In this section we will deal with the use of the ECA instrument in practice, and we start with a discussion of the steps involved in applying the instrument, followed by a description of how the ECA instrument has been applied in seven large enter- prises in the Netherlands.
The following steps are used in the ECA instrument to position an enterprise: 1. Determine the relative weight of the questions: rank the questions in order
of importance.
2. Gather responses to situational questions: which questions do, or do not, apply to your enterprise?
3. Process the answers and feedback of the positioning per respondent. 4. Analyse the differences between the individual positions.
0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA-vision EA -ap pl icati on Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisation
5. Aggregate the individual positions to determine the enterprise’s position- ing.
Step 1: Determine the weight of the questions
As a first step, for each question the respondents indicate the question’s relative importance to the enterprise, see Figure 12. A question’s importance is determined according to the situation, no two enterprises are the same. Where, for example in a more hierarchal enterprise it is an absolute must for the management to have agreed a vision on enterprise architecting, in a different enterprise it may be much more important for all the stakeholders to be involved in formulating the vision. The weighting of the questions is conducted using the pair wise comparison method [77]. In a pair wise comparison the twelve questions are ranked by pairing them by comparison. It is subsequently possible to divide the research population into segments, all of which have the same standpoints regarding the questions, by bundling the results of this weighting. The actual comparison is computed using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [77]. In the ECA case, two dimensions and twelve questions are used. These are respectively (D)evelopment and o(P)eration, resulting in two times six questions (D1 to D6 and P1 to P6). The questions take the form of a statement that does (factor 1) or does not (factor 0) apply to an enter- prise. The weighted averages for D and P are calculated from the weighted average of weight × factor (1 or 0), for each statement. The weights are determined by comparing the questions, separately for D and P. D1 is compared with D2 to D6, then D2 with D3 up to D6, and so on. Then we ask the question: is D1 much more important than D2, if so, then D1 4 and D2 are awarded a 1/4 point, if D1is more important than D2, 2 respectively 1/2 point and if D1 and D2 are equally important each get 1 point. The total number of points per statement determines the weight.
Figure 12. Part of the process to determine the weight of the questions
far moreimport ant
moreimportant equalimportant moreimportant far moreimportant
Weight determination EA vision development
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the representatives of all stakeholders.
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 3 Our organisation’s vision, objectives and strategy are characterised by the various EA elements as perspectives, guiding statements, principles, etc.
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 4 Our EA vision is developed into EA processes, products, people and resources.
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 5 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to rate organisational results in coherence. 1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 6 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to
control change processes by coherence. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 3 Our organisation’s vision, objectives and strategy are characterised by the various EA elements as perspectives, guiding statements, principles, etc.
2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 4 Our EA vision is developed into EA processes, products, people and resources. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 5 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to rate organisational results or coherence. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
48
Figure 11. Development scenarios
4.3 Using the ECA Instrument
In this section we will deal with the use of the ECA instrument in practice, and we start with a discussion of the steps involved in applying the instrument, followed by a description of how the ECA instrument has been applied in seven large enter- prises in the Netherlands.
The following steps are used in the ECA instrument to position an enterprise: 1. Determine the relative weight of the questions: rank the questions in order
of importance.
2. Gather responses to situational questions: which questions do, or do not, apply to your enterprise?
3. Process the answers and feedback of the positioning per respondent. 4. Analyse the differences between the individual positions.
0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA-vision EA -ap pl icati on Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisation 49 5. Aggregate the individual positions to determine the enterprise’s position-
ing.
Step 1: Determine the weight of the questions
As a first step, for each question the respondents indicate the question’s relative importance to the enterprise, see Figure 12. A question’s importance is determined according to the situation, no two enterprises are the same. Where, for example in a more hierarchal enterprise it is an absolute must for the management to have agreed a vision on enterprise architecting, in a different enterprise it may be much more important for all the stakeholders to be involved in formulating the vision. The weighting of the questions is conducted using the pair wise comparison method [77]. In a pair wise comparison the twelve questions are ranked by pairing them by comparison. It is subsequently possible to divide the research population into segments, all of which have the same standpoints regarding the questions, by bundling the results of this weighting. The actual comparison is computed using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) [77]. In the ECA case, two dimensions and twelve questions are used. These are respectively (D)evelopment and o(P)eration, resulting in two times six questions (D1 to D6 and P1 to P6). The questions take the form of a statement that does (factor 1) or does not (factor 0) apply to an enter- prise. The weighted averages for D and P are calculated from the weighted average of weight × factor (1 or 0), for each statement. The weights are determined by comparing the questions, separately for D and P. D1 is compared with D2 to D6, then D2 with D3 up to D6, and so on. Then we ask the question: is D1 much more important than D2, if so, then D1 4 and D2 are awarded a 1/4 point, if D1is more important than D2, 2 respectively 1/2 point and if D1 and D2 are equally important each get 1 point. The total number of points per statement determines the weight.
Figure 12. Part of the process to determine the weight of the questions
far moreimport ant
moreimportant equalimportant moreimportant far moreimportant
Weight determination EA vision development
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the representatives of all stakeholders.
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 3 Our organisation’s vision, objectives and strategy are characterised by the various EA elements as perspectives, guiding statements, principles, etc.
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 4 Our EA vision is developed into EA processes, products, people and resources.
1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 5 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to rate organisational results in coherence. 1 We possess an EA vision agreed by the management. 6 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to
control change processes by coherence. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 3 Our organisation’s vision, objectives and strategy are characterised by the various EA elements as perspectives, guiding statements, principles, etc.
2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 4 Our EA vision is developed into EA processes, products, people and resources. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 5 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to rate organisational results or coherence. 2 Our EA vision is the result of cooperation between the
representatives of all stakeholders. 6 In our organisation one or more control tools are used to control change processes by coherence.
Step 2: Answer situational questions
After determining the weight of the twelve questions, the form with the situational questions is completed with a yes/no. See Figure 8.
Step 3: Process and provide feedback and position each respondent
The details of each respondent are entered into an application that calculates the individual position of a respondent. See the diagram in Figure 13 in which the posi- tion of such an individual is shown.
Figure 13. Diagram of individual positioning
Step 4: Analyse the differences between individual positions of employees
Analysis of the differences between the individual positions of employees can be carried out in one of two ways: one, on the aspect of the weight determination that is known for the questions and two, on the aspect of the situation. Making these differences explicit can result in interesting discussions and may already lead to
Employee 1 0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA -ap pl icati on
EA-vision
Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisationadjustments in the opinions of individuals or groups of people at this stage of the process. See Figure 14, in which the positioning of individual employees and the position of the enterprise are illustrated. In Figure 14 we illustrate the scores of three employees from one enterprise, resulting from an assessment carried out by participants in a growth platform, and we also show the enterprise’s total score. Significant differences are apparent in the ratings completed by the employees. We can also deduce that the related enterprise scores 0.545 on the EA development axis.
Analysis of the responses reveals that there is a vision within the enterprise but it has not been developed into an implementation plan. There is also no ambition to use any tools to strengthen coherence governance within the enterprise. A further analysis of the score 0.241 on the EA vision application axis reveals that ideas about the application of enterprise architecting held within the enterprise are being implemented in a fragmented manner.
Figure 14. Individual and organizational positioning
Step 5: Aggregate the individual positioning at an organisational level
After the relative weighting of the situational questions has been performed and the questions have been answered, the model automatically provides the position of the total enterprise in the matrix, see Figure 14. This yields an initial average of the individual scores of the respondents. These results are then discussed in a joint session with the involved respondents. These discussions may lead to insights about the actual situation in the enterprise and/or a better interpretation of the ques-
Naam x-axis y-axis
Employee 1 0,436 0,000
x-as y-as diameter Employee 2 0,654 0,237
#VERW! 0,436 0,000 1,00 Employee 3 0,545 0,487 #VERW! 0,654 0,237 1,00 Organisation X 0,545 0,241 #VERW! 0,545 0,487 1,00 #VERW! 0,545 0,241 5,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Org. X 0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA -a pp lic at io n EA-vision Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisation
50
Step 2: Answer situational questions
After determining the weight of the twelve questions, the form with the situational questions is completed with a yes/no. See Figure 8.
Step 3: Process and provide feedback and position each respondent
The details of each respondent are entered into an application that calculates the individual position of a respondent. See the diagram in Figure 13 in which the posi- tion of such an individual is shown.
Figure 13. Diagram of individual positioning
Step 4: Analyse the differences between individual positions of employees
Analysis of the differences between the individual positions of employees can be carried out in one of two ways: one, on the aspect of the weight determination that is known for the questions and two, on the aspect of the situation. Making these differences explicit can result in interesting discussions and may already lead to
Employee 1 0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA -ap pl icati on
EA-vision
Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisation 51 adjustments in the opinions of individuals or groups of people at this stage of the process. See Figure 14, in which the positioning of individual employees and the position of the enterprise are illustrated. In Figure 14 we illustrate the scores of three employees from one enterprise, resulting from an assessment carried out by participants in a growth platform, and we also show the enterprise’s total score. Significant differences are apparent in the ratings completed by the employees. We can also deduce that the related enterprise scores 0.545 on the EA development axis.Analysis of the responses reveals that there is a vision within the enterprise but it has not been developed into an implementation plan. There is also no ambition to use any tools to strengthen coherence governance within the enterprise. A further analysis of the score 0.241 on the EA vision application axis reveals that ideas about the application of enterprise architecting held within the enterprise are being implemented in a fragmented manner.
Figure 14. Individual and organizational positioning
Step 5: Aggregate the individual positioning at an organisational level
After the relative weighting of the situational questions has been performed and the questions have been answered, the model automatically provides the position of the total enterprise in the matrix, see Figure 14. This yields an initial average of the individual scores of the respondents. These results are then discussed in a joint session with the involved respondents. These discussions may lead to insights about the actual situation in the enterprise and/or a better interpretation of the ques-
Naam x-axis y-axis
Employee 1 0,436 0,000
x-as y-as diameter Employee 2 0,654 0,237
#VERW! 0,436 0,000 1,00 Employee 3 0,545 0,487 #VERW! 0,654 0,237 1,00 Organisation X 0,545 0,241 #VERW! 0,545 0,487 1,00 #VERW! 0,545 0,241 5,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Org. X 0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA -a pp lic at io n EA-vision Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisation 53 adjustments in the opinions of individuals or groups of people at this stage of the process. See Figure 14, in which the positioning of individual employees and the position of the enterprise are illustrated. In Figure 14 we illustrate the scores of three employees from one enterprise, resulting from an assessment carried out by participants in a growth platform, and we also show the enterprise’s total score. Significant differences are apparent in the ratings completed by the employees. We can also deduce that the related enterprise scores 0.545 on the EA development axis.
Analysis of the responses reveals that there is a vision within the enterprise but it has not been developed into an implementation plan. There is also no ambition to use any tools to strengthen coherence governance within the enterprise. A further analysis of the score 0.241 on the EA vision application axis reveals that ideas about the application of enterprise architecting held within the enterprise are being implemented in a fragmented manner.
Figure 14. Individual and organizational positioning
Step 5: Aggregate the individual positioning at an organisational level
After the relative weighting of the situational questions has been performed and the questions have been answered, the model automatically provides the position of the total enterprise in the matrix, see Figure 14. This yields an initial average of the individual scores of the respondents. These results are then discussed in a joint session with the involved respondents. These discussions may lead to insights about the actual situation in the enterprise and/or a better interpretation of the ques-
Naam x-axis y-axis Employee 1 0,436 0,000
x-as y-as diameter Employee 2 0,654 0,237
#VERW! 0,436 0,000 1,00 Employee 3 0,545 0,487 #VERW! 0,654 0,237 1,00 Organisation X 0,545 0,241 #VERW! 0,545 0,487 1,00 #VERW! 0,545 0,241 5,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Org. X 0 1/2 1 0 1/2 1 EA -a pp lic at io n EA-vision Philosophising Degeneration Suboptimisation Optimisation 51
tions. This may, in its turn, lead the respondents to want to change their individual scores, and eventually the aggregate scores for the enterprise; using this joint dis- cussion, undesired variance due to misinterpretations and/or incomplete knowledge about the enterprise, is reduced. The starting points for a development and imple- mentation strategy for enterprise architecting can be identified using this position data, note Figure 10 can be helpful at this stage. Is it necessary, for example, to first develop a vision, translate it into workable concepts and subsequently develop an implementation strategy? Or can one already get to work because sufficient home- work has already been done on developing a vision et cetera? In this case it is per- haps necessary first to establish a communication offensive.
In the context of the research question: How does governance of enterprise coher- ence work in enterprises? We applied ECA to seven selected large enterprises in the Netherlands, involving twenty-five participants. These enterprises were chosen because they had more than 1000 employees, were willing to participate in this assessment and the results of an assessment carried out in these 7 major enterprises, in our opinion, for this stage of the research would offer sufficient insight into the status of enterprise coherence governance to facilitate our research further. Two enterprises that participated had an industrial base and 5 were governmental enter- prises. This pilot study was followed by an extended research assessment con- ducted in 54 enterprises within the Netherlands, see chapter 15. Before the assess- ment we set the condition that if there was a lack of governance of enterprise co- herence in more than 50% of the case study enterprises, then the problem ‘lack of coherence governance in enterprises’ was present. If this was proved then the con- ditions were met for further research and the development of a theory for enterprise coherence governance. It is our claim that there a general lack of governing of en- terprise coherence exists, if less than 50% of the pilot study enterprises score in the optimization quadrant. The results of the pilot study assessment are summarized in