Abstract
This research claims that dynamic strategies demanded by today’s digital environment exacerbate inconsistency between an organization’s digital transformation efforts and its enterprise architecture (EA) planning process. This phenomenon leads to redundant investments, delayed implementation, and frequent failures in digital transformation projects. In order to investigate this inconsistency, we apply the socio-economic approach to management (SEAM) theory. Through critical analysis of four case studies in a large manufacturing organization, we clarify the relationship between digital transformation and EA and reveal the dysfunction in strategic implementation from a SEAM and business process management (BPM) perspective. In practice, this research integrates digital transformation and EA to provide a context-specific approach for planning and designing enterprise digital transformation strategies.
Publisher
Association des amis de la Revue Francaise de Gestion Industrielle
Reference45 articles.
1. Banaeianjahromi, N. (2018a). The role of top management commitment in enterprise architecture development in governmental organizations. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly, 17, 95–113. https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2018-17.05
2. Banaeianjahromi, N. (2018b). Where enterprise architecture development fails: A multiple case study of governmental organizations. 2018 12th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS). https://doi.org/10.1109/rcis.2018.8406644
3. Benhayoun, L., & Saikouk, T. (2022). Untangling the critical success factors for blockchain adoption in supply chain: A social network analysis. Revue Française De Gestion Industrielle, 36(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.53102/2022.36.01.915
4. Blosch, M., & Burton, B. (2016). Using EA to support a palette of business strategy approaches. Gartner Report, 25 March 2016, G00291302.
5. Cameron, B. H., & McMillan, E. (2013). Analyzing the current trends in enterprise architecture frameworks. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 9(1), 60-71. https://eapad.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2012-4.pdf#page=60