2013 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops

On the Changing Role of Enterprise Architecture in Decentralized Environments:

State of the Art

Thomas Speckert∗ , Irina Rychkova† , Jelena Zdravkovic∗ and Selmin Nurcan†

∗ Department of Computer and Systems Sciences
Stockholm University, Borgarfjordsgatan 15, Kista, Sweden
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
† Centre de Recherche en Informatique
Université Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne, 90 rue Tolbiac, 75013 Paris, France
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract—The decentralization of organizations and subse-

quent change to their management and operation style requires
major changes in organization processes and heavily involves
the IT. This paper demonstrates, however, that EA is primarily
aimed at centralized organizational structures and as such
has shortcomings when applied to decentralized organizations.
Overcoming these deficiencies requires new principles to be
introduced and incorporated into EA knowledge. A potential
source for these principles are peer-to-peer architectures, which
tackles the problem of decentralization in its own way. This
paper presents prevalent decentralization principles from peer-
to-peer, and how they have the potential to be applied to EA.

Keywords-enterprise architecture, decentralization

I. I NTRODUCTION
Organizations with rigid centralized management style
fail to sustain dynamic environments due to their inertia Figure 1. Enterprise Architecture
in decision making and lack of agility. Political, social
and economic systems progressively transforming to dis-
tributed, network, and novel organization forms accordingly standards, and best practices according to which current and
are emerging [1]. Recently coined terms such as “proactive future activities of the enterprise should be conducted” [5].
enterprise” or “liquid enterprise” describe the nature of EA methods and tools produce artifacts to specify the current
such organizations. Transparent or dynamically changing state of a company’s architecture (architecture as-is, specify
boundaries, agile processes, interactions aligned with real- the target architecture (architecture to-be), and identify how
time business goals, and virtual collaborations are all IT- to best cross the gap between them (architectural roadmap).
enabled capabilities of emerging organization forms [2]. These produced artifacts are often addressed in literature
In [3], organizational structure is defined as “institutional as EA description; the process that an organization has to
arrangements and mechanisms for mobilizing [...] resources execute in order to obtain its EA description is called EA
at all levels of the system”. The changes to management method (Fig.1). A traditional EA project, though, consists
and operational styles brought on by decentralization re- in implementing an EA method and producing an EA
quires major changes in organization processes and heavily description. To assure that the organization will continuously
involves IT. follow the principles and achieve the designated goals after
While emerging technologies serve as the main catalyst the termination of the EA project a third element has to be
for organizational transformations, utilizing the right tech- defined. We call this element EA engine.
nologies and evolving thus to digitized business processes to Created in early 1990s, the de-facto EA methodologies
automate organizations core capabilities [4] – is primordial support organizations in creation and evolution of their IT in
for organizations. structured and disciplined way: they focus on centralization
Traditionally, this is addressed by the enterprise architec- of IT and its tight binding to the organizational structure and
ture (EA) discipline. EA “defines the underlying principles, properties (e.g. centralized management). Such properties,

978-0-7695-5085-5/13 $26.00 © 2013 IEEE 310

DOI 10.1109/EDOCW.2013.41
however, do not necessarily exist in decentralized organiza- In Section V, we propose a set of recommendations for
tions. Consequently, implementation of these methodologies decentralized-aware EA.
in organizations of 2010s becomes difficult and inefficient,
II. E NTERPRISE A RCHITECTURE F RAMEWORKS
and the role of EA as a driver for IT transformations is
compromised. A. A Common Perspective on Enterprise Architecture
As an example, consider a public organization acquiring While there is no singular agreed-upon definition for EA,
a software system with the objective of integrated facility different definitions [4], [5], [8]–[12] do have much in com-
management across divisions. Divisions were not involved mon. EA is a discipline that takes a holistic, design-oriented
in the decision making process (due to centralized strategic approach to transforming high-level business vision and
planning) and eventually refused to shut down their local goals into the integration of an enterprise’s organizational
systems and switch to the global one (due to decentralized structure, business processes, and information systems. This
IT management). As a consequence, the strategic initiative transformation involves identifying and implementing the
for integration failed; the divisions protected their interests necessary change for this to occur. This paper will break the
(local systems tailored for their needs), but were still charged frameworks down into three separate components (Fig.1):
for the acquired system they never used (due to centralized EA method, EA description, and EA engine.
budgeting). This example demonstrates a mismatch between The Method aims to lay the groundwork for the EA
the architecture principles (tendency towards integration), project. Typically, this involves setting up teams, responsi-
architecture engine (the process of prioritizing, evaluating bilities, and the overall process of collecting and approving
and eventually deciding on the global system to adopt) and the EA artifacts (e.g. as-is and to-be architectures) which
the organizational structure that inherits some centralized form the second component, the EA description. The Engine
mechanisms while being strongly decentralized. involves setting up a support structure for ensuring the
We claim that structured and disciplined approach to IT ongoing adoption of the to-be architecture. The remainder
evolution not necessarily has to rely upon IT centralization. of this section will look at three different EA frameworks
Therefore, novel EA concepts are needed to ensure that the from the perspective of of these three phases: The Open
development and evolution of IT is harmonized with the Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), the Zachman
properties of decentralized organizations. Framework, and the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA).
In this paper, we analyze various forms of organizational
B. TOGAF
structures presented in literature, outline the characteristics
of decentralization, and identify the challenges related to The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) is an
decentralization in organizational IT. We define decentraliza- EA framework created by The Open Group.
tion in organizational IT as a continuum with three phases: 1) EA Method: TOGAF includes a very detailed EA
Centralized IT, Federal IT and Decentralized IT. The main method, called the Architecture Development Method
contribution of this paper is an assessment of the three (ADM), made up of a preliminary phase and eight core
prevalent EA methodologies (TOGAF, Zachman and FEA) phases (labeled A–H) [12, Ch. 5-15]:
and their capacity to support the decentralization. These Preliminary
three frameworks were chosen as they are highly influential, establish initial commitment and governance;
as evidenced by their extensive coverage in literature, for A set a high-level vision for the future architec-
example [5]–[9]. Furthermore, Sessions [9] identifies them, ture (includes management approved goals and
along with the Gartner Methodology, as making up about requirements) to create a “Statement of Architec-
90 percent of the field. ture Work” for forming contracts and obtaining
This assessment finally leads us to a set of recommen- approval from project sponsors;
dations for decentralized-aware EA. This paper is part of B–D create the as-is and to-be architectures, and analyze
research work still in its early phases, and as such, empirical the gap between them;
validation has not yet been done at this stage. E–F create plans for crossing the gap;
The remainder of this article is organized as follows: G–H concerned with implementation, ongoing gover-
In Section II we discuss the role of EA in organiza- nance, and change management.
tion and provide an overview of three EA methodologies: 2) EA Description: TOGAF views architecture from
TOGAF, Zachman and FEA; in Section III we discuss the perspective of four different architecture domains [9]:
different forms of organizational structure (generic and IT- business (processes and functions), application, data, and
specific) presented in the literature focusing on their degree technical (specific infrastructure).
of (de)centralization. We outline the main characteristics The various architectural artifacts in TOGAF are or-
of decentralization and highlight the challenges related to ganized across an Architectural Landscape [12, Ch. 20].
decentralization in IT. In Section IV we examine how Here, TOGAF specifies three levels of detail: strategic, for
the presented EA methodologies support (de)centralization. overall direction setting at the executive level; segment, for

311
architectures at the level of a specific project or program; and an EA for the entire government. FEA is a complete EA
capability, for governance related activities. Additionally, the framework, covering all three components of EA. FEA takes
Architecture Landscape can be partitioned for supporting an approach where individual organizational units develop
different organizational units [12, Ch. 40]. their own architectures that fit into an overall framework of
TOGAF’s Architecture Content Framework describes the common standards and interoperability.
outputs of the architecture efforts from the ADM. This 1) EA Description: FEA develops architecture for seg-
includes the “deliverables” that are specified in the contracts ments and enterprise services. A segment is a “major line-of-
and subject to formal approval [12, Ch. 33]. business functionality” [9] for an individual organizational
3) EA Engine: TOGAF outlines an ADM phase con- unit (such as an agency or department).
cerned with the ongoing change management process for The EA artifacts defined by FEA include baseline segment
the architecture of an enterprise [12, Ch. 16]. In this phase, architectures, target segment architectures and transition
a governance body sets criteria for determining if a change strategy (for achieving the target architecture).
requires an architecture update if a new cycle of the ADM 2) EA Method: FEA defines a four step iterative process
needs to be started. for creating architectures for each segment and service [15]:
TOGAF describes a formal review process for deter- 1) analysis, where the baseline architecture, current prob-
mining compliance with the goal to “first and foremost, lems, and vision for the target architecture are outlined;
catch errors in the project architecture early, and thereby 2) definition, where the detailed target architecture of the
reduce the cost and risk of changes required later in the segment and how to get there is defined; 3) investment
lifecycle” [12, Ch. 48]. strategy; and 4) project planning and implementation.
TOGAF outlines a formal approach to architecture gov- 3) EA Engine: FEA describes “EA governance and man-
ernance led by an “Architecture Board” [12, Ch. 47]. The agement processes” [15, Sec. 2] to control architecture de-
TOGAF Architecture Governance Framework [12, Ch. 50] velopment. These process are implemented to manage stan-
suggests guidelines for developing a formal architecture dards, enforce compliance, manage collaboration between
governance structure. agencies, and approve architectures for implementation.
FEA defines a value measurement process: “a continuous,
C. Zachman customer-focused process relying on feedback from EA
The Zachman Framework was the first EA, first intro- stakeholders and other value measures to increase the quality
duced by John Zachman in 1987 [9], [13]. It consists only and effectiveness of EA products and services to support
of a taxonomy, and as such only fits into the EA Description business decisions” [15, Sec. 5].
aspect of EA.
1) EA Description: The Zachman Framework breaks III. O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE AND
down EA into a grid of perspectives. Each perspective is D ECENTRALIZATION
characterized by its target audience and the issue it is aimed This section will first discuss the forms of organi-
at. ZF covers six issues: What (data and entities), How zational structure defined in the literature. Second, the
(functional), Where (locations and networks), Who (people (de)centralization of current organizations and, as a con-
relationships), When (events and performance criteria), and sequence, their styles of IT governance will be explored.
Why (motivations and goals) [5]. Each issue is viewed from We conclude this section by underpinning the challenges
six different perspectives: executive, business management, organizations have to face due to decentralization.
architect, engineer, technician, and enterprise users.
The executive perspective provides an estimate of a sys- A. What is a Decentralized Organization?
tem’s functionality and cost [5]. The business management Much research has been done on specific forms of or-
perspective is a view of how an owner thinks the business ganizational structure. Taxonomies of organization forms
operates [14]. The architect perspective takes a systems are defined in [16], [17]. Classic and modern types of
viewpoint and describes the operations and interactions of organizational structure are often recognized. Classic types
the enterprise’s systems. The engineer perspective describes include simple centralized organizations [18], bureaucratic
the technology and design of individual systems. The tech- organizations [19], divisional structure and functional struc-
nician perspective takes the technically detailed perspective ture. Modern types include matrix structures, flat organiza-
of a “sub-contractor” who is implementing a system. The tions and adhocracies. New forms of organizational structure
enterprise users perspective describes the perspective of the include collaborative networks, virtual organizations and
system users. coopetitions.
According to Robbins [20], organizational structure has
D. FEA three components: complexity, formalization and centraliza-
The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)is an effort tion. Complexity refers to the degree to which activities
by the federal government of the United States to create within the organization are differentiated; Formalization

312
refers to the degree to which work is standardized; Cen- 2) Modern Organizational Structures: Matrix structure is
tralization refers to the degree to which decision making is another popular style of organization structure [11] that can
concentrated at one point in the organization. be seen as a mixture of functional and divisional structures.
Following Luthens [21], (de)centralization can be also In this form, individuals are assigned two or more supervi-
defined according to three factors: geographical or territorial sors covering different dimensions of the enterprise. Pearlson
concentration of operations, functions, and extent of concen- and Saunders state that matrix organization structures are
tration of decision making powers. In [11], the following suited for dynamic environments with lots of uncertainty,
characteristics of centralization are defined: the allocation presumably because their authority structure allows them to
of decision rights, the structure of communication lines, and cover multiple aspects when making decisions. However,
the choice of forms of coordination. like a hierarchical structure, a matrix structure is a rigid
In a completely centralized organization, all decision mak- construct with strictly defined roles, communication lines
ing authority would reside with a single, top-level authority. and decision rights. Authority still comes from the top in a
In a completely decentralized enterprise all members would centralized manner, even though it becomes more distributed
have equal decision making rights. Here, hierarchy manages among matrix managers at the lower levels.
the interdependencies between the different subunits of the A flat organization employs a novel type of structure
organization and often makes direct interactions and com- where only one or two hierarchical levels are defined.
munications unnecessary [22]. Decentralized organizations Valve Corporation, a software company in the video game
instead have less formalized communication lines [11], and industry [25], employs such a structure and is an example of
more fluid, project oriented teams [23]. high decentralization. In contrast with the simple centralized
Centralized organizations lean towards a vertical style of organization described above, individual employees have
coordination [24] characterized by formal authority, stan- complete freedom: Nobody reports to anyone, and everyone
dardization, and planning and control systems. Decentralized is free to choose their own projects.
organizations lean towards lateral coordination characterized Adhocracy [11], [23] aims to discard traditional hierar-
by meetings, task forces, coordinating roles, matrix struc- chies in favor of decentralized decision rights and flexible
tures, and networks [24]. communication lines connecting the entire enterprise. An
Below, we will consider popular forms of organizations, adhocracy has a rapidly changing set of project oriented
focusing on their degree of centralization. groups that have decision making authority and other powers
[20]. Mintzberg describes an adhocracy as “a loose, flexible,
B. Forms of Organizational Structure and Decentralization self-renewing organic form tied together mostly through
lateral means” [18].
1) Classic Organizational Structures: Pearlson and Saun-
ders offer a thorough description of a pure hierarchical orga- 3) Post-Modern Organizational Structures: New forms of
nization structure [11]: Except for the top level position, each organizational structure enabled uniquely by modern infor-
position has one superior and zero or more subordinates. mation and communication technologies Internet emerged
Decision rights and communication lines are strictly defined recently: collaborative networks [26], virtual (boundaryless)
and work their way down from the top. The scope of a organizations and coopetition [27].
position is specialized and strictly defined by your superior Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh define collaborative
and one works in assigned teams. The primary benefit of networks (CNs) as being composed of “a variety of entities
a hierarchy is that the high levels of management have (e.g., organizations and people) that are largely autonomous,
strict governance and control over the company. Hierarchical geographically distributed, and heterogeneous in terms of
organization structures are suited for stable environments. their: operating environment, culture, social capital, and
Hierarchical organizations an be subdivided into simple goals” [26]. Three common characteristics in various CNs
centralized and bureaucratic organizations: In simple central- are autonomy in the individual entities, a drive towards
ized organizations, both strategic planning and operational meeting common or complementing goals, and the use of
decision making authority belong to one person at the top. an agreed-upon framework for collaboration.
This structure can be found in small and single-owner A virtual organization is a group of independent organiza-
organizations with only two hierarchical levels. Bureaucratic tions working together to achieve some goal. Coopetitions,
organizations [19] are characterized by a multi-level hierar- as described in [27], are characterized by a complex relation-
chical structure and use of standard methods and procedures ship between firms where they simultaneously compete and
for performing work. collaborate and benefit from both. These entities are engaged
Hierarchical organizations generally divide their labor into collaboration in response to a specific market situation,
either in terms of common activities or in terms of out- customer demand, etc. Such organization structures are
put. Two organizational structures (Functional structure and grounded on a sustainable collaboration between partners
Divisional structure) can be identified accordingly. without any centralized control.

313
 4) Decentralization in Organizational IT: According to
Rockart et al. [28], changes in business and technology
as well as progressive decentralization of organization as
a whole drives the changes in roles and structure of IT
units. The works presented in [28]–[31] focus on the relation
between the structure of an organization and its IT.
Fulk [29] discusses the interplay between communication
technology and various organizational forms. The authors
consider communication technologies as one of the key
enablers of inter- and intra-organizational changes.
In [30], authors study how different organizational forms
affect the knowledge transfer in organization. They claim
that “Organizational forms enable different kinds of moti-
vation and have different capacities to generate and transfer
tacit knowledge.” Figure 2. Organizational taxonomy: From Centralized to Decentralized

Weill [31] defines six forms of organizational structures

in IT: business monarchy, IT monarchy, feudal, federal, IT coordination, it also manages interdependencies between
duopoly and anarchy. In a business monarchy all IT related different subunits of an organization and often makes direct
decisions are made in a centralized manner by the top-level interactions and communications unnecessary [22].
executives. In an IT monarchy, a group of IT professionals Therefore, the main challenge related to decentralization
are responsible for making the decisions in a centralized and “weakening hierarchy” is a lack of interaction and
manner. An IT duopoly is characterized by two groups (IT communication between organizational subunits.
and business executives) collaboratively making decisions. The decentralization of an organization and subsequent
The feudal form is much less centralized; individual or- change to its management and operation style requires
ganizational units are responsible for their own decisions. major changes in organization processes and heavily in-
Federal IT aims to balance these through a combination of volves IT. Caruso, Rogers and Bazerman [32] highlight
central IT and IT in the business units. Anarchy is a style the importance of information sharing and coordination for
of governance where small teams or even individuals are these organizations. According to [28], a major risk of IT
responsible for their own decisions. decentralization is lack of synergy and integration due to a
Many organizations today tend to combine both central- lack of standardization.
ization and decentralization in order to obtain the advantages Enterprise Architecture is a discipline that allows an
of both styles: global integration and efficiency due to organization to develop and evolve its IT in a manner
centralized management in some key areas, and agility and harmonized with it. It provides methodology and sets up
high quality of local customer services due to decentralized structures for assessing current state of IT (architecture As-
decision making in others [28]. Is); for planning, agreeing upon and communicating its
Figure 2 maps the organizational forms presented above future state (architecture To-Be); and for carrying out this
to an axis depicting the degree of (de)centralization. transformation. In order for this harmonization to be suc-
For the purpose of our study, we consider three types cessful in decentralized organizations, it is important that EA
of organizational structure in IT: Centralized IT, where methodologies and structures acknowledge decentralization
all IT related decisions are made in a centralized manner and help the organization to tackle its related challenges.
by the top-level executives, Decentralized IT, where each In the next section we examine how decentralization in
organizational subunit manages its own IT in a completely IT is addressed by current EA practices.
autonomous and independent manner, and Federal IT that
can be seen as a combination of central IT management and IV. E XISTING EA P RACTICES TO S UPPORT
IT management in the subunits. D ECENTRALIZATION : A NALYSIS AND S HORTCOMINGS
The field of Enterprise Architecture (EA) emerged in or-
C. Challenges of Progressive Decentralization in Organiza-
der to combat two increasingly prevalent problems facing en-
tional IT
terprises: system complexity and business-IT alignment [9].
The emergence of decentralized organizational structures As enterprises rely more and more on information systems
means significant changes for organizations that adopt them. of increasing complexity, these problems become even more
However, this transformation is not a mere question of important.
“flattening” the organization by shifting authority and de-
cision making power from the top to the bottom. In classic A. TOGAF
organizations, not only does hierarchy ensure control and 1) Concepts supporting a centralized organization:

314
 EA Method and EA Engine: TOGAF’s approach to This allows TOGAF to support any kind of enterprise, but
architecture governance involves an Architecture Board the guidelines provided are minimal.
“to oversee the implementation of the [architecture] strat-
egy” [12, Ch. 47]. This board has an important role in B. Zachman
Architecture Governance, such as “[p]roviding the basis for 1) Concepts supporting centralized organization:
all decision-making with regard to the architectures” [12, EA Description: The Zachman Framework aims to
Ch. 47] and enforcing architecture compliance. model a complete enterprise using a matrix of 36 elements,
Having a single entity responsible for high-level decision with alignment and composite integration relations defined
making suits well for organizations with strong central- between these elements.
ization in IT (Centralized IT to Federal IT in Fig. 2). The perspectives of Zachman Framework line up with
TOGAF does suggest that the board has enterprise-wide a bureaucratic organizational structure: the defined views
representation [12, Ch. 47] which may support some level (from executive to user) constitute an explicit organizational
of decentralization, however it suggests the representation hierarchy. Clear separation between domains make this
comes in the form of “senior managers”; a concept primarily framework suitable for matrix organizations as well.
from traditional organization structures. The lack of flexibility in definition of domains and views
Throughout TOGAF, references are made to the existence and the requirement to fill in the matrix is perhaps the
of a bureaucratic or hierarchical centralized structure in Zachman Framework’s main shortcoming with respect to
place; some examples: decentralization. A primary aspect of decentralized organi-
zations is their high level of flexibility. For a decentralized
• A formal governance framework for all architectural
organization where both roles and domains are not uniformly
material is specified in the preliminary phase, a concept
defined (implicit) for sub-units, the use of the Zachman
related to the rigid forms of traditional organizational
Framework becomes difficult, if at all possible.
structure.
• After the completion of “Phase A: Architecture Vision”, EA Method and EA Engine: Providing a schema for
TOGAF requires approval of the current vision of the organizing architectural artifacts of an enterprise, the Zach-
architecture. This requirement assumes there is some- man Framework does not imply any particular method for
one with a higher level of decision-making authority to collecting these artifacts (what we call EA Method in Fig.
give approval. 1). Neither does it suggest anything the set of structures that
• The set of strategic architectures from the Architecture we call EA Engine.
Landscape which is meant for the “executive level” [12, Therefore, tailoring and implementation of Zachman
Ch. 20]. framework for a concrete organizational structure depends
on experience of the EA (consultancy) team.
EA Description: TOGAF suggests the development of To summarize, the Zachman Framework provides a de-
architecture principles that “define the underlying general tailed taxonomy of EA artifacts that supports a hierarchical
rules and guidelines for the use and deployment of all IT view on the organization. The application of this framework
resources and assets across the enterprise” [12, Ch. 23]. in decentralized organizations remains unclear.
Having a central set of principles that is to be applied to
an entire organization supports centralization. C. FEA
TOGAF includes the concept of an Architecture Reposi- 1) Concepts supporting centralized organization:
tory for storing all architectural artifacts and deliverables. EA Description: Through the use of a common set
Having a single place to store all information is highly of reference models, FEA prescribes standards that are to
supportive of centralization. be followed throughout the organization. This limits the
2) Concepts supporting decentralized organization: flexibility that the individual organizational units have and
EA Method and EA Engine: TOGAF supports decen- makes this framework suitable for bureaucratic organizations
tralization through the concept of partitions. The Architec- with a high level of standardization of its processes.
ture Landscape can be divided into separate parts in order to In FEA, however, individual organizational units have
support “federated architectures – independently developed, the freedom to develop their own architecture as long as
maintained, and managed architectures that are subsequently it fits in to the set standards. This supports some level
integrated within an integration framework” [12, Ch. 40]. of decentralization and suits to organizations with federal
This supports the idea of different organizational units de- structure, where individual units have input into decisions.
veloping their own individual architectures. The mechanism EA Method and EA Engine: Segment architecture de-
for integrating the individual architectures under the roof of velopment is defined by FEA as a collaborative approach
the corporate architecture is not explicit. conducted by a team composed of business experts, en-
TOGAF indirectly supports decentralization through the terprise architects and technical experts. FEA defines a
suggestion that it be tailored to fit the needs of the enterprise. set of segment architecture stakeholders and their roles (

315
[15, Table 2-2]) in segment architecture development. For the enterprise in a manner that is completely up to them.
example, the role of senior management is defined to set the This is similar to peers in a peer-to-peer system, where the
agency strategic goals. These roles naturally line up with the peers participate in a completely voluntary manner. Second,
centralized to federal organization of IT (Fig.2). the challenge that peer-to-peer systems overcome is similar
The mechanism for integrating the segment architectures to the main challenge faced by decentralized organizations:
under the roof of the corporate architecture is assured “to figure out a mechanism and architecture for organizing
by specific governance and management processes which, the peers in such a way so that they can cooperate to
though implying different stakeholders, remain centralized. provide a useful service to the community of users” [33].
All steps of segment architecture development are super- This is similar to the main challenge facing decentralized
vised by a manager, pointing on centralized management organizations – a lack of cooperation – previously identified.
and budgeting. With EA being a potential solution to this challenge of
Transition strategy is defined for the agency level though decentralization in organizations and the parallels between
it is assessed on the global level. Governance-wide collab- the domains of peer-to-peer systems and decentralized or-
oration and reuse based on standards is outlined by FEA as ganizations, we propose that peer-to-peer principles may be
an important part of EA transition strategy. applicable to EA for enhancing their support of decentral-
2) Concepts supporting decentralized organization: ization. This section will briefly present and discuss two
EA Description: The resulting segment architecture is relevant principles from peer-to-peer.
positioned by FEA as a shared vision for business and
IT transformation within a core mission area or common A. Peer production
service. Each segment can have its own architecture that Benkler defines peer production as “production systems
responds to its business needs. that depend on individual action that is self-selected and
EA Method and EA Engine: The development of seg- decentralized, rather than hierarchically assigned” [34]. Peer
ment architectures is described as a collaborative process production works on the idea of the individuals willingly
between EA architects and other stakeholders. The focus is coordinating with one another by expressing their own views
placed on the “reconciliation” of the segment architecture while understanding the views of others.
with an agency architecture and cross-agency initiative, Peer production takes many different forms. One example
emphasizing the importance of cross-agency collaboration, are user-driven media sites such as Reddit and Slashdot,
common opportunities and initiatives. which follow a peer-production model for producing “rel-
Architectural analysis and architectural definition steps of evance/accreditation” [34] on user-submitted content. On
segment architecture development involve business owners these sites, the users have the ability to vote on the submitted
at the agency level who define business and information content in order to decide on the content’s relevance or
management requirements for the segment. This ensures credibility. Another example of relevance production are
local interests are looked after within a corporation. crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter where individuals
FEA is targeting groups of independent federal agencies decide on the funding of user-submitted projects by giving
with the objective to increase their interoperability and qual- their own money. Peer production is also used to produce
ity of service. Among three EA methodologies considered in content, such as in the case of Wikipedia, a completely user-
our study, FEA is the only one recognizing the need of inter- driven encyclopedia.
and intra-agency cooperation and communication. Neverthe- If we view enterprises as being composed of peers, the
less, many of the concepts on which the EA method and EA idea of peer production becomes useful for EA. For example,
engine of FEA are grounded remain strongly centralized. the EA Engine of TOGAF relies on an Architecture Board
responsible high-level decisions and governance. Instead
V. T OWARDS D EFINITION OF D ECENTRALIZED EA of a central board responsible for making decisions, a
The challenge of decentralization is not a new one; model based on the principle of peer production for rele-
other efforts have been able to address their view on it vance/accreditation could be used instead. This would better
with success. The specifics of the challenge varies between support decentralization as decision making would then be
domains, however there may exist general principles that can distributed amongst the peers that make the organization.
be taken and applied to EA.
One such effort is peer-to-peer architectures, which “typi- B. Trust management in peer-to-peer
cally lack dedicated, centralized infrastructure, but rather de- Due to the fact that peers in peer-to-peer systems are able
pend on the voluntary participation of peers to contribute re- to operate in a completely independent manner, there exists
sources out of which the infrastructure is constructed” [33]. the problem of knowing whether or not the contribution
We argue that peer-to-peer is a relevant concept to de- made by a peer is trustworthy or not. Consequently, some
centralization in EA for two reasons. First, individuals in researchers have proposed various methods for determining
highly decentralized organization are able to contribute to trust in a peer-to-peer environment. For example, Aberer and

316
 Table I
E XISTING AND P ROSPECTIVE SUPPORT OF P ROGRESSIVE D ECENTRALIZATION BY EA FRAMEWORKS

EA component Existing support for centralized or- Existing support for decen- Applicable P2P principles for a solution
ganizations tralized organizations
EA method: Approval process based on hierar- Federated architectures; pos- peer production principles for creation and eval-
chy; architecture development is coor- sibility to adapt ADM for a uation of EA artifacts; P2P trust management
dinated, supervised and evaluated by specific organization; archi- replacing approval mechanism
well-defined roles in a company; EA tecture development process
teams coordinate architectural work involves multiple stakehold-
and communicate results; results are ers
controlled and evaluated centrally by
program manager)
EA description: Strategic level architectures; hierarchy Architecture partitions; archi- User-driven content submission and change
of architecture principles; a common tecture reference models; seg- management of the content (i.e. the structure is
set of reference models; hierarchi- ment architecture; the con- defined by the users)
cal organization of EA artifacts with cept of “shared vision”
explicitly defined roles and domains
(Zachman)
EA engine: Architecture board; formal governance integration of various (seg- Peer production for relevance/accreditation (e.g.
framework; common principles for an ment) architectures is assured decision making in budgeting, strategy, opportu-
entire organization (i.e global commit- by (centralized) management nity evaluation, solution evaluation); user-driven
ment is taken for granted); centrally and governance content submission and change management of
managed architecture repository the content; P2P trust management

Despotovic [35] have proposed determining whether a peer plementations of these methodologies are heavily limited to
is trustworthy or not based on a peers history of interactions support new decentralized organization patterns fostered by
with other peers in the system. This assessment is performed virtual organizations, collaborative networks, coopetitions,
by the individual peers, and as such, is appropriate for a and others. Lastly, we discussed how the application of spe-
peer-to-peer environment. TOGAF employs the idea of an cific peer-to-peer architecture principles–in particular peer
approval process grounded on the presence of centralized production and trust management–could be projected onto
authority to ensure that the presented architectural material the problem of employing EA in organizations following a
is valid for the enterprise. In a decentralized environment, decentralized organizational pattern.
this central authority is not likely to exist. Peer-to-peer trust The aim of this research is to contribute to a ‘state of
management may offer a solution here: Instead of explicit the art’ on enterprise modeling methodologies by analyzing
approval, the acceptance of a peer’s contribution to EA can the decentralization of organizations and supporting business
be based on a peer’s level of trustworthiness. patterns and technologies, and thereby the consequences of
this trend to the requirements for new approaches to the use
VI. C ONCLUSION and management of IT resources. Regarding future work,
In this study we have analyzed the problem of non-fit be- our next steps involves contrasting the presented theories and
tween emerging decentralized organizational environments argumentations empirically, i.e. by mapping them to EA of
and established EA methodologies. different organizations. Such an ongoing study concerns an
We have argued that decentralization in organizational organization in the public sector of Sweden, exposing many
structures and IT governance is common in many modern of decentralized behavior as discussed in this paper.
organizations. These organizations are following different R EFERENCES
patterns by fostering entirely new relationships between
business processes and IT. The classification of organiza- [1] M. Bowens, “The Political Economy of Peer Production.”
[Online]. Available: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=
tional forms of IT presented in Section III, was used to 499
assess if the dominant EA methodologies can support them.
Current EA frameworks fail to solve this major concern [2] M. Missikoff, “The future of enterprise systems in a fully
in decentralized environments. We have surveyed Zachman networked society,” in Advanced Information Systems Engi-
neering. Springer, 2012, pp. 1–18.
Framework, TOGAF and FEA, and concluded that the first is
unable to support any significant aspect of decentralization. [3] P. Sachdeva et al., “Analytical framework for the organization
While the latter two provide some basic flexibility, in TO- and structure of nars.” in Organization and structure of
GAF, it is mainly facilitated by the ability to have a different national agricultural research systems: selected papers....,
architecture for organizational units and by providing space 1990, pp. 1–8.
for new methods for the architecture development; in FEA, [4] J. W. Ross, P. Weill, and D. Robertson, Enterprise architec-
the conclusions are similar, while the top-level organization ture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution.
standards need to be obeyed by all units. Consequently, im- Harvard Business Press, 2006.

317
 [5] J. Schekkerman, How to survive in the jungle of enterprise [22] J. D. Thompson, Organizations in action: Social science
architecture frameworks: Creating or choosing an enterprise bases of administrative theory. Transaction Pub, 1967.
architecture framework, 2nd ed. Trafford Publishing, 2004.
[23] L. M. Applegate, J. I. Cash, and D. Q. Mills, Information
[6] D. Minoli and D. Minoli, “Enterprise architecture a thru z: technology and tomorrow’s manager. Harvard Business
Frameworks, business process modeling, soa, and infrastruc- Review, Reprint Service, 1988.
ture technology,” Auerbach, New York, NY, 2008.
[24] L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, Reframing Organizations,
[7] S. Bente, U. Bombosch, and S. Langade, Collaborative En- 4th ed. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
terprise Architecture: Enriching EA with Lean, Agile, and
Enterprise 2.0 Practices. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann, [25] Valve Corporation. (2012) Valve Handbook for New
2012. Employees. [Online]. Available: www.valvesoftware.com/
company/Valve Handbook LowRes.pdf
[8] M. Lankhorst, Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling,
communication and analysis, 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer, [26] L. M. Camarinha-Matos and H. Afsarmanesh, “Collaborative
2009. networks: a new scientific discipline,” Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, vol. 16, no. 4-5, pp. 439–452, 2005.
[9] R. Sessions. (2007) A Comparison of the Top Four
Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies. [Online]. Available: [27] M. Bengtsson and S. Kock, “Coopetition in business
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb466232.aspx networks–to cooperate and compete simultaneously,” Indus-
trial marketing management, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 411–426,
[10] Gartner Inc, “Enterprise Architecture (EA).” 2000.
[Online]. Available: http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/
enterprise-architecture-ea/ [28] J. Rockart, M. Earl, and J. Ross, “Eight imperatives for the
new IT organization,” Sloan management review, pp. 43–56,
[11] K. E. Pearlson and C. S. Saunders, Strategic Management of 1996.
Information Systems, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[29] J. Fulk and G. DeSanctis, “Electronic communication and
[12] The Open Group, TOGAF Version 9.1. The Open Group, changing organizational forms,” Organization science, vol. 6,
2011. no. 4, pp. 337–349, 1995.

[13] J. A. Zachman, “John Zachman’s Concise Definition [30] M. Osterloh and B. S. Frey, “Motivation, knowledge transfer,
of The Zachman Framework,” 2008. [Online]. Available: and organizational forms,” Organization science, vol. 11,
http://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework no. 5, pp. 538–550, 2000.

[31] P. Weill, “Don‘t just lead, govern: How top-performing firms

[14] ——. (2000) Conceptual, Logical, Phys-
govern it,” MIS Quarterly Executive, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–17,
ical: It Is Simple. [Online]. Available:
2004.
http://www.zachman.com/ea-articles-reference/
58-conceptual-logical-physical-it-is-simple-by-john-a-zachman
[32] H. M. Caruso, T. Rogers, and M. H. Bazerman, Boundaries
Need Not be Barriers: Leading Collaboration Among Groups
[15] Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, in Decentralized Organization. Harvard Business School,
“FEA Practice Guidance,” 2007. 2008.
[16] B. McKelvey, Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolu- [33] S. Saroiu, P. K. Gummadi, and S. D. Gribble, “Measurement
tion, classification. Univ of California Press, 1982, vol. 72. study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems,” in Electronic
Imaging 2002. International Society for Optics and Pho-
[17] P. Rich, “The organizational taxonomy: definition and de- tonics, 2001, pp. 156–170.
sign,” Academy of Management Review, pp. 758–781, 1992.
[34] Y. Benkler, The wealth of networks: How social production
[18] H. Mintzberg, “The structuring of organizations: A syn- transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press,
thesis of the research,” University of Illinois at Urbana- 2006.
Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership His-
torical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, 1979. [35] K. Aberer and Z. Despotovic, “Managing trust in a peer-
2-peer information system,” in Proceedings of the tenth
[19] ——, “Organizational design: fashion or fit?” Harvard Busi- international conference on Information and knowledge man-
ness Review, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 103–116, 1981. agement. ACM, 2001, pp. 310–317.

[20] S. P. Robbins, Organisational behaviour: Concepts, contro-

versies and applications: Australia and New Zealand. Royal
Victorian Institute for the Blind. Special Request Service,
1997.

[21] F. Luthans, Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill/Irwin,

2006. [Online]. Available: http://books.google.fr/books?id=
1axXAAAAYAAJ

318