the relevance of TOGAF to MOT there are several dimensions of relevance to consider

(I) Is TOGAF too biased towards IT to provide relevant contributions in a broader field of general technology studies? The case of S is thankful as IT and ICT are the only operational technologies of the production of Company S. TOGAF has so far proven valid as MOT framework. Reservations exist on acceptance and organizational adoption. TOGAF therefore display reasonable argumentative power to provide learning into the MOT community, at least as far as it comes to similar industries.

(II) Is TOGAF “too mature” to provide sensible learning in terms of new knowledge, new research findings, or new patterns of organizational insights? Although TOGAF 9.1 is from 2009, there seems to be shortcomings in the orientation towards the organizational factors as well as the more fundamental technical subsystems. There are possibilities to learn, transform and personalize TOGAF to such requirements.

(III) Is TOGAF an empirical and normative framework representing industrial consensus rather than scientific sense? As the literature presented, TOGAF is a normative framework, but the consensus and institutionalization around such frameworks are dynamic over time and


843

human and technological changes. It is believed that organizational orientation to such frameworks can provide valuable learning and insight even in highly mature settings.

The adoption of TOGAF in S is interesting from the perspective of an apparent tacit and ad-hoc MOT approach prior to the adoption, and the much more aligned, structured and perceived rational approach in the post-adoption phase. Ideally this should bring the company on a pathway to the Unification operating model of Ross and Weill (2003) characterized by low level of business process integration and standardisation. However, underlying drivers must be carefully reviewed not to go back to old habits:

‐ Assurance of consensus among employees and decision makers ‐ Ongoing follow-up on cultural and behavioral aspects ‐ Radical changes from markets, technologies, or organization factors ‐ The TOGAF transition must prove successful and review it worth and value on an ongoing

basis

The findings include practice-derived traits of MOT application methodology as transcendence between systems oriented TOGAF and the more broadly generic technological MOT. Here TOGAF proves situated for supporting

‐ Cross company exchange of experience; “common language” ‐ Company-internal transparency and foundation for critique and design ‐ Blueprint for clarifying and professionalizing interaction with consultants and technology

suppliers ‐ Formalised and continuous prioritization and adaption of requirements based on already

implemented changes

As a practical implication is the utilisation of existing frameworks in new contexts. Or the rephrasing of perceived new contexts into more standardized contexts supported by existing frameworks. In digital business processes TOGAF has established itself as a dominant framework. The systems-oriented origin can alienate more broadly oriented or non-digital MOT practitioners; the framework assessment thus needs to address both getting a synergetic momentum, but also risks in overlooking critical corporate MOT functions.

Finally, a set of terms come into consideration for the academic – professional alignment between generic MOT frameworks, and TOGAF.

Conceptual identity; it is interesting to get deeper into common perceptions of concepts in either frameworks, e.g. what do technology mean, as generic technologies, information processing technologies, the difference between physical and digital technologies, etc. Concepts of users, situation, process, interaction, requirement must all receive due attention.


844

Placement within the innovation and technology management life-cycle, especially very early stages; TOGAF is about governance of “mainstream” corporate change that obviously can’t very specifics of early innovation, radical innovation and crisis management be handled elegantly in TOGAF. These exceptions are interesting as it leaves the broad and normal range of corporate change as open for the use of TOGAF or similar.

Innovation vs implementation orientation; it can be disputed if TOGAF at all can handle innovation as it might be claimed to be an implementation framework. The case demonstrates a range of business improvement initiatives the raise a counter-claim that TOGAF can navigate relatively wide within the technology life-cycle, and more over probably clearer address late-life changes of technologies than eg much more purely innovation management theory.

To round up, there has been demonstrated a solid academic – professional correlation in as well EA and EAM frameworks as TOGAF, on one side, and MOT frameworks like those of Tidd and Bessant (2013), Schilling (2010), van Wyk (1988), Martin and Daim (2012) etc. It is important and useful to have academic and professional frameworks evolve individually and independently, but is it also interesting to monitor and facilitate learning processes between academia and industry in the area and respect with the cross-disciplinary learning opportunities offered from either side.

Conclusion

In this paper, the feasibility of TOGAF as a MOT framework has been studied on the impact to an ongoing market- and organizational driven technological transformation process.

The ongoing argument in this paper is that MOT needs frameworks, but frameworks must be workable, prove value, and lead to sustained organizational change. TOGAF is representing such a case in the studied enterprise, however, it seems too early to judge, if changes will be persistent. This paper claims as a statement of originality that few studies exist on impact and review of practical MOT frameworks. It is therefore interesting to highlight that TOGAF meets a plenitude of typical MOT framework requirements.

Suggestions for further research include follow on studies in the focal company observing business benefits, technological redesign, and improved governance. Larger studies of the use of industrial frameworks, including local adaptation, would also add positively.

Where TOGAF is found to have strong positive impact on strategically-aligned transformations, there are limitations to (1) change not founded in strategic directives (e.g. technical upgrades), (2) early innovation management and/or high-risk change, (3) extent of documentation requirements and documentation change, (4) clear-cut organizational issues related to resistance, (lack of)


845

technology acceptance, skills management, etc. On such limitations, added generic MOT initiatives can complete the range of initiative to ensure the fullest of successful transformation and thereby also emphasize the viability of TOGAF as a key component in dynamics and assurance of technological change.

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.

Ali, SM, Soomro, TR, and Brohi, MN (2013). Mapping information technology infrastructure library with other information technology standards and best practices. Journal of Computer Science, 9(9), 1190.

Barroero, T, Motta, G, and Pignatelli, G (2010). Business capabilities centric enterprise architecture. In Enterprise architecture, integration and interoperability (pp. 32-43). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Berg, D, Mani, HS, Marinakis, YG, Tierney, R, and Walsh, S (2015). An introduction to Management of Technology pedagogy (andragogy).Technological forecasting and social change, 100, 1-4.

Berman, E, Werther, W, and Vasconcellos, E (1994) Executive levers for the strategic management of technology, Business Horizons, 37(1), 53-61,

Bernus, P, Goranson, T, Gøtze, J, Jensen-Waud, A, Kandjani, H, Molina, A ... and Turner, P (2015). Enterprise engineering and management at the crossroads. Computers in Industry.

Boh, WF and Yellin, D (2006). Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 163-207.

Cabrera, A, Abad, M, Jaramillo, D, Gómez, J, and Verdum, JC (2016). Definition and implementation of the Enterprise Business Layer through a Business Reference Model, using the architecture development method ADM-TOGAF. In Trends and Applications in Software Engineering (pp. 111-121). Springer International Publishing.

Carayannis, E, and Forbes, J (2001). A pragmatic representation of systems engineering based on technological learning. Technovation, 21(4), 197-207

Cetindamar, D, Phaal, R, and Probert, D (2009). Understanding technology management as a dynamic capability: A framework for technology management activities. Technovation, 29(4), 237-246.

Chang, YC, Miles, I, and Hung, SC (2014). Introduction to special issue: Managing technology-service convergence in Service Economy 3.0.Technovation, 34(9), 499-504.

Chung, L, Song, HK, Song, YT, and Subramanian, N (2009). Understanding the role of enterprise architecture towards better institutionalization. In Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences,


846

Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, 2009. SNPD'09. 10th ACIS International Conference on (pp. 316-320). IEEE.

Davis, K (2013). Development of an Architecture Framework for Portfolios of Sustainable Technology Projects (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University).

Demirkan, H, Kauffman, RJ, Vayghan, JA, Fill, HG, Karagiannis, D, and Maglio, PP (2009). Service-oriented technology and management: Perspectives on research and practice for the coming decade. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(4), 356-376.

Deschamps, F, De Lima, EP, Loures, ER, and Santos, E (2012). Characterization of process related models for enterprise engineering. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management.

Drejer, A (1997). The discipline of management of technology, based on considerations related to technology. Technovation, 17(5), 253-265.

Eisenhardt, KM (1989). Building theories from case study research.Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

Erasmus, J, Erasmus, LD, and Pretorius, JHC (2015, June). Towards unification of product and enterprise system descriptions. IAMOT.

Foorthuis, R, Van Steenbergen, M, Brinkkemper, S, and Bruls, WA (2015). A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits.Information Systems Frontiers, 1-24.

Gaimon, C (2008). The management of technology: A production and operations management perspective. Production and Operations Management,17(1), 1-11.

Hamunyela, S (2013). Enterprise Architecture Strategic Framework. Issues in Information Systems, 14(2), 60-70.

Hilliard, R (2000). Impact assessment of IEEE 1471 on the open group architecture framework.

Homann, U and Tobey, J (2006). From capabilities to services: Moving from a business architecture to an IT implementation.

ISO/IEC (2011). ISO/IEC 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering — Architecture description. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO/IEC.

Jolly, D (2003). The issue of weightings in technology portfolio management.Technovation, 23(5), 383 391.

Kerr, C, Farrukh, C, Phaal, R, and Probert, D (2013). Key principles for developing industrially relevant strategic technology management toolkits.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 1050-1070.


847

Kim, SK (2013). General framework for management of technology evolution.The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(2), 130-137.

Kodama, F (2014). MOT in transition: from technology fusion to technology-service convergence. Technovation, 34(9), 505-512.

Lee, M and Om, K (1994). A conceptual framework of technological innovation management. Technovation, 14(1), 7-16.

León, HCM, Farris, JA, Letens, G, and Hernandez, A (2013). An analytical management framework for new product development processes featuring uncertain iterations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,30(1), 45-71.

Linden, A (2013, July). The importance of technology management in the ICT requirements definition process. In Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET), 2013 Proceedings of PICMET'13: (pp. 2283-2295). IEEE.

Long, AM (2009). Enterprise Architecture: Origins, Tools, and Insights. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 33(2), 116-125.

Martin, H, and Daim, TU (2012). Technology roadmap development process (TRDP) for the service sector: A conceptual framework. Technology in Society,34(1), 94-105.

Melitski, J., Gavin, D. J., and Gavin, J. H. (2008). Automate To Informate: Positive Work Environments, Trust And The Strategic Management Of Technology. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 11(4), 471-494.

Mitra, A., Zhurakovskaya, L., and Gupta, A. (2015). The Enterprise Transformation Architecture (ETA). BPTrends.

OECD (2005) Oslo Manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Third edition.

Pollard, JR, and Geisler, SR (2014). Controlling a Permanent State of Change–IT Management Framework (ITMF). Project Management, 6, 7.

Proper, E, and Greefhorst, D (2011). Principles in an enterprise architecture context. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 7(1), 8-16.

Ross, JW, Weill, P, and Robertson, D (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.

Rossignoli, C., Gatti, M., and Agrifoglio, R. (Eds.). (2015). Organizational Innovation and Change: Managing Information and Technology (Vol. 13). Springer.

Sarkis, J, Presley, A, and Liles, DH (1995). The management of technology within an enterprise engineering framework. Computers & industrial engineering,28(3), 497-511.


848

Schilling, M (2010). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. International Edition. McGraw-Hill.

Tambo, T, and Bækgaard, L (2011). Managing Innovation and Business Development Using Enterprise Architecture. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Association for Management of Technology. International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT).

The Open Group (2011) Open Group Standard TOGAF Version 9.1. The Open Group, San Francisco.

Tidd, J, and J Bessant (2013). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 5th Edition. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.

Ulrich, W, and Rosen, M (2011). The Business Capability Map: The" Rosetta Stone" of Business/IT Alignment. Cutter Consortium, Enterprise Architecture,24(4).

van Heesch, U, Avgeriou, P, and Hilliard, R (2012). A documentation framework for architecture decisions. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(4), 795-820.

van Wyk, RJ (1988). Management of technology: new frameworks.Technovation, 7(4), 341-351.

Weible, CM and D Nohrstedt. 2012. The advocacy coalition framework: Coalitions, learning, and policy change. In The handbook of public policy edited by E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu. New York, NY: Routledge

Weiss, S, Aier, S, and Winter, R (2013). Institutionalization and the effectiveness of enterprise architecture management. Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013.

Yde, L, Bargholz, J (2015) GIS-driven business process optimizations in telco infrastructure lifecycle management A case study in SE. Master Thesis, Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University.

Yin, RK (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications


849

Date post:	30-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lyquynh
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

EVALUATION OF TOGAF AS A MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK · industrial context, where the...

Documents