Understanding Organizations' Digitalization Preparedness

284/2020 ELIISA VAINIKKA

ANTTI KOIVISTO Understanding

Prekarisaation tunnemaisema Prekarisaation Organizations’ Digitalization Preparedness An analysis through the lens of enterprise architecture maturity

Tampere University Dissertations 326

ANTTI KOIVISTO

Understanding Organizations’ Digitalization Preparedness An analysis through the lens of enterprise architecture maturity

ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences of Tampere University, for public discussion in the lecture hall K1702. of the Konetalo, Korkeakoulunkatu 6, Tampere, on 13 November 2020, at 12 o’clock.

ACADEMIC DISSERTATION Tampere University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences Finland

Responsible Professor supervisor Samuli Pekkola and Custos Tampere University Finland

Pre-examiners Associate Professor Titularprofessor Johan Magnusson Stephan Aier University of Gothenburg University of St. Gallen Sweden Switzerland

Opponent Professor of Practice Tomi Dahlberg University of Turku Finland

The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service.

Cover design: Roihu Inc.

ISBN 978-952-03-1734-8 (print) ISBN 978-952-03-1735-5 (pdf) ISSN 2489-9860 (print) ISSN 2490-0028 (pdf) http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-1735-5

PunaMusta Oy – Yliopistopaino Vantaa 2020

ABSTRACT

Digitalization is an important modern phenomenon, and examples can be found both in our daily lives as well as in the business world. Digitalization challenges us to question existing business processes and makes it possible to increase their flexibility and functionality. Fully utilizing the opportunities offered by digital technology is currently one of the most significant challenges for organizations. This research is geared toward understanding organizations’ digitalization preparedness. Enterprise architecture management is a comprehensive management mechanism which considers business and information technology (IT) processes. The maturity model is a tool that illustrates the maturity of an organization according to specified criteria. Enterprise architecture maturity models have been used in this work because these models can be used to measure the maturity of an organization. The research included participants from the Finnish public sector and large and medium-sized companies within Finland. Only municipalities within the public sector were included. Research data were collected via surveys, which were repeated three times in order to obtain comparable samples. This study therefore utilizes the longitudinal method. This work provides Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) maturity level information for all businesses surveyed and represents new knowledge about the maturity levels of the Finnish public sector as well as large and medium-sized companies within Finland. Additionally, the MIT maturity levels can also be measured using a planned questionnaire with other research groups outside of the research groups studied in this work. The research results indicate that large companies have adopted enterprise architecture management and have centralized IT management organization. Large companies have also engaged in a significant amount of digitalization development activities. These companies had the highest enterprise architecture maturity levels and were therefore better prepared for digitalization than the Finnish medium-sized companies and Finnish public sector. This study has also shown that the medium-sized companies surveyed had not adopted enterprise architecture management methods. They instead focused on

iii implementing digitalization projects. This finding supports the current understanding from the literature that medium-sized companies typically adopt an experimental working model. The maturity of the medium-sized companies were initially the lowest, but they were able to increase their maturity faster than the other research groups. The medium-sized companies tried to benefit from digitalization, but were not as well prepared for digitalization as large companies. Public sector digitalization was the Finnish government’s top priority project. However, the benefits of digitalization have been rather limited, despite high expectations. According to the results of this study, enterprise architecture is more visible in the public sector than in the private sector because functioning enterprise architecture management was required by the information and communication technology (ICT) law for public administrators. The Finnish public sector did not invest as heavily in concrete digitalization activities when compared with the other research groups. Concrete digitalization projects enhanced enterprise architecture maturity more than solely methodology-focused enterprise architecture management mechanisms, especially those forced by the ICT law. This suggests that it would be beneficial to start more concrete digitalization activities. The public sector had the lowest maturity level, despite active enterprise architecture work and digitalization promotion; this suggests that the Finnish public sector still struggles with its preparation for digitalization. I recommend that future enterprise architecture research place additional focus on small and medium-sized companies to enable their adoption of enterprise architecture practices. Small and medium-sized companies should be encouraged to evaluate the benefits of enterprise architecture for their organizations. Researchers should also focus on providing additional assistance to small and medium-sized companies to enable them to benefit from digitalization, by offering them more appropriate enterprise architecture methods.

iv TIIVISTELMÄ (ABSTRACT IN FINNISH)

Digitalisaatio on tärkeä moderni ilmiö ja esimerkkejä löytyy sekä päivittäisestä elämästämme että liike-elämästä. Digitalisaatio haastaa meidät kyseenalaistamaan olemassa olevat liiketoimintaprosessit ja mahdollistaa niiden joustavuuden ja toimivuuden lisäämisen. Digitaalitekniikan tarjoamien mahdollisuuksien täysimääräinen hyödyntäminen on tällä hetkellä yksi organisaatioiden merkittävimmistä haasteista. Tämä tutkimus suuntautuu organisaatioiden digitalisointi valmiuden ymmärtämiseen. Yritysarkkitehtuurin hallinta on kattava johtamismekanismi, joka ottaa huomioon liiketoiminnan- ja tietotekniikan prosessit. Kypsyysmalli on työkalu, joka kuvaa organisaation kypsyyttä määriteltyjen kriteerien mukaisesti. Tutkimuksessa on käytetty yritysarkkitehtuurin kypsyysmalleja, koska näitä malleja voidaan käyttää organisaation kypsyyden mittaamiseen. Tutkimukseen osallistui Suomen julkinen sektori ja Suomen suuret ja keskisuuret yritykset. Julkisella sektorilla vain kunnat olivat mukana tutkimuksessa. Tutkimustiedot kerättiin kyselyillä, jotka toistettiin kolme kertaa vertailukelpoisten näytteiden saamiseksi. Näin ollen tämä tutkimus hyödyntää pitkittäismenetelmää. Tutkimus tarjoaa Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) kypsyystasotiedot tutkimusjoukoille ja edustaa uutta tietoa julkisen sektorin sekä suurten- ja keskisuurten yritysten kypsyystasoista. Lisäksi MIT-kypsyystasoja voidaan mitata suunnitellulla kyselylomakkeella myös tutkimuksen ulkopuolella oleville joukoille. Tutkimustulokset osoittavat, että suuret yritykset ovat ottaneet käyttöön yritysarkkitehtuurin hallinnan ja keskittäneet IT-johtamisen organisaation. Suuret yritykset ovat myös sitoutuneet merkittävissä määrin digitalisoinnin kehittämistoimintaan. Suurilla yrityksillä oli korkein yritysarkkitehtuurin kypsyystaso, ja siksi ne olivat paremmin valmistautuneita digitalisointiin kuin keskisuuret yritykset ja julkinen sektori. Keskisuuret yritykset eivät ole käyttöönottaneet yritysarkkitehtuurin hallinnan menetelmiä. Sen sijaan ne keskittyivät digitalisointihankkeiden toteuttamiseen. Tämä havainto tukee kirjallisuuden nykyistä käsitystä, jonka mukaan keskisuuret yritykset käyttävät tyypillisesti kokeellista toimintamallia. Keskisuurten yritysten maturiteetti oli aluksi alhaisin, mutta ne pystyivät kasvattamaan maturiteettia nopeammin kuin

v muut tutkimusjoukot. Keskisuuret yritykset pyrkivät hyötymään digitalisoinnista, mutta ne eivät olleet yhtä hyvin valmistautuneita digitalisointiin kuin suuret yritykset. Julkisen sektorin digitalisointi oli Suomen hallituksen ensisijainen projekti. Digitalisaation hyödyt ovat kuitenkin olleet melko vähäiset korkeista odotuksista huolimatta. Tämän tutkimuksen tulosten mukaan yritysarkkitehtuuri on näkyvämpää julkisella sektorilla kuin yksityisellä sektorilla, koska toimiva yritysarkkitehtuurin hallinta vaadittiin julkishallinnon tietoja viestintätekniikan laissa. Julkisen sektori ei ole investoinut yhtä voimakkaasti konkreettisiin digitalisointihankkeisiin kuin muut tutkimusjoukot. Konkreettiset digitalisointiprojektit paransivat yritysarkkitehtuurin kypsyyttä enemmän kuin pelkät metodologiakeskeiset yritysarkkitehtuurin hallintamekanismit, etenkin lain pakottamat. Tämä viittaa siihen, että olisi hyödyllistä aloittaa konkreettisia digitalisointitoimenpiteitä. Julkisen sektorilla oli alhaisimmat kypsyysasteet aktiivisesta yritysarkkitehtuurityöstä ja digitalisoinnin edistämisestä huolimatta. Tämä viittaa siihen, että julkinen sektori kamppailee edelleen digitalisointi valmiuden kanssa. Tulevaisuuden yritysarkkitehtuuritutkimus tulisi keskittyä pieniin- ja keskisuuriin yrityksiin, jotta ne voisivat hyödyntää yritysarkkitehtuurikäytäntöjä. Pieniä- ja keskisuuria yrityksiä olisi rohkaistava arvioimaan yritysarkkitehtuurin hyötyjä organisaatioilleen. Tutkijoiden tulisi myös keskittyä tarjoamaan apua pienille- ja keskisuurille yrityksille, jotta ne voivat hyötyä digitalisoinnista tarjoamalla tarkoituksenmukaisempia yritysarkkitehtuurimenetelmiä.

vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank everyone who have supported me during the research process. My family has been involved in the process of creating this book hence I want to thank them in particular. The research has been carried out in addition to normal daytime job over a long period of time. The process has included intense and easier phases and the working method has been learning by mistake. I especially want to thank Professor Samuli Pekkola who has guided me in supportive style for many years. He has encouraged me to take the work forward with endless new ideas. Without his support I would not have been able to complete this project. I also wish to thank pre-examiners Associate Professor Johan Magnusson and Titularprofessor Stephan Aier for their very good comments which have helped to further improve the dissertation. Thanks to the comments I improved the focus of research. I had become blind to my own text and their comments helped me to open the eyes to completely new aspects. I also want to respect Sirpa Randell who has finalized the lay-out of the dissertation. The dissertation was completed in the spring of 2020 in a situation where the world was living in exceptional circumstances.

vii

viii CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

TIIVISTELMÄ (ABSTRACT IN FINNISH) ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... vii

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 17 1.1 Background of the research ...... 17 1.2 Formulation of the research problem ...... 22

2 RELATED RESEARCH ...... 26 2.1 Business strategy ...... 26 2.1.1 The underlying concepts of a strategy ...... 26 2.1.2 Strategy management ...... 29 2.2 Digitalization ...... 32 2.2.1 Business and IT alignment ...... 32 2.2.2 Digital foundation ...... 35 2.2.3 The target digital state ...... 39 2.2.4 New digital capability...... 41 2.2.5 New digital technology ...... 43 2.3 Enterprise architecture management ...... 46 2.3.1 EAM as a management instrument ...... 47 2.3.2 EAM development...... 48 2.3.3 EA benefits...... 52 2.3.4 EAM life cycle ...... 54 2.4 Maturity models ...... 58 2.4.1 The capability maturity model...... 59 2.4.2 EAM maturity models ...... 63 2.4.3 MIT maturity model ...... 65 2.4.3.1 Maturity levels ...... 66 2.4.3.2 Strategic learning requirements ...... 69 2.4.3.3 Changes in organizational flexibility ...... 72 2.5 Digitalization in organizations ...... 74 2.5.1 Large companies ...... 77 2.5.2 Medium-sized companies ...... 78 2.5.3 Public sector ...... 81

ix 3 THE DIGITAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT ...... 84 3.1 Finnish companies ...... 84 3.1.1 Digitalization development in Finland ...... 84 3.1.2 Digitalization in Finland ...... 85 3.2 The Finnish public sector ...... 89 3.2.1 EAM in public sector in Finland ...... 90 3.2.2 Digitalization in the public sector in Finland ...... 93

4 RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCESS ...... 99 4.1 Research methods ...... 99 4.2 Survey process ...... 102 4.3 The research process ...... 106 4.3.1 Identify the research objectives ...... 107 4.3.2 Identify and characterize the target audience ...... 108 4.3.3 Design the sampling plan ...... 108 4.3.4 Design and write the questionnaire ...... 109 4.3.5 Pilot test questionnaire ...... 111 4.3.6 Distribute the questionnaire ...... 111 4.3.7 Data analysis ...... 117

5 THE RESULTS ...... 119 5.1 Large companies ...... 119 5.1.1 Digitalization themes ...... 119 5.1.2 Digitalization development...... 130 5.2 Medium-sized companies ...... 132 5.2.1 Digitalization themes ...... 132 5.2.2 Digitalization development...... 140 5.3 Public sector ...... 143 5.3.1 Digitalization themes ...... 143 5.3.2 Digitalization development...... 151 5.4 Comparison of groups ...... 153 5.4.1 First survey ...... 155 5.4.2 Second survey ...... 156 5.4.3 Third survey ...... 157 5.5 Digitalization theme and architecture type analysis ...... 158

6 DISCUSSION ...... 160 6.1 Large companies ...... 160 6.2 Medium-sized companies ...... 164 6.3 Public sector ...... 167 6.4 Changes in the development focus ...... 171 6.5 The impact of the operating environment ...... 175

x 7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 178 7.1 How much have enterprise architecture maturity evolved? ...... 178 7.2 Why have enterprise architecture maturity evolved? ...... 180 7.3 How prepared are organizations for digitalization? ...... 182 7.4 Implications for research and practice ...... 185 7.5 Reliability and validity ...... 187 7.6 Limitations ...... 189 7.7 Future research ...... 190

8 Bibliography ...... 193

Appendices ...... 206 Appendix A: Cover letter for the questionnaire in English Appendix B: Cover letter for the questionnaire in Finnish Appendix C: Questionnaire in English Appendix D: Questionnaire in Finnish Appendix E: Respondents of the surveys Appendix F: Basic results of the closed-ended questions Appendix G: Results calculated using weight factors Appendix H: Basic results of open-ended questions

List of Figures

Figure 1. The three tiers of a strategy...... 27

Figure 2. The strategic drift ...... 29

Figure 3. The business and IT alignment model ...... 34

Figure 4. The foundation model...... 36

Figure 5. Basic characteristics of operating models...... 38

Figure 6. Organizational development...... 40

Figure 7. Seeding new digital capabilities in the business, organization, and technology ecosystem...... 42

xi Figure 8. The benefits and disadvantages of applications from a local and global point of view...... 43

Figure 9. Enterprise architecture management development over the last 35 years...... 49

Figure 10. The Zachman framework of enterprise architecture...... 50

Figure 11. The benefits of enterprise architecture based on a review of the literature and common practice...... 54

Figure 12. The enterprise life cycle...... 56

Figure 13. Figure 13 The structure of the capability maturity model...... 60

Figure 14. The five levels of the capability maturity model...... 62

Figure 15. Learning requirements of the enterprise architecture levels...... 70

Figure 16. Figure 16 Investment distribution at different maturity levels...... 71

Figure 17. Changes in organizational flexibility throughout the architecture levels...... 74

Figure 18. The relationship between a one-year delayed IT index (red-line) and Finland’s GDP growth (blue-line), (reprinted with permission Dahlberg)...... 89

Figure 19. The enterprise architecture management model for municipality organizations...... 91

Figure 20. The overall levels of enterprise architecture maturity in the Finnish public sector...... 94

Figure 21. Figure 21 The government’s total ICT expenses in Finland (million EUR)...... 97

Figure 22. Saunders’ research “onion”...... 100

Figure 23. Figure 23 The survey process...... 103

Figure 24. The research schedule...... 107

Figure 25. The data collection process...... 114

xii Figure 26. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in large companies...... 122

Figure 27. Maturity levels presented using weight factors in large companies...... 123

Figure 28. Response distribution between the maturity levels in large companies...... 124

Figure 29. A cross-sectional analysis of large companies group...... 126

Figure 30. The results of the architecture type questions in large companies...... 129

Figure 31. Architecture types in large companies...... 130

Figure 32. Changes in the development focus over the years in large companies...... 131

Figure 33. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in medium sized-companies...... 133

Figure 34. Maturity levels presented with weight factors in medium-sized companies...... 134

Figure 35. Response distribution between the maturity levels in medium-sized companies...... 135

Figure 36. A cross-sectional analysis of medium-sized companies group...... 138

Figure 37. The results of the architecture type questions in medium-sized companies...... 139

Figure 38. Architecture types in medium-sized companies...... 140

Figure 39. Changes in the development focus over the years in medium-sized companies...... 141

Figure 40. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in public sector...... 144

Figure 41. Maturity levels presented with weight factors in public sector...... 144

Figure 42. Response distribution between the maturity levels in public sector...... 145

Figure 43. A cross-sectional analysis of the public sector group...... 148

xiii Figure 44. The results of the architecture type questions in public sector...... 150

Figure 45. Architecture types in public sector...... 151

Figure 46. Changes in development focus over the years in public sector...... 152

Figure 47. Maturity levels...... 154

Figure 48. Architecture type maturities...... 155

Figure 49. A comparison of the themes and groups in the first survey...... 156

Figure 50. A comparison of the themes and the groups in the second survey...... 157

Figure 51. A comparison of the themes and groups in the third survey...... 158

Figure 52. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in large companies (reprint Figure 26)...... 161

Figure 53. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in medium-sized companies (reprint Figure 33)...... 165

Figure 54. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in public sector (reprint Figure 40)...... 168

Figure 55. Changes in development focus over the years...... 172

Figure 56. Maturity levels (reprint Figure 47)...... 179

List of Tables

Table 1. IT index values from 2008 to 2015...... 85

Table 2. Typical question structures...... 105

Table 3. Subjects of questions of the survey...... 110

Table 4. The main dates for the first round of data collection...... 114

Table 5. Response statistics of the survey in 2013 ...... 115

xiv Table 6. Table 6 The main dates for the second round of data collection...... 115

Table 7. Response statistics of the survey in 2014...... 116

Table 8. The main dates for the third round of data collection...... 116

Table 9. Response statistics of the survey in 2016...... 117

xvi

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the research

The world is changing even more rapidly than before, and organizations must adapt to new requirements. (Daft, 2006; Mocker & Fonstad, 2017; Helfat & Martin, 2014) Globalization, hard competition and the need for rapid response to a constantly changing business environment are real challenges for organizations. (Sia et al. 2016; Daft, 2006) Digitalization supports organizations in this endless race, for example by automating business processes. (Sia et al. 2016) Digitalization affects the ways in which we do business. Generally, organizations use digital technology to fuel their businesses if they believe it will give them an advantage over their competition. (Ba et al. 2000; Tumbas et al. 2015) Digital technologies provide improved ways of doing business. (Berente et al. 2014) Digitalization is defined as the use of digital technologies such as the internet of things (IoT), big data, robotic process automation (RPA), social media, and advanced analytics (Hallikainen et al. 2018; Gust et al. 2017; Ströhle et al. 2017; McKelvey et al. 2016) to change a business model and provide new value-producing opportunities. (Sia et al. 2016) It is the process of moving toward a digital business model. (Sia et al. 2016) Digitalization is an important modern phenomenon because it challenges us to question existing business processes and improve their flexibility and functionality. (Sia et al. 2016) Digitalization has become increasingly important for organizations and a part of our daily experiences. (Sia et al. 2016; Tumbas et al. 2015; Yoo, 2010) An organization is defined as a goal-oriented cooperative of people and means. (Daft, 2006; Mintzberg, 1979) Utilizing the opportunities offered by new digital era is one of the most significant challenges the organizations currently facing. (Hallikainen et al. 2018; Gust et al. 2017; Ströhle et al. 2017; McKelvey et al. 2016) Because digital technologies are constantly changing, the organizations must maintain their competency. (Melville et al. 2004) Organizations can sometimes be too optimistic about the financial success that can be realized through technologies. Organizations may suffer from confirmation bias,

which means they are too trusting and may not fully recognize the risks associated with operating digital technologies. The situation resembles the dot-com boom of the 1990s. Organizations who are implementing new technology initially face similar problems to startups, such as technological challenges, and financial and organizational problems. (Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) Digitalization is wide-spread in organizations and it is assumed that digitalization has a positive impact on the competitive advantage of the organization especially with respect to the growth and the income of the organization. (Kotarba, 2017) Therefore, one of the main reasons for digitalization is the creation of more reliable, cost effective, as well as more predictable business processes. (Khan et al. 2015) Digitalization helps organizations to formalize their business processes and supports organizations to increase in maturity. When the organization matures, decisions start to be based on long-term strategic decisions. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Hence, digital technologies should already be adopted in organizations in their early phases of growth phase. (Tumbas et al. 2017) When an organization invests more into digital technologies it can be assumed that maturity also increases. (Ross et al. 2006) This is not so simple, because, for example organizations adapt different technologies in different ways. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Organizations can prepare for digitalization in different ways. New digital technologies both offer new opportunities and pose new threats to established organizations. (Sebastian et al. 2017) These organizations must consequently re- evaluate their position in the digital economy. (Sebastian et al. 2017) They must decide how to best invest in new technologies to reposition themselves in the new digital environment. The organizations respond to the demands of the digitalization in a different way. (Sebastian et al. 2017; Tumbas et al. 2015) Established organizations often believe that they can succeed by taking advantage of their existing strengths as well the capabilities of new digital technologies. (Sebastian et al. 2017) Digital technologies support small and medium-sized organizations in formalizing their main business practices and processes, and enable them to mature. These organizations typically face several challenges during this transition period in their growth, such as structure transformation. (Tumbas et al. 2015) In this research, I aim to understand the organizations preparedness for digitalization. Organizations’ preparedness for digitalization is comprehended as enterprise architecture maturity. Enterprise architecture maturity models measure the maturity of the organization, and consequently, the organization’s capability for digitalization, i.e. preparedness for digitalization. The maturity model is a tool that illustrates the maturity of an organization according to specified criteria. (Raber,

18 2013; De Bruin et al. 2005a) Enterprise architecture management can only achieve its full potential if it is closely linked to the business strategy. (Simon et al. 2013; Winter et al. 2014) Organizations need to employ some mechanisms in order to reach success in the long term. (Mintzberg, 1979) In general, organizations should continuously develop their strategies in consideration of changing economic trends and the expected benefits that would arise from opportunities created by digitalization; (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2015; Zhang et al. 2018) for example, digital technology offers new ways to buy and sell goods. (Constantiou et al. 2017; Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017; Mocker & Fonstad, 2017; Tan et al. 2017) Organizations often respond to digitalization in ad hoc ways because their digital strategies are in their infancy. (Sia et al. 2016; Tumbas et al. 2015) Organizations need a digital strategy that they can use to respond to the challenges of digitization in a more professional and systematic way. (Hess et al. 2016) It may also result in additional business flexibility, cost reduction and productivity improvements. (Melville et al. 2004; Hess et al. 2016; Yetton et al. 2013) Digital strategy is critical to success in many business activities, such as mergers and acquisitions. (Yetton et al. 2013) A digital strategy should drive resource allocation and capital investments. (Yetton et al. 2013) By defining a digital strategy, organizations can focus resources on concrete targets. With a clear direction, organizations can then start developing the capability to deliver on a digital strategy. (Sebastian et al. 2017) A digital strategy is usually complex to formulate and implement in practice because digitalization is based on complex phenomena, (Hess et al. 2016; McKelvey et al. 2016) and hence formal guidelines have been created to assist in the design of digital strategies. (Hess et al. 2016) Instructions that support the development of a digital strategy can be based on a set of strategic questions. However, organizations are likely to require different guidelines; the same methods cannot be expected to be applicable for all organizations. (Hess et al. 2016) As a prerequisite to a successful enterprise architecture management process, business strategy should describe its goals at a high level. (CIO-Council, 2001) Therefore, business strategy also plays an essential role in this research. Different phases, such as enterprise architecture management implementation, require a formal mechanism. (Aier, 2014) Understanding the role of organizational mechanisms and their effects on enterprise architecture principles is essential to understanding the entire enterprise architecture management process. (Aier, 2014) Embracing new digital opportunities and challenges requires adaptation to new digital technologies, overcoming various organizational changes, consideration of

business strategy, and business and digital strategy alignment are challenges for organizations. Enterprise architecture may help organizations in this challenge by enabling a helicopter view of the entire organization. (Goel et al. 2009) The purpose of enterprise architecture is to inform, guide and constrain the decisions for the organization, especially those related to IT decision-making. The targets of the enterprise architecture are informed by data. (OMG, 2008) Enterprise architecture is one way to ensure better business results in this multi-perspective and constantly changing business environment. Ross defines enterprise architecture in the following way: “enterprise architecture consists of components that make up the fundamental structure of an organization: business processes, organizational structures, information systems and technological infrastructure.” (Ross et al. 2006) Enterprise architecture management includes developing, implementing and controlling these different components. (Ross, 2008) Enterprise architecture is the management method chosen for this work. Enterprise architecture serves and connects both business and IT. Enterprise architecture usually conforms to the “IT follows business” principle. (Goel et al. 2009) Business positioning begins with setting the business management strategy which is the corporate-level strategy from the corporate perspective. (Johnson et al. 2005) Enterprise architecture management can only achieve its full potential and maximize benefits if it is closely linked to the business strategy. This strategy typically addresses, for example, positioning and goals, services, internal and external communication, and stakeholder involvement. The approach to enterprise architecture management has changed from technical to strategic, therefore the strategic view plays an important role in this research. (Simon et al. 2013; Winter et al. 2014) Consequently, enterprise architecture management is no longer understood as a purely IT task; it is considered a strategic task. Strategic decision-making should account for enterprise architecture-specific objectives and information. Enterprise architecture management often plays an important role in organizational transformation. It may enable organizations to remain flexible and implement strategic changes as smoothly as possible. If enterprise architecture management is embedded in an organization’s strategic planning and strategy implementation processes, the improved integration of management processes may improve co- operation between different functions, decision making and speed up strategic changes. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) Enterprise architecture management integrates other existing enterprise-level management functions and acts as the glue between these processes by facilitating information transfer. (Buckl et al. 2009)

20 Benchmarking against high performers in the field is one way in which organizations can improve management practices, processes or some other specific characteristic. Maturity models are tools that can be used to identify the strengths and weakness of an organization. (Raber, 2013) Maturity models have been designed to assess the maturity of a selected area based on a comprehensive set of criteria. (De Bruin et al. 2005a) However, if the criteria of the model are too stringently defined, they may unbalance model and the reliability of the model will suffer. (Rohsbeck, 2011) Enterprise architecture maturity models serve as maps and include information about the organization’s current situation and its strategies for its future direction. (Wißotzki & Koç, 2013) Enterprise architecture management must continuously evolve based on business requirements. Therefore, the complexity of integrating different layers, such as business processes, applications and technology, should be controlled by using current best practices for maturity models. (Wißotzki & Koç, 2013) Since enterprise architecture management influences IT, it is also important to recognize the role of enterprise architecture management in the life cycle of IT projects. (Aier et al. 2011) It is essential to plan and implement improved and mature enterprise architecture since this will maximize the benefits of digitalization. (Venkatesh et al. 2007) Organizations with high maturity levels enjoy several benefits and their maturity ensures a more structured response to the challenges of digitalization. (Lagerström et al. 2011; Ross et al. 2006; Venkatesh et al. 2007; Bradley et al. 2011) If an organization knows its maturity level it can better target its enhancement efforts, or at least avoid the worst mistakes that may arise from making completely unrealistic plans that do not align with their level of maturity. Additionally, knowledge of the business’s maturity level can inform plans, actions and attitudes within the organization since it is an unbiased assessment of the organization’s current state. (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016) Vallerand has assessed various enterprise architecture maturity models according to a systematic set of criteria. Six enterprise architecture maturity models were eventually selected for more thorough analysis (Vallerand et al. 2017); the maturity model from the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) (NASCIO, 2003), the maturity model from the MIT Center for Information Systems Research (Ross et al. 2006), the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) framework for assessing and improving enterprise architecture Management (GAO, 2010), Forrester’s EA maturity assessment (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016), Gartner’s ITScore for EA, (Burke & Blosch, 2017) and the IT

architecture capability maturity model from the Department of Commerce, (Paulk et al. 1993; Curtis et al. 1995) fulfilled Vallerand’s selection criterion for enterprise architecture models. Each model proposed different methodologies for analyzing an organization’s performance. (Vallerand et al. 2017) The MIT enterprise architecture maturity model (Ross et al. 2006) was chosen for this research. It emphasizes the strategic role of IT. The MIT maturity model addresses the organization of both business processes and IT infrastructure. According to this model, as an organization matures it obtains additional strategic benefits (e.g. strategic agility, product leadership) from IT, and this enhances the organization’s digital capability. (Ross et al. 2006) The enterprise architecture literature promotes a centralized IT governance mechanism in order to achieve these promised alignment benefits. According to the guidance provided within the MIT maturity model, a more centralized IT governance structure results in a more mature organization. (Ross et al. 2006) The MIT maturity model emphasizes the importance of organization-wide IT applications and their integration. (Ross et al. 2006) Despite the advantages of organization-wide IT applications, as integration between different systems increases, the complexity of the system also increases. In this case, the organization requires changes to its systems because a complex and highly integrated application landscape may introduce difficulties and delay progress. (Goodhue et al. 2009) On the other hand, without a proper level of integration and standardization organizations face data and process-efficiency problems. (Venkatesh et al. 2007)

1.2 Formulation of the research problem

In this study I seek to understand organizations’ preparedness for digitalization and I utilize maturity models to help me assess their preparedness. If organizations know their current level of maturity, they can form a more realistic picture of their current state and can better understand their weaknesses and strengths. Having done so, they can then further strengthen themselves and try to eliminate their weaknesses; they can also respond in a more sophisticated way, to the challenge of digitalization. These organizations will then have a better and more realistic foundation for further development activities. (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016) When organizations move to higher maturity levels more value is generated from digitalization. (Bradley et al. 2011) Digital technologies support organizations in to growing in maturity. (Tumbas et al. 2015) One way to maximize the benefits of IT is

22 to plan and implement a more mature enterprise architecture structure. (Venkatesh et al. 2007) This does not happen quickly. Organizations often require several years to get enterprise architecture practices up and running. (Burke & Blosch, 2017) Even though it may take quite a long time for organizations to mature, they gain different benefits during their journey. There is no concrete start and end point; an organization generates business value at each maturity level. (Ross et al. 2006) The Finnish public sector and large and medium-sized companies within Finland were selected for this study for several reasons: access to data via public sources, similarity of the participants that could be obtained using the same selection criterion, samples would have different actors, different levels of maturity and participants who could be expected to benefit from enterprise architecture. It was also expected that all groups involved could benefit from the results of this research. The selection criteria used to define large and medium-sized companies was revenue. The revenue limit for medium-sized companies was set at a maximum of 25 million. Basic information was gathered using public or commercial sources depending upon data availability for both company groups. Each group contained approximately 100 companies. The third group was the public sector and was limited to municipalities ranked by population numbers, from highest to lowest. The size of the group size was approximately 100 municipalities. Finland is divided into self-governing municipalities. However, according to the government act, a municipality can be called a city if it meets the requirements of an urban setting. (Kuntaliitto, 2019) This group contained both municipalities and cities. The MIT maturity model reflects the integration and standardization requirements of the organization’s operation model. Identifying the learning opportunities at each maturity levels can help an organization to maximize the benefits from an increased strategic approach to IT. (Ross, 2008) Each enterprise architecture maturity level has typical characteristics. Organizations can generate business value at each maturity level, because they learn at each level. This learning helps them to realize benefits to their business. The model contains the following four maturity levels: the “business silos”, which focuses on the capacity of IT applications to fulfill local business needs, “standardized technology” level, which evaluates the implementation of organization-wide IT architecture and assesses efficiencies obtained through technology standardization, the “optimized core” which extends organization-wide technology standardization to business data and processes, and the “business modularity” level, which enables the usage of plug & play business modules. (Ross et al. 2006)

The main research question for this study was: How prepared are organizations for digitalization?

Research data were collected via surveys. These surveys were repeated three times in order to obtain comparable groups and evaluate changes that occurred during the research period. This study therefore utilizes the longitudinal method which provides one fundamental benefit compared to other methods: it provides data about the same research focus at different points in time. It is therefore possible to analyze changes during the research period. (Saunders et al. 2009) The following sub-research question was also addressed: How much have enterprise architecture maturity evolved?

Enterprise architecture is a comprehensive management mechanism which takes into account business as well as IT processes. Digitalization contributes to the business of all groups, (Tumbas et al. 2015) however, all groups do not require the same level of maturity because they are fundamentally different. For example, large companies are often multi-national organizations and already have formal IT management structures in place, whereas the working model of medium-sized companies is more experimental. (Tumbas et al. 2017a) Medium-sized companies often focus on short-term responses to digitalization. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Governmental policies strongly influence the adoption of enterprise architecture in the public sector, especially in the western context. (Dang, 2018; Janssen & Hjort- Madsen, 2007) The digital operating environment has mainly been studied from the perspective of the annual barometer of Finnish Information Processing Association for Finnish organizations. The results of the barometer have been converted into key metrics which have been used to calculate an IT index. This IT index represents how Finnish companies utilize IT. The barometer also embodies information about current issues that have dominated public discussion, and it has been found that the IT index follows macro-economic trends with delay. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a) The index is correlated with gross domestic product (GDP) changes and can be an indicator that IT investments are predominantly led based on the current economic climate rather than long-term investment plans or schedules. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015b), The management of public administration information is controlled by the ICT law in Finland. (Oikarinen, 2012; Kiviniemi, 2011; Finlex, 2019; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) The purpose of the law is to enhance public administration by

24 improving public services and their availability by creating management and control models which provide prerequisites for information management interoperability in public administration. (Kiviniemi, 2011) Therefore, enterprise architecture management model is mandatory for every municipality, and is implemented in accordance with the information management requirements according of the ICT law. Enterprise architecture management should be described and included in every municipality organization. (Oikarinen, 2012; Kiviniemi, 2011; Finlex, 2019) The Ministry of Finance evaluates and regularly reports on the government’s information management situation. Official reports from Ministry of Finance offer abundant information related the digitalization situation in the public sector. For example, the reports provide information on: the digitalization situation, the government’s ICT budgets, technology trends, enterprise architecture maturity and the dominant digitalization challenges and development areas. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) Generally, the goal of e-government is to improve quality of service, provide more effective operations, as well as offer transparent and easy access to services and data using by digital solutions. (Gøtze et al. 2009) This leads to the following sub-research question: Why have enterprise architecture maturity evolved?

The following chapter discusses related research themes such as business strategy, digitalization, enterprise architecture management, maturity models and the digitalization situation in the selected groups. Chapter three introduces the digital operating environment of the groups. That chapter is sub-divided into sections which discuss the public and private sector. Research methods and process are then discussed in chapter four. Chapter five focuses on the results from the research and the results are presented by group. Related research and the results of this research are combined in the discussion chapter, chapter six. Finally, the concluding chapter presents the answers to the research questions. This final chapter also presents implications for research and practice, reliability and validity, and discusses limitations and future research.

2 RELATED RESEARCH

This chapter introduces the main concepts of the research and the literature related to the research. Related research chapter discusses the following themes such as business strategy, digitalization, enterprise architecture management, maturity models and the digitalization situation in the selected groups.

2.1 Business strategy

Business strategy will be discussed first because it is the starting point for the actions of the organization.

2.1.1 The underlying concepts of a strategy

Organizations need some management mechanisms to succeed in competition. (Mintzberg, 1979; Soltanizadeh et al. 2016) They must make choices about their own futures in relation to the environment themselves. Typically, organizations utilize strategies to focus their resources and efforts to achieve common goals. (Porter, 1996; Porter, 1985; Porter, 1980; Johnson et al. 2005; Mintzberg et al.1998; Porter & Victor, 1985) A commonly used definition for the term strategy is “the long-term direction for an organization”. Strategy is the direction and scope of an organization over the long term, which achieves an advantage in a changing environment through its configuration of resources and competencies with the aim of fulfilling stakeholder expectations. (Johnson et al. 2005) Strategies provide the main direction for organizations. The organization’s mission, vision, goals, and policies are the underlying concepts of the strategy. (Johnson et al. 2005) These strategic concepts are related to one other. Figure 1. illustrates the three tiers of a strategy. The mission is the organization's purpose for existing. It can be found on the first tier. According to a more complete definition, the mission is a general expression of the overall purpose of the organization. In an ideal situation, it directly reflects the values of the owners or major stakeholders. The second tier

26 defines the mission in the context of a vision and a strategy. The focus here is to make the mission more concrete and to define the future state of the organization. The third tier more concretely defines how the vision will be transformed into goals, and the strategy into policies. (Op't Land et al. 2009)

Figure 1. The three tiers of a strategy. (Op't Land et al. 2009)

The vision represents a mental concept of the strategy, which is expressed by the top management of the organization. The vision is a guiding idea of, or inspiration for what needs to be done. The nature of the vision tends to be conceptual, not an exactly articulated plan. It is flexible so that management can adapt it when needed. (Mintzberg, 1998) Sometimes strategies must be left as a broad vision, not precisely articulated, in order to facilitate adaptation in a changing environment. (Mintzberg, 1994) The mission and vision are essential concepts of a strategy. This immediately raises the question: how can this strategy be executed? The first thing that must be done is to define the vision, concrete goals and policies. However, this is not enough. Operational steps that guide the organization toward achieving these strategic targets have to be planned and defined accurately. (Johnson et al. 2005) Organization, resource allocation, major programs, minor projects, and a lot of change management must be employed to put the strategy into action. Strategy implementation therefore requires several operational projects. (Johnson et al. 2005) Strategy execution is a continuous and endless process, because the strategy itself also has to continuously adapt. (Porter, 1985; Johnson et al. 2005) It is necessary to continuously improve and adapt the organization’s strategy in response to changes in either the environment or in the organization itself. This leads us to consider two

impacts on strategy development. First, strategy can be influenced by changes from outside the organization. Political, market, environmental, technical, economic and legal changes all externally affect the organization. Second, a strategy is also affected internally, for example due to the availability of appropriate competencies or resources. (Johnson et al. 2005) It is recommended that strategies be developed that are appropriate to the circumstances of the organization. (Porter, 1985; Johnson et al. 2005) However, business circumstances change over the time. If strategies continuously fail, the organization may face a strategic drift. Typically, organizations go through a long period of relative minor changes. During this time, an established strategy changes incrementally, or even remains unchanged. Business processes will gradually generate more results which do not meet the goals of the existing strategy. Eventually, the organization will then be in a state of strategic drift. (Johnson et al. 2005) Often, strategic drift leads to organizational crisis and financial decline. (Mintzberg et al. 1998) A progressive decline in the strategic position of an organization typically followed by a period of flux. The indicates that the strategies are no longer appropriate for the business environment. The organization may therefore be forced to execute a radical transformational change or risk losing its position in the market. (Johnson et al. 2005) A radical strategic change often requires completely new strategies; it is not sufficient to simply revamp old strategies. (Mintzberg, 1994) The phases of strategic drift are presented in Figure 2. (Johnson et al. 2005)

28 Figure 2. The strategic drift. (Johnson et al. 2005)

There are similarities between radical strategic change (Johnson et al. 2005) and radical IT change. (Bui, 2015) The general understanding is that enterprise architecture programs should be implemented according to the maturity levels approach. (Vallerand et al. 2017; NASCIO, 2003; Ross et al. 2006; GAO, 2010; Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016; Burke & Blosch, 2017; Curtis et al. 1995) However, it has been identified that organizations can learn from and even take advantage of an radical IT crisis. (Bui, 2015) Organizations that have learned from past mistakes and IT crises move toward new enterprise architecture programs since these new enterprise architecture programs are often more relevant and effective when compared with their previous enterprise architecture approaches. However, most of relevant and well-established enterprise architecture programs do not need a radical IT change in order to succeed. (Bui, 2015)

2.1.2 Strategy management

Strategic planning is process which is expected to generate excellent strategies along with detailed instructions, but it is known that the strategic process does not work in this way. (Mintzberg, 1994; Mintzberg, 2004) “Strategic planning is not strategic thinking. One is analysis, and the other is synthesis.” (Mintzberg, 1994) Strategic planning sometimes destroys real strategic thinking, because strategic thinking may be confused by excessive numbers or irrelevant details. Strategic planning only

evaluates and articulates already existing strategies, or visions. “The most successful strategies are visions, not plans.” When an organization realizes the difference between strategic planning and thinking, they can again evaluate their strategy- making process. (Mintzberg, 1994; Mintzberg, 2004) Strategic decisions often contribute to being able to achieve a competitive advantage over competitors. (Porter, 1985; Johnson et al. 2005) Strategic management addresses the management of the organization in order to achieve the defined goals and objectives of the organization. (Johnson et al. 2005) The strategic management group within an organization makes strategic decisions on the highest level. It oversees various aspects of management to enable the organization to achieve its long-term visions and goals. (Johnson et al. 2005) This group may typically define strategic objectives, analyze the competitive market environment, analyze the internal organization, analyze the external environment and ensure that management is implementing and controlling the planned strategies across the organization. Organizational structure, business culture and the competencies of employees are also important factors which influence how well an organization is able to achieve its goals and objectives. (Johnson et al. 2005) Strategic management is characterized by complexity – especially in multi- national companies with a wide range of products and services in their portfolios. (Johnson et al. 2005) Typically, strategic decisions can make situations uncertain. (Mintzberg, 2004) Sometimes strategic decisions are viewed negatively because they may require changes in the organizations. (Johnson et al. 2005) Strategic management encompasses three main elements: strategic positions, strategic choices and putting strategies in to action. (Johnson et al. 2005) An organization’s strategic position depends upon the external environment, the organization’s strategic capability (resources and competences) and the expectations and the influence of its main stakeholders. Some organizations may face more environmental changes than others, for example, due to political, economic, social, technological or legal reasons. (Johnson et al. 2005) These issues may give rise to new opportunities or may be threats to the organization. (Porter et al. 1985) In practice, it is not possible to identify and analyze each variable which affects an organization. The strategic capability of the organization reflects its strengths and weakness. (Johnson et al. 2005) The organization may have a competitive advantage or disadvantage in some areas. (Porter et al. 1985) Strategic choices may include, for example, business unit strategies as well corporate-level strategies. (Johnson et al. 2005) Transforming strategies into action requires strategy implementation which often requires organizational changes. (Mintzberg, 2004; Johnson et al. 2005) Change

30 usually happens in a top-down manner. In general, the process proceeds as follows: top managers decide upon the strategy, plan how it will be implemented and finally evaluate the implications of the change. (Johnson et al. 2005) However, it is not realistic to expect that management will be able to easily control the entire process. (Mintzberg, 2004) There are several management levels which have an important role in managing the implementation of the strategy. Large-scale strategic changes must especially be implemented via revolution which often requires rapid and major changes in the organization. Therefore, formal organizational structures and processes support organizations in situations which require substantial change. (Johnson et al. 2005) A strong and clearly defined link between business strategy and human resource strategy is an essential element to guarantee successful business strategy implementation. (Gratton et al. 1999) Dialogue is needed between strategy management and human resources to increase understanding of how the individual streams are linked together. (Wright et al. 2014) Business strategy can also improve human resources as well as the core competences of the organization. This is referred to as a resource-based approach to strategy which focuses on the renewal the strategic capability of the organization. (Johnson et al. 2005) Management also needs a deep understanding of context, because key decisions must often be based on this knowledge. (Mintzberg, 2004; Mintzberg, 1994) Managers search for the best characteristics in other people. Managers are not responsible for everything; they develop the strategy or plan and changes or implementation can be undertaken by others. Most of the work can be delegated to specialists within the organization. Managers typically do not need to address straightforward tasks and are mostly concerned with messy tasks and intractable problems. Management is characteristically ambiguous. (Mintzberg, 2004) In summary, the company’s mission, vision, goals, and policies are included in the strategic concept. (Johnson et al. 2005) As a prerequisite to enterprise architecture management, business strategy should describe its targets at a high level. (CIO- Council, 2001) By defining a clear direction, organizations can focus resources on concrete targets and goals to implement a successful enterprise architecture. (CIO- Council, 2001; Sebastian et al. 2017)

2.2 Digitalization

The chapter introduces digitalization in the context of the following themes such as business and IT alignment, digital foundation, the target digital state, new digital capability and new digital technology.

2.2.1 Business and IT alignment

Numerous organizations are challenged by aligning their business and IT. (Petrikina et al. 2014; Bhattacharya, 2018; Zhang et al. 2018) Many organizations have ranked strategic business and IT alignment as one of their top concerns. (Plazaola et al. 2008; Getter, 2007; Bhattacharya, 2018; Zhang et al. 2018) Alignment is an organization- wide issue that affects the overall performance of the organization. It is an important input which management uses to make decisions based on strategic business and IT alignment goals. (Saat et al. 2011) Business and IT alignment needs continuous effort and commitments; it cannot be a one-time major exercise. (Pereida & Sousa, 2005; Wagner & Weitzel, 2012) Business and IT alignment research has mainly focused on the positive outcomes such as better organization performance, improved operational efficiency, cost reduction, increased business value and improved organizational transparency. (Gerow et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2018; Birkmeier et al. 2013; Bhattacharya, 2018; Wagner & Weitzel, 2012; Broadbent & Weill, 1993; Bhattacharya, 2018) However, negative outcomes have also been reported. (Gerow et al. 2014) Some researchers have identified that some aligned organizations have reported no improvement, and some organizations have even reported a decline in performance. (Gerow et al. 2014) Tight alignment can, for example, lead to strategic inflexibility and competitive disadvantages. (Gerow et al. 2014) These problems may be particularly apparent especially the organizations that have specifically customized IT systems to meet strategic business requirements. (Gerow et al. 2014) Business and IT alignment models can be divided into functional, structural and dynamic alignment models, but other models (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015) can also be found in the research literature. (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015) Functional alignment defines how IT resources can enhance business capabilities. This is also referred to as horizontal alignment. Functional alignment addresses the relationship between business and IT strategy. (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015; Pekkola & Nieminen, 2015) Structural alignment focuses on the relationship between business and IT decision

32 making across the organization. (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015; Pekkola & Nieminen, 2015) Dynamic alignment theories concentrate on describing how business and IT strategies jointly affect subsequent strategies. (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015; Pekkola & Nieminen, 2015) Henderson and Venkatraman’s (1993) Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) distinguishes between four strategic domains: business strategy, information technology strategy, organizational infrastructure and processes, and information systems infrastructure and processes. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993) Those four dominant perspectives are used to tackle the alignment between different aspects. The model defines two types of integration between the business and IT strategy domains. First, strategic integration is the link between the business and IT strategy. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993) Second, operational integration is the connector between the organizational infrastructure and processes, and information technology. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993) In the other words, the business strategy is the starting point, then IT provides the necessary IT capability via the IT strategy. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993) Figure 3. illustrates business and IT alignment according to Henderson and Venkatraman.

Figure 3. The business and IT alignment model. (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993)

Business and IT alignment has become more complex, because organizations have moved from single-line business organization to multi-line business organization. (Orlikowski, 2010; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) Additionally, organizations are more digitalized than before, and industry clock speed has dramatically increased. (Orlikowski, 2010; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) For example, many IT systems are ineffective or even pointless because of the rapid change and evolution in the business environment. (Plazaola 2008; Saat et al. 2011) Organizational and environmental complexity increases complexity in alignment dynamics. (Zhang et al 2019) An overall industrialized environment has become increasingly dynamic, which requires rapid response to environment turbulence. (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015) Organizations need to be constantly adapting to new business demands. For this reason, researchers have started to rethink business and IT alignment in situations where the business strategy and environment are constantly changing and developing. New business and IT alignment frameworks which are better suited to a fast-moving business environment structures have been designed. (Reynolds & Yetton, 2015)

34 2.2.2 Digital foundation

When organizations are digitizing their business processes, they need a vision of what digital capabilities are needed to achieve success in the long term. (Ross et al. 2006; Hafsi & Assar, 2016; Heberle et al. 2017) Digitized business processes provide standardized and more accurate information about products and services. The organization must decide which operations and processes should be digitalized. (Ross et al. 2006) The foundation of digital operation provides a basis for new product and service innovation. This foundation is based on a vision of how the organization will operate in the future. (Ross et al. 2006) IT infrastructure and digitized business processes create a foundation for digital core capabilities. (Ross et al. 2006) An organization’s foundation usually contains basic infrastructure services, an operating model, business processes and unique business capabilities. Building a foundation requires rationalizing and digitizing everyday basic business processes. Business process standardization can make particular business process less flexible, but make the entire organization more agile. (Ross et al. 2006) Figure 4. presents Ross’s foundation model. (Ross et al. 2006) The model contains three main elements: enterprise architecture, an operating model and an engagement model. The model is based on a vision of how the organization operates (operating model). Most important architecture definitions and foundation designs (enterprise architecture) are planned by business and IT leaders. The business executives set the business strategic objectives, then the IT engagement model specifies how the organization will achieve strategic business objectives. (Ross et al. 2006)

Figure 4. The foundation model. (Ross et al. 2006)

Enterprise architecture is the organizing logic that guides business processes and IT. It reflects the integration and standardization requirements of the organization’s operating model. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) Organizations can be divided into four maturity levels; as they progress through these levels they learn how best to benefit from an enterprise architecture approach. At each maturity level organizations learn how enhance their strategic capabilities. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) According to the model, maturity levels can involve business silos, standardized technology, optimized core, and business modularity. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) An engagement model is a governance mechanism. (Ross et al. 2006) It ensures that business and IT projects reach organization-level strategic business targets. The IT engagement model influences project decisions so that individual applications and projects are guided by the enterprise architecture approach. (Ross et al. 2006) The engagement model tries to align IT and business process decisions. The model, for example, creates the link between major IT management level decisions and global business processes. (Ross et al. 2006) An operating model describes how an organization functions. The model describes integration and standardization requirements. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006;

36 Teece, 2010) Organizations may have competitive advantages because of cost leadership and differentiation strategies. A low-cost strategy focuses on delivering services or products at a lower cost than competitors to a wide range of customers. A differentiation strategy offers special products or services to a wide range of price- insensitive customers. (Porter, 1980; Soltanizadeh et al. 2016) The organizations would benefit from making at least two far-reaching decisions related to the setup of the operating model. (Ross, 2008) First, they need to decide on the standardization level of business processes across local business units, countries and functions. The standardization itself is not the main target, but the organization should find the optimal balance between standardization and business agility. (Rai et al. 2010; Kettinger et al. 2010; Morris et al. 2006; Zott & Amit, 2008) Second, they need to decide on the level of integration between business processes across local business units, countries and functions. (Ross, 2008; Berente & Vandenbosch, 2009) By making these two decisions, an organization is able to adhere to one of four operational models which reflect different business process integration and process standardization levels. These operating models are diversification, unification, coordination, and replication. (Ross et al. 2006) Figure 5. summarizes the basic characteristics of operating models.

Figure 5. Basic characteristics of operating models. (Ross et al. 2006; De Vries & Van Rensburg, 2009)

The diversification model represents a decentralized organizational approach. (Ross et al. 2006) The business units benefit from local independence and are able to respond to special customer requirements. Business units operate within different product and service areas and they have few or no common customers or suppliers. (Ross et al. 2006; De Vries & Van Rensburg, 2009) The unification model is a centralized organizational model. (Ross et al. 2006) Organizational units are highly integrated and have standardized business processes. Reliability, predictability and low cost are typically achieved by standardizing business processes as well as establishing common business data across business units. These organizations especially benefit in cases where they interact with customers individually. (Ross et al. 2006; De Vries & Van Rensburg, 2009) The coordination model focuses on integration. (Ross et al. 2006) High levels of integration and non-standardized business processes are typical features for this model. These organization benefit when they can create a transparent supply chain without specific process standards. (Ross et al. 2006; De Vries & Van Rensburg, 2009)

38 The replication model focuses on process standardization. (Ross et al. 2006) These organizations benefit if they can replicate business processes rather than directly working with customers. Business processes are standardized, and business units provide products or services in the same way by using similar IT applications. In this model business units are rarely integrated. (Ross et al. 2006; De Vries & Van Rensburg, 2009) An organization’s inability to conform to an established operating model generates warning signals. The following warning indicators have been identified: customers receiving conflicting answers from different parts of the organization, the existence of different kinds of business processes across the organization, many instances of the exportation of business data from one system, followed by its modification and subsequent importation into other systems. (Ross et al. 2006)

2.2.3 The target digital state

Organizations achieve the target states of business, process, IT application infrastructure via several IT and business projects. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) Reaching a target state is easier if the vison of the organization is transformed into a concrete roadmap with outlined strategic activities. The roadmap specifies the path from the current baseline to the target state. Figure 6. Illustrates the journey from an initial state to a target state. Some projects or programs are more relevant than others, and projects can be divided into two main categories. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) Strategic architecture projects are helpful for achieving the target state of an organization. Consequently, non-strategic projects and programs are not as important to achieving the target state from an implementation point of view. Non-strategic activities can solve specific business requirements or needs. For example, new business process or services may require a new business application to support some specific need. (Ahlemann et al. 2012)

Figure 6. Organizational development. (Ahlemann et al. 2012)

It is important to recognize the role of enterprise architecture management in the project life cycle because the target state is concretized by implementing several programs and projects. (Buckl et al. 2009) Enterprise architecture management practices support achieving target states in projects by controlling and monitoring project progress, and by escalating project issues and problems. Therefore, projects should adhere to enterprise architecture management principles and guidelines. Generally, project targets should be in line with the target state of the organization. (Aier et al. 2011) Enterprise architecture management integrates other management functions and act as the glue between processes. (Buckl et al. 2009; CIO-Council, 2001) Enterprise architecture management facilitates information exchange between other management. (CIO-Council, 2001) Several management functions may act concurrently with one other. (Buckl et al. 2009) Enterprise architecture management may also help addressing communication challenges. (CIO-Council, 2001) A wide range of communication techniques and methods are available to ensure proper enterprise architecture communication. (Buckl et al. 2009) Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems endeavor to streamline business process and thus help to achieve the target stage of an organization. (Al-Mashari, 2002) ERP systems are one of the most widespread IT solutions. (Al-Mashari, 2002) ERP system implementation may be the most important digitalization project, especially for capital-intensive industries such as manufacturing and construction. (Al-Mashari, 2002) Expenditures of the system are often a major part of the corporate information technology cost. (Al-Mashari et al. 2003; Al-Mashari, 2002) New system implementation might be challenging in the context of a large and

40 diverse organization because no two identical organization exist; specifics such as business culture and organization structures tend to differ. These factors are constantly undergoing changes although systems may be similar. (Berente & Yoo, 2012) Several unsuccessful IT projects can be found in the literature, but success stories are also numerous. (Al-Mashari & Zairi, 1999; Berente & Yoo, 2012; Berente et al. 2010) ERP systems enhance business strategy and process alignment as well as support organizational resource management. These benefits are achieved through supporting standardized business processes across the organization. (Berente et al. 2010; Berente & Yoo, 2012) Additionally, although productivity may suffer in some situations, ERP systems generally improve organization productivity. It is accepted that ERP systems enhance organizational control although fully control is difficult to achieve. The systems may also increase agility from a corporate point of view as well as provide competitive advantages. (Berente et al. 2010)

2.2.4 New digital capability

Before established organizations can implement new digital capabilities and move toward data-driven decision making, they must be ready to adopt the coming changes. (Gust et al. 2017) Minor seed projects are an effective start to the implementation of new digital capabilities; they allow the organization to gain experience with new techniques or applications. (Gust et al. 2017) Organizations can incrementally learn the impacts of the new capability. Large manufacturing companies particularly have human and technology expertise that can be utilized in seed projects. These seed projects require fewer resources compared to top-down large-scale strategic programs. When the seed project begin growing the organization begins to benefit from the new technologies and business value will slowly be realized. The seed project can create the foundation for an ongoing digital transformation. (Gust et al. 2017) Figure 7. illustrates the three dimensions of the ecosystem in the seed approach. These dimensions are business (value propositions, business strategy), the organization (culture, human resources) and technology (data assets, ICT strategy). (Gust et al. 2017) A well-defined digital transformation strategy is an essential prerequisite for a successful seed project. Cultivating basic capabilities across the organization is a meaningful first step in the seed project because organizations often lack experience with the latest digital technologies – especially in large well- established organizations. (Gust et al. 2017)

Figure 7. Seeding new digital capabilities in the business, organization, and technology ecosystem. (Gust et al. 2017)

An optimal application architecture structure which serves both business units and corporate requirements is challenging to achieve. It often requires substantial time. (CIO-Council, 2001) The journey may even take several years, (CIO-Council, 2001) sometimes more than a decade, because competing issues require attention within the organizations. (Smith et al. 2012) The most optimal application architecture structure set-up has been under discussion since the middle of 1980s. These structures can be centralized and decentralized. Both approaches offer benefits and disadvantages. (Brown & Magill, 1994; Kettinger et al. 2010) An organization must change way how it manages information technology resources in a way that facilities the fulfillment of both business flexibility and business standardization requirements. (Kettinger et al. 2010; Ross et al. 2006) Business flexibility means than the organization can produce tailored products or services which meet special local requirements while also ensuring that business processes are applicable from both a local and global point of view. (Ross et al. 2006) This may be achieved, for example, by adapting the architecture structure using a country-specific approach. (Kettinger et al. 2010) In this solution, different countries will have different architectural structures based on country-specific needs. Optimization using the country-specific approach requires both business standardization and business flexibility. Therefore, organizations aim to establish global business processes in such a way that these processes meet global and local

42 requirements. Organization strive to fulfill local customers’ requirements while attempting to benefit from global standards and best practices. (Kettinger et al. 2010; Ross et al. 2006) Figure 8. presents the benefits and disadvantages of applications from a local and global point of view.

Figure 8. The benefits and disadvantages of applications from a local and global point of view. (Williams & Wheeler, 2009)

2.2.5 New digital technology

Organizations try to continuously develop their strategies according to changing economic trends and benefit from opportunities created by digitalization. (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2015; Zhang et al. 2018) New digital technology such as the internet of things, big data, robotic process automation, social media, and advanced analytics offer unparalleled new opportunities and challenges for organizations. (Gust et al. 2017; McKelvey et al. 2016; Hallikainen et al. 2018) Digital technologies, as well as the opportunities and challenges they offer, are discussed next through a few examples.

Sometimes organizations suffer from confirmation bias, which may mean that they are too confident in their new digital technologies. (Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) They may not recognize the risks of operating with new digital technology. This situation reflects the dot-com boom of the 1990s. When organizations begin using new digital technology, they initially have similar problems to small companies. (Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) Typical issues include technological challenges, products which do not meet market demand as well as financial and organizational problems. Organizations need to understand relevant challenges and new opportunities associated with new digital technology. (Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) Increasing digitization introduces the possibility of redesigning long-established industries such as the automotive industry, consumer electronics, media and publishing. Digitalization enables the embedding of digital technology and the design of new features for traditional products. (Henfridsson et al. 2014) Additionally, when companies design new improvements for their existing products, they should also consider product improvements via new software-based approaches instead of replacing manufactured parts of products. (Henfridsson et al. 2014) Finally, when companies introduce new digital features to their products, new features can be instantly deployed digitally. (Henfridsson et al. 2014) Large-scale production may be less important in the future. Physical products cannot be understood simply as a unified entity. In fact, the product’s features can have a much faster clock speed than the physical product itself. (Henfridsson et al. 2014) Sharing economy platforms have revised and redefined industry boundaries in a wide range of businesses. (Constantiou et al. 2017) Well-known examples of leading global companies include Uber and Airbnb. Sharing economy platforms connect organizational and market mechanisms in new ways to gain competitive advantages over traditional business models. (Constantiou et al. 2017) Tight or loose control over customers as well as hard or soft competition from customers are combined in the sharing economy platforms. Sharing economy platforms benefit business models that do not need as many resources and assets as traditional businesses models. These platforms are highly flexible and are able to adapt to new strategies according to the business environment and new business opportunities. (Constantiou et al. 2017) Regardless of whether organizations use sharing economy platforms or still operate traditionally, it is beneficial to understand how sharing economy platforms work. (Constantiou et al. 2017) It is important to understand the new strategic opportunities offered by sharing economy platforms. Based on this adequate understanding, organizations can make strategic decisions on how to approach the sharing economy. (Constantiou et al. 2017) It is too optimistic to think that the

44 sharing economy offers both high user numbers and economic success for all new companies in the area. (Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) Organizations should pay special attention to digital communication. (Jetha & Berente, 2014) New digital technology makes it possible to quickly organize low-cost protests or boycotts against organizations. Social media and a variety of digital services provide an incalculable set of options, for example, to social movements. Their actions can have implications for organizations and may negatively impact a company’s customers, investors, reputation, and revenue. New digital technology makes possible to influence via multi-channel and multifaceted in social media. Organizations should consider how they communicate using social media. (Jetha & Berente, 2014) New types of competitors capture market share from established manufacturing companies. (Mocker & Fonstad, 2017) For example, in the car industry new companies may provide new types of cars or new competitors may offer cars for short-term rent via sharing economy business models. The automotive industry had to acknowledge: “never before in nearly 130 years of automotive history has our industry changed as fast and as completely as now”. (Mocker & Fonstad, 2017) In response to this threat, some car manufacturers have built their own car sharing services, developed digitalized mobility services, and launched smart cars projects. This is one example from one industry area, but similar examples can be found in other established manufacturing sectors. (Mocker & Fonstad, 2017) New digital technology supports the strategic decision-making process. (Watson, 2017) Enterprise management systems (EMS) collect and combine the latest relevant business critical information to support strategic decisions. They may collect data for business processes, quality, audits, enterprise architecture or compliance management areas. The EMS provide an integrated approach to tackling data separation problems. (Lux et al. 2013) Approximately every 10 years there has been a major development step in computer-based decision-support systems. In the 1980s there were decision-support systems (DSSs), these were followed by data warehousing (1990s), real-time data warehousing (2000s) and big data analytics (2010s). (Watson, 2017) The next generation will involve cognitive generation of decision support. This involves and combines new technologies and data management approaches where artificial intelligence plays a significant role. Accurate and structured data enables informed strategic decisions. Additionally, new data analytics facilitate better understanding, predicting and serving of customers. Analytics provide tools for the analysis of the business environment and

competitors. Cognitive generation of decision support will create a better starting point for success in an unstable business environment. (Watson, 2017)

2.3 Enterprise architecture management

The term enterprise architecture management (EAM) is widely used and there is no generally accepted definition. (Buckl et al. 2009) Enterprise architecture models, for example, recognize business, process, integration, software and technology architectures. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Hafner & Winter, 2008) However, these architectures are not standardized and there is no generally accepted definition. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Fischer et al. 2007; Khosroshahi et al. 2015) If individual architecture optimization drives the entire enterprise architecture design and evolution, the individual architectures may be optimal, but the organization architecture as a whole will be suboptimal. (Jonkers et al. 2006) Business architecture focuses on the organization of the company from a business strategy point of view. Typical artifacts within this layer are organizational goals, strategic projects, relationships with customers and value networks. The market and resource-based approaches are typical design principles in the business layer. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Hafner & Winter, 2008) The process architecture focuses on the organization of processes from a service point of view, especially service development, service creation, and service delivery. Typical artifacts in this layer are business processes, organizational units, responsibilities, performance indications, and services. Effectiveness (creating specified outputs) and efficiency (meeting specified performance goals) are typical design principles in the process layer. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Hafner & Winter, 2008) The integration architecture focuses on the organization of information system integration. Typical artifacts on this layer are data flows and integration. Integration and cost efficiency (by reduction of unnecessary interfaces) are design principles in the integration layer. (Winter & Fischer, 2007) The software architecture focuses on the organization of software service. Typical artifacts in the software layer are software and data structures. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Hafner & Winter, 2008) The technology architecture focuses on the organization of technology components. Typical artifacts in the technology layer are computing hardware and

46 networks. Technology and software architecture use a broad range of design and evolution principles. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Hafner & Winter, 2008) The business architecture leads the technology architecture. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013) A business-first approach ensures technology alignment to business requirements. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013) ‘IT follows business’ principle is a hierarchical approach usually used in enterprise architecture management. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013) A hierarchical view provides a good overview of the entire business. Architecture layers use services that are provided by other layers. For example, business architecture offers services and products to customers which are identified by the business. (Lankhorst, 2005; Lankhorst, 2009) Different architectures, such as business and technology, would be good candidates for control using current best practices for maturity levels. (Wißotzki & Koç, 2013)

2.3.1 EAM as a management instrument

Enterprise architecture management is similar to, for instance, to the concept of a city or a street planning process. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) City planning includes several design objectives, which include land usage, streets, buildings, public services, etc. Therefore, the design is a multi-phase and complex process; it must fulfill several design objectives and requirements. If agreed objectives and requirements are not achieved, several problems will occur, such as traffic jams, pollution problems, and noise. City planning takes care of several design requirements and objectives. City planning must ensure, for example, that inhabitants have access to basic resources and a high quality of life. Additionally, this planning must respect environmental issues, follow law, adhere to a budget and satisfy other long-term design demands. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) Similarly, good enterprise architecture management must fulfill basic design requirements and objectives. Instead of streets or houses, enterprise architecture management contains components that create the fundamental structure of the organization, such as business processes, organizational structures, information systems and infrastructure technology. (Ross, 2008; Ahlemann, 2012) Enterprise architecture management is a holistic management philosophy that is especially concerned with corporate-level change. (Greefhorst & Proper, 2011; Niemann, 2006; Hanschke, 2010) Many organizations operate within a constantly changing market environment, with changing technology, constantly decreasing

product and service life-cycles and various customer demands. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Ross, 2008) Frequent changes to the organization structure, corporate strategy and business processes inflict changes on the IT landscape. Poorly coordinated and organized change generates risks and disadvantages for the whole organization. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Ross, 2008) Many organizations face challenges in implementing business strategies. (Porter, 1996; Porter, 1985; Porter, 1980; Johnson et al. 2005; Simon et al. 2013) Enterprise architecture management supports business strategy implementation by offering methods to support business and IT alignment. (Birkmeier et al. 2013; Pereida & Sousa, 2005) Integrating enterprise architecture management into the business strategy process is expected to lead to a better understanding of the business-IT relationship within organizations. (Simon et al. 2013; Winter et al. 2014; Petrikina et al. 2014) Enterprise architecture management often plays an important role in organizational transformation. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Simon et al. 2013; Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016) It enables organizations to remain flexible and implement strategic changes as smoothly as possible. If enterprise architecture management has been embedded in an organization’s strategy planning and strategy implementation processes, it may improve co-operation between different functions, decision making and speed up strategic changes because of better integration between different managerial processes. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) Enterprise architecture management integrates other existing enterprise-level management functions and act as the glue between the processes. Enterprise architecture management facilitates information exchange between management functions. (Buckl et al. 2009) It also enhances transparency, compliance, consistency, risk management and agility in the organization. (Winter & Sinz, 2007) Enterprise architecture management supports cost efficiency and transparency of technical solutions that are in line with business strategy. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) Enterprise architecture management also helps management in merger and acquisition activities. (Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016)

2.3.2 EAM development

Enterprise architecture management started in the 1980s but the understanding of enterprise architecture management has changed radically over the last 40 years. The life cycle of enterprise architecture management can be separated into three main development phases: EAM as advanced information system engineering, EAM as an

48 advanced information system management and EAM for strategic business management. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Winter et al. 2014) The three main development phases of enterprise architecture management are illustrated in Figure 9. and subsequently discussed.

Figure 9. Enterprise architecture management development over the last 35 years. (Ahlemann et al. 2012)

EAM as an advanced information system engineering: Amdahl, Blaauw, and Brooks (Amdahl et al. 1964) first used the term architecture in an information system context. (Amdahl et al. 1964) Despite Amdahl, Blaauw and Brooks’ (Amdahl et al. 1964) initial comments, Zachman first developed the enterprise architecture framework. (Zachman, 1987) In the beginning of the 1980s, IBM’s business systems planning concept was in its formation phase. (Zachman, 1982; Zachman, 1987) It was noted that information systems complexity was increasing. Therefore, it was recognized that there was a need for logic to maintain control of all components. (Zachman, 1982; Zachman, 1987) Zachman identified several architecture types such as system architecture, structure charts, data design, data flow diagrams, entity classes, and process maps. He argued that organization-level descriptions are also needed. (Zachman, 1997;

Zachman, 1982) Finally, he introduced concept of architecture. This framework provides a formal and structured way for defining an organization. Generally, the framework is considered to be “a tool that can be used for developing a broad range of architectures for capturing the needed information in an enterprise.” (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006) Zachman’s framework is described as a matrix cell. In the horizontal axis represents scope, owners, designers, builders and sub- contractors, and the vertical axis represents what, how, where, when and why (Figure 10.). Each of the cells suggests a product specification. (Zachman, 1987) The logic of the framework is generic. Thus, it can be used to plan almost everything such as building, and automobiles. (Zachman, 1996)

Figure 10. The Zachman framework of enterprise architecture. (Zachman, 1987)

EAM as advanced information system management: During the 1990s and 2000s information system environments started to become more complex because of rapid technological development as well as the need to increasingly digitalize business processes. Information system environments also became more expensive than ever before. Enterprise architecture professionals felt that a purely model-based approach was no longer sufficient for managing complex business and IT environments. They started to integrate planning, implementation and controlling processes into the enterprise architecture approach. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) IT implementation decisions were driven by local business managers in many organizations. Local business managers controlled funding. Additionally, they did not have a personal interest in corporate-level coordination. This situation is optimal for fulfilling local business requirements without corporate-level constraints, but was

50 non-optimal from a corporate-level point of view. Organizations shifted focus from technology to controlling processes to ensure transparent decision making throughout their organizations. They also set up IT governance and management models and IT management and governance mechanisms eventually became more relevant. During the 1990s and 2000s enterprise architecture management shifted toward planning, implementing and controlling of processes. Therefore, more sophisticated enterprise architecture management frameworks began to develop. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) New frameworks did not solely provide architectural models and concepts. They also contained guidelines for control. (Bui, 2017) New frameworks included the architecture framework for the Department of Defense (DoDAF), the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF) and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF). (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006) These frameworks proposed specific method or gave special guidelines. Most of these enterprise architecture frameworks differed from each other, therefore comparison of the frameworks presented challenges. However, frameworks only represent a limited number of viewpoints. (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006) For example, the enterprise architecture framework of the Open Group is developed and maintained by The Open Group Architecture Forum. It provides guidance on a less abstract level than earlier presented in the Zachman framework. (Andrew, 2011) It explains guidance and good principles rather than dictating exact architecture requirements. The method describes how to implement an organization- specific enterprise architecture that includes business requirements and goals. It is developed to be generally applicable. The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM) is the key method within TOGAF. The ADM describes how to build an enterprise architecture that fulfills business requirements. The method is based on ten iterative phases supported by best practices. (Buckl, 2009; Andrew, 2011) EAM for strategic business management: Last aspect of enterprise architecture management is managerial and also includes strategy. (Simon et al. 2013; Winter et al. 2014; Ahlemann et al. 2012; Ross, 2008) It includes for example business strategies, application roadmaps and specific architectures, such as business architecture. (Winter et al. 2014) Enterprise architecture management also enhances strategic analyses, business transformation and strategy implementation planning. (Simon et al. 2013) Recent understanding of enterprise architecture management is more managerial and includes strategic aspects (Simon et al. 2013) such as positioning targets, defining

goals, services, application roadmaps, business communication, and involvement of key partners. (Winter et al. 2014) Enterprise architecture has been transformed from a technical to a managerial approach in the context of business transformation and business and IT alignment. (Winter et al. 2014) This development has not ended, but the research literature proposes that future enterprise architecture should place more focus on people, society and the environment as well as increase the capabilities of organizations to create and develop innovations. (Lapalme et al. 2016) Environmental and energy savings issues have also been increasingly visible in the public arena and green IT might be a future research path. (Park et al. 2012) A Period of digital transformation has again raised the need to expand the logic of enterprise architecture. Organizations need additional flexibility to gain a competitive advantage in this highly turbulent business time period. Decisions must be increasingly on real-time information. Therefore, enterprise architecture needs to further evolve. (Korhonen & Halén, 2017)

2.3.3 EA benefits

The research literature proposes several enterprise architecture benefits, but these are only partly supported by empirical evidence. Approximately half of research articles provide empirical evidence confirming the benefits of enterprise architecture. It is a false assumption that it is simply sufficient to introduce an enterprise architecture. The precondition for generating benefits is that the enterprise architecture is used continuously. (Gong & Janssen, 2019) High-quality enterprise architecture processes especially contribute to the realization of benefits. (Niemi & Pekkola, 2016; Niemi & Pekkola, 2019) According to Ross, most essential enterprise architecture benefits are strategic business benefits, which are, for example, product leadership and IT-based strategic agility. Organizations typically measure business benefits by identifying cost benefits, but a purely cost-based approach makes it difficult to measure an enterprise architecture. However, many other benefits have identified such as decreased IT- related risks, reduced development time, an increased business discipline. Ross classifies enterprise architecture benefits as technology and business-related benefits. (Ross et al. 2006; Ross, 2006) Enterprise architecture benefits from business point of view: Business data and process standardization add two kinds of value for businesses. First, shared business data makes it possible to access information organization-wide. Second,

52 process standards create business benefits by creating predictable business processes across the organization. Improved managerial satisfaction generates a wide commitment to architectural and organizational changes. Additionally, four valuable strategic business outcomes have been recognized: better operational performance, increased customer satisfaction, strategic agility, (Ross, 2004; Ross, 2006) and the facilitation of communication between IT and business management. (Ross et al. 2006; Ross, 2006) Enterprise architecture benefits from technology point of view: When organizations build an enterprise architecture, they receive several technological benefits. (Ross et al. 2006) Organizations are able to reduce IT costs by installing standard IT technology components. (David et al. 2002; Ross et al. 2006; Ross, 2006) Standardized environments have fewer technology choices available, therefore organizations can reduce development time for implementing new systems. From an IT risk management point of view, standardized IT infrastructure, shared data and enterprise applications produce more manageable IT platforms. Risk-related benefits include reduced business risk, improved regulatory compliance, increased disaster tolerance and better IT security. Reduced business risk means reliably running systems as required to keep the business operating smoothly. (Ross et al. 2006; Ross, 2006) Enterprise architecture management emphasizes co-operation between business and technology. It helps to systematically develop the organization according to its strategic objectives and vision. Over time the concept matures, and the organization moves to a higher enterprise architecture maturity level. Every organization does not receive all identified benefits. In most cases, specific business needs influence goals. Therefore, it is important to have a clear understanding of enterprise architecture management’s primary goals and targets so that organizations can achieve planned benefits. (Ahlemann et al. 2012) According to Bui, enterprise architecture programs positively affect businesses by reducing IT development time and cost and improving strategic agility. Additionally, important key guidelines have been identified for the roll-out phase of a relevant enterprise architecture program. Organizations should take advantage of crises, increase enterprise architecture visibility, fix current pain points before building future gains and use architects who also have people skills. (Bui, 2015) Tamm has researched enterprise architecture benefits from a business transformation perspective. According to his findings, enterprise architecture particularly generates business value in cases of business transformation. (Tamm et al. 2015) Venkatesh has researched success factors which accelerate the maturity

levels of an organization. He encourages the formulation of a strategic vision for the enterprise architecture. (Venkatesh et al. 2007) The research literature also mentions several other enterprise architecture related benefits: increased transparency, a documented architecture vision and clear architecture principles and guidelines. (Niemi, 2006; Ahlemann et al. 2012) According to Niemi, reduced costs, providing a holistic view of the enterprise, improved business-IT alignment, improved change management, improved risk management, improved interoperability and integration are the most cited enterprise architecture benefits. Figure 11. summarizes the identified enterprise architecture benefits. (Niemi, 2006)

Figure 11. The benefits of enterprise architecture based on a review of the literature and common practice. (Niemi, 2006)

2.3.4 EAM life cycle

As a prerequisite to a successful enterprise architecture management process, business strategy should describe its targets and goals at a high level. (CIO-Council,

54 2001) Architecture principles is based on the rules and behavior of the organization. The enterprise architecture process and principles manage the implementation of the architecture. Architectural principles can be understood as requirements which enhance the whole organization. These principles should be defined to meet business requirements which are based on strategic plans. The enterprise life cycle supports architecture principles, and is iterative and dynamic. (CIO-Council, 2001) New business processes, new technologies and new capabilities must also be incorporated in order to sustain the organization. Despite the fact that the enterprise architecture process is a high priority, it cannot succeed without other related management processes. The enterprise architecture process is assigned at the corporate level; it must therefore be managed as an official program and needs strong business commitment and sustained management. (CIO-Council, 2001) For example, program management and enterprise engineering processes should co-operate within the enterprise architecture process. Additionally, human capital, information security and systems life cycle management can be placed above these processes. The capital planning and investment control (CPIC) process evaluates, selects and controls investments. When these processes are properly synchronized, the organization can effectively utilize IT as a strategic resource. Based on experience, this required co-operation between programs and processes is not an easy task. (CIO-Council, 2001) Figure 12. illustrates the dynamics of the enterprise life cycle.

Figure 12. The enterprise life cycle. (CIO-Council, 2001)

Collecting bes practices from similar kinds of organizations or businesses may speed up the enterprise architecture processes. Time consuming and unrealistic targets the main challenges in the enterprise architecture process. (Akkasi et al. 2008) Implementing enterprise architectural processes beyond IT is limited, therefore business management participation in the enterprise architecture process is vital. (Aier, 2015) It is difficult to calculate the return of investment (ROI) for enterprise architecture because it is also challenging to obtain all approvals for the implementation of the enterprise architecture process. (Moser et al. 2009) Finally, when an enterprise architecture process is adopted in an organization, it often generates several benefits, such as formal process support and IT management decision-making. (Johnson et al. 2004) The enterprise architecture process is part of the enterprise life cycle. Therefore, the steps of the enterprise architecture process according to the CIO-Council will now be discussed. Obtain executive buy-in and support: Likely the concept of enterprise architecture is not fully understood outside the IT department. Owners of the enterprise architecture concepts should create a selling strategy. Then, they should

56 communicate the enterprise architecture’s strategic and tactical value to all business executives. (CIO-Council, 2001) Establish management structure and control: Enterprise management roles should be defined based on the size of the organization and the complexity of the business and architecture. A person should be responsible for one specific role in a large organization. However, a person may be assigned to several roles in small organization. According to the CIO-Council guidelines, the following roles and responsibilities should be found in the enterprise architecture management organization: an EA program management office, a technical review committee, quality assurance, configuration management, risk management and security. (CIO- Council, 2001) Define an architecture process and architecture approach: The next step is to create the architecture process and architecture approach. The defined target architecture drives the rest of the architecture development process. In short, the three main goals for these steps are to build a baseline architecture that represents reality, build a target architecture that supports the business mission, vision and goals, and make a plan that describes the transition from current baseline to the target. (CIO-Council, 2001) Develop baseline enterprise architecture and develop target enterprise architecture: Regardless of the size and complexity of the organization, the architecture team must develop the baseline and target architectures. The CIO- Council states that the selected approach should contain next four phases: (1) a data collection phase, (2) preliminary product generation, (3) review and revision stages, and (4) publication and delivery of the architecture products to an appropriate repository. (CIO-Council, 2001) Develop the sequencing plan: The roadmap or sequencing plan should provide step-by-step guidance from the baseline to the target architecture. A detailed roadmap or sequencing plan is one way to manage complex transition processes. Therefore, transitioning from the baseline to the target architecture requires phased activities. (CIO-Council, 2001) Use the enterprise architecture: Enterprise architecture principles should be used in programs and projects. If programs or projects are not planned according to the enterprise architecture roadmap or sequencing plan, they should be rejected because they do not align with the business strategy. (CIO-Council, 2001) Maintain the enterprise architecture: Finally, the target architecture is implemented through several programs and projects. The enterprise architecture

process is a dynamic and iterative process, therefore new projects are constantly needed to maintain and control the enterprise architecture. (CIO-Council, 2001)

2.4 Maturity models

One way to improve management practices and processes within an organization is by comparison with other organizations –especially high performers. This approach is known as benchmarking. It attempts to find and recommend best practices. Benchmarking is typically used in all management areas. It is especially recommended that academically accepted maturity management models be used in benchmarking. (Rohsbeck, 2011) Maturity models are instruments that can be used to assess and identify the strengths and weakness of an organization. (Raber, 2013) Organizations continually face pressure to gain and retain their competitive advantage. They must therefore identify ways to cut costs, improve quality, enhance business processes, reduce lead time to market in order to succeed. Maturity models assist the organizations in this endeavor. These models are used as evaluative and comparative tools for improvement and offer an informed approach to increasing capabilities in a specific area. (Rohsbeck, 2011) Maturity models have designed to measure maturity of a selected area based on criteria set. (Rohsbeck, 2011; De Bruin et al. 2005a) Maturity models make it possible to measure the maturity of an organization and then suggest improvement steps. (Rohsbeck, 2011) A typical method of evaluating maturity is the use of a five-point scale, where level five represents the highest level of maturity. (Paulk et al. 1993) More than 150 maturity models have been designed to measure, for instance, IT service capability, strategic alignment, outsourcing, business processes, innovation, projects, enterprise architecture, business intelligence, and knowledge management maturity. (De Bruin et al. 2005a; De Bruin & Rosemann, 2005; Rosemann & De Bruin, 2005; OMG, 2008; Lee et al. 2009; Whitley & Willcocks, 2011; Lahrmann et al. 2011; Raber et al. 2012; Wißotzki & Koç, 2013; Jamaluddin et al. 2010; Kwak & Ibbs, 2002; Blondiau et al. 2016; Becker et al. 2009; Luftman, 2000; Miller et al. 2002) Since several maturity models have been designed, organizations have to choose a model that best fits their purposes. (Looy, 2010) Selection criteria can include, for example, the size and style of the organization; small service-oriented organizations do not benefit as much from automation as large manufacturing organizations. Most models recommend the usage of IT to enhance process optimization, especially at lower maturity levels. (Looy, 2010)

58 2.4.1 The capability maturity model

The capability maturity model provides a conceptual structure for improving management and product development in a consistent way for software. (Paulk et al. 1993) Several maturity models are based on capability maturity model (CMM). (Paulk et al. 1993; De Bruin et al. 2005a) The original idea of CMM is based on Crosby’s (1979) quality management grid, which describes the quality capabilities of organizations using five quality maturity levels. Crosby’s five maturity levels are: uncertainty, awakening, enlightenment, wisdom and certainty. An initial framework for process maturity was described by Humphrey (1987) and was further developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). (Paulk et al. 1993) A people capability maturity model (P-CMM) guides organizations in improving their workforce practices through five maturity levels. P-CMM introduces a set of new capabilities and features for developing the workforce at each level. P-CMM offers a good framework for organizational development. (Curtis et al. 1995) The typical CMM structure is presented in Figure 13. Each maturity level is composed of several key process areas, which are organized into several sub-sections called common features. These common features specify the key practices which achieve the goals of the key process areas. Typically, CMM defines a set of recommended key practices for activities that enhance the process capabilities related to the key process area. It provides guidance and recommendations for which areas should be controlled. When common features have been implemented, the organization matures and creates a culture for success. Gradually, the organization becomes capable of understanding and controlling the factors that affect the continuing success of its processes. (Paulk et al. 1993)

Figure 13. Figure 1 The structure of the capability maturity model. (Paulk et al. 1993)

Each maturity level includes a layer in its foundation for continuous enhancement and improvement. Levels are comprised of a group of process goals and stabilize important components of the process. Continuous process improvement is based on many small evolutionary steps rather than a one-time exercise. The CMM provides a framework for organizing small development steps according to five maturity levels and utilizes Humphrey’s original maturity model framework. Humphrey categorizes processes using five maturity levels: initial, repeatable, defined, managed, and optimizing. Humphrey indicated that these maturity levels were selected because they 1) represented the actual historical phases of evolutionary improvement well, 2) represented a measure of improvement that was reasonable to achieve from the prior level, 3) suggested interim improvement goals and progress measures, and 4) obviously made a set of immediate improvement priorities, once an organization’s status in the framework was known. (Paulk et al. 1993) CMM defines organizational changes and development from level to level in the following way: Level 1 – the initial level: An organization does not typically provide a stable environment for software development. The model can also be addressed from a

60 broader perspective than software development. Occasionally, managers may take leadership of a software development processes within projects, but when they leave the project, their stabilizing influence disappears. Performance can only be predictable at an individual level rather than an organizational level. The software development process is characterized by ad hoc, and occasionally even chaotic situations. Few processes are well defined and documented. Typically project schedules, budgets, functionality and product quality are unpredictable. (Paulk et al. 1993) Level 2 – the repeatable level: Basic project management processes are established to track cost, time, and functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat successful projects using similar approaches. The target is to achieve formal and effective management practices that the projects can repeat successfully. These organizations use basic software management controls. Formal project tracking methods for costs, time, and product quality are in place. Projects are controlled by project management systems. (Paulk et al. 1993) Level 3 – the defined level: The software development process is documented, standardized, and integrated into a standard software process. All projects use approved and standardized software development processes. These standard processes help managers and technical persons to work effectively. The organization effectively uses best practices. Since the software development process is well defined, management has good insight into technical progress at all times. The process capability of organizations is standard and consistent. Additionally, management activities are stabilized and repeatable. (Paulk et al. 1993) Level 4 – the managed level: Software development processes and products are controlled, measured, and defined. Productivity and quality are measured for important software development process activities across all projects. Measurements are the foundation for successful processes. The capabilities of the organization are fully predictable because the process is measured within agreed limits. When limits are exceeded, actions are taken to correct the situation. (Paulk et al. 1993) Level 5 – the optimized level: Continuous process improvement is accepted across the organization. The organization proactively identifies weaknesses and anomalies in their processes. Best software engineering practices are identified and shared throughout the organization. Project teams analyze defects to determine root causes. Lessons learned from known defects are also shared with other projects and teams. Continuous improvement characterizes the optimized level. (Paulk et al. 1993) Figure 14. Presents the levels of CMM. The arrows in the Figure 14. indicate process capabilities expected from the organization at each level.

Figure 14. The five levels of the capability maturity model. (Paulk et al. 1993)

If organizations skip a maturity level, it often can be harmful to later maturity levels because each level contains the necessary foundation for the next level. (Ross et al. 2006; Paulk et al. 1993; Curtis et al. 1995) Processes which do not have a proper foundation often fail. (Paulk et al. 1993) CMM mainly focuses on process improvements, but it also recommends other kinds of improvements. For example, the model also promotes a focus on product improvement. (Paulk et al. 1993) Product improvement focuses on the features of the product such as cost, time and defect rates. (McGarry & Decker, 2002) The CMM and ISO 9000 address similar topics and concerns. Additionally, both models have a similar focus concerning quality and process management. The ISO focuses on the customer-supplier relationship, aiming to reduce a customer’s risk in choosing suppliers. The CMM focuses on improving internal processes to achieve better quality for software products. The difference between the two systems can be expressed in the following way: ISO specifies a minimally acceptable quality level for software processes, while CMM establishes a framework for continuous process improvement. (Kaur, 2014) The customer can benefit in several ways from organizations which use ISO or CMM because both models emphasize the link between processes and product quality. (Walker, 2008)

62 2.4.2 EAM maturity models

The enterprise architecture management area is designed several maturity models. Each model proposes its own perspective for analyzing organizational performance. (Vallerand et al. 2017) Gartner’s ITScore for EA (Burke & Blosch, 2017), the maturity model from the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO, 2003), Forrester’s EA maturity assessment (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016), the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s framework for assessing and improving enterprise architecture management (GAO, 2010) are influential (Vallerand et al. 2017) maturity models, therefore those models are presented next. Gartner’s ITScore for EA: Gartner has published an enterprise architecture maturity assessment tool which has used by more than 1000 organization since it was first published in 2010. (Burke & Blosch, 2017) The tool enables an organization to determine the maturity of enterprise architecture using an online diagnostic tool that uses standardized methods and practices to measure the maturity of the organization. The tool determines strengths and weaknesses of the organization according to a five-level framework. By identifying weakness within the organization, it can be used to set reasonable and achievable goals and systematically remove barriers to long-term success. Based on Gartner’s experience, implementation of high-level enterprise architecture practices does not happen quickly. Organizations often require almost two years to get enterprise architecture practices up and running. Usually, organizations may still need an additional two years for more detailed enterprise architecture development. Gartner's ITScore maturity model is based on eight major dimensions: stakeholder support and involvement, team resources, architecture development methods, organizational integration, deliverables, enterprise architecture governance, metrics, and stakeholder perceptions. Gartner’s five maturity levels are labelled in the following way: non- existent, reactive, functioning, integrated and ubiquitous. When an organization achieves the third level this suggests that functional enterprise architecture practice has become widely adopted and accepted. Then the enterprise architecture is able to better support the functional digital business strategy of the organization. According to the model, higher maturity leads to improvements in business changes and strategic alignment, but higher maturity is not an end in itself. (Burke & Blosch, 2017; Vallerand et al. 2017) The maturity model from the National Association of State Chief Information Officers: The National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) mainly represents state information officers in various territories

of the United States. NASCIO is a non-profit association. (NASCIO, 2003) The association provides its members with an enterprise architecture maturity model. The NASCIO maturity model for enterprise architecture is based on the capability maturity model. NASCIO emphasizes that development of the enterprise architecture is a long process and does not happen overnight. The model combines business and environment processes to enable the planning of a blueprint. The blueprint represents actual specifications and standards of how the business and IT portfolio will be planned. The aim of the NASCIO model is to deliver a tool that can evaluate the effectiveness of enterprise architecture in the organization. Improved alignment of IT solutions with business strategy, enhanced enterprise information sharing, reduced information systems complexity, reduced dependency on main resources, reduced software and data redundancy, and more efficient deployment of technology solutions are some of the benefits than can be expected as EA maturity increases according to the NASCIO maturity model. The model uses a six-level maturity approach: Level 0 – no program, EA level 1 – informal program, EA level 2 – repeatable program, EA level 3 – well-defined program, EA level 4 – managed program and EA level 5 – continuously improved program. When the architecture matures, process control, predictability and effectiveness increase. (NASCIO, 2003; Vallerand et al. 2017) Forrester’s EA maturity assessment: Forrester has introduced an enterprise architecture maturity model that specifically prioritizes enterprise architecture improvement plans and activities and defines goals and expectations for enterprise architecture teams with stakeholders. (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016) The model classifies maturity concerns according to a six-level scale based on processes, relationships, artifacts and content, and organization assessment. However, rather than using Forrester’s enterprise architecture model maturity level classification, it may be more interesting to use the methodology as a tool. It evaluates enterprise architecture maturity through a Likert-type scale questionnaire. (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016; Vallerand et al. 2017) Additionally, Forrester has introduced a digital maturity model which evaluates an organization’s digital capabilities across four dimensions. (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016) By defining their maturity level, organizations have a better foundation for beginning to plan their digital strategy. According to the model, culture, technology, organization and insights are the main four dimensions of the digital maturity model. In short, culture is “an organization’s approach to digitally driven innovation, and how it empowers employees with digital technology”, technology means “a company’s use and adoption of emerging technology”, organization reflects “how

64 aligned a company is to support digital strategy, governance, and execution” and insights determine “how well a company uses customer and business data to measure success and inform strategy.” The model’s maturity levels are listed as skeptic, adopter, collaborator and differentiator. (Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016; Vallerand et al. 2017) The U.S. Government Accountability Office: GAO offers auditing and investigation services to the U.S. Congress and oversees how the federal government uses tax revenue. (GAO, 2010) Additionally, since the early 1990s, GAO has promoted enterprise architecture adoption as an important mechanism for achieving a technology and operation environment that maximizes the performance of an organization. They also offer enterprise maturity model with the aim of providing a flexible way to benchmark the maturity of an enterprise architecture program. The model contains the following three interrelated components; seven hierarchical maturity levels, four management attributes and 59 building blocks, or core elements. Each maturity level is divided to four management core elements, and each of the management core elements contain several attributes. Finally, the framework introduces an organizing logic for the building blocks, or core elements. The framework is based on seven maturity levels. Stage 0: creating EA awareness, stage 1: establishing EA institutional commitment and direction; stage 2: creating the management foundation for EA development and use; stage 3: developing initial EA versions; stage 4: completing and using an initial EA version for targeted results; stage 5: expanding and evolving the EA and its use for institutional transformation; stage 6: continuously improving the EA and its use to achieve corporate optimization. Management attributes are grouped in the following way: EA management action includes demonstrated commitment, available capability to meet commitments, demonstrated satisfaction of commitment and verification of satisfaction of commitment attributes; EA functional area includes governance, content, use and measurement attributes; The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) capability area includes completion, as well as use and results attributes; the EA enabler includes leadership, people, processes and tools attributes. (GAO, 2010; Vallerand et al. 2017)

2.4.3 MIT maturity model

The MIT enterprise architecture maturity model will be presented next at a more detailed level than the other maturity models, because it is the chosen model for this

research. The MIT maturity model well reflects current understanding of enterprise architecture management, hence it is the chosen model. According to the current understanding of enterprise architecture management principles, it should be connected with the business strategy. (Simon et al. 2013; Winter et al. 2014) The MIT enterprise architecture model especially emphasizes the strategic role of IT. (Ross et al. 2006) The MIT maturity model reflects the organizing logic for business processes and IT infrastructure. According to the model, when an organization increases in maturity, additional strategic benefits are attained from IT (such as strategic agility and product leadership). (Ross et al. 2006) The enterprise architecture literature promotes centralized IT governance mechanisms to obtain promised alignment benefits. (Ross et al. 2006) According to the definition from the MIT maturity model, a more centralized IT governance structure will result in a more mature organization. (Ross et al. 2006) The MIT maturity model emphasizes the importance of organization-wide IT applications and the importance of integration of IT applications. (Ross et al. 2006) Despite the advantages of organization-wide IT applications, when integration between different systems increases, complexity also increases. In this case when organizations require changes in their systems a complex and highly integrated application landscape may cause difficulties and delays in changes. (Ross et al. 2006; Goodhue et al. 2009)

2.4.3.1 Maturity levels

The MIT model recognizes four maturity levels, which have typical characteristics. Organizations can generate business value at each maturity level, because organizations learn at each level. (Ross et al. 2006) The “business silos” maturity level focuses on fulfilling local business needs. The “standardized technology” level provides efficiencies through technology standardization. The “optimized core” level extends organization-wide technical standards to business data and processes. Finally, the “business modularity” level enables plug-and-play business modules usage. This means improved adaptation to local business requirements. (Ross et al. 2006) The business silos architecture level: Organizations focus on delivering individual IT applications to fulfill local business requirements and processes and do not need to think about enterprise architecture at all. Additionally, they are not constrained by technology standards or other global limitations. (Ross et al. 2006) They may have centralized and shared data warehouses, but they do not have fully

66 centralized infrastructure services. If they have centralized and shared data services, these are tailored to serve special needs of the local business units. IT applications have their own data structure and IT applications are not integrated. (Ross, 2008) IT organization, which is often in-house, mainly supports specific local business processes. IT investments and projects focus on serving local business requirements. IT strategic initiatives cannot be executed in cases where they constrain some part of the business because IT cannot constrain business activities in the business silos architecture level. Therefore, business management solely concentrates on defining local business processes. (Ross et al. 2006) The strategic target is local optimization. The business silos architecture level is expensive and difficult to maintain due to the use of several different technologies and local applications. Additionally, several business data definitions make integration between applications very complex and expensive. New applications are difficult to deploy in this landscape. The local architecture promotes IT innovations and specific ideas, because there are no constraints from other business units. Benefits at this level include predictability and measurability. Despite these benefits, the business silos architecture is mainly outdated. Over time, IT application platforms become too expensive and complex. (Ross, 2008) The standardized technology architecture level: Management of technology standards is one of the key topics at this level. Organizations begin to transfer some local applications to shared platforms at the standardized technology level. Technology standards decrease the number of application because this lowers IT costs. However, most business managers still believe that local business requirements should drive technology. New technology standards can constrain local business processes and requirements. However, business managers eventually understand that standardization reduces IT risk and cost. (Ross et al. 2006) Organizations increase access to shared business data by introducing data warehouses, but unstandardized business data may still be isolated in individual IT applications. Technology standardization does not solve the problem of isolation of data in individual applications within a fragmented structure. (Ross, 2008) As at the business silos level, the role of IT role remains automation of local business processes. Finally, the enterprise architecture work begins, but it is still only used for IT-related tasks. (Ross, 2008) IT efficiency is the main benefit of the standardized technology level. Standardizing and harmonizing technology platforms offers IT cost savings, increases IT maintainability and IT reliability. According to the research literature, organizations progress to this level because IT costs in business silos have exceeded

acceptable limits. (Ross, 2008) However, some business managers and IT developers still believe that business requirements should drive technology choices. This may cause conflicts between local and global organizations. This leads to the main risk at this level, which is business resistance. Organizations should ensure that appropriate risk management methods and procedures are introduced to manage possible risks and new standardized technologies. (Ross, 2008) IT investment decisions face new challenges, because funding for shared technology demands longer payback periods than before. IT investments are also more difficult to calculate because costs may have to be shared between several organizations. (Ross, 2008) The optimized core architecture level: Organizations increasingly move from local business IT applications and business processes to company-wide approaches at the optimized core level. Additionally, organizations begin to develop and implement interfaces between IT applications. Therefore, IT applications begin to communicate with one another. At this level, attention will also be focused on standardization of business processes. (Ross et al. 2006) IT application integration and business processes standardization activities begin to stabilize core activities and increase the predictability of the organization. (Ross, 2008) The primary objective is core processes optimization. If organizations are able to succeed at this level, then they achieve significant improvements – especially in business process efficiency. However, the main challenge is managing business process standardization activities because business process standardization is much harder to sell to local business units than technology standardization. An optimized core provides a fundamentally different way of functioning. Therefore, the organization is impacted by a radical renewal at this level which surpasses changes at earlier levels. If the organization changes too quickly and aggressively there is significant risk of failure. (Ross, 2008) Additionally, IT investment focuses on enterprise applications and shared business data instead of local IT applications and shared infrastructure at the optimized core level. (Ross et al. 2006) The business modularity architecture level: Modular architecture enables strategic agility through customized or reusable IT application modules, because IT applications are based on modular structure. At the modularity level, IT management can provide business agility in two ways. First, reusable modules enable local management to select special customer processes from several options which best fit their local requirements. Through Web services, organizations have access to business modules. (Ross et al. 2006) Organizations may then create new IT services by integrating real-time data from multiple sources. (Anand et al. 2016) The second

68 approach is to give greater authority to local management over the design and implementation of their own business processes. These modules extend the global core business processes. The business modularity architecture allows for the rapid implementation of business modules. (Ross et al. 2006) The enterprise architecture requires ongoing co-operation and commitment from senior business management. They must, for example, clarify what business processes are standardized and required, which business processes have several standard versions, and which business processes require total local flexibility. Business modules allow local optimization and customization, but the need for standardization is not lessened. (Ross, 2008) Modular architecture creates significant opportunity for business agility. Reusable modules provide greater efficiency by allowing local customization. Businesses can then respond to local requirements with greater agility. The main risk is that organizations may rush and implement reusable modules too aggressively before they have standardized business data and processes. If an organization does not properly address standardization, a modular approach may not succeed. (Ross, 2008)

2.4.3.2 Strategic learning requirements

Organizations must first learn how they can strategically benefit from IT in order to effectively use IT. Each maturity level provides its own lessons during this journey and organizations generate business value and benefits at each level. Journeying from level to level gradually increases, for example, data harmonization and business process standardization. (Ross et al. 2006) Typical learning requirements related the strategic role of IT are summarized in Figure 15. Some of the main learning requirements are subsequently presented in more detail.

Figure 15. Learning requirements of the enterprise architecture levels. (Ross et al. 2006)

Business objectives: Project outcomes are clearly measurable at the business silos level. IT cost reduction begins to dominate business cases at the standardized technology level. When an organization moves to the optimized core maturity level, it is increasingly difficult to precisely measure process improvements across the organization. Speed to market and strategic agility dominate business cases at the fourth level. (Ross et al. 2006) Application definition: At the business silos level, local business managers plan IT applications in order to fully support local business requirements. They can design IT applications without global limitations. When maturity increases, the organization moves to standardized technology level, local business still managers describe IT application requirements and needs, but IT defines technical solutions. Technology standards begin to limit and constrain IT applications. Obviously, IT applications do not fulfill all local business requirements and needs. At the third level, business process owners or leaders are nominated. They participate in setting global business processes definitions. At the business modularity level, agility again increases because local management can choose standard businesses process which better fit their requirements. (Ross et al. 2006) IT Investment patterns: At the business silos level IT projects focus on supporting the development of local IT applications. Investments to local applications reduce, and investments shift to shared infrastructure services when the

70 organization graduates to the second maturity level. The organization therefore begins to generate cost savings by technology standardization and consolidation. At the third level, the organization’s investment focus has been moved to global applications and business data. The priorities of business modularity are shifted toward reusable IT applications and business process modules that better enhance the modular operating model. (Ross et al. 2006) Figure 16. presents the investment distribution at different maturity levels.

Figure 16. Figure 2 Investment distribution at different maturity levels. (Ross et al. 2006)

IT governance: When the organization’s investment focus changes, the organization starts to also create more business value than before. Due to a shift in investment focus organizations must also change management practices to create business value. An organization does not solely achieve benefits by changing its investment focus. (Ross et al. 2006; Weil & Ross, 2004) Organizations continuously optimize IT governance models, management methods and working manners during their digital transformation journey. Sometimes traditionally-structured IT functions and governance models do not effectively support the organization. Organizations may need more agile IT functions. (Haffke et al. 2017) Management lessons: Management practices are also cumulative, which means that if organizations do not accept management practices at earlier levels, then they

may not generate added value in later levels. Therefore, the enterprise architecture journey should plan to gradually and systematically increase value so that organizations can generate business value at each level. Organizations must learn the requirements of their level before they can progress to the next level. Therefore, the journey should not be too quick otherwise the risk of failure increases. (Ross et al. 2006) Business silos level generate business value from local IT applications which almost perfectly fulfill local business requirements. At the standardized technology maturity level, an IT-steering committee is established. Additionally, an infrastructure renewal process and centralized funding of IT applications are in place. Organizations attempt to maximize benefits from standardized technologies. For example, enterprise architects in IT project teams, architecture exception, and compliance process are value-adding management mechanisms at the standardized technology maturity level. (Ross et al. 2006) New management mechanisms at the third level include global business process owners, common enterprise architecture guiding principles, business leadership in major IT projects, and business managers’ oversight of enterprise architecture. Business processes will be harmonized at this level. Business process standardization is even more challenging than technology standardization at the standardize technology maturity level. Therefore, senior management involvement in managing change is essential. At the business modularity level, full-time enterprise architecture teams are formed. Additionally, more sophisticated enterprise architecture communication are established. (Ross et al. 2006)

2.4.3.3 Changes in organizational flexibility

When the organizations grow in maturity they are impacted by organizational changes. Organizations shift focus from local optimization to global optimization during this transformation. Major organizational changes occur at each level, but most radical organizational change occurs when organizations progress through the third maturity level. Managers and employees must learn new way of working during this process. Therefore, they are required to radically change the ways in which they operate because optimization shifts from local flexibility to global flexibility. (Ross et al. 2006) At the business silos level, local managers have full control over business and IT decisions. Local organizations can perfectly respond to local business without global or technical limitations. Business processes and IT applications support localized

72 business processes at the business silos level. Therefore, local flexibility limits global flexibility from a global perspective. If the organization introduces global changes, all local managers must separately agree to the proposed changes. (Ross et al. 2006) The organizational changes begin to impact to the local organization when the organization progresses to the second maturity level. Global optimization starts to affect to local business units, because IT applications no longer fully support local requirements because of technical standards. Therefore, local organizations must accept these technical standards. The use of standardized technologies increases global flexibility by reducing technical complexity. (Ross et al. 2006) At the optimized core level organizational change is at its most radical and fundamental. Local business managers lose control over local business processes. They may also lose control over people, because service centers support global business processes and IT applications. In some cases, global business processes and IT applications can be even unsuitable to local requirements. Despite this, global business processes override local decision making. From a global organization perspective, business processes become more predictable. Global flexibility increases when business data, organizations, IT applications and business processes become more harmonized. (Ross et al. 2006) When an organization progresses to the business modularity level, local flexibility again increases without loss of global flexibility. The advantage of the business modularity level is the ability to customize global processes to fit better local requirements. IT application modules create the possibility of adoption of business that also better meet local business requirements. (Ross et al. 2006) Figure 17. presents changes in organizational flexibility throughout the architecture levels.

Figure 17. Changes in organizational flexibility throughout the architecture levels. (Ross et al. 2006)

2.5 Digitalization in organizations

Digitalization is wide-spread in organizations (Kotarba, 2017) and it is assumed that digitalization has a positive impact on the competitive advantage (Kotarba, 2017) of the organization especially with respect to the growth and the income of the organization. (Kotarba, 2017) Therefore, one of the main reasons for digitalization is the creation of more reliable, cost effective, as well as more predictable business processes. (Khan et al. 2015) This has also led to the exploration and development of new methods to measure the degree of an organization's digitalization level. The level of digitalization can be measured, for example, by a so-called digital key performance indicator (KPI). (Kotarba, 2017) Organizations can prepare for digitalization in different ways. The business value from digitalization cannot be achieved solely through digital approach; (Gray et al. 2013) It is organizations that use digitalization effectively that create value. (De Haes et al. 2011; Melville et al. 2004; Gray et al. 2013; Peppard et al. 2007) Organizations may use agile business strategies to ensure improved performance. (Vejseli et al. 2019) Therefore, an IT governance approach should be flexible and adaptive so that it can respond to changing business demands. (Vejseli et al. 2019) IT governance mechanisms are also required to be more collaborative and complementary in order to fulfill the latest digitalization and business requirements.

74 (Vejseli et al. 2019) The importance of control in IT governance mechanisms is not as heavily emphasized. Organizations begin to also increasingly promote a non- centralized approach and support local decision-making. Fast-growing organizations especially often use a non-centralized approach. (Brosius et al. 2016; Winter, 2014) Despite the requirement of a flexible and adaptive IT governance mechanism, members of the IT governance board cannot delegate their responsibilities. (Caluwe & De Haes, 2019) Digital transformation utilizes new digital technological competencies to create business value. (Korhonen & Halén, 2017) Transformation often has a significant impact on an organization which can be, for example, a large or medium-sized company or an organization from the public sector. Examples of impacts include effects on the business model, operational model, organization structures, and the resources of the organization. Digital transformation is often run using several separate programs over a long time period. Transformation cannot be executed in a single effort, because it is so deeply integrated within every level and function of operation in the organization. (Korhonen & Halén, 2017) Over the past few decades, new digital technologies have been the key drivers of organizational transformation. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Digital technologies deeply affect an organization’s strategic decision making and organizational planning. However, digital technologies also support the formalization of practices that enable organizations to grow in maturity. Many turbulent times and several changes affected organizations in their transition from a minor start-up to a medium-sized organization. (Tumbas et al. 2015) When organizations progress from short-term planning and an ad hoc working style to a more long-term way of working, decisions start to become based on a more on long-term strategic direction. When medium- sized companies grow into large companies, they adopt mature management practices. (Tumbas et al. 2015) The business environment changes constantly, therefore a well-planned digital transformation strategy supports achieving business benefits, for example in the merger and acquisition activities of organizations. (Yetton et al. 2013; Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016) IT integration capability during mergers and acquisitions refers to the company’s ability to integrate their IT and business processes, IT resources as well as IT platforms and services into the new organization. (Benitez et al. 2018) Increased digitalization requirements prompt the formation of new roles such as Chief Digital Officer (CDO). (Singh & Hess, 2017; Magnusson et al. 2019) Their role is to ensure that companies fully benefit from digitalization. (Magnusson et al. 2019) There are several obvious differences in the role of the CDO in medium-sized and

large companies. For example, CDOs are mainly responsibility for digitalization in medium-sized companies. On the other hand, CDOs are only responsibility for one- fifth of digitalization requirements in large companies. (Becker et al. 2019) The Chief Information Officer (CIO) and other business executives are responsible for creating a strong information usage culture and enhancing the strategic importance of information management in an organization. (Kettinger et al. 2011; Peppard et al. 2011; Hansen et al. 2011) Management must consider how their employees function in the digital environment. (Dery et al. 2017; Wulf et al. 2017) It would be beneficial for the CIO and other business executives to work in close co-operation to ensure successful digital transformation. (Kohli & Johnson, 2011; Carter et al. 2011) It is recommended that CIOs focus less of their time on managing common IT services, but invest more time to the digital transformation strategy in order to guarantee the success of the organization. (Weill & Woerner, 2013) Digitalization impacts every business model in the organization. (Gulati & Soni, 2015) The organization should adapt their business model as well as strategies in response to changing opportunities from digitalization. (Gulati & Soni, 2015) Digitalization only enhances traditional business and does not change basic business logic. For example, robotic, social media and artificial intelligence significantly impact ways of doing business. (Gust et al. 2017; McKelvey et al. 2016; Hallikainen et al. 2018; Gulati & Soni, 2015) Organizations often experience difficulties in acquiring key resources to drive their digital strategy. Therefore, organizations may seek partners that have the experience and capabilities in providing digitalization services. Partners can also support the organization in market expansion as well as discover new digital marketing possibilities. Despite these advantages of digitalization, companies and customers often face challenges. Sometimes customers suffer because of the multi-channel or cross-channel systems within companies if companies are not able to enhance their operations systems as quickly as the market demands. (Gulati & Soni, 2015) The traditional linear business model of an organization is mainly outdated; a linear process no longer responds to current business needs. The research literature suggests a new kind of business model that better fits the current situation. (Gulati & Soni, 2015) The model contains three types of digital transaction platforms: process digitalization, communications digitalization, and buyer digitalization. The new model is digitally agile and exploits customers’ digital expectations. Generally, digital technology investment should be strategic to leverage existing strengths in

76 new ways and ensure the attainment of core value for customers. Digitalization enhances business models as well as business processes. (Gulati & Soni, 2015) The digitalization situation of large and medium-sized companies and organizations in the public sector are presented next in the context of digital transformation and enterprise architecture.

2.5.1 Large companies

Digitalization situation: Digital technologies offer new opportunities and poses new threats to large companies; therefore, they must re-evaluate their position with respect to digitalization. (Sebastian et al. 2017) For example, opportunities can be found to increase the digitalization of products and redesign well-established industrial products such as consumer electronics or publishing. Digitalization enables the embedding of digital technology and the design of new features for traditional products. (Henfridsson et al. 2014) Threats to large companies include the emergence of new types of competitors who capture market share from established companies. (Mocker et al. 2017) For example, in the car industry new companies may provide new types of cars or new competitors may offer cars for short-term rent via a sharing economy business model. (Mocker et al. 2017) Digitalization has also created other kinds of threats for companies than the loss of an advantage in business. One of the most serious concerns of IT management is cybersecurity. (Kappelman et al. 2018) However, large companies often believe that they can succeed in digitalization by taking advantage of their existing strengths. (Sebastian et al. 2017) Digital transformation: Large companies tend to have a positive attitude toward digital transformation. (Fehér et al. 2017) It is also noticeable that the level of knowledge about digitalization is high. (Fehér et al. 2017) The digital business strategy is still in its infancy state in many large companies. (Sia et al. 2016; Tumbas et al. 2015) The digital transformation strategy supports organizations so that they can more systematically respond to digitization. (Hess et al. 2016) By defining a digital strategy, organizations can focus resources on concrete targets. Therefore, with this clear direction, organizations are able to develop the capabilities that would allow them to deliver on a digital strategy. (Sebastian et al. 2017) A successfully implemented digital strategy offers potential benefits such as business flexibility, cost reduction as well as productivity improvements. (Melville et al. 2004) Role of enterprise architecture in digitalization: Large companies have recognized the benefits of the enterprise architecture. (Gong & Janssen, 2019) This

has led to their adoption of enterprise architecture practices. (Perko, 2008) Several different strategies may be concurrently implemented across a large company. (Hafsi & Assar, 2016; Johnson et al. 2005) The enterprise architecture helps organizations address this challenge by providing multiple tools to support and drive digital transformation. (Hafsi & Assar, 2016) For example, TOGAF provides tools which help sustain communication between different parts of an organization. (Buckl, 2009; Andrew, 2011) Enterprise architecture also supports digital transformation by encouraging the creation of a digitalization vison. (Hafsi & Assar, 2016) This helps organizations to align different digital transformation activities across the company. (Hafsi & Assar, 2016) The digitalization vision combines the business goals, the strategic drivers and addresses stakeholder concerns. Therefore, the digitalization vision contains a high-level description of targets from a technical and business perspective. (Hafsi & Assar, 2016) Enterprise architecture management often plays an important role in organizational transformation. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Simon et al. 2013; Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016) It supports organizations in remaining flexible implementing strategic changes as smoothly as possible. If enterprise architecture management is embedded in an organization’s strategy planning and strategy implementation processes, it may improve co-operation between different functions, decision making and speed up strategic changes since different managerial processes are better integrated. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Simon et al. 2013; Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016) In summary, large companies believe that they can succeed in digitalization. (Sebastian et al. 2017) However, success requires that they invest in digitalization. (Sebastian et al. 2017) Large companies tend to have a positive attitude toward digital transformation although their digital strategy may still be in its infancy. (Fehér et al. 2017; Sia et al. 2016; Tumbas et al. 2015) Additionally, large companies have mostly adopted enterprise architecture practices. (Perko, 2008)

2.5.2 Medium-sized companies

Medium-sized companies have several typical characteristics. The first characteristic is their size compared to large companies. Often medium-sized companies have low capital and suffer from cash flow problems. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) They may also have limited marketing and buying power. Since medium-sized companies have limited resources they can rarely influence market prices. Medium-sized companies

78 have often small capital reserves and are therefore more risk-averse. Generally, the capacity for long-term investment for medium-sized companies is limited. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) Hence, they are often lag behind larger companies, especially in the case of expensive manufacturing technologies. Only owners and top management make key decisions, therefore it can be difficult to participate in the decision-making process in medium-sized companies. People and departments are often required to multi-task. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) For example, managers may perform daily tasks as well as make business decisions. The typical working model is informal, experimental and ad hoc (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015; Tumbas et al. 2017), therefore limited formal business processes are implemented. Medium- sized companies focus on surviving. Because of their size, medium-sized companies often operate in a limited geographic area. Customers, employees and suppliers are usually located in the same region. Therefore, medium-sized companies often establish clusters in the areas where they operate. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) Digitalization situation: Medium-sized companies still struggle with digitalization because they are not able to identify the most beneficial IT approaches to meet their cost needs. (Heberle et al. 2017) Medium-sized companies also often lack the key resources and knowledge which leads to difficulties in achieving success in the digital environment. (Heberle et al. 2017) Digital technologies are a catalyst for growth and maturation for medium-sized companies. (Tumbas et al. 2017a; Tumbas et al. 2017) Some medium-sized companies can even be found on digital platforms, or their business model may intensively use digital technologies. These organizations innovatively leverage digital technologies and technical competencies. Small or medium-sized companies are often engaged in a period of rapid growth. Therefore, these companies should fully utilize digital opportunities as the organization grows. (Tumbas et al. 2017) The working model of medium-sized companies is experimental. (Tumbas et al. 2017a; Tumbas et al. 2017) Medium-sized companies often respond to digitalization without a long-term strategy. (Tumbas et al. 2015; Tumbas; et al. 2017) When the organization matures and grows digitalization decisions start to be based on long-term strategic decisions. (Tumbas et al. 2015) There is often a gap between everyday digital processes and the public image of a processes. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Some organizations spend a lot of time attempting to hide this gap in their digital processes. These actions did not add to organizational productivity; in fact issues often worsen. (Berente et al. 2010) Small and medium- sized companies often try to hide systematic planning errors from end customers or key partners using a digital façade. The digital façade can be used to inefficiencies

introduced by short-term decisions. (Tumbas et al. 2015) The digital façade allows these organizations to continue their short-term practices by providing a more professional view to the end user. The digital façade acts as a stable interface between the company and its customers. (Tumbas et al. 2015) For many medium-sized companies the ability to internationalize has become a necessity. (Joensuu-Salo et al. 2018) Internationalization can ensure the growth of the organization. Digitalization does not increase the performance of internationalized medium-sized companies. (Joensuu-Salo et al. 2018) Digitalization has a significant and direct impact on performance of medium-sized companies which only operate in their local domestic markets. (Joensuu-Salo et al. 2018) Therefore companies of this size can utilize digitalization much more effectively if they only operate only in familiar market regions. Internationalization requires market orientation and marketing capability. Many medium-sized companies do not have those required marketing resources. Therefore, digitalization alone cannot guarantee success on the international market. (Joensuu-Salo et al. 2018) Digital transformation: Many medium-sized companies have not clearly planned their digital capabilities and strategies, but they use digital technologies in their operations, business processes and management practices, almost without exception. (Tumbas et al. 2017a) It is unclear how medium-sized companies plan to achieve their digitalization transformations. (Becker et al. 2019) Top management of medium-sized companies would be well-advised to become involved in the execution of their digital strategy. (Becker et al. 2019) Every member of the management team should contribute to the enhanced transformation of the company. The responsibilities and resulting obligations of the managing team members should be clearly defined with respect to digitalization. Additionally, the organizations should seek to understand how they should optimally undertake digitalization. They must decide whether they want to perform a complete or partial transformation of their core digital business processes. (Becker et al. 2019) Role of enterprise architecture in digitalization: Enterprise architecture could support medium-sized companies in their digital transformation, but currently enterprise architecture approaches are not commonly used. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) There are several reasons for this. For example, new digital technologies and digital transformation are more popular than enterprise architecture. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) Consequently, enterprise architecture is considered less important. Additionally, medium-sized companies feel that enterprise architecture is too complex and is only a tool for IT organization. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018)

80 Medium-sized companies particularly feel that the business representatives are not sufficiently involved. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) In summary, medium-sized companies still struggle with digitalization. (Heberle et al. 2017) The working model of medium-sized companies is ad hoc and experimental. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) Therefore, their response to digitalization is short-term. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015; Tumbas et al. 2015) Enterprise architecture could support medium-sized companies in digitalization, but they have not yet adopted enterprise architecture practices. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) However, medium-sized companies use digital technologies in their operations, business processes and management practices, almost without exception. (Tumbas et al. 2017a) Some medium-sized companies try to hide their problems with digitalization using digital façades. (Tumbas et al. 2015)

2.5.3 Public sector

Digitalization situation: In the public sector, the goal of digitalization is to improve quality of service, provide more effective operations, as well as offer transparent and easy access to services and data using digital solutions. One way to earn trust from citizens is to provide a combined service from a single interaction. (Gøtze et al. 2009) For example, the Finnish public sector has made many efforts to promote digitalization such as digitalization investments and promotion programs. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) However, the benefits of digitalization have been rather limited despite expectations that digitalization would improve service and productivity as well as cut costs. (Parviainen et al. 2017) Digital transformation: The public sector has limited knowledge of digitalization management and effective leadership. Therefore, there is a lack of sufficient resources to run major digital transformation programs and projects. Authorities recommend positively changing attitudes related to digitalization and the changes it brings. (Parviainen et al. 2017) Every year, the public sector invests a significant amount of tax resources into the development and renewal of their IT applications. Despite these significant investments, the IT projects and programs are not always successful in public sector. Often IT projects fail to deliver on expected business benefits. For example, projected time schedules and budgets are often exceeded. Despite the many failures of these IT projects, the research literature states that there are only small differences between public and private sector in projects

that have succeeded or failed. However, the research is limited to one country which has adopted enterprise architecture. (Mohagheghi & Jørgensen, 2019) Role of enterprise architecture in digitalization: The role of enterprise architecture in the public sector has been widely discussed in the literature in the context of developed countries. Governmental policies strongly influence the adoption of enterprise architecture in the public sector, especially in western countries. (Dang, 2018; Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007) Governmental policies play a significant role in the public sector in the Netherland, Finland, Italy, Norway and the United States. (Finlex, 2019; Oikarinen, 2012; Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007; Carota et al. 2010; Bui, 2015; Aagesen et al. 2011) In western countries, each country has a different starting point for their enterprise architecture including political drivers for enterprise architecture, governance structures, implementation methods, architecture methodologies and principles. (Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007) The literature does not unequivocally state the role of policies in enterprise architecture adoption in the context of developing countries, but is the existence of policies is not the most important factor. (Dang, 2018) Generally, various characteristics, strategies and problems influence the effective adoption of enterprise architecture practices in the public sector. (Dang, 2018) The lack of enterprise architecture has negatively influenced, for example, the deliverables of digitalization projects in western countries (Anthopoulos et al. 2010) which have not adopted enterprise architecture in the public sector at all. The absence of enterprise architecture has also impacted cost estimates and time schedules in governmental digitalization projects. The literature emphasizes that common enterprise architecture practices and standards help to avoid the most significant failures and can strengthen project deliverables in the public sector. (Anthopoulos et al. 2010) European states take advantage of their own e-strategies which are often based on common European political directions and convictions. The European commission could create more than on common country-level enterprise architecture standard, framework and method for members states; currently European states relatively sporadically implement their own enterprise architecture strategies. Aligning common enterprise architecture practices significantly affect organizational structures in the European public sector. (Anthopoulos et al. 2010) Political barriers seem to be major obstacles for cross- national collaborations. (Gøtze et al. 2009) For example, a cross-country comparative study on enterprise architecture framework was conducted between Norway and the Netherlands. Both countries have similarities in architecture, but their governance strategies are different.

82 Governance organization is decentralized in the Netherlands whereas it is centralized in Norway. In the Netherlands, support is offered at the regional level and in Norway attention is focused on the national level. There are therefore various software solutions and integration approaches between applications in the Netherlands. (Aagesen et al. 2011) Enterprise architecture programs have been researched both at the national and cross-national level in 13 nations. The maturity levels of national activities are systematically higher in each nation compared with the maturity of cross-national interoperability collaborations. Political reasons are the main cause of barriers and challenges for cross-national collaborations. (Gøtze et al. 2009) Additionally, a comparative study of the maturity of cross-country enterprise architectures has been conducted between Denmark and the Netherlands. Denmark was at a more advanced stage in enterprise architecture adoption than the Netherlands, but both countries still experienced many challenges with the governance of enterprise architecture activities. (Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007) As noted, there are many research-related enterprise architecture programs, frameworks and adaptations most likely because enterprise architecture practices have already been in place for several years in western countries, and are often controlled by laws and legislation. Often the documentation of the public administration units is publicly available, and researchers have access to the necessary information and can utilize it in their studies. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) In summary, the public sector has extensively promoted digitalization. (Parviainen et al. 2017) The benefits of digitalization have been rather limited despite high expectations. (Parviainen et al. 2017) Governmental policies strongly influence the adoption of enterprise architecture in the public sector, especially in western countries. (Dang, 2018; Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007)

3 THE DIGITAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the digital operating environment for private sector companies and the public sector. A better understanding of the digital operating environment will help in the interpretation of the survey results.

3.1 Finnish companies

This section describes the digitalization situation in Finnish according to the annual digitalization barometer from 2007–2015. The release of the digitalization barometer ended in 2015.

3.1.1 Digitalization development in Finland

The annual digitalization barometer of Finnish Information Processing Association for Finnish organizations provides a good overview of the digitalization situation in Finland. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a) The results are converted into key metrics which are then used to calculate an IT index. The IT index represents how Finnish companies utilize IT. Annual research gathered information about the kind of added value that IT produced for businesses and which competencies accelerated effective IT utilization. Respondents mainly represented business and IT management in large and medium-sized companies and public sector in Finland. Revenue and average employee count were used to select companies. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a) The IT index represented the following research themes: current IT costs as a percentage of turnover, IT costs as a percentage of turnover after three years, the impact of IT-based innovations on turnover in the previous year, costs saved by improving performance through IT as a percentage of turnover, organizations that considered it difficult to find IT experts for their needs, organizations in which IT created added value by enabling the development of new innovations and business operations, and organizations that developed IT as a strategic resource. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a) The goal was to calculate the IT index in similar way for each year

84 so that IT indices would be comparable. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a) It was found that the IT index followed macro-economic trends with a delay. The index was correlated with gross domestic product (GDP) changes. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a; Tilastokeskus, 2019) Table 1. illustrates trends in the IT index from 2008 to 2015. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a; Dahlberg, 2016) In 2008 the value of the IT index was fixed at 100. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015b)

Table 1. IT index values from 2008 to 2015. (Serèn et al. 2011; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a; Dahlberg, 2016)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 current IT costs as a percentage of turnover 4,45 % 4,46 % 4,47 % 3,35 % 4,89 % 5,61 % 4,38 % 4,59 % IT costs as a percentage of turnover after three years 4,84 % 4,49 % 4,94 % 3,83 % 5,51 % 5,51 % 4,78 % 4,55 % the impact of IT-based innovations on turnover in the previous year 4,27 % 8,19 % 3,66 % 6,34 % 4,89 % 5,02 % 4,84 % 4,95 % costs saved by improving performance through IT as a percentage of turnover 4,54 % 7,57 % 4,28 % 5,28 % 6,46 % 4,78 % 4,54 % 5,90 % organizations that considered it difficult to find IT experts 52 % 47 % 44 % 39 % 44 % 35 % 32 % 38 % organizations in which IT created added value by enabling the development of new innovations and business operations 78 % 81 % 81 % 76 % 78 % 73 % 80 % 86 % organizations that developed IT as a strategic resource 68 % 77 % 63 % 69 % 62 % 59 % 64 % 67 % IT index 100 123 94 99 108 101 96 104

3.1.2 Digitalization in Finland

According to the first barometer, the main finding was that business and IT management differ in their opinions. IT management was aware of the practical challenges and approaches on an operative level. Consequently, business management thought that IT management should be more involved in establishing the strategic position of the organization. The organizations tried to convert IT management into a more strategic role. Generally, respondents thought that information technology was still a factor for success. It is important to utilize IT efficiently when developing new business operations or creating innovations. Finnish companies spend 4.45% of their turnover on information technology. (Serèn & Lehtovirta, 2007) One of the main results of the barometer was that IT outsourcing was projected to increase. Business management supported outsourcing even more than IT management. Most Finnish companies either fully or partially outsourced IT operations. However, outsourcing is not an easy task. The results of the IT projects often did not fulfill expectations for half of organizations surveyed which outsourced

most of their IT operations. In comparison, only 19% of the organizations which utilized in-house IT operations were dissatisfied with their IT operations. Additionally, can be stated that outsourcing and the strategic role of IT go hand in hand. Therefore, organizations that are seeking to attain additional business value from IT have most probably at least partially outsourced IT operations. (Serèn & Lehtovirta, 2007) In 2009, social media and the recession were two topics that dominated public discussion. Those topics were selected as special issues for the barometer. Therefore, organizations’ readiness to utilize social media and the influence of the recession on information technology utilization were collected included in data collection. (Serèn et al. 2009) The financial downswing increased pressure to cut IT operational costs and reduce IT development projects, despite the fact that IT produced more turnover growth than it cost. Growth of the IT index indicated that organizations had a good understanding of the importance of information technology instead of thinking that IT was purely a cost component in this challenging financial period. The results reflected the important role of information technology in creating business value and new innovations. Few organizations had clear instructions for employee related to use of social media. Therefore, organizations were rarely prepared for social media. According to the results, IT outsourcing was expected to increase, but fewer organization replied that they aimed to outsource as much of their IT operations as they had earlier. (Serèn et al. 2009) The economic downswing continued in 2010. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) The gross domestic product (GDP) fell radically. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) This was financially difficult time for Finnish companies. (Serèn et al. 2010; Tilastokeskus, 2019) Further cuts and postponements of IT investments were real evidence of the poor economic situation in Finland and globally. (Serèn et al. 2010) The recession still dominated public discussion in Finland in 2010. Therefore, it was essential to continue to collect more data on how the recession affected attitudes toward IT. A drop in the IT index indicated the difficulties in the utilization of IT, as well as disappointment in IT. The root cause may have been unrealistically high expectations for the utilization of IT. Business management was especially disappointed with IT performance. Likely expectations were too high at the beginning of adoption and these high could not be fulfilled during the challenging financial situation with a smaller IT budget. Cost cutting also caused a drop in IT satisfaction. Organizations still evaluated the importance of IT at a high level. Almost

86 90% of the respondents indicated that the role of IT would further increase and would be a key competitive factor, despite the fact that criticism of the utilization of IT increased during the recession period. (Serèn et al. 2010) In 2011, it appeared that Finland would enter a new slow growth period. The attitudes toward IT and IT investments became more positive. For this reason, organizations expected fewer problems with IT projects. (Serèn et al. 2011) Additionally, willingness to outsource IT operations transitioned to a downward trend and social media became a normal part of business. Cloud services were notable issues in 2011. Cloud services were expected to become very popular in the coming years. Even though cloud services were estimated to triple in three years organizations were skeptical about the promised improvements and benefits of cloud services. (Serèn et al. 2011) In 2012 the period of growth seemed to have ended. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2012; Tilastokeskus, 2019) Credit risks became a reality for financial institutions in Europe. Finland was expected to enter a period of even slower growth leading to another recession. Despite these threats, Finland began to recover from the recession in 2008–2009 and a period of growth began. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2012) Organizations increasingly used external data via networks. Therefore, the amount of data grew. Everybody recognized consumer technologies such as social media, smart devices and cloud services. New digital technologies required more time from IT managers, but the old technology load remained the same for IT management. This may be one of the reasons why new digital technologies have been utilized so slowly in the business environment compared to the consumer market. New services and technologies have been quickly utilized almost without exception in the consumer market and then but only slowly utilized in the enterprise market. IT provided clear business benefits for their organizations. However, these organizations thought that they were not able to utilize IT effectively. There is an inconsistency between what people believe the value of IT to be and how it is utilized. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2012) As in previous years, respondents indicated in year 2013 that the impact of IT on business was positive. IT-enabled innovations increased turnover during the year by five percent, reduced costs by five percent and improved profitability by more than four percent. These estimates clearly exceeded GDP and productivity in the economy. However, positive attitudes did not affect decisions related to IT investment. In the beginning of the poor economic period organizations begin postponing and cutting their IT expenses but continued implementing IT investments and projects which they had already started. When the economy entered

a better economic period, IT costs began to increase. This could be a sign that IT investments were influenced more by the economic situation rather than long-term investment plans. Even though IT produced more GDP growth than it cost, the driver for IT investment was available funding rather than strategic decisions or strategic IT investment schedules. (Serèn et al. 2011) Social media and cloud services appeared and became a part of the business culture in the last five years. Organizations used social media mainly for communication and marketing purposes. However, few organizations had a clear strategy or plan for social media. Organizations would be well-advised to pay closer attention to opportunities from new digital technologies. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) In 2014, the Finnish economy was still in a period of slow growth. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) The gross domestic product (GDP) was about one percentage point lower than the previous two years. (Tilastokeskus, 2019; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015b; Dahlberg, 2015) Management of new digital technologies, such as e-commerce, social media, cloud computing, IT consumerization was modest. Few respondents believed that their organization had a clear strategy and plan in place to manage new digital technologies. Finnish organizations had good technical skills and responded to digitalization, but IT management skills and the capability to utilize IT were not developed during the previous seven years. During previous three years good IT management practices were even slightly reduced. According to the barometer, only 10–20% of managers were highly-talented IT managers in Finnish organizations. It has been noted that good management practiced are connected with producing benefits from IT (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015a; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015b; Dahlberg, 2015) In 2015, there were more signs of more positive growth in IT and digitalization than in the economic situation (Tilastokeskus, 2019) and productivity in Finland. Despite positive growth in IT and digitalization, Finland seemed to be left behind in the utilization of digitalization. (Dahlberg, 2016) Additionally, digitization barely achieved its targets. According to the barometer, less than 40% of respondents agreed that business benefits from IT and digitalization were progressing well. When organizations implemented new digital technologies, they managed digital technologies as separate islands rather than a unified whole. It appears that good IT management practices contribute to the achievement of success in digitalization. In recent years, robotics and 3D-printing technologies have been the main new digital technologies. (Dahlberg, 2016)

88 Despite these earlier findings that the IT index followed macro-economic trends with a delay, it appears that the IT index no longer follows GDP (Tilastokeskus, 2019) as accurately as previously noted (Figure 18). The IT index grew faster than GDP in 2015. (Dahlberg, 2016)

Figure 18. The relationship between a one-year delayed IT index (red-line) and Finland’s GDP growth (blue-line), (reprinted with permission Dahlberg). (Dahlberg, 2016)

3.2 The Finnish public sector

Finland is divided into self-governing municipalities. Municipalities are considered local government units in Finland. According to the Local Government Act (§ 4) the municipality can be called a city, when it meets the requirements of urbanization set by the community. (Kuntaliitto, 2019) The number of municipalities decreased, especially in 2005 (-12), 2007 (-15), 2009 (-67) and 2013 (-16). In 2016 there were 313 municipalities in Finland. (Kuntaliitto, 2019) Municipal councils, municipal executive boards, committees and boards are the highest decision-making bodies in municipalities. (Kuntaliitto, 2019) The highest authority in the municipality is the municipal council. The municipal council, for example, approves the annual budget. Therefore, economic power includes decisions on budgets, the establishment of funds, and local payments. The municipal councils decide on the municipality plan five years in advance. The plan includes municipal administration, the economy, land usage and other conditions of development, and is checked periodically. The municipal council is selected by public election every fourth year. (Kuntaliitto, 2019)

The municipal executive board is also an important institution in the municipal organization. The municipal executive board is responsible for municipal administration as well as implementation of decisions made by the municipal council. The municipal council can only make decisions based on information prepared by the municipal executive board. The municipal manager works under the municipal executive board and leads the municipal administration in practice. (Kuntaliitto, 2019) Committees and boards are established for administrative purposes. Audit administration and economic boards are the only mandatory boards. All other boards and committees are optional, for example cultural, sporting and tourism boards. The number of boards is usually less than ten in a given municipality. (Kuntaliitto, 2019)

3.2.1 EAM in public sector in Finland

Public administration information management is controlled by public administration information management law in Finland. “The purpose of this law is to rationalize public administration, as well as to improve public services and their availability by controlling public sector information system management”. (Finlex, 2019) The aim of the law is to create a management and control model which provides prerequisites for information management interoperability in public administration. (Kiviniemi, 2011) According to the law, an enterprise management model must be developed in every municipality. Enterprise architecture models should be described and accepted by the municipal organization (Figure 19.). The management model ensures that all guidelines and requirements are taken into account at all decision-making levels. It ensures that the enterprise architecture principles are included in strategy development. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2013) The enterprise architecture management model is part of the internal municipal activities guided by the municipalities themselves. (Kuntaliitto, 2013) The enterprise architecture management is in effect when policies (descriptions) are created as a result of enterprise architecture work. Descriptions support the organization's own planning and implementation targets. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2013)

90 Figure 19. The enterprise architecture management model for municipality organizations. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2013)

The Ministry of Finance is responsible for providing general guidance on the overall architecture. Municipalities have to adhere to the guidelines of the overall architecture by the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, municipalities must follow architectural descriptions that exist at higher levels. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2013) An enterprise architecture management model ensures that enterprise architecture works according to the targets and laws of the municipality. The enterprise architecture management model is designed to describe the mutually- agreed models, methods, and responsibilities. It defines enterprise architecture development, utilization and maintenance as part of the organization of the municipality. The model also defines roles, responsibilities and organizations as well as control and operating models, and includes planning and maintenance of enterprise architecture descriptions and specifications. Outsourcing of operations and services have also become more common in service models in the public sector, therefore architectural descriptions are needed for external service providers. The enterprise architecture design method (JHS 179) coordinates operational, information, system and technological aspects. The purpose of this method is to connect the organization's objectives with necessary information as well as information systems. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2013)

The public administration authorities are responsible for designing, describing, and maintaining enterprise architecture documentation. Public administration authorities also had to beginning describing the architecture within six months and complete the work within three years of the law coming into effect. The law came into effect on 1 September 2011. (Finlex, 2019) Municipalities must establish enterprise architecture management models based on the management structure of the municipality to maintain enterprise architecture documentation and development. (Finlex, 2019; Oikarinen, 2012) Enterprise architecture descriptions help to form a complete picture of business operations and information technology services. A better overview makes it possible to identify and prevent duplication and avoid the development of duplicate technical solutions in different parts of the organization. The purpose of creating enterprise architecture documentation is also to standardize information so that different parties understand the issues in the same way which would guarantee smooth operational management. Descriptions of the architecture and policies can be categorized as mandatory, directive, good habit and example. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2013) The results of enterprise architecture have remained modest in the public sector. (Seppänen et al. 2018) The development of enterprise architecture methodologies has received more attention than the adoption of enterprise architecture. (Seppänen et al. 2018) Therefore, enterprise architecture work is technically-oriented in the public sector. (Penttinen & Isomäki, 2010; Seppänen et al. 2018) Attitudes of some representatives of public administration to the opportunities offered by enterprise architecture are even skeptical. Despite the active enterprise architecture work in Finland, researchers advocating beginning concrete activities and content. Common guidelines, productivity targets, and the need for rationalization were especially emphasized by stakeholders in the Finnish public administration. (Penttinen & Isomäki, 2010; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) Enterprise architecture maturity monitoring is also part of architecture work in the public sector. Maturity models are based on the CMM maturity model, which parses the maturity of operations and processes. The model provides a framework for the public administrator to evaluate the current state of their enterprise architecture activities. The maturity model promotes small development steps. Increments between levels have been thoroughly planned so that they can be easily used to launch a development project in a region with limited architecture. The model also provides a coherent framework for the complete development of the public administration enterprise architecture and ensures a long-term foundation for

92 the development of digital services in Finnish society. Maturity levels are evaluated via different perspective. Each aspect of maturity is evaluated individually. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2012)

3.2.2 Digitalization in the public sector in Finland

Digitalization is a top priority program in the public sector. The public sector has launched several initiatives to enhance digitalization. However, the benefits of digitalization have been limited despite expectations that digitalization would improve service and productivity as well as cut the costs. (Parviainen et al. 2017) Digitalization targets have not been precisely defined precisely in the public sector. (Parviainen et al. 2017) The attitude toward digitalization is not positive. The public sector also has a limited knowledge of digitalization management. For this reason, there is inadequate resources for running major digital transformation programs. (Parviainen et al. 2017) The change from the paper to digital environment has been quite challenging for the Finnish public sector and a situation where data can be combined in real time across the organization borders that includes e-self- service and automated service production that citizens can use has not been achieved. (Parviainen et al. 2017) The Ministry of Finance evaluates and reports on the state of the government’s information management capabilities regularly. Official reports from the Ministry of Finance offer substantial amounts of information related the digitalization situation in the public sector. The reports provide information, for example, on government’s ICT budgets, technology trends, enterprise architecture maturities and its main ICT challenges and development areas. Finland has 12 ministries who are accountable for the administration of their own areas. (Kuntaliitto, 2019) Public administration is responsible for evaluating the current state of their organization's overall architecture according to the five-level maturity model, which is based on CMM. According to the model, the maturity stages are outlined as follows: Level 1 – the organization does not provide a stable environment for software development. Performance is only predictable on an individual level rather than at the organizational level. Level 2 – basic project management processes are established to track cost and time of projects. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes with similar projects.

Level 3 – the software processes for both management and engineering activities are documented, standardized, and integrated into standard software processes. Level 4 – the software processes and products are quantitatively measured and controlled. Level 5 – continuous process improvement is enabled. Feedback is collected from the processes, new digital technologies and pilots.

The organization must proactively identity weaknesses and strengths of their processes. (Valtionvarainministeriö, 2012) Additionally, model contain the following dimensions: architecture description, management processes, development and implementation, organization, competency, support of substantial activities and architectural comparability. Figure 20. presents the overall levels of the enterprise architecture maturity in the public sector from 2013 to 2016. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017)

Figure 20. The overall levels of enterprise architecture maturity in the Finnish public sector. (Hattinen, 2017)

According to the maturity study on public administration conducted by the Ministry of Finance, the highest enterprise architecture maturity level was achieved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2013. The average level of enterprise architecture maturity was lower in the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Environment compared with other administrative sectors. The maturity values were between 2 and 2.5 in each of the evaluated dimensions in 2013. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2014) In 2014, the enterprise architecture maturity

94 slightly increased compared with the results of previous year. The increase was noted in several different architecture areas. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health was again evaluated as having the highest maturity level of all the administrative sectors. The average level of maturity was again lowest in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Ministry of the Environment. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2015) In 2015, the scale was changed to provide a more detailed description of the architecture and these changes may affect the comparability of the results. The maturity values were between 2 and 2.7 in each of the different dimensions. The overall maturity level results remained unchanged. Changes in the various architectures were relatively small. As in previous years, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health achieved the highest level of maturity. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2016) In 2016, the scale was comparable to the previous year and maturity levels increased slightly compared with the previous year. The maturity values were between 2.3 and 2.8 in each of the different dimensions. The highest level of maturity was achieved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, as in previous years, but this was lower than the highest maturity level that had been previously achieved. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) Finnish public administrators annually analyze the main ICT challenges and development areas for their organizations. New digital technology trends, such as mobile services and big data, significantly influence IT development activities in the public sector. According to an evaluation by the Ministry of Finance, in 2013 their main challenge were ICT vendor management and the capability of the government’s ICT shared service centers to provide services. Cyber security and ICT cost- effectiveness were the main ICT development areas in the public sector. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2014) In 2014, the main development expectations remained relatively unchanged from the previous year. The most urgent development areas remained information security, ICT cost-effectiveness and ICT strategy. However, there were differences between the sectors in their improvement needs. The main challenges remained the same as in 2013; central government service centers were not able to provide services as expected. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2015) In 2015, the scale was changed to provide a more detailed description of the architecture and these changes may affect the comparability of the results. The maturity values were between 2 and 2.7 in each of the different dimensions. The overall maturity level results remained unchanged. Changes in the various architectures were relatively small. As in previous years, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health achieved the highest level of maturity. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2016) In

2016, the scale was comparable to the previous year and maturity levels increased slightly compared with the previous year. The maturity values were between 2.3 and 2.8 in each of the different dimensions. The highest level of maturity was achieved by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, as in previous years, but this was lower than the highest maturity level that had been previously achieved. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) Finnish public administrators annually analyze the main ICT challenges and development areas for their organizations. New digital technology trends, such as mobile services and big data, significantly influence IT development activities in the public sector. According to an evaluation by the Ministry of Finance, in 2013 their main challenge were ICT vendor management and the capability of the government’s ICT shared service centers to provide services. Cyber security and ICT cost- effectiveness were the main ICT development areas in the public sector. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2014) In 2014, the main development expectations remained relatively unchanged from the previous year. The most urgent development areas remained information security, ICT cost-59 effectiveness and ICT strategy. However, there were differences between the sectors in their improvement needs. The main challenges remained the same as in 2013; central government service centers were not able to provide services as expected. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2015) In 2015, the main development areas were unchanged from 2013 and 2014. The improvement of cyber security, the development of information management strategies and improvements in the cost-effectiveness of IT were the three most important development areas. The major challenges for information management were similar to previous years. The most significant challenge was the capability of the central government service centers to offer services. Additionally, the ability to utilize new technologies in the development and renewal of operations was viewed as a major challenge. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2016) In year 2016, the three most important areas of development were the same as in the previous year. Challenges for ICT management also remained relatively unchanged from 2013. As in previous year, the public sector felt that the most significant challenge for IT management was the capability of the central government service centers to provide services. Another major challenge were readiness to use technologies in the development and renewal of operations. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) The economy of Finland has still been in a period of slow growth between 2009 and 2015. The gross domestic product (GDP) finally increased in 2016 (2.5%). (Tilastokeskus, 2019) The world economy has improved in recent times, because of positive growth in the United States and developed countries. The expectation is that

96 there will also be economic growth will soon increase to over two percent in Europe. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) The period of poor economic conditions in Finland negatively affected the government’s ICT budget. Figure 21. presents the Finnish government’s total ICT cost from 2005 to 2016. The cost for years 2005–2009 and 2011–2016 is comparable, but in 2010 universities and colleges were not included. After 2009, when government’s ICT expenses were at their highest level, expenses decreased. ICT expenses were approximately 1.37–1.45% of the total budget of government. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2014; Hattinen & Korhonen, 2015) In 2015, the total cost for ICT activities increased because of major digitalization programs and projects. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2016) The government's ICT operational expenses grew by 4.2 million to 779.7 million from 2015 to 2016. Total IT administration expenses were 1.43% of the 54.4 billion total budget of the government. Cost increases can be explained by digitalization promotion activities. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017)

Figure 21. Figure 3 The government’s total ICT expenses in Finland (million EUR). (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017)

In summary, the economy of Finland has still been in a period of slow growth between 2009 and 2015. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) The Finnish gross domestic product

(GDP) has been in decline for several years, since 2009. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) There were positive signs of growth in digitalization in 2015, (Dahlberg, 2016) but despite these positive signs Finland seems to be lagging in its utilization of digitalization. (Parviainen et al. 2017; Dahlberg, 2016)

98 4 RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCESS

Research should be repeatable, therefore it is important that the research process is carefully documented. Of course, other factors such as time and sample size, can affect results and conclusions. (Yin, 2003) Additionally, researchers should avoid errors and biases in research so that the results are as representative as possible. (Saunders et al. 2009) This research strives to ensure that good scientific practice is followed.

4.1 Research methods

We begin with a general discussion about research methods. The research literature occasionally uses the term research method interchangeably or they do not define the term. The term research method refers to a data collection and data analysis tool that is used for studying a research subject. The methodology is scientifically-based, but several definitions exist in the literature. (Saunders et al. 2009; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006) One such definition is provided by Saunders. Figure 22. presents his research “onion” approach. The outermost layer reflects research philosophies and research approaches, strategies, choices, time horizons and techniques are reflected in the inner layers. (Saunders et al. 2009)

Figure 22. Saunders’ research “onion”. (Saunders et al. 2009)

Research philosophies: a research philosophy outlines assumptions about how we see the world. (Saunders et al. 2009; Walsham, 1995; Weber, 2004; Goldkuhl, 2012; Hovorka & Lee, 2010; Siponen & Aggeliki, 2018) Philosophical assumptions are behind every research strategy and method. (Saunders et al. 2009; Walsham, 1995; Weber, 2004; Goldkuhl, 2012; Hovorka & Lee, 2010; Siponen & Aggeliki, 2018) Philosophical assumptions can be conscious or unconscious, and can therefore sometimes be difficult to identify. It is important to be aware of underlying assumptions, constraints and limitations in research. Understanding this helps in the determination of the strengths and weaknesses of a research. (Saunders et al. 2009; Walsham, 1995; Weber, 2004; Goldkuhl, 2012; Hovorka & Lee, 2010; Siponen & Aggeliki, 2018) Research approaches: Saunders divides research approaches into induction and deduction. (Saunders et al. 2009) Induction refers to the progression from observations to generalization. Induction also is also referred to as "material-driven" research because shift in direction from material to theory. Generalizations can be created based on only a few observations. (Saunders et al. 2009; Kananen, 2008) The progression in deduction reversed. Deduction is sometimes also referred to as "theory-based" research because of its progression from the theoretical to the empirical. Deduction involves a progression from a generalization to an individual result. (Saunders et al. 2009; Kananen, 2008) Abduction is a combination of induction and deduction. Abductive reasoning starts from the materials,

100 observations or phenomena, but does not omit the usage of theory. It attempts to find the most likely explanation for the observation by using already existing theories. (Kananen, 2008) Research strategies: research strategies include, for example, laboratory experiments, case studies, field experiments, simulations, surveys, action-based research studies, grounded theory, ethnography, and archival research. One of the essential selection criteria for a research strategy is that the strategy must answer the research question and meet the research objectives. (Kasunic, 2005; Saunders et al. 2009) Each research strategy has special advantages and disadvantages; therefore an appropriate strategy must be considered specifically from the point of view of the research question. When the research question is “how” or “why”, the preferred strategy can be, for example, a case study. A case study is a research method which tries to illuminate a deeply defined case. It examines deeply related conditions using a case. (Yin, 2003) Research choices: according to research “onion” approach, the next interior layer is the research choice layer. Saunders divides research choices into quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. (Saunders et al. 2009) Quantitative research is based on measurement. This method is applicable to research phenomena that can be quantified. Quantitative research provides connections between empirical observations and mathematical expressions. Quantitative data are presented in numerical form, such as statistics and percentages. (Saunders et al. 2009; Kothari, 2004; Vehkalahti, 2008) Qualitative research focuses on qualitative phenomenon. Qualitative research is important especially in the behavioral sciences. (Saunders et al. 2009; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006) Qualitative research uses words and phrases, while the quantitative research is based on numbers. The aim is to describe, understand and meaningfully interpret the phenomenon. (Saunders et al. 2009) Sometimes qualitative research is undertaken as a preliminary research step prior to a quantitative research. This situation can also be reversed; qualitative research can be used to better understand the results of quantitative research. (Kananen, 2008) Since research topics have increased in complexity, new approaches have been developed. A combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches is referred to as mixed method research. (Saunders et al. 2009; Creswell, 2009) Research time horizons: From the point of view of time, research can be classified as cross-sectional or longitudinal. Cross-sectional research is a “snapshot” at a particular time. Researchers can also observe the same phenomenon at different points in time in longitudinal research. The longitudinal method provides one

101

fundamental benefit over other methods: it offers data about the same research topic at different time points. (Saunders et al. 2009) Since longitudinal research tracks the same research events or people over time, it is possible to observe changes. (Saunders et al. 2009) Sometimes researchers study trends and changes across a very long time periods, which can even be generations. Psychologists especially use longitudinal research. Despite the several positive aspects of longitudinal research, one drawback is the long time periods often requires to obtain the necessary data. In some cases, this may limit the usefulness of the method. (Saunders et al. 2009) Currently a large amount of research data has been collected in several data warehouse over a long time period and researchers can utilize the collected data in their own studies. This has been done to improve the effectiveness of the longitudinal research process. The research data can be analyzed and monitored using several different analytical techniques such as trends and correlations. (Saunders et al. 2009) Since a survey is used as the data collection method in this research, the survey process will be introduced next.

4.2 Survey process

The survey is a research strategy; it is a widely-used data-gathering strategy in which respondents answer pre-designed questions. (Kasunic, 2005; Saunders et al. 2009) The survey differs from other data-gathering processes in one significant way. The survey helps to generalize the beliefs and opinions of many people in an easy and effective way. Surveys are used for different purposes. For example, it helps in problem-solving and in the support of effective decision making. Generally, the results of the survey must increase understanding of the research problem. In certain cases, the survey process requires a long time period for implementation and this may limit its use. (Kasunic, 2005) The terms “questionnaire” and “survey” are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle and significant distinction between them. The survey is a process which is conducted using several steps. The instrument of a surveys is the questionnaire typically designed in advance. The survey must be conducted according to strict guidelines and follow formal survey procedures, otherwise research results can be inaccurate. (Kasunic, 2005) Executing the survey process requires several kinds of knowledge. First, subject matter experience is required. Second, knowledge of executing the survey process in

102 an acceptable way is needed. (Deming, 1960) Figure 23. illustrates the survey process which contains seven steps. These are introduced next.

Figure 23. Figure 4 The survey process. (Kasunic, 2005)

1. Identify the research objectives

The survey process usually begins with a statement of the research problem or issue. Defining the research objectives helps to identify the scope, guidance, and limitations of the survey. The objectives provide information on, for example, who the respondents should be, or what kind of questions should be included in the questionnaire. The research objectives must be defined based on the best understanding of the problem. (Kasunic, 2005)

2. Identify & characterize the target audience

This step identifies respondents for the survey process. This phase also determines the required size of the sample. A “population” means all members of a specific group. When the population is decided, it can be called the target audience. A “sample” is a subset of the whole population. In the survey, only the sample is studied, but the findings can be generalized to the entire population. The target audience mainly depends on the research problem. Questionnaire topics and items must be planned from the perspective of the target audience, not the perspective of the researchers. Therefore, the target audience needs a proper understanding of the research topic. (Kasunic, 2005)

103

3. Design the sampling plan

The goal of this phase is to plan how and when the questionnaire will be distributed to the selected sample. Availability of the respondents must be clarified since, for example, in some cases the vacation period affects availability of respondents. The researcher must make decision on whether it is sensible to distribute the questionnaire before or after the vacation period in this case. The researcher should carefully consider how to politely approach respondents, especially if respondents are in a high position in the organization. Additionally, the size of the sample is determined in this step. Sample size can be defined using by different formulas. (Kasunic, 2005)

4. Design & write the questionnaire

The questionnaire design and writing begins after the research objectives, target audience and sampling plan have been defined. One of the common mistakes is to plan the questionnaire from the researcher’s perspective who is familiar with language and terms. The questionnaire must be designed for the target audience by using understandable terminology. The analysis of the target audience will support the development of an understandable questionnaire. The main guidelines for creating a questionnaire are use simple words, keep it short, avoid bias, be specific and avoid hypothetical questions. Four different question structures are presented in Table 2. In the questionnaire-planning phase, one of the main decisions is to select the best possible question structure. It is possible to use several structures in the same questionnaire. (Kasunic, 2005)

104 Table 2. Typical question structures. (Kasunic, 2005) Structure Description

Open-ended The questionnaire does not provide pre-designed answer choices, therefore respondents have to add their own answers using their own words. Closed-ended with The questionnaire provides pre-designed answer choices. Respondents have to unordered choices select the most appropriate response or responses from discrete, unordered categories by evaluating each choice separately. Closed-ended with The questionnaire provides pre-designed answer choices. Respondents have to ordered choices select the most appropriate response or responses using a graduated scale. Hybrid The questionnaire provides pre-designed answer choices, but the respondents can also create their own answers using their own words.

5. Pilot test questionnaire

A pilot test is a simulation of the implementation of a survey using a few members of the target population. The goal of the pilot is to discover possible problems or weakness in the survey process. For example, instructions, questions, survey tools are issues should evaluate during the pilot. Additionally, in the pilot phase unknown and difficult terms should be corrected in the questionnaire based on the feedback from testers. Generally, all necessary corrections must be made to the survey instruments based on the results of the pilot. This phase ensures readiness to move on the actual questionnaire distribution phase in which the questionnaire will be distributed to wider group of respondents. (Kasunic, 2005)

6. Distribute the questionnaire

Providing access to the questionnaire is one of the main tasks in this phase. Additionally, the researcher must also, for example, pay attention to response rate and send reminders. During this phase the process must be documented. It can be work-intensive. But without proper documentation, it may be difficult to later analyze the results. (Kasunic, 2005)

7. Analyze results and write the report

When the questionnaire response time has expired, it is time for analysis. Naturally, a prerequisite for analysis is the successful completion of the previous steps. The main tasks of this phase are to execute the necessary analyses, make interpretations and observations, write the report and communicate the results. There are several ways to analyze the collected data, such as charts, graphs, and tables and based on

105

the evidence observations, interpretations, and conclusions can be derived. Finally, the research report presents the results of the survey. (Kasunic, 2005)

4.3 The research process

This research utilizes some of the previously discussed research methods such as survey and longitudinal method. Since the success of a research depends on how the study is implemented as a whole, there is no one right way to perform research; the entire process is important for a successful research. (Saunders et al. 2009) Every research is based on some philosophical assumptions. However, researchers who are concerned with facts, for example the resources required to produce some products, probably have different opinions than researchers who are interested in investigating the feelings and attitude associated with use of those products. It is important that the researcher is aware of the assumptions and constraints of the methods used in the research, even though this can be difficult to detect. By identifying the assumptions, researchers can also identify the strengths and weaknesses of their research. (Saunders et al. 2009) Quantitative and qualitative terms are commonly used in the business management research area. These methods have one fundamental difference: quantitative research uses numbers, while qualitative research uses words. (Saunders et al. 2009) In this research empirical data were collected using the survey process, and so numerical data was obtained. In this regard, this research can be considered quantitative research. However, this study also utilized secondary data sources to analyze the operational environment of the participants. From this point of view this study also has qualitative features. Therefore, both methods are used, and this study be considered a mixed methods study. In this case, the qualitative results will provide a deeper understanding because of quantitative approach has also been utilized. This will lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. (Saunders et al. 2009; Creswell, 2009) Surveys were repeated several times using comparable groups. Therefore, this research can be perceived as an example of longitudinal research. As previously discussed, the strength of this method lies in its ability to monitor development and change over a certain time period, however long time periods are often required, which may limit the use of the method. (Saunders et al. 2009) The time required for this research was several years, but a long research period was possible. This study can be considered cross-sectional research if only a single survey is considered. Every

106 survey was executed and reported as separate cases. Since a case study is a research method which tries to examine a selected case and deeply scrutinize phenomena and related conditions, this research may also be considered a case study. In fact, since surveys were repeated several times, this research may be perceived as a multiple- case study. Hence the cases are the large companies, medium-sized companies and the public sector in Finland. This study roughly followed the research process defined in the literature. (Olkkonen, 1994; McNabb, 2004; Jenkins, 1985) Figure 24. presents the research schedule.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Indentification of research topics Validation of the research topic Literature analysis Planning of the research strategy Planning of the empirical reseach Data gatheting Data proccessing and analysis Partial reseach results reporting Writing of the dissertation

Figure 24. The research schedule.

This research followed a generic survey process which contained several phases. (Kasunic, 2005) The generic survey process was presented earlier at the general level. Following the generic survey process allows the results to be presented in a systematic way. The phases in the survey were previously discussed in Section 4.2, but will be further discussed in the context of this study in the following sub- sections.

4.3.1 Identify the research objectives

The survey process should address the research questions or problems. Therefore, the survey process often starts with a statement of the research problem. (Kasunic, 2005) In this study the main research question was: How prepared are organizations for digitalization? I strive to understand organizations’ preparedness for digitalization and I utilize maturity models to help me assess their preparedness. Organizations’ preparedness for digitalization is comprehended as enterprise architecture maturity. Enterprise

107

architecture maturity models measure the maturity of the organization, and consequently, the organization’s capability for digitalization, i.e. preparedness for digitalization. Therefore, the questionnaire should be designed to correspond as closely as possible to the chosen maturity model. The research objective is to determine the maturity of the research groups and to monitor its changes during the research period. The research tries also to explain the reasons for the change.

4.3.2 Identify and characterize the target audience

As previously detailed in Section 1.2, the research group consisted of large and medium-sized companies and organizations in the public sector in Finland. The Finnish public sector and large and medium-sized companies within Finland were selected for this study for several reasons: access to data via public sources, similarity of the participants that could be obtained using the same selection criterion, groups would have different actors, different levels of maturity and participants who could be expected to benefit from enterprise architecture. It was also expected that all groups involved could benefit from the results of this research. The selection criteria used to define large and medium-sized companies was revenue. The revenue limit for medium-sized companies was set at a maximum of 25 million. Basic information was gathered using public or commercial sources depending upon data availability for both company groups. Each group contained approximately 100 companies. The third group was the public sector and was limited to municipalities ranked by population numbers, from highest to lowest. The size of the group size was approximately 100 municipalities. Finland is divided into self-governing municipalities. (The Ministry of Finance, 2018)

4.3.3 Design the sampling plan

The sampling concept here is that same research group can be created more than once using with same selection criteria. In the other words, the target audience remains the same, but the components inside the groups are allowed to change. Each of the components are equally weighted within the groups. Groups were created three times with same selection criterion at different time points. The group size was about 100 components. The actual group size depended on data availability because responses were collected manually, mainly from public

108 sources. The data collection process was repeated three times for the same target audiences at different time points. Therefore this research can be perceived as a longitudinal research. The method provides one fundamental benefit over other methods: it offers data about the same research topic at different time points. (Saunders et al. 2009) Since longitudinal research studies track the same research events or people over time, it is possible to observe changes. In this research, the time period was about three years.

4.3.4 Design and write the questionnaire

Maturity models can be used as tools for describing the maturity of an organization. This research evaluated maturity based on the MIT maturity model. Therefore, the questionnaire was designed according to the criteria described in the MIT maturity model. The cover letters for the questionnaire can be found in appendices A and B. The questionnaire contains two types of questions: closed-ended questions with ordered choices and open-ended questions. The structure of the questionnaire was as follows: questions 1 to 10 were designed to meet the definitions of the MIT maturity model, question 11 was a background information question and questions 11 to 15 measured business, information, application, and technology architectures. Additionally, open questions collected information on development actions related to the enterprise architecture. The questionnaires were identical for both the large and medium-sized companies. Although business terms were replaced by service terms in the public sector questionnaire, the questionnaires were otherwise identical. The survey was repeated three times using the same questionnaire each time. Therefore, the results of the surveys are comparable. Although there was a risk that after the first or second survey round there would be a need to modify the questionnaire, this risk did not materialize so the survey did not need to be modified during the research period. The closed-ended questions with ordered choices from 1 to 10 illustrated the definitions of maturity levels. The first, second, third and fourth response options addressed the first, second, third and fourth maturity levels, respectively. Additionally, an “I don’t know” option was included in the questionnaire. For example, the first question contained four options and an “I don’t know” option:

109

Question 1 – Which statement best describes your company's current state? 1. Business units use local IT applications. 2. IT infrastructure solutions are harmonized across the organization. 3. The company uses standardized business processes. 4. The company uses reusable applications and business processes. 5. I don’t know.

The subjects of questions from 1 to 10 can be found in Table 3. Questionnaires can be found in appendices C and D.

Table 3. Subjects of questions of the survey. Question The subject of the question number 1. Current stage of IT management 2. Development of information technology 3. Business requirements for IT management 4. IT management’s ability to respond to business needs 5. Definition of applications 6. The IT governance model 7. Strategic drivers for IT management 8. Centralization of IT organization 9. The level of standardization of business data 10. The level of integration of applications

Closed-ended questions from 12 to 15 evaluated business, information, application, and technology architectures. For example, question 12 is shown below:

Question 12 – Which statement best describes the current state of business processes? 0. The business processes have not been identified or documented. 1. The business processes have been identified and documented. 2. The current state of business processes and their interfaces to the applications, key data elements and IT infrastructure, as well as key business elements such as customers, stakeholders and organizations, have been identified and documented.

110 3. The target state of business processes, and their interfaces to the applications, key data elements and IT infrastructure, as well as key business elements such as customers, stakeholders and organizations, have been identified and documented. 4. A plan has been created that details how business processes will move from the current stage to the target stage. 5. I don’t know.

Open-ended questions focused on the most important development actions related to enterprise architecture. Additionally, some basic information was collected for follow-up purposes.

4.3.5 Pilot test questionnaire

The questionnaire was piloted with three persons who worked in forest industry companies in Finland. The questionnaire was fine-tuned according to the feedback. All three pilot respondents gave similar feedback related to the questionnaire. They felt that the terminology was difficult to understand, even though two pilot respondents had significant experience in the information technology area. Based on feedback, terminology explanations were added in places where difficult terms first appeared in the questionnaire. Apart from this issue, there were no other problems. The pilot also ensured that the survey tool was problem-free. This phase ensured readiness to move on to the full questionnaire distribution phase in which the questionnaire was distributed to all respondents. (Kasunic, 2005)

4.3.6 Distribute the questionnaire

The aim was to repeat the survey three times with three groups, so the questionnaire had to be distributed nine separate times. The groups were re-created for each survey round. The list of organizations for each survey round can be found in appendix E. The collection and validation of respondents were both a manual process, because the respondents’ contact information was not publicly listed. Their contact information was collected from the most reliable data sources available. The creation of the groups will be explained in detailed next. Collecting and validating respondents for the large company group: In the first survey, 100 of the largest Finnish companies were identified from the Financial Data Services of Kauppalehti (Kauppalehti, 2013) in March 2013. The original data

111

source for Kauppalehti was the Balance Consulting’s data warehouse. (BalanceConsulting, 2017) CIOs were selected as the main respondents, but this information was not available in the magazine that Kauppalehti. Tietoviikko publishes annually that includes the names of CIOs for the 100 largest Finnish companies. (Tietoviikko, 2012) By combining the two aforementioned data sources, it was possible to create a list which contained all company names and their CIOs. Finally, the e-mail addresses were searched from web page of the company. The result was 65 valid e-mail addresses. The Financial Data Services of Kauppalehti was closed in 2014. Therefore, the 100 largest companies were collected using by Balance Consulting’s data warehouse (BalanceConsulting, 2017) in October 2014. CIOs were again selected as the primary respondents. (Tietoviikko, 2012) The e-mail addresses of the respondents were mainly based on the previous survey. Only missing information was collected from the web pages of the companies. The result was 72 sets of valid contact information. In 2016, Tivi magazine (April 2016) provided the necessary company and CIO information. (Tivi, 2016) It was not necessary to combine several data sources in this instance. Additionally, it was possible to use information collected during previous surveys. Therefore, only a few missing e-mail addresses were required to be collected from web pages of the companies. The result was 76 valid e-mail addresses. Collecting and validating respondents for the medium-sized company group: Revenue was the selection criterion for medium-sized company group. Revenue was required to be less than or equal to 25 million. Kauppalehti also provided access to financial data for medium-sized companies. (Kauppalehti, 2013; BalanceConsulting, 2017) One hundred and fifty companies were collected in April 2013. The CEOs were selected as the primary respondents because only a few medium-sized companies had an IT management position. Their e-mail addresses were collected from public data sources, mainly the companies’ web pages. In some cases contact information was directly obtained from the companies. The result was 117 valid respondents. As previously mentioned, the Financial Data Services of Kauppalehti was closed in 2014. Therefore a new data source was used; the services of Largest Companies (LargestCompanies, 2014) were utilized to identify 150 medium-sized companies in October 2014. As in the first survey, CEOs were selected as the primary respondents. Largest Companies’ services also offered contact information for respondents and only in a few cases was contact information collected from web pages of the companies or directly obtained from companies. The result was 98 valid e-mail addresses.

112 Largest Companies services (LargestCompanies, 2016) were again utilized to identify 130 medium-sized companies in July 2016. As in previous surveys, the CEOs were selected as the primary respondents. Contact information was collected in a similar manner as previous surveys. The result was 94 sets of valid contact information. Collecting and validating respondents for the public sector group: Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus, 2019) offered population information for Finnish municipalities. Based on data from Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus, 2019), 150 of the largest Finnish municipalities were identified in March 2013. Every municipality had an appointed person who was responsible for IT, or a corresponding contact person. For this reason, the logical respondents to the survey was the person responsible for IT. At first, respondents’ contact information was requested from the KuntaIT organization, but they only delivered 17 names. Further contact information was requested from the registry office of the municipalities by e-mail. This approach was very successful. Only a few e-mails needed to be collected from the municipal web sites. The result was 143 sets of valid contact information. According to data from Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus, 2019), the 140 largest Finnish municipalities were identified in October 2014. Contact information for the person responsible for IT was collected directly from the registry offices of the municipalities by e-mail. In the previous survey this approach was noted to be effective and reliable. Each municipality responded to the inquiry with only a few days delay. The result was 130 respondents. Again, based on data from Statistics Finland (Tilastokeskus, 2019), the 130 largest Finnish municipalities were identified in July 2016. Contact information for the person responsible for IT was collected directly from the registry offices of the municipalities as done in previous surveys. The holiday season caused some delay, however, most of the municipalities responded within a few days and the rest within a couple of weeks. The result was 110 valid e-mail addresses. The data collection process for surveys: The data collection process was similar for all groups. In the first phase, the questionnaires were sent to the respondents. Initially, the response time was about two-weeks. If respondents did not respond to the questionnaire they were reminded. When the original response window ended, the response time was extended by about a week. The data collection process is presented in Figure 25.

113

Send Send Send time Send questionnaires remainders extension remainders

Figure 25. The data collection process.

The questionnaires were sent at slightly different times to avoid high workloads in the tracking of results. The questionnaire was delivered to the respondents via e- mails which contained the necessary instructions and the web-link to the SurveyMonkey tool. The resulting report was promised to be provided to all respondents. Additionally, product or gift vouchers were delivered to respondents. Response statistics of the first survey: Table 4. presents the most important dates for the first round of data collection. Questionnaires were distributed to the public sector later than the other groups.

Table 4. The main dates for the first round of data collection. Group Questionnaire sent Remainder sent Extended response time At 16.6.2013 extended response Large companies 2.6.2013 11.6.2013 time to 21.6.2013 Medium-sized At 9.6.2013 extended response 28.5.2013 4.6.2013 companies time to14.6.2013 At 9.6.2013 extended response Public sector 26.5.2013 2.6.2013 time to 14.6.2013

The questionnaire was sent to 65 large companies, 117 medium-sized companies and 143 municipalities. Twenty-three completed questionnaires were received from large companies, 33 from medium-sized companies and 57 from the public sector. The response rate from the medium-sized companies was the lowest at 28.4%. Incomplete answers have been included in the response rate. Incomplete answers mean that the survey was not completed. Background information was collected on how many business units or service units were served by the information management departments. The response statistics of the first survey are presented in Table 5.

114

Table 5. Response statistics of the survey in 2013 Medium-sized Large companies Public sector companies Group size [pcs] 65 117 143 Response [pcs] 23 33 57 Response [%] 35.4 28.2 39.9 Incomplete response [pcs] 1 4 12

1 – 5 business units [pcs] 1 21 8 6 – 10 business units [pcs] 8 4 7 11 – 20 business units [pcs] 5 0 5 More than 20 business units 8 3 23 [pcs] I don’t know [pcs] 0 1 2

Response statistics of the second survey: Table 6. presents the most important dates for the second round of data collection. Questionnaires for the public sector companies were distributed later than the other groups.

Table 6. Table 1 The main dates for the second round of data collection. Group Questionnaire Remainder sent Extended response time sent 30.11.2014 extended response time to Large companies 16.11.2014 22.11.2014 5.12.2014 Medium-sized 19.11.2014 and 30.11.2014 extended response time to 16.11.2014 companies 26.11.2014 5.12.2014 Medium-sized companies (added 6.12.2014 extended response time to more respondents 30.11.2014 9.12.2014 12.12.2014 from the same company) 22.11.2014 extended response time to Public sector 7.11.2014 14.11.2014 28.11.2014

Questionnaires were sent to 72 large companies, 98 medium-sized companies and 130 municipalities. Twenty-one completed questionnaires were received from large companies, 38 from medium-sized companies and 66 from the public sector. The response rate from the group containing large companies was the lowest at 29.2%. Incomplete answers have been included in the response rate. Background

115

information was collected on how many business units or service units were served by the information management departments. The response statistics of the second survey are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Response statistics of the survey in 2014. Large Medium-sized Public sector companies companies Group size [pcs] 72 98 130 Response [pcs] 21 38 66 Response [%] 29.2 38.8 50.8 Incomplete response [pcs] 2 14 12

1 – 5 business units [pcs] 4 11 9 6 – 10 business units [pcs] 8 5 9 11 – 20 business units [pcs] 1 4 11 More than 20 business units [pcs] 6 2 23 I don’t know [pcs] 0 2 1

Response statistics of the third survey: Table 8. presents the most important dates for the third round of data collection. Questionnaires were distributed to the public sector later than the other groups.

Table 8. The main dates for the third round of data collection. Group Questionnaire Remainder sent Extended response time sent 20.8.2016 extended response Large companies 7.8.2016 14.8.2016 time to14 26.8.2016 Medium-sized 21.8.2016 extended response 6.8.2016 13.8.2016 companies time to14 26.8.2016 Medium-sized companies (added more 27.8.2016 31.8.2016 Response time ended 2.9.2016 respondents from same company) 12.8.2016 extended response Public sector 28.7.2016 5.8.2016 to 18.8.2016 time to14 19.8.2016

The questionnaires were sent to 76 large companies, 94 medium-sized companies and 110 municipalities. Thirty completed questionnaires were received from large companies, 31 from medium-sized and 47 from the public sector. The response rate was the lowest from the group containing medium-sized companies, at 32.98%.

116 Incomplete answers are included in the response rate. Background information was collected on how many business units or service units were served by the information management departments. The response statistics of the third survey are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Response statistics of the survey in 2016.

Large companies Medium-sized companies Public sector Group size [pcs] 76 94 110 Response [pcs] 30 31 47 Response [%] 39.47 32.98 42.73 Incomplete response [pcs] 6 4 7

1 – 5 business units [pcs] 9 15 8 6 – 10 business units [pcs] 6 6 7 11 – 20 business units [pcs] 2 4 4 More than 20 business units [pcs] 7 2 19 I don’t know [pcs] 0 0 2

Distribution lists were not used; every e-mail was sent separately from a personal e- mail address to each respondent. This extra effort ensured an accurate follow-up process for the survey. During the survey process respondents mainly sent positive feedback. Respondents reported whether they completed the questionnaire themselves, forwarded it to someone else or planned to respond to the questionnaire later. Only a couple of respondents replied that they would not complete the questionnaire. One limitation was that using a personal e-mail account made it difficult to properly manage the high e-mail volumes. Due to this limitation, the distribution of questionnaires required a lot of manual work. On the other hand, the use of a personal e-mail facilitated the careful validation of the respondents and ensured a high response rate.

4.3.7 Data analysis

The goal of the data analysis phase was to conduct analyses, as well as make interpretations and observations. Then, the report would be written and the results would be communicated. Every survey was created as a separate report in Finnish. The report was delivered to respondents, as promised during the survey process.

117

The Survey Monkey tool did not offer tools for data analysis. The raw data were exported from the survey tool to Excel. The raw data were manipulated in Excel to identify correlations, as well as generate graphics, tables, averages and weight values. For example, the results from questions 1–10 related to maturity themes were converted using weight factors to a single value. The responses to the theme questions were converted to one value by using weight factors. The weight factors values were calculated according to the following: the first phase of development, (business silos responses) were weighted by a weight factor of 1, the second level, (standardized technology responses) were weighted by a weight factor of 2, and the third and fourth levels of the responses were weighted by coefficients 3 and 4, respectively. The results were averaged for each question, and the values from questions 1–10 were reported. The standardized technology level represented a value 5 and its optimized core value was 7.5. The essential issue is not how the calculation was executed, but that the calculation was executed the same way each time. (Saunders et al. 2009) This ensured the comparability of the groups between the surveys. (Saunders et al. 2009) Additionally, the results from questions 12–15 related to architecture maturity types were converted to one number and using weight factors. Percentages were converted to a single number according to following principle: the first answer option, " architecture level 1", was not weighted. The next answer option, "architecture level 2," was weighted by a factor of 2. The third option, "architecture level 3" was weighted by a factor of 3. Similarly, options 4 and 5 were weighted by a factor of 4 and 5, respectively. The results for each question were averaged, and values from the questions were reported.

118 5 THE RESULTS

This chapter focuses on the results from the research. The results are presented by group.

5.1 Large companies

5.1.1 Digitalization themes

At the business silos maturity level (Level 1), the architecture includes individual local applications rather than company-wide applications which involve the whole global organization. (Ross, 2008) The business silos level achieves strategic targets by local optimization. Organizations develop applications to fulfill a specific business requirement. Local business units are responsible for funding application development and therefore have the freedom to make decisions related to existing application development and new application implementation. No global constraints are placed on their decisions. They can focus on developing local applications which have their own data structures. These applications often use the best available technology platforms. At the business silos level, organizations rarely consider enterprise architecture. Business requirements and processes often serve a single production or service location or are limited geographically. Over time, the application landscape becomes complex and expensive to maintain therefore, the business silos maturity level is mainly outdated. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) This research has validated these results; it was found that large companies had bypassed the business silos maturity level. Only 6.82%, 4.23%, and 5.42% of organizations were at the business silos maturity level in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. The architecture provides cost savings through technology standardization at the standardized technology architecture level (Level 2). (Ross, 2008) These organization had moved development resources from local application development onto a shared infrastructure. This standardization produces manageable application platforms, which usually leads to cost savings. (David et al. 2002; Ross et al. 2006)

119

Organizations often move to the standardized technology level because management thinks that costs have increased beyond acceptable limits. However, technology standardization neither solves fragmented business data nor other kinds of business process problems. At this level, organizations begin to use data warehouses to share access to data. Individual applications still manage data and business processes are non-standard. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) Based on this research results 29.09%, 29.10% and 26.67% of large companies were at the standardized technology maturity level in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. The optimized core maturity level (Level 3) enhances process optimization thought business data and process standardization. (Ross, 2008) The company-wide architecture is expanded to business processes and standardization of data. Organizations have learned to standardize infrastructure platforms and services at the standardized technology architecture level. Consequently, organizations streamline their core business data and processes. These activities increase the predictability of the organization's main tasks at a company-wide level. (Ross, 2008) ERP system implementation especially supports data harmonization and also enhances business process harmonization. (Al-Mashari et al. 2003; Al-Mashari, 2002) For example, vendors can enter data into the ERP systems of the organization, which then flow automatically into the harmonized business processes of the organization. (Ross, 2008) When data are reliable and harmonized, core business processes always produce the same output and therefore core business processes become more predictable. (Ross, 2008; Al-Mashari et al. 2003; Al-Mashari, 2002) This leads to congruent customer responses, even if customers receive different responses to the same inquiry from different parts of the organization. Therefore, it can be assumed that this has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. Customers have lost the benefits of localized business processes at the optimized core maturity level, but the benefits of standardized data and processes may compensate them for these losses. In principle, however, all business data and processes are not harmonized; management decides which activities contain core data and processes and solely those activities are harmonized. For example, when somebody changes core business data, the change will be updated in all applications which use that data. Therefore, all applications are updated in tandem and latest data are available in different parts of the organization simultaneously. Since the core business processes are harmonized, the creation of new services or products is easier, but changing core business processes is difficult. (Ross, 2008) Implementation at the optimized core maturity level often requires a centralized organization structure, which requires radical organizational changes. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) Therefore, business data

120 and process standardization are more difficult for management as well as employees of the organization than at the technology standardization maturity level. Changes can lead to a situation where so many other changes are required in a short period of time that the organization is unable to undertake the changes. This is especially true in situations where the requirements of the earlier levels of maturity have not been properly implemented. (Ross, 2008) If the organization tries to make too many parallel changes the risk of failure increases. The focus should be solely on the tasks defined by that maturity level. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) In year 2013, 2014, and 2016, 39.55, 47.62% and, 43.33% of respondents, respectively were at the optimized core level, which were the highest figures in each survey. The business modularity architecture level (Level 4) enhances strategic capability by using customized or reusable modules. (Ross, 2008) Data, technology components, and business processes are mainly standardized, which enables organizations to adapt to local business requirements. Modules extend standardized business processes which have been implemented at the optimized core maturity level. The business modularity level enables faster implementation of core business processes. Local customization is allowed by modules without reduction of standardization. Modules increase strategic agility and ensure the predictability of the processes. At the business modularity level, customer satisfaction often increases because local modules encourage customer specific responses. The organization can respond to changing customer demands and market conditions more flexibly than at the in earlier optimized core maturity level. These organizations fully exploit their know-how in process, data, and technology standardization. The business modularity level extends and increases the effectiveness of the benefits of the standardization rather than replacing them. If organizations progress too quickly to modular architecture before they have completely standardized infrastructure platforms and business data and processes there is a significant risk of failure. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) According to the research results, 23.64%, 18.52% and 24.17% of large companies were at the business modularity maturity level in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. Most large companies were either at the standardized technology, optimized core or business modularity maturity levels in each survey. Figure 26. summarizes the response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels. It is worth noting that number of “I don’t know” answers (0.91%, 0.53%, and 0.42% in 2013, 201 and 2016, respectively) was low. It indicates the respondents’ high level of knowledge in the area of enterprise architecture. From 2013 to 2014, more large companies were at the optimized core maturity level than the business silos maturity level. This suggests

121

an increase in maturity levels. At the same time, fewer companies were at the business modularity maturity level, which negatively impacted maturity. From 2014 to 2016, the number of large companies at the business modularity maturity level again increased, approximately to levels observed in 2013. Correspondingly, the number of companies at the standardized technology maturity level and the optimized core maturity level decreased from 2014 to 2016. Figures can be found in appendix F.

Figure 26. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in large companies.

Figure 27. presents the maturity levels of large companies which have been converted to single values weight factors. These values were calculated according to the principles presented in section 4.3.7. The standardized technology level represents a value of 5, and the optimized core value is 7.5. Large companies scored 6.95 in 2013, 6.96 in 2014, and 7.14 in 2016. Maturity levels increased 0.14% between 2013 and 2014. The increase was 2.59% between 2014 and 2016. Large companies were at the standardized technology maturity level, but were close to the optimized core level.

122 Maturity levels of large companies presented with weight factors

8,00 6,95 6,96 7,14 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 Maturity 2,00 1,00 0,01 0,17 0,00 2013 Difference 2014 Difference 2016 Y2014 - Y2013 Y2016 - Y2014

Large companies

Figure 27. Maturity levels presented using weight factors in large companies.

Figure 28. illustrates the distribution of the responses by maturity levels (business silos, standardized technology, optimized core, and business modularity). The values in the figure are presented as percentage values separately under each of the theme questions and survey years. Current stage of IT management (Q1) Most large companies were at the standardized technology development level in the first and third surveys. According to the survey, IT infrastructure solutions were harmonized throughout the organizations. In the second survey, the weights of the standardized technology and optimized core groups were equal (47.37%). This suggests that standardized business processes have been implemented and large companies have harmonized IT infrastructure and business process solutions. More large companies (4.55%, 5.26%, and 20.83%) moved to the business modularity level after every survey. Development of information technology (Q2) In each survey, most large companies (63.64%, 68.42%, 58.33%) were focused on activities at the optimized core level. At this level, the main development area is the improvement of company- wide applications. Large companies have mainly implemented standardized IT infrastructure solutions; thus they can continue their maturity journey to next level by implementing company-wide applications. Since large companies have already harmonized most of their infrastructure, it is natural that the focus of development has shifted to company-wide applications. Large companies operate almost without

123

exception in geographically wide areas, and many companies produce different products or services.

Figure 28. Response distribution between the maturity levels in large companies.

Business requirements for IT management (Q3) Most large companies were at the optimized core level (54.55%, 57.89%, 58.33%) in each survey. In other words, IT applications required integration to boost business or service processes. Responses are in line with the answers of the tenth question: applications are integrated using standardized business data. In the first survey only 4.55% of large companies thought that applications must fulfill local requirements. This can be interpreted to mean that large companies pay more attention to corporate-level benefits than the benefits of local units. IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4) In the first survey, 45.45% of large companies focused the most on activities at the business silos level. According to the specifications outlined at the business silos level, a preliminary requirement of investment is measurable repayment. The ongoing weak economic period may explain the accuracy of investments. In the second and third

124 surveys, 57.89% and 58.33% focused on changes to support company-wide business processes. Applications definition (Q5) According to the most common option (Level 2), business management defines the requirements for IT systems, but IT management determines the system and technological solutions. Additionally, several large companies had nominated process owners for application development (Level 3). IT governance model (Q6) Most large companies were at the optimized core maturity level. This option received a high response percent (72.73%, 78.95%, 79.17%) in each survey. In other words, IT management provides a management model for company-wide application management. According to the standardized technology level, IT management offers a management model for standardized IT infrastructure management solutions. This option was the second most common in each survey: 18.18%, 15.79%, and 12.50% of large companies were at the standardized technology level in 2103, 2014 and 2016, respectively. Strategic drivers for IT managements (Q7) The most important strategic driver for large companies was business efficiency (Level 3) in each survey. Also, an important guiding factor was strategic business agility (Level 4). Speed and flexibility in introducing new business processes or moving into new market areas guided strategic planning in large companies. Since large organizations were likely to have different functions in several countries, they inevitably faced the need to re-establish their business in a new market area or to withdraw from the market altogether. Strategic capability especially helps organizations such as large companies that benefit from strategic business agility. Centralization of IT organization (Q8) Almost all large companies were at the business modularity maturity level in each survey, they have thus centralized IT management organization. Large companies have concentrated their IT functions, at least from the perspective of Finnish operations. Although Finland's largest companies may not be the largest in the international market, they do operate in many countries and it can be assumed that Finland's largest companies will also have IT service centers in countries other than Finland. Standardization level of business data (Q9) At the second maturity level, business information is application specific, but business data are shared via data warehouses for common reporting or analysis. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 45.45%, 36.84% and 45.83% of large companies were at this level, respectively. At the next level, critical information is standardized and applications are integrated using standardized business information. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 22.73%, 21.05% and 37.50%, of large companies were at this level, respectively. At the fourth level, new

125

applications are introduced from internal or external sources, for example through a web service. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 22.73%, 31.58% and 12.50% of large companies were at the fourth level, respectively. Integration level of applications (Q10) Application integration question was comparable to the previous question, but almost all large companies were at the three highest maturity levels. It can be inferred that large companies have integrated their applications. The following graphs present further details on how maturity has developed across the surveys for questions 1 to 10. Values were calculated using weight factors. Symbols represent maturities in various years in Figure 29. Development of information technology question (Q2) remained at the same maturity level in each survey. According to the results, the current stage of IT management (Q1), IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4) and the business data standardization question (Q9), improved systematically over the survey period. None of these questions decreased in each survey. The highest maturity score was found for the question which evaluated centralization of IT organization (Q8). The lowest maturity score was found for the question that addressed IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4) in 2013. Figures can be found in appendix G.

Figure 29. A cross-sectional analysis of large companies group.

A four-level maturity scale was used for the theme questions 1–10. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) and a five-level maturity scale was used for the architecture related

126 questions 12–15. (Paulk et al. 1993) Generally speaking, a five-level maturity scale is more widely used, (Rohsbeck, 2011; De Bruin et al. 2005a) but the theme questions were originally based on a maturity model with four levels and required a four-level scale. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al 2006) Business, information, application, and technology architecture were studied separately in the questions 12 to 15. Naming conventions for architectural types are not well standardized in the research literature, so different sources may use different naming practices for the same architecture. For example, the research literature uses software (Winter & Fischer, 2007) or application architecture (Jonkers et al. 2006) to refer to the same kind of architecture. In this research, four architecture types were used: business, information, application, and technology. The researcher is also aware of other types of architecture and naming practices. (Winter & Fischer, 2007; Hafner & Winter, 2008; Khosroshahi et al. 2015; Jonkers et al. 2006) Architecture level 1 corresponds to a situation where the organization has not even recognized the value of architecture. In addition, there is no documentation of this architecture. Therefore, it can be assumed that the organization is not even aware of the existence of the architecture type. This kind of organization has no development plans or schedules for the development of architecture. The process is characterized by ad hoc, and occasionally even chaotic efforts, thus performance is predictable only at individual rather than the organizational level. Architecture level 2 corresponds to the situation where architecture has been identified. The organization has also documented the architecture. Activities of the organization begin to develop more systematically. Good practices will also be repeated in other architectural development projects. Therefore, management practices are already more formal. The organization may use cost and schedule tracking practicalities when they monitor progress of the development of architecture. However, development is not yet fully systematic and coordinated. Architecture level 3 corresponds to the situation where the organization has recognized the current state of architecture. In addition to this, the organization has identified major architectural interest groups and interfaces. The organization has documented the current state of architecture and possible interfaces. The activity of the organization is more systematic and coordinated, because management activities are stabilized and repeatable. Architecture level 4 corresponds to the situation where the organization has defined a target state for their architecture. As at the previous level, the organization has been recognized major architectural interest groups and interfaces. The organization has also documented the target state of the architecture. At this point,

127

the architecture is already predictable, because the architecture process is measured and maintained within specified limits. When the architecture differs from the specified limits, actions are taken to correct the situation. Architecture level 5 corresponds to the situation where a detailed plan has been developed on how to move from the current situation to the target state. Investments are based on this transition plan. Hence development is coordinated and investment is based on a plan to achieve to the target state. The basic precondition for this step is that the most important elements of the architecture are already harmonized. If the results of large companies are reviewed, it can be noted that only a few large companies have not identified their required architectures. Most large companies are at architecture level 2 and architecture level 3. Large companies systematically moved to architecture level 3 during the research period. The reason for this may be that activities at architecture level 4 and architecture level 5 were systematically reduced between surveys. The reduction of the highest maturity levels may be due to the fact that that the complexity of digitalization also surprised experienced respondents in large companies. Architecture level 1 also increased systematically between surveys. It can be assumed that awareness of digitalization increased over the years and that digitalization is perceived as more challenging than before. As a result, architecture level 1 increased, and architecture level 5 systematically decreased between the surveys. The respondent group remained the same in every survey and they represented a high level of expertise in the enterprise architecture area, which is reflected in the low “I don’t know” response rate. Therefore, it can be assumed that they have a good understanding of their own company’s situation. These facts support the notion of reliable results. The results of the surveys are presented in the Figure 30. The results show that the most common maturity level was architecture level 3. In year 2013, 2014 and 2016, 30.68%, 32.89% and 35.42% of large companies were at architecture level 3, respectively.

128 Architecture types - large companies 40,00 35,00 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 Percent 10,00 5,00 0,00 Architectur Architectur Architectur Architectur Architectur I don't e level 1 e level 2 e level 3 e level 4 e level 5 know Year 2013 3,41 25,00 30,68 22,73 14,77 3,41 Year 2014 5,26 32,89 32,89 22,37 6,58 0,00 Year 2016 8,33 31,25 35,42 19,79 4,17 1,04

Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2016

Figure 30. The results of the architecture type questions in large companies.

The results of questions 12–15 related to architecture maturity types were converted using weight factors to a single value. The percentage values were converted to one figure as outlined in section 4.3.7. Based on the results, large companies obtained a maturity score of 2.48 in, 2.34, and 2.22 in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. There as a 5.56% decline in maturity between 2013 and 2014; there was also a decline in maturity between the second and the third surveys (5.13%). The fall in values is clearly due to the fact that the two highest maturity levels had fewer organizations in the last two surveys. Weighting factors were used to place more emphasis on high levels of change rather than low levels. In this case, high maturity levels reduced. The lowest maturity levels also systematically increased in each survey. Values in the Figure 31. were calculated as previously described. The ‘IT follows business’ principle is a hierarchical approach usually used in enterprise architecture management where business architecture leads the technology architecture. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013) A business- first approach ensures technological alignment with business requirements. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013) It is difficult to determine how different architectures are interrelated. (Jonkers et al. 2006) If individual architecture optimization drives the whole enterprise architecture design and evolution,

129

individual architecture may be optimal, but this is will not lead to an optimal situation for the whole. (Jonkers et al. 2006) According to this study, business architecture is not in the leading position in the first survey. Large companies may have recognized the importance of business architecture and were able to increase its weight in relation to other architectures in the last two surveys. Despite business architecture growth, business architecture is not a clear leader in large companies, but business is also heavily influenced by technology. However, it can be inferred that large companies have at least considered the importance of business architecture and are likely to emphasize it in making enterprise architecture related decisions.

Arhitecture types by questions - large companies 0,80 0,67 0,70 0,63 0,64 0,63 0,600,59 0,58 0,58 0,58 0,60 0,55 0,53 0,47 0,50 0,40

Maturity 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 Business-Q12 Information-Q13 Application-Q14 Technology-Q15

Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2016

Figure 31. Architecture types in large companies.

5.1.2 Digitalization development

In the open questions studied, the most significant reasons to develop enterprise architecture depended on the kind of development actions that had to be executed in the previous year. The grouping of the open answers has based on the given answers without a pre-planned framework. In short, large companies have adopted enterprise architecture in their daily operations. They also implement many concrete IT renewal actions. Responses can be found in appendix H. Figure 32. illustrates the percentages of open answers that were related to enterprise architecture works, concrete IT renewal (such as application or server

130 implementation) and other tasks (such as courses or business process definitions) in the context of the most important development actions. If the results were grouped further, the results would be so fragmented that their interpretation might have been unreliable since the number of open responses is limited. The purpose of the figure is to give an overview how development actions are roughly divided.

Large companies 100 % 80 % 5 6 8 60 % 8 6 40 % 2 Percent 20 % 4 4 4 0 % 2013 2014 2016

EA work Concrete IT renewal Other tasks

Figure 32. Changes in the development focus over the years in large companies.

Large companies 2013: Concrete development actions such new application implementation and application renewal were important in context of enterprise architecture enhancement for large companies. Standardization and business processes were highlighted important enhancement actions. Large organizations must especially smoothly mergers and acquisitions which are quite common actions. Therefore, enterprise architecture provides a good tool kit to manage these changes. Continued changes in the business environment may be one of the reasons to utilize enterprise architecture in business. Since the business of large companies is commerce-driven, most do not undertake new methods or procedures unless some economic benefits are achieved. Overall development actions were very concrete and large companies also adopted enterprise architecture. Additionally, large companies emphasized the importance of identifying and defining business processes. Large companies 2014: Standardization and enterprise architecture were the most important development actions in the context of enterprise architecture. Large organizations felt that they needed a good tool kit to manage the change. Additionally, expansions into new markets could have impacted decisions to adopt enterprise architecture to ensure seamless collaborations. According to the research results, large companies have adopted enterprise architecture methods and

131

development actions were implemented because large companies sought more cost efficiency and wanted to increase the coordination of development actions. Large companies 2016: Enterprise architecture and business processes were the most important development actions in the context of enterprise architecture. It is worth noting that in this year integration increased more than in previous surveys. As in previous surveys, large companies recognized enterprise architecture methods and adopted enterprise architecture in their daily operations. Perhaps large companies focused on business processes to prepare for a transition to a higher maturity level. As in the previous survey, development actions were implemented because large companies sought more cost efficiency and wanted to increase the coordination of development actions. When an organization moves to a higher maturity level, they must meet certain basic conditions. (Ross, 2008) In the survey, large companies emphasized the importance of business processes and standardization activities. They identified the importance of such required development actions. Hence, it can be assumed that they are well-positioned to move to a higher maturity level.

5.2 Medium-sized companies

5.2.1 Digitalization themes

The responses of medium-sized companies were divided a quite evenly between all four maturity levels (business silos, standardized technology, optimized core, and business modularity) in each survey. Figure 33. summarizes the response rate distribution and changes classified by maturity levels. In 2013 33.79%, in 2014 32.50% and in 2016 31.48% of medium-sized companies were at the optimized core maturity level. More respondents were at the optimized core maturity level. Medium- sized companies have not yet passed the lowest maturity level; response rates to the business silos maturity level were 21.03%, 14.58% and 15.56% in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. However, several medium-sized companies have advanced from the business silos maturity level to standardized technology maturity level between 2013 and 2014. From 2013 to 2014, medium-sized companies increased their responses of level four maturity and decreases their responses at lower maturity levels. This suggests an increase in maturity. From 2014 to 2016 medium-sized companies again increasingly responded at the fourth level of maturity.

132

Figure 33. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in medium sized- companies.

If we look at the results from the perspective of which maturity levels decrease or increase, we can observe that the optimized core silo decreased systematically in each survey. Respectively, business modularity maturity level increases systematically in each survey. Business silos and standardized technology silo do not provide systematic improvement or reductions in trends. Medium-sized companies have especially grown with respect to business modularity. This level received 19.58% of responses in 2014 and 22.59% of responses in 2016 from the medium-sized companies surveyed. Such a high proportion of respondents at the highest maturity level may indicate that medium-sized companies are overrating their current situation. Maybe some of the medium-sized companies have answered to the survey despite the limited expertise. This is also indicated by the fact that the “I don’t know” responses were at 1.85% in 2016, which is low compared to other surveys. Therefore, respondents answered almost every question and did not leave questions unanswered. Maybe medium-sized companies were too confident in 2016 and as a result the number of “I don’t know” responses decreased. Figure 34. presents the maturity of medium-sized companies as converted into one value using weight factors. The values are calculated according to the principle presented in the section 4.3.7. Based on the results medium-sized companies achieved a maturity of 5.44 in 2013, 6.07 in 2014 and 6.44 in 2016. Maturity improved 11.58% between 2013 and 2014. There was a 6.10% increase between 2014 and 2016. Medium-sized companies were at the standardized technology maturity level.

133

Maturity levels of medium-sized companies presented with weight factors

7,00 6,44 6,07 6,00 5,44

5,00

4,00

3,00 Maturity 2,00 0,63 1,00 0,36 0,00 2013 Difference Y2014 2014 Difference Y2016 2016 - Y2013 - Y2014

Medium-sized companies

Figure 34. Maturity levels presented with weight factors in medium-sized companies.

Figure 35. illustrates the distribution of the response to maturity levels (business silos, standardized technology, optimized core, and business modularity). The values in the figure are presented as percentage values separately in each of the theme questions and the surveys. Current stage of IT management (Q1) Most medium-sized companies were at the standardized technology development level in each survey. According to the standardized technology option, IT infrastructure solutions were harmonized throughout the organization. In the first and third surveys, the business silos level was at 27.59%, and 22.22% in 2013 and 2016, respectively. Hence medium-sized companies still use local IT applications, and business processes are rarely harmonized. More medium-sized companies (0.0%, 12.50%, 14.81%) moved to the business modularly maturity level survey by survey. Development of information technology (Q2) In the first and third survey, most medium-sized companies (51.72%, 55.56%) focused on activities as the optimized core maturity level. At this level the main development area is company- wide application improvement. Medium-sized companies were mainly implementing standardized IT infrastructure solutions. The most important option was standardized technology option in the second survey. According to the standardized

134 technology option, development focused on the adoption of standardized infrastructure technology.

Figure 35. Response distribution between the maturity levels in medium-sized companies.

Business requirements for IT management (Q3) Most medium-sized companies were at the optimized core level (55.17%, 58.33%, 62.96%) in each survey. In other words, IT applications required integrity to streamline business processes. Medium- sized companies also thought that applications should fulfill local requirements (Level 1) which could be due to the fact that medium-sized companies usually operated in a geographically limited area. IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4) About half of the medium-sized companies (55.17%, 45.83%, 48.15%) focused on company-wide business processes (Level 3) in each survey. Applications definition (Q5) According to the most popular maturity level option (Level 2) business unit management defines the requirements for IT systems, but IT management determines the system and technological solutions. The typical situation for organizations with a higher maturity level is that they have nominated process owners for applications and process development. Process owners

135

participate in the development of applications and processes in a way that supports their harmonization. The results show that medium-sized companies do not take advantage of the process owner concept. IT governance model (Q6) Medium-sized companies were mostly on three lower maturity levels in each survey. According to the business silos option, business unit management is responsible for all decision in business and IT operations. Based on the standardized technology option IT management controls the management model for standardized IT infrastructure management solutions. Medium-sized companies also emphasized the importance of activities at the optimized core maturity level in which IT management provided a management model for company-wide application management. Strategic drivers for IT managements (Q7) The most important factor was business efficiency (Level 3) for medium-sized companies in each survey. Cost efficiency, rather than strategic capability, was a very typical choice for medium-sized companies. Since medium-sized enterprise focus mainly on short-term activity (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015), it cannot be assumed that they would emphasize strategic agility rather than cost. On the other hand, since medium-sized companies are often in a phase of rapid growth, it has been observed that internationalization helps growth. (Joensuu-Salo et al. 2018) Medium-sized companies might be well- advised to focus on growth, not just cost-effectiveness. However, medium-sized companies are often low in capital (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015), and thus focusing on growth and internationalization alone is a risk. Centralization of IT organization (Q8) More than 70% of medium-sized companies had centralized IT management organization in 2014 and 2016. About half of medium-sized companies announced that had centralized IT management organization in 2013. Medium-sized companies usually operate in a limited geographical area (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) and also seek to benefit from local knowledge. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) Likely medium-sized companies have found that centralizing all resources in one or two locations is not in their best interests. On the other hand, it is likely that medium-sized companies do not even have large enough organizations to benefit from centralization. In addition, many medium-sized companies are likely to buy their IT services from an external service provider because they lack sufficient internal resources. (Heberle et al. 2017) Standardization level of business data (Q9) According to requirements for the standardized technology maturity level, business information is application specific, but business data are shared via data warehouse for common reporting or analysis. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 41.38%, 16.67% and 45.15% medium-sized

136 companies were at this level, respectively. At the next level, critical information is standardized, and applications are integrated using standardized business information. In year 2013, 2014 and 2016, 6.90%, 25.00% and 14.81% of medium- sized companies were at this level, respectively. At the business modularity level, new applications are introduced from internal or external sources, for example through a web service. Integration level of applications (Q10) The application integration question was comparable with previous questions. In the first survey, approximately 25% of medium-sized company had not integrated their applications. However, in the following two surveys, only a few medium-sized companies had not integrated their applications. Therefore, it can be concluded that they were successfully increasing the integration of applications during the research period. The following graph illustrates maturity trends in more detail over the survey period for questions 1–10. Values were calculated using weight factors as described in section 4.3.7. Symbols represent maturity in various years in the Figure 36. According to the results, development of information technology (Q2), business requirements for IT management (Q3), application definition (Q5), IT governance models (Q6), strategic drivers for IT management (Q7), IT management centralization (Q8), the standardization levels of business data (Q9) and the integration level of applications (Q10) improved systematically over the survey period. None of the questions systematically decreased in each survey; almost every question showed improvement in the scores. The highest maturity was observed for the question which evaluated the centralization of IT in the organization (Q8). The lowest maturity was observed for the question which evaluated the current stage of IT management (Q1) in year 2013.

137

Figure 36. A cross-sectional analysis of medium-sized companies group.

Business, information, application, and technology architecture were studied separately in questions 12 to 15. If the results analyzed more closely, it can be noted that medium-sized companies improved fairly evenly at all high maturity levels. However, architecture level 2 and architecture level 3 were higher than the other levels. It is noticeable that in 2014, 15.63%, and in 2016, 13.89%, of medium-sized companies announced they were at the highest maturity level. At architecture level 5 a detailed plan has been developed of how to move from the current architecture situation to the target architecture state. The plan works as a transition plan on which also investment decisions are based. Correspondingly at the same time in 2014 and 2016, 16.67% and 7.41% of medium-sized companies, respectively, announced they were at architecture level 1. Architecture level 1 corresponds to the situation where the organization has not even recognized the need for architecture and there has been no documentation of this architecture. This can be explained by the fact that a group of medium-sized companies is heterogeneous. Based on the results, in 2016 only 7.41% of medium-sized companies were at the lowest maturity level, thus they are already mainly beyond the lowest maturity stage. The most common maturity levels were architecture level 2 and architecture level 3. Medium-sized companies that were at architecture level 2 have identified and documented the architecture. Medium-sized companies that are architecture level 3 have recognized the current state of architecture. In addition to this, they have identified major architectural interest groups and interfaces. The organizations have also documented the current state of architecture and possible interfaces. It is likely that organizations' awareness of digitalization has grown over the years because digitalization has become a more

138 well-known. This may have contributed to the growing interest from medium-sized companies in digitalization. This increase in awareness could also have contributed to the decline in "I don't know" responses. The results of the surveys are presented in Figure 37.

Figure 37. The results of the architecture type questions in medium-sized companies.

Additionally, the results of questions 12–15 related to architecture maturity types are converted using weight factors as previously described in section 4.3.7. Based on the results, medium-sized companies obtained a maturity score of 1.88 in 2013, 2.14 in 2014 and 2.40 in 2016. Between the 2013 and 2014 there was a 13.83% improvement in maturity. Between the second and third surveys, there was also a 12.15% progress in maturity. Maturity growth was due to the fact that more medium-sized companies have advanced to the two highest maturity levels. Because the higher levels are particularly emphasized in the calculation, they have a strong effect on maturity. Values in Figure 38. were calculated according to similar weight as previously described. From the results it can be noted that the maturity of each type of architecture rose systematically. More medium-sized companies moved to the two highest maturity levels which increased the maturity scores. Business architecture was not a dominant position for medium-sized companies in any year. Technology

139

architecture guided more architectural development than business architecture. However, medium-sized companies have recognized the importance of business architecture. Business architecture scores increased more than technology architecture scores. Business architecture growth is expected to continue for organizations that are business-driven.

Arhitecture types by questions - medium-sized companies

0,70 0,61 0,63 0,57 0,59 0,60 0,55 0,55 0,54 0,50 0,52 0,50 0,46 0,45 0,46 0,40 0,30 Maturity 0,20 0,10 0,00 Business-Q12 Information-Q13 Application-Q14 Technology-Q15

Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2016

Figure 38. Architecture types in medium-sized companies.

5.2.2 Digitalization development

In the open questions studied, the most significant reasons to develop enterprise architecture depended on the kind of development actions that had to be executed in the previous year. In short, medium-sized companies may not have recognized the importance of enterprise architecture. However medium-sized companies were able to increase more with respect to enterprise architecture maturity than large companies and the public sector – without using formal enterprise architecture procedures. Medium-sized companies focused on concrete IT renewal tasks. Figure 39. illustrates the percentages of open answers that were related to enterprise architecture works, concrete IT renewal (such as application or server implementation) and other tasks (such as courses or business process definitions) in the context of the most important development actions.

140

Figure 39. Changes in the development focus over the years in medium-sized companies.

Medium-sized companies 2013: Concrete development actions such application renewal and increasing integration were important in the context of enterprise architecture enhancement for medium-sized companies. Medium-sized companies mainly executed very concrete development actions. They did not see the importance of actions such as education or documentation; medium-sized companies rarely adopted enterprise architecture. According to this survey, only one in ten companies evaluated the enterprise architecture itself –the most important action development action. Enterprise architecture may be too complex for them. Those development actions were undertaken because medium-sized companies sought more cost efficiency and because the organization needed new applications for growth. It is noteworthy that medium-sized companies did not seek to co-ordinate development activities but focused on the mere implementation of activities because of savings and growth. Therefore, this observation supports the general perception that the business model of medium-sized companies is short-term because they focus on financial survival or growth. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015; Tumbas et al. 2017a; Tumbas et al. 2017) Medium-sized companies 2014: Medium-sized companies indicated again that the most important development actions were very concrete IT projects such as application renewal and increasing integration. This was due to the need to digitalize main business processes and cut costs by digitalizing processes. Medium-sized companies may not have adopted enterprise architecture because no medium-sized company highlighted enterprise architecture as the most important development action. Similar findings can also be found in the research literature that indicate that medium-sized companies do not take advantage of enterprise architecture. (Goerzig

141

& Bauernhansl, 2018) This year, one medium-sized company focused on business process harmonization as the most important development action. However, this was not a typical development action. Medium-sized companies concentrated more on concrete IT-related development activities. These development actions were undertaken because medium-sized companies sought more cost efficiency. Medium- sized enterprises implement new applications because they needed to digitize their main business processes. It can be assumed that medium-sized companies have not yet digitized and automated all of their business processes and still operate manually. It is very likely that they will still need to harmonize their main business processes since only one medium-sized company announced that the most important development activity was business process harmonization. Similarly, in the previous survey, only one company focused on business process definition. However, the implementation of new applications also enhanced standardization, which is a basic prerequisite if the organization wants to proceed without problems at the highest maturity levels. (Ross, 2008; Ross et al. 2006) Research data does not reveal which applications medium-sized companies implement but especially the implementation of ERP systems enhances business data and process standardization. (Al-Mashari et al. 2003; Al-Mashari, 2002) Medium-sized companies 2016: This year medium-sized companies also announced they were focusing on concrete development actions. It was considered especially important to introduce new applications. As in the previous two surveys, an important development activity for medium-sized companies was to increase the integration between applications. Medium-sized companies did not engage in development activities related to business processes, standardization or enterprise architecture, but they continued introducing new applications and increasing their integration. Medium-sized companies again undertook these development actions because they wanted to develop their business and they strived for more efficient operations. There is nothing to suggest that medium-sized companies would try to co-ordinate more and longer-term with their developmental activities.

142 5.3 Public sector

5.3.1 Digitalization themes

According to the results the standardized technology maturity level is the most common. The responses of public sector are divided between all four maturity levels (business silos, standardized technology, optimized core, and business modularity) in each survey. However, municipalities reported lower maturity levels. Figure 40. summarizes the response rate distribution and changes classified by maturity levels. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 38.00%, 35.66% and 37.00% of municipalities, respectively, were at the standardized technology maturity level. The standardized technology maturity level received more responses than the other maturity levels in each survey. The public sector has not yet passed the business silos maturity level, because response rates to the business silos maturity level were in 2013, 2014 and 2016 were 16.89%, 20.00% and 16.00% of responses, respectively. In 2014 even more municipalities moved to the business silos maturity level, but they eventually returned to the original level from the first survey. We cannot observe a systematic trend in the results of the surveys. However, the business silos maturity level rose in the second survey whereas three higher maturity levels declined. It is also worth noting that number of “I don’t know” answers (4.22%, 7.74% and 7.50% in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively) increased in the last two surveys compared to the first. Perhaps respondents previously evaluated enterprise architecture as an easy task to manage in the first survey despite the fact that they represent the best expertise on enterprise architecture area for the surveyed municipalities. Perhaps after realizing the complexity of enterprise architecture, became more uncertain in the second survey. The number of public sector organizations increased at the business silos from 2013 to 2014. This suggests a decrease in maturity. Additionally, the scores at the business silos level decreased the other maturity levels increased from 2014 to 2016, which suggest an increase in maturity.

143

Figure 40. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in public sector.

Figure 41. presents maturity scores for the public sector as a single value computed using weight factors. The values are calculated according to the principles presented in section 4.3.7. The scores were 5.74, 5.36 and 5.58 in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. Maturity scores decreased by 6.62% from 2013 to 2014. The public sector increased in maturity by 4.10% from 2014 and 2016. The public sector was at the standardized technology maturity level. Maturity levels of public sector presented with weight factors 7,00 5,74 6,00 5,36 5,58 5,00

4,00

3,00 Maturity 2,00

1,00 0,22 0,00 2013 Difference 2014 Difference 2016 Y2014 - Y2013 Y2016 - Y2014

Public sector

Figure 41. Maturity levels presented with weight factors in public sector.

144 Figure 42. illustrates the distribution of responses to by maturity levels (business silos, standardized technology, optimized core and business modularity). The values in the figure are presented as percentages separately for each of the theme questions and each survey. Current stage of IT management (Q1) Most municipalities (62.22%, 56.60%, and 65.00%) were at the standardized technology development level in each survey. According to the standardized technology specifications, IT infrastructure solutions are harmonized throughout the organization. In the first and second surveys, the business silos level received 22.22% and 22.64% of responses. Therefore, it can be stated that municipalities still use local IT applications and their business processes are rarely harmonized (Level 3). Development of information technology (Q2) About half of municipalities (46.67%, 50.94%, and 45.00%) focused on activities at the standardized technology level. According to specifications at the standardized technology level, development is focused on standardized IT infrastructure solutions to reduce the number of maintainable solutions. Municipalities are still in the process of implementing standardized IT infrastructure solutions to reduce the number of platforms.

Figure 42. Response distribution between the maturity levels in public sector.

145

Business requirements for IT management (Q3) The optimized core maturity level was the most common (51.11%, 41.51%, and 47.50%) in each survey. In other words, IT applications are required greater integrity in order to streamline business processes. However, according to question 10, municipalities have not fully integrated their applications. Municipal applications are partially isolated without proper integration. Therefore, the public sector still needs to develop in order to harmonize the data structure of their applications, and then build interfaces between these different applications. Since almost half of the municipalities highlighted integration as the most important requirement for information management, the importance of the issue cannot be ignored. Additionally, the public sector expects cost cutting and efficiency from IT management using standardized technology (Level 2). IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4) The business silos maturity level was the most common in each survey. According to specifications outlined at the business silos level, IT management is required to repay the investment by returning a measurable business benefit. Applications definition (Q5) According to the most common option (Level 2), business management defines the application solution and IT management defines the technology solution. Organizations with a higher maturity level have typically nominated process owners for applications and process development. Process owners participate in the development of applications and processes in a way that supports their harmonization. The results show that municipalities do not take full advantage of the process owner concept. Since the public sector is so extensive and they have many systems and processes in place, the adoption of the process owner concept might clarify and harmonize both systems and processes in the public sector. IT governance model (Q6) Responses from the public sector were mostly at the three lowest maturity levels in each survey. According to the business silos level specifications, the business unit management is responsible for all decision in business and IT operations. Based on specifications outlined at the standardized technology level, IT management should provide a management model for standardized IT infrastructure management solutions. According to specifications outlined at the optimized core level, IT management should provide a management model for company-wide application management. The optimized core maturity level was the most common for municipalities (44.44%, 39.62%, and 42.50%). Strategic drivers for IT managements (Q7) The most common strategic driver was business efficiency (Level 3) for each survey. Due to the weak economic situation in Finland, public sector funding was reduced. This is likely reflected in the

146 survey results since municipalities heavily emphasized cost efficiency. Specifications at the business silos maturity level emphasize local optimization, so it seems that municipalities have been driven by rather than local optimization in terms of their IT management strategies. Business modularity maturity specifications, which emphasize speed and flexibility for the introduction of new products or moving into new market areas, do not guide strategic planning in the public sector. Centralization of IT organization (Q8) More than 70% of municipalizes have centralized IT management organizations. However, decentralized IT management organizations also exist within municipalities (Level 1). The public sector group included both large and small municipalities. It can be assumed, that a large municipal IT organization services many units, such as schools or hospitals, compared to a small municipality. Hence the distribution within the group is likely not flat; large municipalities likely have several IT service units and small municipalities likely have fewer IT service units. Standardization level of business data (Q9) The majority of municipalities can be ranked at the business silos or standardized technology maturity levels. According to specifications at the business silos level, business data is still isolated into separated applications. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 46.67%, 50.94% and 30.00% of municipalities, respectively were included in this group. According to specifications at the standardized technology maturity level, business information is application specific, but business data are shared via data warehouses for common reporting or analysis. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 40.00%, 50.94% and 45.00% of municipalities, respectively were at this level. At the next level critical information is standardized and applications are integrated using standardized business information. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 44.00%, 9.43% and 2.50% of municipalities, respectively were at this level. At the business modularity level, new applications are introduced from internal or external sources, for example through a web service. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 4.44%, 0.00% and 5.50% of municipalities, respectively were at the business modularity level. Integration level of applications (Q10) The application integration question was comparable to the previous question. The majority of municipalities belonged to the business silos or standardized technology maturity levels as in the previous question. It can be concluded that municipalities have not integrated their applications and typically have not standardized their business information. Consequently, applications are not integrated using standardized business information.

147

The graph below illustrates the maturity trends in greater detail across all surveys for the theme questions numbered from 1 to 10. Values were calculated using weight factors. Symbols represent maturities in various years in Figure 43. According to the results, the development of IT management (Q2), IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4), application definition (Q5), strategic drivers for IT management (Q7), the centralization of IT organization (Q8), the standardization level of business data (Q9) and the integration level of applications (Q10) was the highest maturity level in 2013. Only the question which addressed the current stage of IT management (Q1) systematically improved over the survey rounds. The highest maturity score was observed for the question which evaluated the centralization of IT in the organizations (Q8). The lowest maturity score was obtained in 2014 for the question that addressed the standardization level of business data (Q9).

Figure 43. A cross-sectional analysis of the public sector group.

Business, information, application and technology architecture were studied separately in questions 12–15. About half of the municipalities were at architecture level 2 for each survey. Therefore, the most common level was architecture level 2 over the surveyed time period. At level 2, the relevant architecture has been identified organizations have also documented the architecture. Activities of the organization are more systematically developed, but development activity is not yet fully coordinated. However, management practices are already more formal than at the lowest maturity level. Therefore, about half of the municipalities were recognized

148 the need for the development of architecture, but their target state remained unclear. Since their target state was unclear, they had not made plans on how to reach a target state. Since the target state and plan were missing, they could not make decisions based on long-term investment plans. Therefore, their development actions may be fragmented, and not all the activities may necessarily help to achieve the target state because it was originally unclear. The distribution was a quite clear because only a few municipalities were at the two highest maturity levels. In year 2013, 2014, and 2016, 6.67%, 4.25% and 3.13% of municipalities, respectively, were at architecture level 4. In 2013, 2014, and 2016, 2.78%, 1.42% and 1.25% of municipalities, respectively, were at architecture level 5. At these levels, the architectural target architecture state is already defined and documented, and the architecture is predictable. Additionally, at the highest levels of architecture, a detailed plan has been developed on how to move from the current state to the target state and investment decision are based on the transition plan. It seems that the maturity of all municipalities is at the bottom of the scale; most municipalities were ranked at the three lowest maturity levels. In 2013, 2014 and 2016, 18.89%, 16.51% and 14.38% of municipalities were still at architecture level 1. Although between each survey, some municipalities advanced to higher maturity levels, a significant number of municipalities were still at architecture level 1. Therefore, the results indicated that municipalities were not yet beyond the lowest maturity level. Some uncertainty can be inferred from the proportion of “I don’t know” responses, which was more than 10% in 2016. The high proportion of “I don’t know” responses may be suggest that even though the enterprise architecture was recommended for the public sector, respondents are not fully aware of the principles of enterprise architecture, and still had many uncertainties. The results of the surveys are presented in Figure 44.

149

Figure 44. The results of the architecture type questions in public sector.

The results of questions 12–15 related to architecture maturity types were converted to a single value using weight factors as previously described. According to the results, the public sector scored 1.65 in 2013, 1.59 in 2014, and 1.54 in 2016. Between 2013 and 2014 there was a 3.64 % decline in maturity, and between the second and the third surveys, there was also a decline in maturity of 3.14% The higher levels are particularly emphasized in the calculation thus they have a strong effect on maturity. Maturity levels decreased because municipalities lowered their reporting of the two highest maturity levels over the surveyed period. The calculation also did not take into account, “I don't know” responses which also contributes to the overall maturity decrease. Additionally, in 2016 the proportion of “I don't know” responses rose compared with the previous survey year. This means that maturity decrease. Values in Figure 45. were calculated using weight factors as previously described. The results showed that activities of municipalities were very technology-driven, and they were less attentive to business processes than the technology itself. Hence, business architecture was not the leading architecture for the public sector. The results indicate that technology architecture lost its position to other architectures in each survey. Despite this, technology architecture retained the highest maturity level scores throughout the research period. These results imply that the public sector does not follow the principle that business architecture leads technology architecture. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013; Jonkers et al. 2006)

150 Arhitecture types by questions - public sector 0,60 0,490,48 0,50 0,44 0,42 0,44 0,360,370,36 0,360,37 0,37 0,40 0,32 0,30

Maturity 0,20 0,10 0,00 Business-Q12 Information-Q13 Application-Q14 Technology-Q15

Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2016

Figure 45. Architecture types in public sector.

5.3.2 Digitalization development

In the open questions studied, the most significant reasons to develop enterprise architecture depended on the kind of development actions that had to be executed in the previous year. In short, enterprise architecture work was very visible and popular in the public sector. Figure 46. illustrates the proportion of open answers which mentioned enterprise architecture work, concrete IT renewal (such as application or server implementation) and other tasks (such as courses or business process definitions) in the context of the most important development actions.

151

Public sector 100 % 4 5 80 % 10 8 60 % 3 8 40 % Percent 15 11 20 % 13 0 % 2013 2014 2016

EA work Concrete IT renewal Other tasks

Figure 46. Changes in development focus over the years in public sector.

Public sector 2013: More than half the municipalities responded that the most important development action was implementation of the enterprise architecture itself. This is a clear indication that enterprise architecture work is strongly encouraged in the public sector because of the ICT law requirements. Enterprise architecture seems to be more visible in the public sector than in large companies. Overall, development actions did not include as many concrete tasks compared with the private sector, but the public sector did also implement application renewal projects. These development actions were implemented because the public sector sought more cost efficiency and wanted to increase the coordination of development actions. The results also showed that development that was completed were required by the ICT law. Public sector 2014: Almost half the municipalities responded that the most important development action was the enterprise architecture itself. This value was lower than in the previous survey year, but enterprise architecture remained more visible in the public sector than the private sector. Additionally, documentation was important for public sector, but may have been required as part of work related to enterprise architecture. In the previous survey, the public sector commented that enterprise architecture work had recently begun. Therefore, enterprise architecture work should have been in progress in 2014. As in the previous survey, these development actions were implemented because the public sector sought more cost efficiency and wanted to increase the coordination of development actions. The

152 results also showed that development was undertaken because of ICT law requirements. Public sector 2016: As in earlier surveys, the municipalities responded that the most important development action was the enterprise architecture itself. Documentation was again also important for the public sector, but it may also have been part of enterprise architecture work. According to the results of the survey, the public sector had not progressed past enterprise architecture documentation phase to the application implementation phase since there were no reports of increased implementation of applications (implementation scores remained low). Development activities were mainly undertaken in order to increase the coordination of development actions. The results also showed that development was done because of ICT law prerequisites. This is a clear indication that enterprise architecture work is strongly driven by law in the public sector.

5.4 Comparison of groups

The results of the surveys were analyzed and the responses from all groups were compared over the entire survey period: 2013, 2014 and 2016. Figure 47. Presents the maturity scores of large companies which were derived using weight factors. These values are calculated according to the principles presented in the section 4.3.7. Large companies scored 6.95 in 2013, 6.96 in 2014 and 7.14 in 2016. Maturity increased by 0.14% from 2013 to 2014. It also increased by 2.59% from 2014 to 2016. Large companies were at the standardized technology maturity level, but were close to the optimized core level. Based on the results medium-sized companies scored 5.44 in 2013, 6.07 in 2014 and 6.44 in 2016. Maturity improved 11.58% from 2013 to 2014. There was also a 6.10% increase from 2014 to 2016. Medium-sized companies were at the standardized technology maturity level. The public sector scored 5.74 in 2013, 5.36 in 2014 and 5.58 in 2016. Maturity decreased by 6.62% from 2013 to 2014. The public sector reported a 4.10% increase in maturity from 2014 to 2016. The public sector was at the standardized technology maturity level. Therefore, medium-sized companies were better able to increase their MIT maturity levels than other groups over the surveyed time period.

153

Figure 47. Maturity levels.

Figure 48. presents architecture maturity types which has been converted into one value per survey. According to the results large companies get the maturity value 2,48 in year 2013, 2,34 in year 2014 and 2,22 in year 2016. Between year 2013 and year 2014 there was -5,65% decline in maturity and between the second and the third surveys, there was same level decline in maturity (-5,13%). Based on the research results medium-sized companies get the maturity value 1,88 in year 2013, 2,14 in year 2014 and 2,40 in year 2016. Between the year 2013 and year 2014 there was significant 13,83% improvement in maturity. Between second and third surveys, there was also 12,15% progress in maturity. According to the results of this research public sector get the value 1,65 in year 2013, 1,59 in year 2014 and 1,54 in year 2016. Between years 2013 and year 2014 there was slightly -3,64% decline in maturity then between the second and the third surveys, there was also same level of decline in maturity (-3,14%).

154

Figure 48. Architecture type maturities.

5.4.1 First survey

Figure 49. shows how the different theme questions compared relative to one other. Values were calculated using weight factors. Large companies were at the most advanced maturity level for almost every theme question, which supports the finding that large companies had the highest maturity level of all the groups studied. Large companies only received lower maturity scores than the medium-sized companies for the applications definition question (Q5) and the strategic drivers for IT management question (Q7). All groups received the highest maturity scores for the centralization of IT organization question (Q8). According to the IT governance model question (Q6), large and medium-sized companies differed the most in terms of maturity. However, the public sector and medium-sized companies received roughly the same maturity scores for the IT governance model question (Q6). This question reflects the emphasis that large companies placed on the governance of company-wide applications. The public sector and medium-sized companies continued to focus on supporting local operations. In standardization level of business data (Q9) and integration level of applications question (Q10), large

155

companies were consistently at a higher level of maturity than medium-sized companies. The public sector had the lowest maturity scores in both questions. Under these two themes, the public sector scored significantly worse than medium- sized companies. The public sector is not yet ready to address integration of application. In addition, they also face challenges in terms of business data standardization. It would be best to standardize business data before attempting application integration. Application integration maturity scores were higher than business data standardization scores for all groups.

Figure 49. A comparison of the themes and groups in the first survey.

5.4.2 Second survey

Figure 50. shows how the different theme questions compared relative to one other. Values were calculated using weight factors. As in the first survey round, large companies were at the most advanced maturity level for almost every theme question which supports the finding that large companies had the highest maturity level of all the groups studied. Large companies only had lower maturity scores than medium-sized companies for the applications definition question (Q5) and the strategic drivers for IT managements question (Q7). However, large companies and medium-sized companies had comparable maturity level scores for the applications definition question (Q5). Each group had the highest maturity scores for the centralization of IT organization question (Q8). Large and medium-sized companies had the largest

156 differences in maturity level scores for the IT governance model question (Q6). The standardization level of business data question (Q9) and the integration level of applications question (Q10) revealed that large companies were at the most advanced maturity level. As in 2013, the scores for the integration level of applications question (Q10) were higher than the standardization level of business data question (Q9) for all groups. The figure shows that the public sector were clearly reported at a lower maturity level than the other groups with respect to the question that addressed IT management’s ability to respond to business needs (Q4). The public sector may have a different level of need that must be addressed by IT management (Q4) than the other companies surveyed.

Figure 50. A comparison of the themes and the groups in the second survey.

5.4.3 Third survey

Figure 51. shows how the different theme questions compared relative to one other. Values were calculated using weight factors. As in the first and second surveys, the figure supports the finding that large companies were at the highest maturity level because large companies only had lower maturity scores than the other groups for the applications definition question (Q5) and the strategic drivers for IT managements question (Q7). However, the maturity of the medium-sized companies were close to the maturity scores for large companies in several questions. As in 2013 and 2014, each group has the highest maturity scores for the centralization of IT organization question (Q8). However, large companies had

157

centralized their IT organization more than medium-sized companies and the public sector. Responses from the public sector were likely to be dependent on the size of the municipality. According to the background information question (Q11), the public sector’s IT organization serves even more different units than large companies. Large municipalities are especially required to meet the needs of many schools, agencies, hospitals as well as other public sector units, and it can therefore be expected that serving such a large is challenging and operations would be less centralized than in small municipalities. There were considerably fewer similar units for small municipalities. Large and medium-sized companies had the biggest differences in maturity levels for the IT governance model question (Q6) in year 2013 and 2016. Large companies consistently had the highest maturity scores for the standardization level of business data question (Q9) and the integration level of applications question (Q10). As in 2013 and 2014, the scores for the integration level of applications question (Q10) were higher than the standardization level of business data question Q9) for all groups.

Figure 51. A comparison of the themes and groups in the third survey.

5.5 Digitalization theme and architecture type analysis

As part of the analysis of the results, it was also examined how the results correlate with each other. The target was to identify correlations between theme questions and architecture type questions. Analysis was conducted for each research group separately. The correlation in this case means that we are able to form a connection

158 between theme questions and architecture type questions. If a correlation is found, we can unequivocally state that the theme question measures a particular architecture type. If no correlation is found, we cannot associate the theme question directly with a particular architecture type. First, the theme questions were categorized by architecture type. Theme questions were classified by 31 senior IT-students and researchers at Tampere University to ensure as objective classification result as possible. Some theme questions received the same weight in the evaluation of senior IT-students and researchers, so the theme questions focused on two architecture types. According to evaluation Q1 is business, Q2 is application, Q3 is information and application, Q4 is business, Q5 is business and application, Q7 is business, Q8 is business and information, Q9 is information, Q10 is application architecture. The correlations are calculated from the results of all three surveys for each research groups. The correlation is calculated for each theme question and the business, information, application and technology architecture question. The results are formed into a correlation matrix. The correlation matrix did not show systematic correlation between theme questions and architecture type questions. In addition, senior IT-students and researchers categorized theme questions does not add value to the correlation matrix because they have no correlation with architecture questions. This study does not provide a sufficient evidence for a correlation between theme questions and architecture types questions. Because no systematic and significant correlations were found, the analysis was not continued.

159

6 DISCUSSION

Digitalization affects the ways in which we do business. Large companies can respond to the constantly changing business environment in a more professional and systematic way. Medium-sized companies may not be as well prepared to respond to the challenges of digitalization. (Heberle et al. 2017) Governmental policies strongly influence the public sector, specifically from a western context. (Janssen & Hjort- Madsen, 2007) Generally, organizations use digital technology to fuel their businesses if they believe it will give them an advantage over their competition. (Ba et al. 2000; Tumbas et al. 2015) Digital technologies enable to improved ways of doing business. (Berente et al. 2014)

6.1 Large companies

EA maturity: Figure 52. repeats the maturity levels according to the MIT maturity model. Based on the results, large companies had bypassed the lowest maturity level: the business silos maturity level. Most large companies were at the three most advanced maturity levels (standardized technology, optimized core and business modularity) in each survey. Percentages were also converted to a single value that illustrated maturity. As indicated from the results, maturity increased by 0.14% from 2013 to 2014. There was also a 2.59% increase from 2014 to 2016. Large companies were at the standardized technology maturity level, but very nearly at the optimized core level.

160

Figure 52. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in large companies (reprint Figure 26).

IT management and governance: According to the research, most large companies focused their main management efforts on company-wide IT application management practices. In other words, large companies’ IT management provided a proper management model for company-wide IT applications management (Q6). This means that large companies have recognized the importance of IT management and try to continuously develop IT management. It can be assumed that change was based, at least partly, on new digitalization requirements. IT management practices were formalized because each large company had a CIO, or a corresponding position, and centralized IT organization was in place. According to the MIT maturity model definition, more centralized IT governance structure result in a more mature organization. (Ross et al. 2006) Therefore, the research literature promotes centralized IT governance mechanisms facilitate the promised alignment benefits. However, the centralized IT governance approach has fallen under criticism. Organizations are increasingly beginning to promote a non- centralized approach and support local decision-making. (Vejseli et al. 2019; Winter, 2014) Today, organizations tend to use agile business strategies to ensure better business performance. For this reason, flexible and adaptive IT governance mechanisms are becoming more common and IT is able to respond more flexibly to changing business demands. (Vejseli et al. 2019) However, if the entire MIT model is considered, when the organization advances to the business modularity level, local flexibility increases without loss in global flexibility. (Ross et al. 2006) Based on the IT management centralization question (Q8), large companies were at the business modularity maturity level in each survey and must therefore have centralized IT

161

management organization. Hence, large companies have concentrated their IT functions, at least from the perspective of Finnish operations. When organizations change their investment focus, they begin to create different kinds of business value. Due to changes in investment focus organizations must also change management practices to achieve organizational learning on value creation. Organizations will not achieve benefits by only changing their investment focus. (Ross et al. 2006) As we have seen, large companies have also changed their IT management practices. They have transformed organization structures toward a centered approach.

Digitalization situation: Digital technologies offer both new opportunities and create new threats for large organizations. They must re-evaluate their positions and how they invest in digital technologies in order to reposition themselves. Large organization can succeed by taking advantage their existing strengths and capabilities with digital technologies. (Sebastian et al. 2017; Sia et al. 2016) Based on the research literature, in most large organizations digital transformation strategies are still in their early stages, despite the existence of formal IT management structures within the organizations. (Sebastian et al. 2017; Sia et al. 2016) Digital strategy encourages organizations to focus on resources on concrete targets with clear and well-defined directions. (Sebastian et al. 2017; Sia; et al. 2016; Hess et al. 2016) This research did not directly examine the state of the digital strategies in the organizations, but it may be possible to make inferences if companies highlighted the importance of digital strategy. For example, the question that addressed the development of digitalization would likely be a good indication of the state of digitalization strategies. On the other hand, the importance of the digital strategy only became more visible in public discussion after the last survey. According to the research, large companies had the highest enterprise architecture maturity scores for all the groups. They had also adopted enterprise architecture management principles. The most important strategic drivers for the question related to IT management (Q7) was business efficiency in each survey. The important guiding factor was also strategic business agility. Speed and flexibility in the introduction of new business processes, moving into new market areas or withdrawing from market areas guided strategic planning in large companies. An increasingly demanding business environment requires agility to adapt to the new business situation. High maturity levels support large organizations in the constantly changing international business environment. (Ahlemann et al. 2012; Venkatesh et al. 2007)

162 The scope of the organizations and the current operational landscape supports the view that large companies benefited from their high level of maturity as well as their use of enterprise architecture. Other organizations also benefited from their high maturity levels, but a high enterprise architecture maturity level is particularly beneficial for the large and complex operating environment in which large companies operate. For example, large companies usually operate in several countries and they often produce a variety of products or services. The benefits and disadvantages of different kinds of enterprise architecture management structures have been studied by several researchers. (Brown & Magill, 1994) For example, one recommendation included the adoption of a country-specific approach to architecture structure. (Kettinger et al. 2010) A high maturity level with respect to enterprise architecture is helpful to large companies, for example, as previously mentioned, in situations such as mergers and acquisitions. (Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016) Digitalization development: The research results support the view that large companies executed many digitalization projects. One can assume that these projects were also implemented under formal management structures, because large companies had formalized IT management practices and adopted enterprise architecture. According to the research literature, enterprise resource planning (ERP) system implementation is an important project because it is widely used in large organizations. System-related expenditures are often a major part of corporate information technology costs in large organizations. New system implementation might be challenged in large diverse organizations, because no two-identical organizations exist; business culture, organization structures, among other aspects, are all different. The business environment is often constantly under revision although systems are not able to change as quickly – if at all. Several unsuccessful IT projects can be found in the research literature, but there are also numerous success stories. (Berente & Yoo, 2012) For example, one such success story described the execution of Finnish forest industry company UPM’s operational system implementation program via an industrialized transformation approach. (Winkler & Kettunen, 2018) According to my results, business management defines the requirements for IT systems, but IT management determines the system and technological solutions. Additionally, several large companies have nominated process owners for application definition. Therefore, there are indications that large organizations are partially adopting a business-driven approach. Architecture type maturity: According to this research, business architecture is not in the leading position in the first survey. Large companies may have recognized

163

the importance of business architecture and were able to increase its weight in relation to other architectures in the last two surveys. Despite business architecture growth, business architecture was not a clear leader in large companies, but businesses were also heavily influenced by technology. Large companies had at least considered the importance of business architecture and were likely to emphasize it in making enterprise architecture related decisions. It would be beneficial to further emphasize the importance of business. As we have learned, one of the successful transformation programs used a business-driven approach. (Winkler & Kettunen, 2018) Other large organizations could also emphasize a more business-driven approach since both researchers and practical examples recommend an “IT follows business” approach. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Winter & Fischer, 2007; Winkler & Kettunen, 2018)

6.2 Medium-sized companies

EA maturity: Figure 53. again lists the maturity levels according to the MIT maturity model. The responses of the medium-sized companies were divided quite evenly between all four maturity levels (business silos, standardized technology, optimized core, and business modularity) in each survey. Medium-sized companies had not advanced beyond the business silos maturity level, because response rates to the lowest maturity level were in 2013, 2014, and 2016, 21.03%, 14.58%, and 15.56% of responses, respectively. On the other hand, the business modularity maturity level was 19.58% in 2014 and 22.59% in 2016. This may be a sign that medium-sized companies overestimated their current situation. The group of medium-sized company was heterogeneous and this heterogeneity can also explain the distribution of results from lowest maturity level to highest maturity level. Percentages were also converted to a single value to illustrate maturity. Therefore, maturity improved 11.58% from 2013 to 2014. There was a 6.10% increase from 2014 to 2016. Medium- sized companies were at the standardized technology maturity level.

164

Figure 53. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in medium-sized companies (reprint Figure 33).

According to the MIT maturity model, business data and processes must be harmonized before advancing from the optimized core level to the business modularity level. (Ross et al. 2006) The responses to the open questions indicated that medium-sized companies had not implemented standardization activities. It is possible that some of the medium-sized companies had advanced too quickly, and may have implemented initiatives without adequate preparation, which could later be problematic. The enterprise architecture journey should be gradual and systematic in order to avoid failure. If organizations do not implement best practices at earlier levels, they may not generate added value from IT at later levels. (Ross et al. 2006) IT management and governance: Medium-sized companies had not yet fully formalized their IT management practices. (Heberle et al. 2017) The research literature also suggests that it is preferable to have some kind of IT management mechanism in place than no IT management practices. (Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007; Anthopoulos et al. 2010) It was also noted that medium-sized companies rarely had a dedicated in-house IT manager. Medium-sized companies tended to outsource or integrate IT activities into other organizations. Medium-sized companies were mostly at the three lowest maturity levels for the question related to IT governance model (Q6). According to the specifications for the business silos level, management for the business units is responsible for all decisions in business and IT operations. Based on the standardized technology level’s specifications, IT management provided the management model for standardized IT infrastructure management solutions. Medium-sized companies also

165

emphasized the importance of optimized core specifications in which IT management provided a management model for company-wide application management. Medium-sized companies often had a small IT team if the company did not operate in the information technology area. More than 70% of medium-sized companies had centralized IT management organization in 2014 and 2016. In 2013, medium-sized companies announced that they had centralized about half of their IT management organization. Medium-sized companies usually operated in a limited geographical area (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) and also utilized local knowledge. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) The research results support the view expressed in the literature that medium-sized companies executed digitalization project to fuel business growth; responses to the open questions indicated that the reason for digitalization tasks was business growth in some cases. High-growth organizations often used decentralized IT governance structures. (Weil & Woodham, 2002) Therefore, medium-sized companies might benefit from decentralized IT management structures, but they must be prepared to centralize their IT management after their growth has stabilized. According to the MIT definition, enterprise architecture is the organizing logic for business processes and IT, reflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the organization’s operating model. The operating model describes how the organization operates. Most organizations attempted to maximize value by aligning IT and business processes with business strategy. (Ross et al. 2006) According to the research, only medium-sized companies were able to systematically increase business data standardization and integration maturity in each survey. Business data standardization and integration are important, because without proper levels of integration and standardization organizations face data and process- efficiency problems. (Venkatesh et al. 2007) Digitalization situation: Medium-sized companies struggle with digitalization. (Heberle et al. 2017) Digital technologies offer a great opportunity to grow and succeed, but economic success is not assured. (Ba et al. 2000) Medium-sized companies do not respond professionally to digitalization. They often embark on digitalization without a long-term strategy because their working models are often experimental. (Tumbas et al. 2017a; Tumbas et al. 2015) When organizations become grow larger and more mature digitalization decisions are often based on more long- term strategic decisions. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Medium-sized companies are often in a period of rapid growth. (Tumbas et al. 2017) Based on the literature, digital technologies should already be embedded in the organization at early stages.

166 (Lagerström et al. 2011; Ross et al. 2006; Venkatesh et al. 2007; Bradley et al. 2011; Tumbas et al. 2015) According to this research, medium-sized companies have not adopted enterprise architecture management methods despite their focus on implementing concrete digitalization projects. Medium-sized companies are likely to benefit if they used enterprise architecture to guide their management activities. Digitalization development: The research results support the view that medium-sized companies implement a variety of IT renewal projects, but they do not see enterprise architecture as an important management method. Enterprise architecture could provide support for medium-sized companies, it is not in use. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) There are several reasons why medium-sized companies have not adopted enterprise architecture practices. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) For example, medium-sized companies feel that enterprise architecture is too complex and is mainly a tool for IT organizations. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) Additionally, medium-sized companies feel that business management representatives are not sufficiently involved. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) Architecture type maturity: From the results it can be noted that the maturity of each type of architecture rose systematically. More medium-sized companies moved to the two highest maturity levels, which increased maturity. Business architecture was not a dominant position in medium-sized companies in any year. Technology architecture guided architectural development more than business architecture. However, medium-sized companies recognized the importance of business architecture. Medium-sized companies would also benefit from an emphasis on a business-driven approach, often referred to in the literature as the “IT follows business” principle and endorsed by practical examples of successful business-driven approaches. (Winkler & Kettunen, 2018)

6.3 Public sector

EA maturity: Figure 54. repeats the maturity levels derived from the MIT maturity model. The public sector has not yet passed the business silos maturity level, because response rates at the lowest maturity level were 16.89% in 2013, 20.00% in 2014 and 16.00% in 2016. Percentages were also converted to a single value that illustrated maturity. Therefore, between 2013 and 2014, maturity decreased by 6.62%. The public sector increased in maturity by 4.10% from 2014 to 2016. Although respondents represented the municipality's best expertise in the enterprise

167

architecture area, it is possible that respondents evaluated enterprise architecture as an easy task to manage in the first survey, but then subsequently realized the complexity of enterprise architecture implementation in the second survey. This could be interpreted from the higher number of “I don’t know” responses. The public sector was at the standardized technology maturity level.

Figure 54. The response rate distribution and changes by maturity levels in public sector (reprint Figure 40).

IT management and governance: The government is closely monitoring the current state of their organization against several criteria. Public sources offer accurate information related to, for example, the government’s IT administration staff, overall expenses, current challenges, and maturities. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2014; Hattinen & Korhonen, 2015; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2016; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) Finnish public administration evaluates the current state of their organization's overall architecture using a five-level maturity model, based on the CMM maturity model. Therefore, public sector information management is very closely monitored. The results of the government’s evaluation of the maturity of the Finnish public administration maturity cannot be compared to this research because of several fundamental differences such as maturity model and research groups. However, it is noteworthy that the surveys of this research and the government’s reports emphasize the importance of ICT steering and management mechanisms, because the organizations in which IT management practices are lacking tended to report more project failures, cost overruns, and other problems. (Janssen & Hjort- Madsen, 2007; Anthopoulos et al. 2010)

168 During the survey process it was noted that almost every municipality had their own dedicated IT manager position or a corresponding role. Finnish municipalities had a formal in-house or outsourced IT management organization. Public sector responses to the question related to the IT governance model question (Q6) were mostly at the three lower maturity levels in each survey. According to the specifications at the business silos level, business unit management is responsible for all decision in business and IT operations. Based on specifications at the standardized technology level, IT management provides the management model for standardized IT infrastructure management solutions. At the optimized core level, IT management provides a management model for company-wide application management. The maturity scores for the optimized core level was the highest for the municipalities (44.44%, 39.62%, 42.50%). This result may reflect that the public sector is still seeking to clarify their IT management model, because the public sector still uses a considerable number of local solutions although the governance model aims to manage the larger entity. On the other hand, this is also a positive sign since when the public sector has succeeded in harmonizing IT applications, they will be very proficient at managing them. The most common strategic driver for the IT management question (Q7) was business efficiency in each of the surveys. A period of poor economic growth from 2009 to 2016 in Finland negatively affected the government’s ICT budget. After 2009, when the government’s ICT expenses were at their highest level, ICT expenses deceased. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) Therefore, the economic downturn was reflected in the results of this research. Speed and flexibility in the introduction of new services or withdrawing existing services efficiently did not guide strategic planning in the public sector. Due to nature of the group it is logical that strategic agility is not a top priority, but the public sector would also benefit from increased strategic agility. Municipalities have mainly centralized IT management organization (Q8). However, decentralized IT management organizations exist in municipalities. The public sector group included both large and small municipalities. It can be assumed that a large municipal IT organization will have to service many units, such as schools or hospitals, than a small municipality. In a cross-country comparative study on enterprise architecture frameworks in Norway and the Netherlands showed that both countries were architecturally similar, but used different governance strategies. IT governance organization was decentralized in the Netherlands whereas it was centralized in Norway. In the Netherlands many software solutions and integration approaches exist between the applications. (Aagesen et al. 2011) It is possible that a

169

more centralized approach to IT organization could lead to a more effective and less complex IT landscape in Finland. Digitalization situation: The public sector heavily promoted digitalization and this was the government’s top priority project in Finland. (Parviainen et al. 2017) Digital technologies offer a great opportunity to better serve citizens. (Valtiovarainministeriö, 2019) However, the benefits of the digitalization have been rather limited despite high expectations. (Parviainen et al. 2017) The public sector must follow ICT guidance and instructions because public administration information management is controlled by the ICT law in municipalities. (Kiviniemi, 2011; Finlex, 2019) According to the Finnish law, an enterprise architecture management model must be implemented in every municipality, so that they can implement the information management requirements set out in the law. Enterprise architecture management is a process which should be described and accepted in the municipal organizations. Enterprise architecture management is functional when policies (descriptions) are created as a result of enterprise architecture work to support the organization's own planning and implementation objectives. (Finlex, 2019; Oikarinen, 2012) The research literature states that despite the challenges around the implementation of IT governance mechanisms, it is better to have some guidance policy than a complete absence of a functional IT management. (Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007; Anthopoulos et al. 2010) Greece is an example of a country where enterprise architecture was not adopted in the public sector. The absence of enterprise architecture has caused several negative impacts there such as overruns of schedules and budgets in projects. (Anthopoulos et al. 2010) The public sector's operating environment is different than private sector companies because functioning enterprise architecture management was a requirement of the ICT law for public administrators. Therefore, enterprise architecture was more visible in the public than in the private sector. The public sector still used several local IT applications and their business processes were rarely harmonized. The research literature supports this finding because for the need for rationalization and benefits of digitalization was emphasized by shareholders of the Finnish public administration. (Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017; Penttinen & Isomäki, 2010) Organizations with a higher maturity level have typically nominated process owners for applications and process development. Process owners participate in the development of applications and processes in a way that supports their harmonization. The results show that municipalities do not take full advantage of the process owner concept. Since the public sector is so extensive and

170 they have many systems and processes in place, the adoption of the process owner concept might clarify and harmonize both systems and processes in the public sector. Digitalization development: According to research, the Finnish public sector is not implementing as many concrete digitalization activities as the private sector companies. Perhaps the lower number of digitalization activities in the research results is due to that the public sector has limited resources of digitalization management and effective leadership. Therefore, there is a lack of sufficient resources to run major digital transformation programs and projects. (Parviainen et al. 2017) It is possible that concrete digitalization activities enhanced enterprise architecture maturity more than methodology-focused enterprise architecture management mechanisms, especially mechanisms forced by the ICT law. It could be beneficial to begin more concrete digitalization activities. Architecture type maturity: The results show that activities of municipalities activities were very technology-driven, and less attention was paid to business processes than the technology itself. Hence, business architecture was not a leading architectural driver in the public sector. Technology architecture has lost its position to other architectures in each survey. However, technology architecture retained the highest maturity level throughout the research period. The public sector did not follow the principle that business architecture leads technology architecture. (Braun & Winter, 2005; Birkmeier et al. 2013; Jonkers et al. 2006) As emphasized earlier for large and medium-sized companies, the public sector would also benefit from business architecture.

6.4 Changes in the development focus

Various organizations are executing different kinds of development actions to improve business in the context of enterprise architecture. Various organizations adapt new digital technologies different ways and this increases complexity. (Tumbas et al. 2015) In addition to this, the economic situation affected development actions because it determined how much money was available for information technology. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) In short, according to the research results, large companies have adopted enterprise architecture practices in their daily operations and they execute concrete IT renewal actions. Medium-sized companies have not recognized enterprise architecture. However medium-sized companies were able to increase in maturity with respect to enterprise architecture better than large companies and the public

171

sector, without utilizing formal enterprise architecture procedures. Enterprise architecture was most visible in the public sector. Figure 55. illustrates the proportions of open answers that referred to EA work, concrete IT renewal (applications or server implementations, for example.) and other tasks (courses or business process definitions, for example.) in the context of development action. The purpose of the figure is to provide an overview of how development actions are roughly divided by group.

Figure 55. Changes in development focus over the years.

In 2013, large companies focused on different kinds of concrete development actions in the context of important tasks for the improvement of enterprise architecture. Application renewal was the most important individual development action. Additionally, large companies emphasized the importance of identifying and defining business processes. On the other hand, large companies have adopted enterprise architecture into management practices because the enterprise architecture itself was the second most important development project. Very similar comments can also be found in the literature; hence the research results support already existing knowledge. When companies grow and become large companies, they progress to a level where they have more mature coordination management.

172 Their working style tends to then emphasize long-term methods and decisions as a basis for long-term strategic decisions. (Tumbas et al. 2015) In 2014, large companies indicated fewer concrete development actions than in 2013. They focused more on different kinds of standardization activities and enterprise architecture development than earlier. In 2016, the results of the survey reflected that large companies executed more concrete development actions than in the previous survey. They emphasized the importance of application renewal and integration. Enterprise architecture and business processes were also important development projects for large companies. The literature can explain the increased number of concrete development actions in 2016. According to the literature, at the beginning of poor economic periods, organizations begin to cut their IT expenses but continue implementing the IT investments and projects they had already started. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) Then, when the economy enters a better economic period, IT costs start to decrease. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) In 2016 the economic situation and productivity had started to slightly recover in Finland. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) Therefore, there were positive signs of growth in IT and digitalization in Finland in 2016. It is possible that an increased positive attitude toward digitalization also explains the increase in concrete digitalization activities in the 2016 survey. Application renewal and increasing application integration were the two most important development actions in medium-sized companies. Enterprise architecture was not adopted into the management processes. However, they aggressively execute IT projects and tasks. According to corresponding research, medium-sized companies are often in period of rapid growth. Digital technologies should be embedded in the organization as early as possible so that companies benefit from digital opportunities. (Tumbas et al. 2017) Medium-sized companies responded to digitalization often without long-term strategies in place. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Hence, their working model can be considered to be experimental. (Tumbas et al. 2017a) From this we can conclude that this research supports the following findings. First, a lack of enterprise architecture in the survey results support the existence of an ad hoc and experimental working model. Second, many concrete projects provide indications of rapid growth which is typical for medium-sized businesses. Enterprise architecture is more visible in the public sector than in large companies. Additionally, the development actions of the public sector did not include as many concrete tasks as the medium-sized companies. In 2013, the public sector emphasized the importance of enterprise architecture related actions. However, the public sector also executed also significant number of application

173

renewals, which was the second most important development action. In 2014, the public sector again indicated the importance of enterprise architecture work. Additionally, the public sector pointed to the importance of documentation, which was most likely also related to enterprise architecture work. It appears that the enterprise architecture work was strongly influenced by law for the public sector group. In 2016, the public sector again emphasized the importance of enterprise architecture. As in the previous survey in 2014, the second most important development action was documentation. Most likely this documentation was enterprise architecture related documentation. Public administration information management law come into effect on 1 September 2011. The public administration authority was required to create the description of the architecture within six months and complete the work within three years from the law coming into force. (Finlex, 2019; Oikarinen, 2012) According to the results of surveys, the public sector has not yet moved past the law-required enterprise architecture documentation phase to implementation of target architectures and applications. The results of the 2016 survey do not indicate more application renewal works or projects than in 2014. Enterprise architecture related projects and tasks continued even at a higher level. The results suggest that public sector used resources to implement the requirements of the ICT law such as documentation, instead of concrete actions. Therefore, despite the active and beneficial enterprise architecture work in Finland, it would be beneficial if more concrete activities and content were implemented. According to research literature, enterprise architecture work seemed to be technically-oriented in the public sector in Finland. (Penttinen & Isomäki, 2010; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) The focus of enterprise architecture development activities has been on improving methodology. (Seppänen et al. 2018) Therefore, the literature recommends shifting focus to the implementation of more concrete activities; digitalization has made it possible to carry out tasks and increase the volume of operations with a smaller number of employees in the public sector. (Penttinen & Isomäki, 2010; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) However, the research literature does not directly indicate that other countries in Europe should pursue more concrete digitalization activities in the public sector. (Janssen & Hjort-Madsen, 2007; Carota et al. 2010; Aagesen et al. 2011; Gøtze et al. 2009; Anthopoulos et al. 2010)

174 6.5 The impact of the operating environment

Digitalization helps organizations to formalize their business processes and supports organizations to increase in maturity. Hence, digital technologies should already be adopted in organizations in their early phases of growth phase. (Tumbas et al. 2017) When an organization invests more into digital technology it can be assumed that maturity also increases. (Ross et al. 2006) This is not so simple, because, for example organizations adapt different technologies in different ways. (Tumbas et al. 2015) Typically, money is spent on IT investments, projects and other development actions when the required budget is available. IT investments are predominantly led based on the economic situation rather than a long-term perspective on investment. The IT investment does not lead to economic development. IT investments are late cyclical. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) The IT index represents how Finnish companies utilize IT. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) The respondent groups from the IT index study represented roughly similar target audiences to the groups studied in this work. The IT index follows macro-economic trends with delay and is correlated with changes in gross domestic product (GDP). However, in 2015, it appeared that IT index no longer followed the GDP as accurate as before; the IT index seemed to grow much faster than GDP. (Dahlberg, 2016) If the results are scrutinized, the gross domestic product (GDP) has been negative in 2012 (-1.4%), 2013 (-0.8%), and 2014 (-0.6 %), and flat in 2015 (0.1%). Finally, the gross domestic product (GDP) turned positive in 2016 (2.5%). (Tilastokeskus, 2019) According to the results of the Finnish Information Processing Association, the IT index follows domestic gross product (GDP) changes with a one-year delay, except for 2015. (Dahlberg, 2016) If we compare (GDP) changes and IT index changes to maturity levels as discussed in this work, it can be noted that amount of available data is still too limited to find a correlation between economic trends and maturity changes in research groups. It appears that changes in the IT index or GDP did not directly explain changes of maturity in research groups. Therefore, a longer research period is needed to prove or disprove the existence of a correlation. Apart from this, the exact correlation between the maturities and the IT index was difficult to define with the available data. This research has already discussed a number of themes that affect research groups. For example, the requirements of the ICT law for public sector. Additionally, the common special topics were emphasized in both studies: usage of new digital technologies in organizations, and outsourcing related IT operations.

175

First, social media, cloud services, big data and new consumer technologies have become a part of our daily lives. (Dahlberg, 2016; Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) Additionally, several other new digital technologies exist, for example, the internet of things (IoT), robotics, sharing economy platforms and advanced analytics. Information technology has changed significantly over the years. (Watson, 2017; Gust & Ströhle et al. 2017; Constantiou et al. 2017; Mocker & Fonstad, 2017; Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) Utilization of new digital technologies was researched in the barometer study. According their findings, the use of new technology was modest in organizations. Very few organizations believed that they had a clear strategy or action plan to guide new digital technologies. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015) In the results of my research, new digital technology trends were not visible. If the organizations considered the topic important, it would probably have been reflected in the results, even though the question was not directly asked. The results of open questions did not indicate that research groups utilized new digital technologies in context of enterprise architecture development. Generally, development actions were more traditional, such like increasing application integration or outsourcing IT-related services. The organizations might have considered new technologies (social media, cloud services) as being important, but not the most important activity. They may have classified traditional development actions as more important from a business point of view than the implementation of new digital technologies. For example, maybe organizations still considered ERP implementation as more important than utilization of new digital technologies, because ERP systems still play a significant role in organizations. (Berente & Yoo, 2012) It is a commonly known principle that new technologies are first popularized in the consumer market and then with delay within organizations. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2015) It is also possible that organizations do consider new digital technologies to be important for business, but their implementation may still be at the pilot phase, and enterprise architecture methods would not include new digital technologies in the pilot phase. This may explain why new digital technologies were not visible in the results of my research. Second, in contrast, outsourcing was recognized both in the results of barometer study, and the results of my research. The outcomes of the IT projects did not fulfill expectations for half of the organizations which outsourced most of their IT operations. Organizations which required additional business value from IT most likely at least partially outsourced IT operations. Outsourcing and the strategic positioning of IT go hand in hand. Business management supports outsourcing even more than IT management. (Serèn & Lehtovirta, 2007)

176 The public sector indicated that outsourcing was one of the main development actions in 2013. The trend of outsourcing main IT operations began prior to 2013. Large and medium-sized companies may have already outsourced their main IT operations. Hence, the public sector is lagging behind the private sector. According to literature, most Finnish companies have either fully or partially outsourced their IT organizations. (Serèn & Lehtovirta, 2007) According to the result of the survey in 2014, all groups reported that outsourcing was one of the main factors used to enhance enterprise architecture. It appears that the continued period of slow growth has forced continued cost cutting in Finnish companies. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) The government’s ICT budget declined consistently which incentivized the public sector group to find ways to cut costs. (Hattinen & Korhonen, 2014; Hattinen & Korhonen, 2015; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2016; Hattinen & Kiviniemi, 2017) However, in 2016 none of the groups reported that outsourcing was one of the most important development factors; it is possible that organizations had reconciled their use of outsourcing and had no need to further outsource.

177

7 CONCLUSIONS

In this research I have attempted to increase the understanding of organizations preparedness for digitalization. The enterprise architecture management maturity model has been used to help me address this challenge. The research questions will be addressed in the following sections.

7.1 How much have enterprise architecture maturity evolved?

The first sub-research question was: How much have enterprise architecture maturity evolved?

Since this research question type was quantitative – a how much question – the answer had to be numerical. Maturity values have been converted into one value by using weight factors. Large companies received scores of 6.95, 6.96 and 7.14 in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. Maturity increased by 0.14% between 2013 and 2014. This increase was 2.59% from 2014 to 2016. Large companies were at the standardized technology maturity level, but close to the optimized core maturity level. Large companies were already starting to prepare for the optimized core maturity level. Changes in the maturity levels of large companies have been minor during the research period. Maturity has grown over the surveys, but positive development progress was slow. However, the growth of maturity was higher from 2014 to 2016 compared with changes from 2013 to 2014. Despite the slow progress, the initial maturity level was higher compared than other groups, thus maturity remained at a higher level throughout the research period. Medium-sized companies received scores of 5.44, 6.07, and 6.44 in 2013, 2014 and 2016. Maturity improved 11.58% between year 2013 and 2014. There was a 6.10% increase from 2014 to 2016. Medium-sized companies were at the standardized technology maturity level, but were on their way to the optimized core maturity level. The maturity of medium-sized companies were initially the lowest of all the groups. However, medium-sized companies were able to increase their

178 maturity faster than other groups. The maturity of medium-sized companies has grown considerably. It is not expected that this rate of growth can be sustained. Despite this progress, their maturity remained lower than the maturities of the large companies at the end of the research period. The public sector received scores of 5.74, 5.36, and 5.58 in 2013, 2014 and 2016, respectively. From 2013 to 2014, maturity decreased by 6.62%. The public sector reported 4.10% positive growth in maturity from 2014 to 2016. The public sector remained at the standardized technology maturity level. The initial maturity level of the public sector was slightly higher than medium-sized companies, but the maturity of the public sector decreased even more from 2013 to 2014, and increased later. According to the evaluation method, large companies had the highest maturity level of all groups in each of the surveys. In 2013, the maturity of the public sector was higher than that of the medium-sized companies, however, medium-sized companies were able to increase their maturity faster and overtook the public sector in 2014, and again in 2016. However, the maturity of medium-sized companies remained lower than large companies throughout the research period. All groups were able to increase in maturity from 2014 to 2016. Figure 56. illustrates the maturity levels for the different types of organizations studied.

Figure 56. Maturity levels (reprint Figure 47).

179

This discussion leads to the following proposition: Proposition 1 large companies had the highest enterprise architecture maturity levels i.e. preparedness for digitalization and were therefore better prepared for digitalization than medium-sized companies and public sector.

All the groups were at the standardized technology maturity level, and large companies and medium-sized companies were in transition to the optimized core level. Most large companies had already reached the optimized core maturity level. It can be concluded that large companies can already mainly focus on activities related to the optimized core level. The public sector should still concentrate on activities described for the standardized technology maturity level. In the case of medium-sized companies, no generalizations can be made because some medium- sized companies may have already graduated from the optimized core maturity level, but about one-fourth of medium-sized companies are certainly still at the standardized technology level.

7.2 Why have enterprise architecture maturity evolved?

The second sub-research question was: Why have enterprise architecture maturity evolved?

MIT maturity has developed in a different ways in the various groups studied. Digital technologies support organizations in growing in maturity, but there is no exact sequence in which organizations adopt new technologies because various organizations adapt different technologies in different ways. (Tumbas et al. 2015) The digitalization investment ratio did not lead to economic development, because digitalization investments are late cyclical. Money is spent on digitalization investments when the required budget is available. (Serèn & Dahlberg, 2013; Dahlberg, 2013) Therefore, the operational environment and development actions were loosely linked to each other in enterprise architecture context. An unequivocal connection was not found in this research. Consequently, the improvement of enterprise architecture maturity was as result of many factors discussed in this thesis such as changes in the response rate distribution and different kinds of development actions to enhance enterprise architecture. Concretely, the maturity of large companies has changed for the following reason: the maturity of large companies increased in 2014 because more large companies

180 moved to the optimized core maturity level than the previous survey year. In addition, more large companies managed to graduate from the business silos maturity level. Additionally, maturity improved in 2016 because more large companies advanced to the business modularity maturity level than in the previous survey year. Large companies executed several concrete digitalization development actions. Since they had adopted enterprise architecture, one can also suppose that development actions were implemented under formal governance practices. Finland's economic situation improved slightly in 2016, may be because of that large companies implemented more digitalization projects than before. (Tilastokeskus, 2019) It is likely that these development efforts enabled large companies to advance to higher maturity levels. The respondent group remained the same in every survey and they represented a high level of expertise in the enterprise architecture area, which is reflected in the low numbers of “I don’t know” responses. Therefore, it can be assumed that they have a good understanding of their own company’s situation. These facts support the notion of reliable results. The maturity of medium-sized companies also changed. The maturity of the medium-sized companies increased in 2014 because the business modularity option received more responses and the business silos level received fewer responses than the previous survey. Respectively, maturity improved in 2016 because business modularity received more responses and the “I don’t know” option received fewer responses. The active development of medium-sized companies seemed to produce results at a higher level of maturity. The business modularity maturity level received 19.58%, and 22.59% of responses in 2014 and 2016, respectively. This can be partially explained by the fact that the medium-sized company group is heterogenous. Perhaps more mature companies responded to the survey than earlier, or it may be also a sign that medium-sized companies overestimated their maturity. Perhaps some of the medium-sized companies progressed too quickly or they may not fully understand their current situation and may have implemented initiatives without adequate preparation. The maturity of the public sector also changed, but these changes were more fragmented than the private sector companies. Maturity decreased in 2014 because more municipalities advanced to the business silos maturity level than in the previous survey year. The “I don’t know” option also got more responses than in the previous survey year. Maturity increased in 2016 because the business silos option received

181

fewer responses and the standardized technology and optimized core maturity levels received more responses than in the previous survey year. It appears that the public sector viewed enterprise architecture adoption as an easy task at the beginning of the survey period, however, when they realized the complexity of the task, this awareness caused the average decline in maturity. This can be interpreted from the uncertain answers, especially in the high number of “I don’t know” responses in 2014. The public sector group is heterogenous because it contains large and small municipalities. It can be assumed that the largest municipalities were at a more mature level than the smallest municipalities in the group. This can generally explain changes in maturity. If more large municipalities responded to the survey, then then overall maturity scores would increase. The maturity improved between the second and the third surveys, because more municipalities advanced from the business silos maturity level. Additionally, more municipalities were at a more mature level, but the reason for this was not increased development activity. In fact, the public sector did not implement more concrete development projects than earlier. Concrete digitalization activities may improve enterprise architecture maturities more than strict and formal enterprise architecture practices, especially when influenced and controlled by the ICT law. This discussion leads to the following proposition: Proposition 2 concrete digitalization projects enhanced enterprise architecture maturity more than solely methodology-focused enterprise architecture management mechanisms, especially those forced by the ICT law.

7.3 How prepared are organizations for digitalization?

The main research question was: How prepared are organizations for digitalization?

The answer to the main research question is multi-perspective because of it depends on how the phenomenon was observed. First, enterprise architecture management in itself must evolve as a management method. The world is changing even faster than before, therefore enterprise architecture management must also evolve. (Mocker & Fonstad, 2017) For example, globalization and intense competition are concrete challenges which organizations face, thus enterprise architecture management must respond to this changing situation. (Mocker & Fonstad, 2017) Second, when enterprise architecture management understanding evolves, this will

182 lead require that enterprise architecture management maturity models must also evolve based on the latest understanding of enterprise architecture management. Third, this research has followed three groups and measured their maturity over time. 1. Enterprise architecture management. We can observe this phenomenon from an enterprise architecture management development point of view. Enterprise architecture has progressed from a technical to a managerial approach over the years in the context of application and business development. (Winter et al. 2014) The current understanding of enterprise architecture management is managerial. Enterprise architecture management can only achieve its full potential and achieve maximum benefits if it is closely linked to the business strategy. (Simon et al. 2013; Winter et al. 2014; Petrikina et al. 2014; Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016) This means that enterprise architecture management is integrated with other existing enterprise- level management functions. It acts as the glue between the processes. (Buckl et al. 2009) However, development has not ended. The research literature has proposed that future enterprise architecture should increasingly focus on people, society and the environment, as well as increase the capability of organizations to create and develop innovations. (Lapalme et al. 2016) A period of digital transformation has raised the need to expand the logic of enterprise architecture because organizations need more organizational flexibility to gain a competitive advantage in this highly turbulent business time period. Actions and decisions are based more on real-time information. Therefore, enterprise architecture must also expand capabilities to new levels. (Park et al. 2012) According to the current understanding of enterprise architecture management, organizations should adopt enterprise architecture management as part of their common business goals. (Niemi & Pekkola, 2019; Henningsson & Kettinger, 2016; Winter et al. 2014; Petrikina et al. 2014; Simon et al. 2013) However, as we have noted, only large companies have adopted enterprise architecture in their management structures based on their own decision. They have noticed the benefits of enterprise architecture management in managing large-scale entities in a constantly changing business environment. Large companies also executed significant numbers of concrete digitalization development projects. The results of this study have indicated that medium-sized company group have not adopted the enterprise architecture management method. They focused on implementing concrete digitalization projects. Medium-sized companies would benefit from utilizing enterprise architecture management principles in their numerous digitalization development projects. Medium-sized companies are often

183

in a period of fast growth. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015; Tumbas et al. 2017) Therefore, they must be prepared to adopt enterprise architecture management principles after the growth of the company has stabilized. This discussion leads to the following proposition: Proposition 3 medium-sized companies have not adopted enterprise architecture methods but use an experimental working model and focus on implementing concrete digitalization projects.

Enterprise architecture was more visible in the public sector than the other groups because functioning enterprise architecture management was a requirement of the ICT law for public administrators. (Finlex, 2019) Therefore, the public sector emphasized the importance of enterprise architecture more than private sector companies. The Finnish public sector has not implemented as many concrete digitalization projects as the other groups. Concrete digitalization projects enhanced enterprise architecture maturity more than methodology-focused enterprise architecture management mechanism. It would be beneficial for the public sector to start more concrete digitalization projects. This discussion leads to the following proposition: Proposition 4 enterprise architecture was more visible in the public sector than in the private sector because functioning enterprise architecture management was required by the ICT law for public administrators.

2. The enterprise architecture maturity model. We can observe the trend from the lowest maturity level to highest maturity level. It is a development path which many organizations must follow. (Vallerand et al. 2017; NASCIO, 2003; Ross et al. 2006; GAO, 2010; Gill & Van Boskirk, 2016; Burke & Blosch, 2017; Paulk et al. 1993; Curtis et al. 1995) When an organization graduates to higher maturity levels, it also generates more value from IT. (Bradley et al. 2011) Identifying the learning possibilities at each maturity levels can help organizations maximize benefits from the increased strategic impacts from IT. (Ross et al. 2006) Each of enterprise architecture maturity levels has typical characteristics. The organization can generate more business value at each maturity level, because the organization learns more at each level. These lessons support the realization of business benefits. (Ross, 2008) As stated earlier, the development of maturity models should uniformly base on the latest understanding of enterprise architecture management.

When enterprise architecture management evolves, this will lead new requirements for maturity models.

184 3. The enterprise architecture maturity of groups. Large companies had the highest enterprise architecture maturity levels and were therefore better prepared for digitalization than the medium-sized companies and public sector. All organizations were at the standardized technology maturity level. Medium-sized companies were able to increase their maturity throughout the research period thus, at the end of the study period, the maturity level of the public sector was the lowest of all the groups studied. Large companies were at the highest enterprise architecture maturity level; thus they were prepared for digitalization better than other research groups. The maturity of large companies has grown over the survey period, but the growth rate has been slow. Large companies have almost reached the optimized core level. As a result, large companies can already begin to prepare for the optimized core maturity level. Medium-sized companies tried to benefit from digitalization, but they were not as well prepared for digitalization as large companies. Medium-sized companies initially had a lower maturity than the other groups, but they were able to grow in maturity faster than other groups. There may be a risk that some of the medium- sized companies increased too quickly in maturity and were not well prepared to move to a higher maturity level. The public sector had the lowest maturity levels, despite active enterprise architecture work and digitalization promotion; the Finnish public sector still struggles with preparation for digitalization. Almost one-fifth of the municipalities were at the business silos maturity level and their preparation for digitalization was modest. The maturity of the public sector decreased between the first and second survey rounds, but increased later.

7.4 Implications for research and practice

This study provides new information on how research groups were prepared for digitalization. In short, large companies were at the highest enterprise architecture maturity level, thus they were prepared for digitalization better than Finnish medium-sized companies and the public sector. Large and medium-sized companies in Finland and the Finnish public sector received this maturity level information during the research period. Therefore, they can analyze changes during the research period. Analyzing maturity levels and maturity changes could inform groups on how they should target future digitalization efforts.

185

Additionally, this research introduced the concept of using the enterprise architecture maturity levels proposed by the MIT Center for Information Systems Research. This concept was based on the definitions of the maturity levels and used a questionnaire as an evaluation tool. The MIT maturity levels can also be measured using a planned questionnaire with other groups outside of the groups studied in this work. For example, group size can be expanded because of new web-based tools that allow questionnaire distribution to larger groups. Over the past few decades, new digital technologies have been the key driver in organizational transformation. Digital technologies deeply affect organizations, including their strategic decision making and organizational planning. Medium-sized companies especially benefit from digital technologies, which help to formalize working practices that enable these organizations to grow mature maturity. When the organizations progress from short-term planning and ad hoc working styles to a more long-term way of working, decisions are based more on long-term strategic directions. These organizations meet several challenges during this transition period because they must adjust several practices. When medium-sized companies grow into large companies, they adopt mature management practices. (Tumbas et al. 2015) According to the survey results, development actions of medium-sized companies focused on concrete digitalization development tasks. They executed various concrete IT projects. Application renewal and increased application integration were the two most significant actions in each of the three surveys. It appears that medium-sized companies were not fully digitalizing their most important business processes. Business growth and digitization of processes required new IT applications, therefore medium-sized companies executed many concrete IT renewal tasks. These formal IT management mechanisms are likely still in their infancy in medium-sized companies. For example, they have not recognized enterprise architecture as a management mechanism. Based on results of the surveys and research literature, they generally respond to digitalization without enterprise architecture. (Tumbas et al. 2015) If organizations do not accept enterprise architecture practices at earlier levels, they may not generate added value from IT in later levels. The journey should be planned to increase value incrementally and systematically. (Ross et al. 2006) This research has some indications that medium-sized companies may have progressed too quickly or they have overestimated their current maturity level. The highest business modularity maturity level was 19.58% of responses in 2014 and 22.59% of responses in 2016. The high level of responses to the highest maturity level may

186 indicate that medium-sized companies progressed too quickly or that they have overestimated their current situation. It has been noted that medium-sized companies rarely had their own dedicated IT manager. Medium-sized companies typically outsourced or integrated IT activities into another organization. However, even without their own IT organization or manager, they should address digitalization challenges and opportunities. According to the research literature, IT management should play a key role in creating a strong digitalization usage culture in organizations and enhance the digitalization transformation strategy implementation. (Kettinger et al. 2011; Peppard et al. 2011; Hansen et al. 2011; Tumbas et al. 2017b) This discussion leads to the following implications. According to research literature, organizations benefit if they can adopt a digitalization steering mechanism in their early growth phase to avoid responding to digitalization in short-term ways. We have identified that medium-sized companies have not adopted enterprise architecture management mechanisms. The research literature also agrees with this finding. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) However, medium-sized companies, almost without exception, use digital technologies. (Tumbas et al. 2017a) Therefore, medium-sized companies should begin to consider how they can respond to the challenge of digitalization in a more structured and formal way. The implication is that small and medium-sized companies should be encouraged to create a digital strategy and evaluates the benefits of enterprise architecture for their organizations. Respectively, the public sector had the lowest maturity level, despite active enterprise architecture work, thus, this research suggests that it would be beneficial to start more concrete digitalization activities. Respectively, large companies have adopted enterprise architecture management and have also engaged in a significant amount of digitalization development activities. These companies had the highest enterprise architecture maturity levels and were therefore better prepared for digitalization than the Finnish medium-sized companies and Finnish public sector. It can be concluded that large companies can already mainly focus on activities related transition to higher maturity level.

7.5 Reliability and validity

The reliability and validation of research can be viewed from several different points of view. One way to evaluate the quality of research is review the research on logical frameworks. (Yin, 2003) One framework evaluates research using the following

187

themes: construct validation, internal validity, external validity and reliability. (Yin, 2003) These four tests are particularly relevant to evaluating case studies. (Yin, 2003) Therefore these four themes are highlighted because this research can also be considered a case study if we only consider a single survey. Every survey was executed and reported as separate case. The reliability and validation of this study will be considered next based on the case study evaluation classifications. Construct validity refers to the operational measures used to measure the concept being studied. (Yin, 2003) Thus, construct validation describes how well-designed test measures are, and what they are supposed to measure. (Yin, 2003; Maxwell, 1992). This study attempted to understand organizations’ preparedness for digitalization. Digitalization was understood from the perspective of the MIT Center for Information System’s maturity levels. This research measured the MIT maturity of the organizations studied. Thus, in this research the measurements reflected digitalization since the selected maturity model evaluates digitalization. Internal validity examines the issue from the point of view of whether the conclusions reached are correct, and whether other conclusions or opportunities have been considered. (Yin, 2003) Internal validity illustrates the quality of the experimental research. (Yin, 2003) Generally, this research has followed a generic survey process which contains several phases. (Kasunic, 2005) The process used was also defined in the research literature. (Olkkonen, 1994; McNabb, 2004; Jenkins, 1985) The questionnaire was planned according to the criteria described in the MIT maturity model, hence the questions were based on a maturity model that has been academically validated. The questionnaire was piloted with several persons, and the questionnaire was fine-tuned according to their feedback. The pilot ensured that the survey tool worked without problems. Only after the successful completion of the pilot phase was the questionnaire distributed to respondents. In addition, during the survey process, results were validated manually. External validity estimates the generalization of the study. External validity is a significant obstacle to conducting case studies because a single case provides a weak basis for generalization. (Yin, 2003) It is advisable to repeat case studies to ensure that the same results are obtained. If the same results you are maintained, this supports generalization. Generalization means that the same behavior can be expected to apply to another similar situation. On the other hand, generalization can be viewed from at least two different aspect. First, generalizations to groups, communities, or individuals included in the group but not directly investigated, and second, generalizations to other groups, communities, or individuals. However, this distinction is not absolute or clear-cut. (Heale & Twycross, 2015; Yin, 2003) This

188 research has only been carried out in one country. Thus, this limits the generalization of the research. However, we can assume that if the research had been carried out in some other western country, the results would be similar because in these countries the structure of society is similar. Reliability means that all phases of the study are so clearly described that research can be repeated by other researchers. (Yin, 2003) The goal is to minimize biases in the research. The new research should arrive at the same conclusions as the previous study. If the research is not properly documented, the reliability of the research results can be suspected by external evaluators. A prerequisite for repeatability of research is the clear documentation of each research phase. (Yin, 2003) This study has been documented so that it can be replicated by other researchers. Reliability can also be considered a measurement of the accuracy of the instrument. In other words, the research instrument can be expected to consistently yield the same results when used repeatedly under the same conditions. (Heale & Twycross, 2015)

7.6 Limitations

This research also includes limitations. First, the research has only been carried out in one country. Thus, this limits the generalization of the research. However, we can assume that if the research had been carried out in some other western country, the results would be similar because the structure of society would be comparable. If the research had been carried out in some other non-western developed country, the results would likely be different because of differences in societal structures. Second, the research process itself is subject to limitations. During the research process, the researcher made choices. Those choices may limit the research. These are, for example, the choice of groups studied, maturity models and research methods. If different choices had been made the results may have been different. This research has tried to consider all research choices from a theorical and data- informed perspective to avoid research biases. According to the literature, all studies contain unconscious assumptions about how the world works. It is important to be aware of the underlying assumptions and limitations of research. (Saunders et al. 2009) The avoidance of these biases is discussed next. The method itself may limit the results. For example, it is difficult to measure changes in groups unless several surveys are executed at different time points, and this is a fundamental limitation of the survey process itself. This limitation was addressed by repeating identical surveys at different points in time.

189

A fundamental deviation would also arise if the questionnaire did not measure the correct variables. This research ensured that the questionnaire was based on the framework of the selected maturity model. The questionnaire was also piloted to ensure that the questionnaire and the technical readiness were appropriate for the continuation of the survey process. The questionnaire was adjusted according to the feedback from the pilot. The main finding was that the terminology was difficult to understand. Therefore, terminology explanations were added in places where difficult terms first appeared in the questionnaire to provide clarification. The questionnaire contained instructions, a short overview of the background literature, and an option to forward the questionnaire to the correct respondent if it was sent to the wrong person. Respondents were carefully and individually validated to select the appropriate person so that results would not be skewed by uninformed responses. The logical respondents were the CIOs in large companies, because every large company had a CIO role and he/she would be expected to have sufficient experience to respond to the survey. Medium-sized companies rarely had a CIO or IT manager role, so the CEOs were selected as respondents. Respondents for the municipalities were the IT managers. The most important constraint was the non- uniform size of municipalities in the public sector group. If there were more responses from small municipalities than responses from large municipalities, or vice versa, the results may be skewed. Small municipalities were likely less mature than large municipalities. Similar logic applies also to large and medium-sized companies. Third, the web-based survey process may contain limitations as well. At least one fundamental benefit is lost compared to face-to-face interviews: the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee. The interviewer cannot make observations based on facial signals from the interviewee during the interview via the web survey.

7.7 Future research

The digital economy has impacted how business is conducted. Large companies are better able to adapt to the constantly changing business environment, while small companies may not be as well prepared to respond to the challenge of digitalization. We use digital technology to fuel our businesses. (Ba et al. 2000; Tumbas et al. 2015) Small companies are especially prized in the economy. They play such an important role in the economy, that many economists argue that an effective, competitive economy needs small companies. (Ba et al. 2000) Digitalization presents

190 a great opportunity for small and medium-sized organizations, but will not create economic success on its own. (Ba et al. 2000) A narrow product and service portfolio with limited resources to reach consumers was one of the main disadvantages for small companies earlier, but new digital technologies offer many new opportunities to easily gain customers. (Gust et al. 2017; Constantiou et al. 2017; Mocker & Fonstad, 2017; Täuscher & Kietzmann, 2017) Generally, the capacity for long-term investment for medium-sized companies is limited, thus they are often behind large companies, especially with respect to the use of expensive technologies. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) Medium-sized companies often have limited capital and small capital reserves, and are therefore risk-averse. Medium-sized companies focus on surviving. (Bharati & Chaudhury, 2015) It is highly important to support small and medium-sized companies in their digitalization journey. (Ba et al. 2000) Enterprise architecture could assist medium-sized companies in digitalization, but currently enterprise architecture is not commonly used. According to the literature, medium-sized companies feel that enterprise architecture is too complex to use. Additionally, in their view, the benefits from new digital technologies and digital transformation are over-exaggerated, thus enterprise architecture is considered less important in medium-sized companies. (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018) Medium-sized business are significantly important for the economy. They would benefit in several ways from digitalization. However, medium-sized business still act in ad hoc and short-term ways, often without enterprise architecture and digitalization strategies. Additionally, the research literature emphasizes the importance of IT management for the implementation and creation of a functional digital usage culture in the company, but often medium-sized companies do not have IT management organizations at all. Medium-sized businesses lack several essential required elements for success in the digital era. Therefore, future research should focus more on supporting small and medium-sized companies in benefiting from digitalization with minimal resources, especially in the development of practical digital strategies for small business. According to the literature, future enterprise architecture should focus more on people, society and the environment as well as increase the capabilities of the organization to create innovation. (Lapalme et al. 2016) My recommendation is that future enterprise architecture research should focus more on small and medium- sized companies to support them in their adoption of enterprise architecture practices in their early growth phase. Many small organizations are operating with limited information technology resources and knowledge. Therefore, future research

191

should consider how enterprise architecture methods can be adapted to small and medium-sized companies as easily as possible.

192 8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aagesen, G., van Veenstra, A. F., Janssen, M., & Krogstie, J. (2011). The Entanglement of Enterprise Architecture and IT-Governance: The Cases of Norway and the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-11). Kauai, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Ahlemann, F., Stettiner, E., Messerschmidt, M., & Legner, C. (2012). Strategic enterprise architecture management: Challenges, best practices, and future developments. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. 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. Aier, S., Gleichauf, B., & Winter, R. (2011). Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design - An Empirical Analysis. The 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, (pp. 645-654). Zürich, Switzerland. Aier, S., Labusch, N., & Pähler, P. (2015). Implementing Architectural Thinking: A Case Study at Commerzbank AG. CAiSE 2015: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (pp. 389-400). Stockholm: Springer. Akkasi, A., Seyyedi, M., & Shams, F. (2008). Presenting A Method for Benchmarking Application in the Enterprise Architecture Planning Process Based on Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework. 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications (pp. 1-6). Damascus, Syria: IEEE. Al-Mashari, M. (2002). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: a reserach agenda. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(1), 165-170. Al-Mashari, M., & Zairi, M. (1999). BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and failure factors. Business Process Management Journal, 5(1), 87-112. Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zairi, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 352–364. Amdahl, G. M., Blaauw, G. A., & Brooks, F. P. (1964). Architecture of the IBM system/360. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 8(2), 87-101. Anand, A., Sharma, R., & Coltman, T. (2016). Four Steps to Realizing Business Value from Digital Data Streams. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(4), 259-277. Andrew, J. (2011). Togaf version 9.1 a pocket guide. Berkshire: Van Haren Publishing. Anthopoulos, L. G., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). The Impact of enterprise architecture’s absence in e-government aevelopment: The Greek Case. International Conference on Information Society. London, UK: IEEE. Armour, F. J., Kaisler, S. H., & Liu, S. Y. (1999). Building an enterprise architecture step by step. IT Professional, 1(4), 31-39. Ba, S., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2000). Small business in the digital economy: A conceptual framework. In E. B. (eds.), Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools and Research (pp. 185–200). Cambridge: MIT Press.

193

BalanceConsulting. (2017, 06 18). Balance Consulting. Retrieved from Balance Consulting: http://www.balanceconsulting.fi/ Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuss, J. (2009). Developing Maturity Models for IT Management. Business & Information System Engineering, 1(3), 213-222. Becker, W., Schmid, O., & Botzkowski, T. (2019). Role of CDOs in the Digital Transformation of SMEs and LSEs - An Empirical Analysis. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4534-4543). Waikoloa Beach, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Benitez, J., Ray, G., & Henseler, J. (2018). Impact of Information Technology Infrastructure Flexibility on Mergers and Acquisitions. MIS Quarterly, 42(1), 25-43. Berente, N., & Vandenbosch, B. (2009). Information flows and business process integration. Business Process Management Journal, 15(1), 119-141. Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s Enterprise Information System. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376–396. Berente, N., Gal, U., & Yoo, Y. (2010). Dressage, control, and enterprise systems: the case of NASA’s Full Cost initiative. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 21–34. Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Introduction to the Digital Technologies & Organizational Innovation Minitrack. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (p. 3908). Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Bharati, P., & Chaudhury, A. (2015). SMEs and Competitiveness: The Role of Information Systems. International Journal of E-Business Research, 5(1), i-ix. Bhattacharya, P. (2018). Aligning Enterprise System Capabilities with Business Strategy: An extension of the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) using Enterprise Architecture. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 138, 655-662. Birkmeier, D., Gehlert, A., Overhage, S., & Schlauderer, S. (2013). Alignment of Business and IT Architectures in the German Federal Government: A Systematic Method to Identify Services from Business Processes. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3848-2857). Wailea, Maui, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Blondiau, A., Mettler, T., & Winter, R. (2016). Design and implementing maturity models in hospitals: an experience report from 5 year research. Health Informatics Journal, 22(3), 758-767. Bradley, R. V., Pratt, R. M., Byrd, T. A., & Simmons, L. L. (2011). The Role of Enterprise Architecture in the Quest for IT Value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(2), 73-80. Braun, C., & Winter, R. (2005). A Comprehensive Enterprise Architecture Metamodel and Its Implementation Using a Metamodeling Platform. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures (pp. 64–79). Klagenfurt, Austria: Ges. für Informatik. Broadbent, M., & Weill, P. (1993). Improving business strategy alignment: Learning from the banking industry. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 162-179. Brosius, M., Kazem, H., Aier, S., & Winter, R. (2016). A Learning Perspective on Enterprise Architecture Management. 37th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016) (pp. 1-20). Dublin, Ireland: Association for Information Systems. Brown, C. V., & Magill, S. L. (1994). Alignment of the IS Functions With the Enterprise: Toward a Model of Antecedents. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 371-403. Buckl, S. (2009). Using Enterprise Architecture Management Patterns to Complement TOGAF. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (pp. 1541-7719). Auckland, New Zealand: IEEE.

194 Buckl, S., Matthes, F., & Schweda, C. M. (2009). A Viable System Perspective on Enterprise Architecture Management. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 1529-1534). San Antonio, TX, USA: IEEE. Bui, Q. (2015). Increasing the Relevance of Enterprise Architecture through "Crisitunities" in U.S. State Governments. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(4), 169-179. Bui, Q. (2017). Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Frameworks Using Essential Elements. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 41(6), 121-149. Burke, B., & Blosch, M. (2017, 05 02). ITScore for Enterprise Architecture. Retrieved from Gartner: https://www.gartner.com/doc/3092223/itscore-overview-enterprise- architecture Caluwe, L., & De Haes, S. (2019). Board Engagement in IT Governance: Opening Up the Black Box of IT Oversight Committees at Board Level. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 6189-6198). Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Carota, S., Corradini, F., & Re, B. (2010). The Role of Applicative Cooperation in the Marche Region Enterprise Architecture. eChallenges e-2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-8). Warsaw, Poland: IEEE. Carter, M., Grover, V., & Bennett, J. (2011). The Emerging CIO Role of Business Technology Strategist. MIS Quarterly Executive,10(1), 19-29. CIO-Council. (2001). A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture. Springfield: Chief Information Officer Council. Constantiou, I., Marton, A., & Tuunainen, V. K. (2017). Four Models of Sharing Economy Platforms. MIS Quarterly Executive,16(4), 231-251. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research desing Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach (3rd edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Inc. Curtis, B., Hefley, W. E., & Miller, S. (1995). Overview of the People Capability Maturity Model. Pittsburg: Carnie Mellon University. Daft, R. L. (2006). Organization theory and design, 11th edition. South-Western, San-Diego: Erin Joyner. Dahlberg, T. (2013). Tietotekniikan Liitto ry:n IT-barometri 2013 julkistus: Ulos taantumasta tietotekniikkaa hyödyntämällä. Tietotekniikan liitto ry. Dahlberg, T. (2015). IT-barometri 2014 julkistus: Onko Suomi valmistautunut digitaalisuuden haasteisiin? Tieto- ja viestintätekniikan ammattilaiset TIVIA ry. Dahlberg, T. (2016). IT- ja digitalisointibarometri 2015 - tulosten julkistus: Miten palauttaa Suomi digitalisaation edelläkävijäksi johtamista kehittämällä? Tieto- ja viestintätekniikan ammattilaiset TIVIA ry. Dang, D. D. (2018). Enterprise Architecture in the Public Sector: Adoption and Institutionalization. Tampere: Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy. David, J. S., Schuff, D., & St. Louis, R. (2002). Managing your IT total cost of ownership. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 101-106. De Bruin, T., & Rosemann, M. (2005). Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model. ECIS 2005 Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Information Systems. Regensburg, Germany. De Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2005a). Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), (pp. 1-10). Sydney, Australia. De Haes, S., Gemke, D., Thorp, J., & Van Grembergen, W. (2011). KLM’s Enterprise Governance of IT Journey: From Managing IT Costs to Managing Business Value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(3), 109-120.

195

De Vries, M., & Van Rensburg, A. (2009). Evaluating and refining the 'enterprise architecture as strategy' approach and artefacts. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 20(1), 31-43. Deming, E. W. (1960). Sample Desing in Business Research. New York: NY: John Wiley & Sons. Dery, K., Sebastian, I. M., & van der Meulen, N. (2017). The Digital Workplace Is Key to Digital Innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 135-152. Fehér, P., Szabó, Z., & Varga, K. (2017). Analysing Digital Transformation among Hungarian Organizations. 30th Bled eConference Digital Transformation – From Connecting Things to Transforming Our Lives (pp. 139-150). Bled, Slovenia: BLED 2017 Proceedings. Finlex. (2019, 05 10). Laki julkisen hallinnon tietohallinnon ohjauksesta. Retrieved from Finlex: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110634 Fischer, R., Aier, S., & Winter, R. (2007). A Federated Approach to Enterprise Architecture Model Maintenance. Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, 2(2), 14- 22. GAO. (2010). Organizational transformation: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management Version 2.0. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Gerow, J. E., Gover, V., Thatcher, J., & Roth, P. L. (2014). Looking Toward the Future: of IT-Business Strategic Alignment through the Past: A Meta-Analysis. MIS Quaterly, 38(4), 1159-1185. Getter, J. R. (2007). Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance: A Risk-Based Approach. Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 220–230). Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2015). A paradigmatic analysis of digital application marketplaces. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), 198–208. Gill, M., & Van Boskirk, S. (2016). The Digital Maturity Model 4.0: Benchmarks: Digital Business Transformation Playbook. Cambridge: Forrester Research, Inc. Goel, A., Schmidt, H., & Gilbert, D. (2009). Towards formalizing virtual enterprise architecture. 13th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (pp. 238- 242). Auckland, New Zealand: IEEE. Goerzig, D., & Bauernhansl, T. (2018). Enterprise architectures for the digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises. 11th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering (pp. 540-545). Gulf of Naples, Italy: Procedia CIRP 67. Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135-146. Gong, Y., & Janssen, M. (2019). The value of and myths about enterprise architecture. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 46, 1-9. Goodhue, D., Chen, D. Q., Boudreau, M. C., & Cochran, J. (2009). Addressing Business Agility Challenges with Enterprise Systems. MIS Quarterly Executive, 8(2), 73-88. Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. (1999). Linking individual performance to business strategy: The people process model. Human Resourse Management, 38(1), 17- 32. Gray, P., El Sawy, O. A., Asper, G., & Thordarson, M. (2013). Realizing Strategic Value Through Center-Edge Digital Transformation in Consumer-Centric Industrie Consumer-Centric Industries. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(1), 1-17. Greefhorst, D., & Proper, E. (2011). Architecture Principles: The Cornerstones of Enterprise Architecture. Heidelberg: Springer. Gulati, R., & Soni, T. (2015). Digitalization: A strategic key to business. Journal of Advances in Business Management, 1(2), 60-67.

196 Gust, G., Ströhle, P., Flath, C. M., Neumann, D., & Brandt, T. (2017). How a Traditional Company Seeded New Analytics Capabilities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 215-230. Gøtze, J., Christiansen, P. E., Mortensen, R. K., & Paszkowski, S. (2009). Cross-National Interoperability and Enterprise Architecture. Informatica, 20(3), 369-396. Haffke, I., Kalgovas, B., & Benlian, A. (2017). Options for Transforming the IT Function Using Bimodal IT. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 101-120. Hafner, M., & Winter, R. (2008). Process for Enterprise Application Architecture Management. Process of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1- 10). Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Hafsi, M., & Assar, S. (2016). What Enterprise Architecture can bring for digital transformation: an Exploratory Study. 2016 IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI) (pp. 83-89). Paris, France: IEEE. Hallikainen, P., Bekkhus, R., & Pan, S. L. (2018). How OpusCapita Used Internal RPA Capabilities to Offer Services to Clients. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 41-52. Hanschke, I. (2010). Strategic IT Management. Berlin: Springer. Hansen, A. M., Kraemmergaard, P., & Mathiassen, L. (2011). Rapid Adaptation in Digital Transformation: A Participatory Process for Engaging IS and Business Leaders. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 175-185. Hattinen, T., & Kiviniemi, M. (2016). Tietoja valtion tietohallinosta 2015. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Hattinen, T., & Kiviniemi, M. (2017). Tietoja valtion tietohallinosta 2016. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Hattinen, T., & Korhonen, J. (2014). Tietoja valtion tietohallinosta 2013. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Hattinen, T., & Korhonen, J. (2015). Tietoja valtion tietohallinosta 2014. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(3), 66-68. Heberle, A., Löwe, W., Gustafsson, A., & Vorrei, Ö. (2017). Digitalization Canvas – Towards Identifying Digitalization Use Cases and Projects. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 23(11), 1070-1097. Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2014). Dynamic Managerial Capabilities: Review and Assessment of Managerial Impact on Strategic Change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1281-1312. Henderson, C. J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472-483. Henfridsson, O., Mathiassen, L., & Svahn, F. (2014). Managing technological change in the digital age: the role of architectural frames. Journal of Information Technology, 29(1), 27– 43. Henningsson, S., & Kettinger, W. J. (2016). Managing IT Integration Risk in Acquisitions. MIS Quaterly Executive, 15(1), 1-19. Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 123-139. Hovorka, D. S., & Lee, A. S. (2010). Reframing Interpretivism and positivism as Understanding and Explanation: Consequences for Information Systems Research. Internationa Conference on Information Systemsn (ICIS) 2010 Proceedings, (pp. 1-13). St. Louis, USA.

197

Jamaluddin, R., Chin, C. M., & Lee, C. W. (2010). Understanding the Requirements for Project Management Maturity Models: Awareness of the ICT Industry in Malaysia. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 1573-1577). Macao, China: IEEE. Janssen, M., & Hjort-Madsen, K. (2007). Analyzing Enterprise Architecture in National Governments: The cases of Denmark and the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Jenkins, A. M. (1985). Research Methodologies and MIS Research. Indiana: Indiana University. Jetha, K., & Berente, N. (2014). Strategic Reactions: Corporate Responses to Social Media Consumer Movements. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-11). Savannah, USA: IEEE. Joensuu-Salo, S., Sorama, K., Viljamaa, A., & Varamäki, E. (2018). Firm Performance among Internationalized SMEs: The Interplay of Market Orientation, Marketing Capability and Digitalization. Administrative Sciences, 8(31), 1-13. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th edition. Harlow: Pearson Educated Limited. Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., Silva, E., & Plazaola, L. (2004). Using enterprise architecture for CIO decision - making: on the importance of theory. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research, (pp. 1-10). Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M. M., Doest, H., Arbab, F., Bosma, H., & Wieringa, R. J. (2006). Enterprise architecture: Management toll and blueprint for the organization. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), 63-66. Kananen, A. (2008). Kvalitatiivisen tutkimuksen teoria ja käytänteet. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino. Kappelman, L., Johnson, V., Maurer, C., McLean, E., Torres, R., David, A., & Nguyen, Q. (2018). The 2017 SIM IT Issues and Trends Study. MIS Quaterly Executive, 17(1), 53- 88. Kasunic, M. (2005). Designing an Effective Survey. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. Kauppalehti. (2013, 03 01). Yrityshaku. Retrieved from Kauppalehti: http://www.kauppalehti.fi/5/i/companies/yrityshaku/ Kaur, J. (2014). Comparative Study of Capability Maturity Model. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science & Technology, 2(1), 47-49. Kettinger, W. J., Marchand, D. A., & Davis, J. M. (2010). Designing Enterprise IT Architectures to Optimize Flexibility and Standardization in Global Business. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(2), 95-113. Kettinger, W. J., Zhang, C., & Marchand, D. A. (2011). CIO and Business Executive Leadership Approaches to Establishing Company-wide Information Orientation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 157-174. Khan, S., Khan, S., & Aftab, M. (2015). Digitalization and its impact on economy. International Journal of Digital Library Services, 5(2), 138-149. Khosroshahi, P. A., Aier, S., Hauder, M., Roth, S., Matthes, F., & Winter, R. (2015). Success Factors for Federated Enterprise Architecture Model Management. Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops (pp. 413-425). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Kiviniemi, M. (2011). Mitä tietohallintolaki tuo tullessaan? Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Kohli, R., & Johnson, S. (2011). Digital Transformation in Latecomer Industries: CIO and CEO Leadership Lessons from Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 141-156.

198 Korhonen, J. J., & Halén, M. (2017). Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation. 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (pp. 349-358). Thessaloniki, Greece: IEEE. Kotarba, M. (2017). Measuring digitalization-key metrics. Foundations of Management, 9(1), 123- 138. Kothari, R. C. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques (Second revised edition). New Delhi: New age international (P) Ltd. Publisher. Kuntaliitto. (2013). Kuntasektorin kokonaisarkkitehtuurin hallintamalli. Helsinki: Kuntaliitto. Kuntaliitto. (2019, 11 08). Kuntaliitto. Retrieved from Kuntaliitto: https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/ Kwak, Y., & Ibbs, W. (2002). Project management process maturity (PM)2 model. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 150-155. Lagerström, R., Sommestad, T., Buschle, M., & Ekstedt, M. (2011). Enterprise architecture management’s impact on information technology Success. Proceedings of 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1530-1605). Kauai, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Winter, R., & Wortmann, F. (2011). Business Intelligence Maturity: Development and Evaluation of a Theoretical Model. Proceeeding of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1530-1605). Kauai, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Lankhorst, M. (2005). Enterprise architecture modelling—the issue of integration. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18(4), 205-216. Lankhorst, M. (2009). Enterprise architecture at work: Modeling, communicated, and analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lapalme, J., Gerber, A., Merve, A. V., Zachman, J., De Vries, M., & Hinkelmann, K. (2016). Exploring the future enterprise architecture: A Zachman perspective. Computers in Industry, Vol. 79, 103-113. LargestCompanies. (2014, 10 01). Largest Companies. Retrieved from Accurate Search: http://www.largestcompanies.fi LargestCompanies. (2016, 07 01). Largest Companies. Retrieved from Accurate Search: http://www.largestcompanies.fi Lee, J., Kang, S., Lee, D., Ahn, Y.-W., & Park, A. B. (2009). Comparison of vPMM and BPMM. 10th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligences, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (pp. 321-326). Daegu, South Korea: IEEE. Looy, A. (2010). Does IT Matter for Business Process Maturity? A Comparative Study on Business Process Maturity Models. OTM Confederated International Conferences "On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems" (pp. 687-697). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communication of the Assosiation for Information Systems, 4(14), 1-51. Lux, A., Hess, J., & Herterich, R. (2013). Business Process Management as Basis for Enterprise Management Systems. 2013 IEEE 15th Conference on Business Informatics (pp. 350-354). Vienna, Austria: IEEE. Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 1-11. Magnusson, J., Högberg, E., & Sjöman, H. (2019). How the West was Lost: Chief Information Officers and the Battle of Jurisdictional Control. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 6199-6208). Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-301.

199

McGarry, F., & Decker, B. (2002). Attaining level 5 in CMM process maturity. IEEE Software, 19(6), 87-96. McKelvey, B., Tanriverdi, H., & Yoo, Y. (2016). Complexity and Information Systems Research in the Emerging Digital World. MIS Quaterly, (Call for Papers), 1-3. McNabb, D. (2004 ). Research Methods for Political Science. Quantative and Qualitative Methos. New York: M.E.Sharpe, inc. Melville, N., Kraemer, K. L., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quaterly, 28(2), 283-322. Miller, M. J., Ferrin, D. M., & Pulgar-Vidal, F. (2002). Making simulation relevant in business: achieving higher levels of CMMI maturity using simulation. Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation: exploring new frontiers, (pp. 1473-1478). San Diego, USA. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organization. Eaglewood Cliffs: Presrice-Hall. Mintzberg, H. (1994, 01). The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107-114. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Prague: Berrett-Koehler Puplishers. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: a guided tourthrough the wilds of strategic management. New York: The free press. Mocker, M., & Fonstad, N. O. (2017). How AUDI AG is Driving Toward the Sharing Economy. MIS Quaterly Executive, 16(4), 279-293. Mohagheghi, P., & Jørgensen, M. (2019). What Contributes to the Success of IT Projects? An Empirical Study of IT Projects in the Norwegian Public Sector. Journal of Software, 12(9), 751-758. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Richardson, J., & Allen, J. (2006). Is the business model a useful strategic concept? Conceptual, theorical, and empirical insights. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 17(1), 27-50. Moser, C., Junginger, S., Bruchmann, M., & Schöne, K.-M. (2009). Some Process Patterns for Enterprise Architecture Management. Patterns in Enterprise Architecture Management (PEAM2009) Workshop, (pp. 19-30). Bonn, Germany. NASCIO. (2003). Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model Version Maturity Model, Version 1.3. Lexington, Kentucky: National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO). Niemann, K. D. (2006). From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance; Elements of Effective IT Management. Berlin: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlag. Niemi, E. (2006). Enterprise Architecture Benefits: Perception from Literature and Practice. Proceeding of the 7th IBIMA Conference Internet & Information Systems in the Digital Age (pp. 14-16). Brescia, Italy: IBIMA. Niemi, E., & Pekkola, S. (2016). Enterprise Architecture Benefit Realization: Review of the Models and a Case Study of a Public Organization. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 47(3), 55-80. Niemi, E., & Pekkola, S. (2019). The Benefits of Enterprise Architecture in Organizational Transformation. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1-13. Oikarinen, T. (2012). Tietohallintolaki ja julkisen hallinnon kokonaisarkkitehtuuri. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Olkkonen, T. (1994). Johdatus teollisuustalouden tutkimustyöhön. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

200 OMG. (2008). Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM). Needham: Object Management Group. Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMM/1.0/PDF Op't Land, M., Proper, E., Waage, M., Cloo, J., & Steghuis, C. (2009). Enterprise architecture: Creating value by informed governance. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organizanal life: Considering technology in management research. Campridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 125-141. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433- 474. Park, S.-H., Eo, J., & Lee, J. J. (2012). Assessing and Managing an Organization's Green IT Maturity. MIS Quarterly Executive, 11(3), 127-140. Parviainen, P., Kääriäinen, J., Honkatukia, J., & Federley, M. (2017). Julkishallinnon digitalisaatio – tuttavuus ja hyötyjen mittaaminen. Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston kanslia. Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity models for software, Version 1.1. Pittsburg: Carnegie Mellon University. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Gargia, S. M., Chrissis, M., & Bush, M. (1993). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model Version 1.1. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. Pekkola, S., & Nieminen, N. (2015). Comparison of Functional, Structural, and Dynamic Business-IT Alignment Models: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems. Puerto Rico: AMCIS. Penttinen, K., & Isomäki, H. (2010). Stakeholders' Views on Government Enterprise Architecture: Strategic Goals and New Public Services. International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective (pp. 1-8). Bilbao, Spain: Springer. Peppard, J., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2011). Clarifying the Ambiguous Role of the CIO. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(1), 31-44. Peppard, J., Ward, J., & Daniel, E. (2007). Managing the Realization of Business Benefits from IT Investments. MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(1), 1-11. Pereida, C. M., & Sousa, P. (2005). Enterprise Architecture: Business IT Alignment. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on Applied computing, (pp. 1344-1345). Santa Fe, USA. Perko, J. (2008). IT Governance and Enterprise Architecture as Prerequisites for Assimilation of Service- Oriented Architecture: An Emprical Study of Large Finnish Companies. Doctoral Thesis. Tampere: Tampereen Yliopistopaino Oy. Petrikina, J., Drews, P., Schirmer, I., & Zimmermann, K. (2014). Integrating Business Models and Enterprise Achitecture. IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations (pp. 47-56). Ulm, Germany: IEEE. Plazaola, L., Flores, J., Vargas, N., & Ekstedt, M. (2008). Strategic Business and IT Alignment Assessment: A Case Study Applying an Enterprise Architecture-Based Metamodel. Proceeding of the 41st Hawaii International Conferance on System Sciences (pp. 1530-1605). Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creative and sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1996). What Is Strategy? Harward Business Review, 74(6), 61-78. Porter, M. E., & Victor, M. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 149-160.

201

Raber, D. (2013). Situational Business Intelligence Maturity Models: An Exploratory Analysis. 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3797-3806). Wailea, Maui, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Raber, D., Winter, R., & Wortmann, F. (2012). Using Quantitative Analyses to Construct a Capability Maturity Model for Business Intelligence. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4219-4228). Maui, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Rai, A., Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., & Lewis, M. (2010). Transitioning to a Modular Enterprise Architecture: Drivers, Constraints, and Actions. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(2), 83-94. Reynolds, P., & Yetton, P. (2015). Aligning business and IT strategies in multi-business organizations. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 101-118. Rohsbeck, R. (2011). Corporate Foresight: Towards a maturtiy model for the future orientation of a firms. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Rosemann, M., & de Bruin, T. (2005). Application of a Holistic Model for Determining BPM Maturity. BPTrends, 46-60. Ross, J. W. (2006). Enterprise Architecture: Driving Business Benefits from IT. Massachusetts: CIRS WP No. 359 and Sloan WP No. 4614-06. Ross, J. W. (2008). Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2(1), 31-43. Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Saat, J., Winter, R., Franke, U., Lagerström, R., & Ekstedt, M. (2011). Analysis of IT/Business Alignment Situations as a Precondition for the Design and Engineering of Situated IT/Business Alignment Solutions. Proceeding of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1530-1605). Kauai, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students, fifth edition. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. Sebastian, I. M., Mocker, M., Ross, J. W., Moloney, K. G., Beath, C., & Fonstad, N. O. (2017). How Big Old Companies Navigate Digital Transformation. MIS Quaterly Executive, 16(3), 197-213. Seppänen, V., Penttinen, K., & Pulkiinen, M. (2018). Key Issues in Enterprise Architecture Adoption in the Public Sector. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 16(1), 46-58. Serèn, R., & Dahlberg, T. (2012). IT Barometer 2012 – Summary: A survey on the importance of IT in Finnish companies from the perspective of IT and business management. The Finnish Information Processing Association. Serèn, R., & Dahlberg, T. (2013). IT-barometri 2013 – maksuton versio: Tutkimus IT:n merkityksestä suomalaisyrityksille liiketoiminta- ja IT-johdon näkökulmasta. Tietotekniikan liitto. Serèn, R., & Dahlberg, T. (2015). IT-barometri 2014 – julkinen raportti: Tutkimus IT:n merkityksestä suomalaisille organisaatioille. Espoo: Tieto- ja viestintätekniikan ammattilaiset TIVIA ry. Serèn, R., & Dahlberg, T. (2015a). IT-barometri 2014 – OSA 1: Tutkimus IT:n merkityksestä suomalaisille organisaatioille - IT:n käyttö ja johtaminen suomalaisissa organisaatioissa. Espoo: Tieto- ja viestintätekniikan ammattilaiset TIVIA ry. Serèn, R., & Dahlberg, T. (2015b). IT-barometri 2014 – OSA 2: Taloussuhdanteiden vaikutus IT:n soveltamiseen ja johtamiseen sekä uusien IT teknologioiden johtaminen suomalaisissa organisaatioissa. Espoo: Tieto- ja viestintätekniikan ammattilaiset TIVIA ry.

202 Serèn, R., & Lehtovirta, V. (2007). Research Report - IT Barometer 2007: A study on IT and business management's views on the importance of IT in Finnish companies. The Finnish Information Processing Association. Serèn, R., Dahlberg, T., & Lehtovirta, V. (2009). Research Report – IT barometer 2009: A survey on the importance of IT in Finnish companies from the perspective of IT and business management. Helsinki: The Finnish Information Processing Association. Serèn, R., Dahlberg, T., & Lehtovirta, V. (2011). IT Barometer 2011: Research on the Significance of IT for Finnish Companies from IT and Business Management Perspectives. The Finnish Information Processing Association. Serèn, R., Dahlberg, T., & Salo, J. (2010). Survey Report – IT barometer 2010: A survey on the importance of IT in Finnish companies from the perspective of IT and business management. Helsinki: The Finnish Information Processing Association. Sia, S. K., Soh, C., & Weill, P. (2016). How DBS Bank Pursued a Digital Business Strategy. MIS Quartely Executive, 15(2), 105-121. Simon, D., Fischbach, K., & Schoder, D. (2013). Enterprise architecture management and its role. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(1), 5-42. Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017). How Chief Digital Officers Promote the Digital Transformation of their Companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), 1-17. Siponen, M., & Aggeliki, T. (2018). Demystifying the Influential IS Legends of Positivism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 600-617. Smith, H. A., Watson, R. T., & Sullivan, P. (2012). Delivering an Effective Enterprise Architecture at Chubb Insurance. MIS Quarterly Executive, 11(2), 75-82. Soltanizadeh, S., Rasid, S. Z., Golshan, N. M., & Ismail, W. K. (2016). Business strategy, enterprise risk management and organizational performance. Management Research Review, 39(9), 1016-1033. Tamm, T., Reynolds, P., Seddon, P. B., Frampton, K. M., & Shanks, G. (2015). How an Australian Retailer Enabled Business Transformation Through Enterprise Architecture. MIS Quaterly Executive, 14(4), 181-193. Tan, F. T., Tan, B., Cahalane, M., & Englert, J. (2017). How GoGet CarShare’s Product- Service System is Facilitating Collaborative Consumption. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(4), 265-277. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172-194. Tietoviikko. (2012). CIO 100. Tietoviikko. Tilastokeskus. (2019, 05 13). Tilastokeskus. Retrieved from Tilastokeskus: https://www.stat.fi/index.html Tivi. (2016). CIO 100. Tivi. Tumbas, S., Berente, N., & vom Brocke, J. (2017). Born Digital: Growth Trajectories of Entrepreneurial Organizations Spanning Institutional Fields. Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, (pp. 1-20). Soul, South Korea. Tumbas, S., Berente, N., & vom Brocke, J. (2017a). Digital Capabilities for Buffering Tensions of Structure, Space, and Time during Entrepreneurial Growth. Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, (pp. 1-20). Soul, South Korea. Tumbas, S., Berente, N., & vom Brocke, J. (2017b). Three Types of Chief Digital Officers and the Reasons Organizations Adopt the Role. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 121- 134.

203

Tumbas, S., Berente, N., Seidel, S., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The ‘Digital Façade’ of Rapidly Growing Entrepreneurial Organizations. Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, (pp. 1–19). Fort Worth, USA. Täuscher, K., & Kietzmann, J. (2017). Learning from Failures in the Sharing Economy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(4), 253-263. Urbaczewski, L., & Mrdalj, S. (2006). A comparison of enterprise architecture framework. Issues in Information Systems, 7(2), 18-23. Wagner, H.-T., & Weitzel, T. (2012). How to Achieve Operational Business-IT Alignment: Insights from a Global Aerospace Firm. MIS Quarterly Executive, 11(1), 25-36. Walker, A. J. (2008). Enterprise maturity models: Have we lost the Plot? Computer, 41(11), 96-98. Vallerand, J., Lapalme, J., & Moïse, A. (2017). Analysing enterprise architecture maturity models: a learning perspective. Enterprise Information Systems, 11(6), 859-883. Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394. Valtionvarainministeriö. (2012). Julkisen hallinnon kokonaisarkkitehtuuri: Julkisen hallinnon KA- kypsyystasomalli. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Valtionvarainministeriö. (2013). Kunnan kokonaisarkkitehtuurin hallintamallin kehittäminen. Helsinki: Valtionvarainministeriö. Valtiovarainministeriö. (2019, 11 07). Julkisen hallinnon digitalisaatio. Retrieved from Valtiovarainministeriö: http://vm.fi/digitalisaatio Watson, H. J. (2017). Preparing for the Cognitive Generation of Decision Support. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 153-169. Weber, R. (2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xii. Vehkalahti, K. (2008). Kyselytutkimuksen mittarit ja menetelmät. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi. Weil, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT Governance on One Page. Massachusetts: CIRS WP No. 349 and Sloan WP No. 4516-04. Weil, P., & Woodham, R. (2002). Don't Just Lead, Govern: Implementing Effective IT Governance. Massachusetts: CIRS WP No. 326 and Sloan WP No. 4237-02. Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2013). The Future of the CIO in a Digital Economy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(2), 65-75. Vejseli, S., Rossmann, A., & Connolly, T. (2019). IT Governance and Its Agile Dimensions: Exploratory Research in the Banking Sector. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 6209-6218). Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., Verkatraman, S., & Bates, J. (2007). Enterprise Architecture Maturity: The Story of the Veterans Health Administration. MIS Quaterly Executive, 6(2), 79-90. Whitley, E. A., & Willcocks, L. (2011). Achieving Step-Change in Outsourcing Maturity: Toward Collaborative Innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(3), 95-107. Williams, M. L., & Wheeler, B. C. (2009). The Four Faces of Deploying global Common Systems Understanding Global and Local Objectives. MIS Quarterly Executive, 8(2), 59-72. Winkler, T. J., & Kettunen, P. (2018). Five Principles of Industrialized Transformation for Successfully Building an Operational Backbone. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(2), 123- 140.

204 Winter, R. (2014). Architectural Thinking. Business & Information System Engineering, 6(6), 361- 364. Winter, R., & Fischer, R. (2007). Essential Layers, Artifacts, and Dependencies of Enterprise Architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3(2), 7-18. Winter, R., & Sinz, E. J. (2007). Enterprise Architecture. IS and e-Business Management, 5(4), 357-358. Winter, R., Legner, C., & Fischbach, K. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on enterprise architecture management. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(1), 1-4. Wißotzki, M., & Koç, H. (2013). A Project Driven Approach for Enhanced Maturity Model Development. 17th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (pp. 297-304). Vancouver, Canada: IEEE. Wright, P. M., Coff, R., & Moliterno, T. P. (2014). Strategic Human Capital: Grossing the Great Divide. Journal of Management, 40(2), 353-370. Wulf, J., Mettler, T., & Brenner, W. (2017). Using a Digital Services Capability Model to Assess Readiness for the Digital Consumer. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 171-195. Yetton, P., Henningsson, S., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2013). Ready to Acquire The IT Resources Required for a Growth-by-Acquisition Business Strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(1), 19-35. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quaterly, 34(2), 213-231. Zachman, J. A. (1982). Business systems planning and business Information control study: a comparison. IBM Systems Journal, 21(1), 31-53. Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM System Journal, 26(3), 276-292. Zachman, J. A. (1996). Concept of the framework for enterprise architecture. Los Angels, CA, USA: Information engineering services Pty Ltd. Zachman, J. A. (1997). Enterprise architecture: The issue of the century. Database Programming and Desing, 10(3), 44-53. Zhang, C., Kettinger, W. J., Kolte, P., & Yoo, S. (2018). Established Companies’ Strategic Responses to Sharing Economy Threats. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 23-40. Zhang, M., Chen, H., Lyytinen, K., & Li, X. (2019). A Co-evolutionary Perspective on Business and IT Alignment: A Review and Research Agenda. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 6229-6238). Maui, Hawaii, USA: IEEE. Zhang, M., Honghui, C., Xinyu, L., & Lyytinen, K. (2018). Evolvement of Business-IT Alignment: A Conceptual Model and Intervening Changes From Resource Allocation. IEEE Access, Vol. 6, 9160-9172. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The Fit between Product Market Strategy and Business Model: Implications for Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1-26.

205

APPENDICES

206 Appendix A

Cover letter for the questionnaire in English.

Hello,

I’m conducting research in large, and medium-sized companies and public sector related to enterprise architecture. The questionnaires have been sent to 100 organizations in each category.

The questionnaire contains 19 questions, most of them are statements. It takes about 10 minutes to answer.

Information management or business representative can answer to the questionnaire.

If you feel that you are not the right respondent, you can pass it to an appropriate person in your organization.

Individual organizations do not be visible in the research results report, but results are handled by category.

Link to the survey: https://fi.surveymonkey.com/r/WYT697K

Please, reply by 19.8.2016. Product and gift cards will be cast lots among respondents. In additionally, the research result summary will be sent to the respondent organization.

Thank you for participating.

Appendix B

Cover letter for the questionnaire in Finnish.

Hei,

Teen vertailevaa tutkimusta suurten- ja keskisuurten yritysten ja julkisen sektorin yritysarkkitehtuurin (kokonaisarkkitehtuurin) kypsyystasoista. Kysely on lähetetty jokaisessa kategoriassa sadalle suurimmalle toimijalle.

Kysely sisältää 19 kysymystä, joista pääosa on väittämiä. Vastaaminen kestää noin 10 minuuttia.

Kyselyyn voi vastata kattavasti yrityksen tunteva tietohallinnon tai liiketoiminnan edustaja. Mikäli ette koe olevanne oikea vastaaja, voisitteko välittää sen organisaatiossasi sopivalle henkilölle.

Yksittäisen yrityksen tiedot eivät näy tulosraportissa vaan tuloksia käsitellään vastaajaryhmittäin.

Linkki kyselytutkimukseen: https://fi.surveymonkey.com/r/W8LVT2Z

Vastausaikaa on 02.09.2016 asti. Vastanneiden kesken arvotaan tuote- ja lahjakorttipalkintoja. Lisäksi vastaajaorganisaatioille lähetetään tulosyhteenveto.

Kiitos osallistumisestasi.

Appendix C

Questions for large and medium-sized companies.

Large and medium-sized companies

Instructions for respondents

Select the statement which describes the company's current state.

Answer to the questionnaire according to the viewpoint of Finnish activities.

Enterprise architecture definition:

Enterprise Architecture is a method to understand and manage large entities. Enterprise architecture is a method that identifies and describes the main components of the company, business objectives, as well as business data, applications and technologies. Enterprise architecture describes the ways in which these components work together to reach the business objectives.

Business, information, application, and technology architecture are part of enterprise architecture.

• Business architecture describes the company's business processes. • Information architecture describes the company's main business data. • Application architecture describes the applications used in business data processing. • Technology architecture describes technology components needed for above architectures.

Enterprise architecture maturity by themes

Question 1 Which statement best describes your company's current state? 1. Business units use local IT applications. 2. IT infrastructure solutions are harmonized across the organization. 3. The company uses standardized business processes. 4. The company uses reusable applications and business processes. 5. I do not know.

Business unit has a production plant or an office of the company. Often synonymous with term place of business. Reusable applications utilize existing application solutions.

Question 2 What are the development priorities in information technology? 1. Local business applications so that they better meet local business requirements. 2. Standardized IT infrastructure solutions to reduce the number of maintainable solutions. 3. Company-wide applications. 4. Reusable application and business process modules. 5. I do not know.

Question 3 Which statement best describes the business requirements for IT management? 1. IT projects require solutions to local business requirements. 2. Efficiency and cost savings are required for information management. 3. IT-applications require integration to enhance business processes. 4. IT applications require rapid deployment to new markets. 5. I do not know.

Question 4 Which statement best describes the IT management’s ability to respond to business needs? 1. Information management is required to repay the investment with measurable business benefit. 2. Standardized IT infrastructure solutions limit the business processes in units and their development. IT management focuses on manage infrastructure standards. 3. Company-wide, common business processes are defined, implemented and measured. IT management focuses on support company-wide business processes. 4. Reusable applications and business processes are defined, implemented and measured. IT management focuses on manage reusable application components. 5. I do not know.

Question 5 Who defines the IT applications? 1. The management of business units so that they support the local needs of the units. 2. Business unit management defines the requirements for IT systems but IT management determines the system and technological solutions. 3. Business process owners. 4. Business and IT management define standardized business processes. Business management selects the standardized business processes used in the unit. 5. I do not know.

Question 6 Which statement best describes IT management leadership model? 1. Business unit management is responsible for all decision in business and IT operations. 2. IT management offers the management model for standardized IT infrastructure management solutions. 3. IT management provides a management model for company-wide application management. 4. IT management offers a management model for reusable application components management. 5. I do not know.

Question 7 What drives the strategic planning of IT management? 1. Local sub-optimization of business units. 2. Cost efficiency of IT management. 3. Operational efficiency of the business. 4. Strategic agility of the business. 5. I do not know.

Question 8 Which statement best describes the degree of centralization of information management? 1. Only individual functions are centralized in IT management 2. Less than half of the IT management is centralized. 3. More than half of IT management has been centralized less than a year ago. 4. More than half of IT management has been centralized more than a year ago. 5. I do not know.

Question 9 Which statement best describes the business information standardization level? 1. The business information generated by applications is application-specific. 2. The business information generated by applications is application-specific but the business data is shared via data warehouse for common reporting or analysis. 3. Critical information generated by applications is standardized and applications are integrated with standardized business information. 4. Critical information generated by applications is standardized and applications are integrated with standardized business information. In addition, new applications are introduced from internal or external sources, for example through a web service. 5. I do not know.

Business data is the company's internal (services, products), external (customers) or personal sources of information (plans, projections) from the information accumulated.

Question 10 Which statement best describes the applications of integration level 1. Applications are not integrated. 2. Applications are not integrated but produced by one or more applications, business data is divided by the data warehouse for reporting or analysis. 3. Applications are integrated concerned a standardized business data. 4. Applications are integrated concerned a standardized business data. Additionally, through the partner network new application components can be deployed. 5. I do not know.

Question 11 How many business units information management serve? 1. 1 - 5 business units. 2. 6 - 10 business units. 3. 11 - 20 business units. 4. More than 20 business units. 5. I do not know.

Enterprise architecture maturity by architecture types

Question 12 Which statement best describes the current state of business processes? 0. The business processes have not been identified or documented. 1. The business processes have been identified and documented. 2. The current state of business processes and their interfaces to the applications, key data elements and IT infrastructure as well as key business elements such as customers, stakeholders and organizations, have been identified and documented. 3. The target state of business processes, and their interfaces to the applications, key data elements and IT infrastructure as well as key business elements such as customers, stakeholders and organizations, have been identified and documented. 4. A plan has been created that details how business processes will move from the current stage to the target stage. 5. I do not know.

The data element is data or information.

Question 13 Which statement best describes the current state of business-critical data? 0. Important business data elements have not been listed or documented. 1. Important business data elements have been identified and documented. 2. Important data elements and information of the current business environment and information producers and consumers have been identified and documented. 3. Top-level business target stage, that allows the consolidation and sharing of the data, is defined. 4. The company has created a plan, which includes ways to share data and security. 5. I do not know.

Question 14 Which statement best describes the current state of IT applications? 0. Applications have not been comprehensively listed or documented. 1. Applications have been listed and documented. 2. Integration of existing applications into business processes, important data elements and IT infrastructure has been comprehensively documented 3. Applications have been defined in target stage and their interfaces with business processes, important information elements and IT infrastructure. 4. Applications have been defined in target stage and those applications work driver for transition planning, as well for IT investments. Applications require standardization and re-usability. 5. I do not know.

Transition planning is a description of concrete steps that the targets can be achieved.

Question 15 Which statement best describes the current state of IT-technology products? Technology products, such as IT infrastructure and telecommunications networks, create an operating environment for IT application. 0. IT technology products have not been identified. 1. IT technology products have been identified. 2. IT-technology products have been linked to the business processes, important data elements and applications. 3. Target state for IT technology products and linked to business processes, important data elements and applications. Compatibility requirements for business units have been defined. 4. A plan has been developed for IT target products that serve as an important driver for transition planning and IT investment. Applications require standardization and re-usability. 5. I do not know.

Open questions:

Developing an enterprise architecture

What is the most significant development action related to enterprise architecture over the past last year?

Why has this action been implemented?

Contact

What is the company you represent?

Contact

What is your email address?

This information is required for delivery the survey prize.

Appendix D

Questions for large and medium-sized companies in Finnish

Suuret- ja keskisuuret yritykset

Ohjeita vastaajalle

Valitse väittämistä yrityksen nykytilaa kuvaava vaihtoehto.

Vastaa yrityksesi Suomen toimintojen näkökulmasta.

Yritysarkkitehtuurin (Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin) määritelmä:

Yritysarkkitehtuuri on keino ymmärtää ja hallita laajoja kokonaisuuksia. Yritysarkkitehtuuri on menetelmä, joka tunnistaa ja kuvaa yrityksen pääkomponentit, liiketoiminnan tavoitteet sekä hyödynnettävät tiedot, sovellukset ja teknologiat. Yritysarkkitehtuuri kuvaa tavat, jolla nämä komponentit toimivat yhdessä saavuttaakseen asetetut liiketoiminnan tavoitteet.

Yritysarkkitehtuuri koostuu liiketoiminta-arkkitehtuurista, informaatioarkkitehtuurista, sovellusarkkitehtuurista ja teknologia-arkkitehtuurista.

• Liiketoiminta-arkkitehtuuri kuvaa yrityksen liiketoimintaprosessit. • Informaatioarkkitehtuuri kuvaa yrityksen tärkeimmät liiketoimintatiedot. • Sovellusarkkitehtuuri kuvaa liiketoimintatiedon käsittelyyn käytettävät sovellukset. • Teknologia-arkkitehtuuri kuvaa edellä mainittuihin arkkitehtuureihin liittyvät teknologiakomponentit.

Yritysarkkitehtuurin (Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin) kypsyysaste teemoittain

1. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten yrityksesi nykytilaa? 1. Liiketoimintayksiköissä on käytössä paikalliset IT-sovellukset. 2. IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisut on yhdenmukaistettu koko organisaatiossa. 3. Yritys käyttää standardoituja liiketoimintaprosesseja. 4. Yritys käyttää uudelleenkäytettäviä sovellus- ja liiketoimintaprosesseja. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Liiketoimintayksikkö on yrityksen tuotantolaitos tai toimisto. Usein synonyymi termille on toimipaikka. Uudelleenkäytettävissä sovelluksissa hyödynnetään jo olemassa olevia sovellusratkaisuja.

2. Kysymys Mitkä ovat tietotekniikan kehityksen painopisteet? 1. Paikallisten liiketoimintayksiköiden sovellukset, jotta ne vastaisivat paremmin liiketoimintayksikön paikallisia vaatimuksia. 2. Standardoidut IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisut, joilla vähennetään ylläpidettävien ratkaisujen määrää. 3. Yrityksenlaajuiset sovellusratkaisut. 4. Uudelleenkäytettävät sovellus- ja liiketoimintaprosessimoduulit. 5. En osaa sanoa.

3. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten liiketoiminnan vaatimuksia tietohallinnolle? 1. IT-projekteilta edellytetään ratkaisuja liiketoimintayksiköiden paikallisiin vaatimuksiin. 2. Tietohallinnolta edellytetään tehokkuutta ja kustannussäästöjä. 3. IT-sovelluksilta edellytetään integroituvuutta tehostamaan liiketoimintaprosesseja. 4. IT-sovelluksilta edellytetään nopeaa käyttöönottoa uusille markkinoille. 5. En osaa sanoa.

4. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten tietohallinnon kyvykkyyttä vastata liiketoiminnan tarpeisiin? 1. Tietohallinnolta edellytetään investointien takaisinmaksua mitattavissa olevilla liiketoimintahyödyillä. 2. Standardisoidut IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisut rajoittavat liiketoimintayksikön liiketoimintaprosesseja ja niiden kehittämistä. Tietohallinnossa keskitytään infrastruktuuri standardien hallintaan. 3. Yrityksenlaajuiset, yhteiset liiketoimintaprosessit on määritelty, käyttöönotettu ja mitattu. Tietohallinnossa keskitytään yrityksenlaajuisien liiketoimintaprosessien tukemiseen. 4. Uudelleenkäytettävät sovellus- ja liiketoimintaprosessit ovat määritelty, käyttöönotettu ja mitattu. Tietohallinnossa keskitytään uudelleenkäytettävien sovelluskomponenttien hallintaan. 5. En osaa sanoa.

5. Kysymys Kuka määrittelee IT-järjestelmät? 1. Liiketoimintayksiköiden johto niin, että ne tukevat yksiköiden paikallisia tarpeita. 2. Liiketoimintayksiköiden johto määrittelee IT-järjestelmien vaatimukset, mutta tietohallinnon johto määrittelee järjestelmä- ja teknologiratkaisut. 3. Liiketoiminnan prosessienomistajat. 4. Liiketoiminnan- ja tietohallinnon johto määrittävät standardisoidut liiketoimintaprosessit. Liiketoimintayksikön johto valitsee standardisoiduista liiketoimintaprosesseista yksikössä käytettävät prosessit. 5. En osaa sanoa.

6. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten tietohallinnon johtamismallia? 1. Liiketoimintayksikön johto vastaa kaikista liiketoimintaan ja IT-toimintoihin liittyvistä päätöksistä. 2. Tietohallinto tarjoaa johtamismallin standardisoitujen IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisujen hallintaan. 3. Tietohallinto tarjoaa johtamismallin yrityksenlaajuisten sovellusratkaisujen hallintaan. 4. Tietohallinto tarjoaa johtamismallin uudelleenkäytettävien sovelluskomponenttien hallintaan. 5. En osaa sanoa.

7. Kysymys Mikä ohjaa tietohallinnon strategista suunnittelua? 1. Liiketoimintayksiköiden paikallinen osa-optimointi. 2. Tietohallinnon kustannustehokkuus. 3. Liiketoiminnan operatiivinen tehokkuus. 4. Liiketoiminnan strateginen ketteryys. 5. En osaa sanoa.

8. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten tietohallinnon keskittämisastetta? 1. Tietohallinnosta on keskitetty vain yksittäisiä toimintoja. 2. Tietohallinnosta on keskitetty alle puolet. 3. Tietohallinnosta on keskitetty yli puolet alle vuosi sitten. 4. Tietohallinnosta on keskitetty yli puolet yli vuosi sitten. 5. En osaa sanoa.

9. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten liiketoimintatiedon standardisoitumisastetta? 1. Sovellusten tuottama liiketoimintatieto on sovelluskohtaista. 2. Sovellusten tuottama liiketoimintatieto on sovelluskohtaista mutta liiketoimintatietoa jaetaan tietovarastojen avulla yhteistä raportointia tai analysointia varten. 3. Sovellusten tuottama kriittinen liiketoimintatieto on standardoitu ja sovellukset ovat integroitu standardoidun liiketoimintatiedon osalta. 4. Sovellusten tuottama kriittinen liiketoimintatieto on standardoitu ja sovellukset ovat integroitu standardisoidun liiketoimintatiedon osalta. Lisäksi uusia sovelluksia käyttöönotetaan sisäisistä tai ulkoisista lähteistä mm. web-palvelun kautta. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Liiketoimintatieto on yrityksen sisäisistä (palvelut, tuotteet), ulkoisista (asiakkaat) tai henkilökohtaisista tietolähteistä (suunnitelmat, ennusteet) kertyvää tietoa.

10. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten sovellusten integroitumisastetta? 1. Sovelluksia ei ole integroitu. 2. Sovelluksia ei ole integroitu mutta yhden tai useamman sovellusten tuottamaa liiketoimintatietoa jaetaan tietovaraston avulla raportointia tai analysointia varten. 3. Sovellukset on integroitu standardoidun liiketoimintatiedon osalta. 4. Sovellukset on integroitu standardoidun liiketoimintatiedon osalta. Lisäksi integroidutaan partneriverkostoon, jota kautta uusia sovelluskomponentteja voidaan käyttöönottaa. 5. En osaa sanoa.

11. Kysymys Kuinka montaa liiketoimintayksikköä yrityksesi tietohallinto palvelee? 1. 1 – 5 liiketoimintayksikköä. 2. 6 – 10 liiketoimintayksikköä. 3. 11 – 20 liiketoimintayksikköä. 4. Enemmän kuin 20 liiketoimintayksikköä. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Yritysarkkitehtuurin (Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin) kypsyysaste arkkitehtuurityypeittäin

12. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten liiketoimintaprosessien nykytilaa? 0. Liiketoimintaprosesseja ei ole tunnistettu eikä dokumentoitu. 1. Liiketoimintaprosessit on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 2. Liiketoimintaprosessien nykytila ja niiden liitynnät sovelluksiin, keskeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT- infrastruktuuriin sekä liiketoiminnan tärkeisiin elementteihin, kuten asiakkaat, sidosryhmät ja organisaatiot, on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 3. Liiketoimintaprosessien tavoitetila ja niiden liitynnät sovelluksiin, keskeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT- infrastruktuuriin sekä liiketoiminnan tärkeisiin elementteihin, kuten asiakkaat, sidosryhmät ja organisaatiot, on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 4. Liiketoimintaprosesseille on laadittu suunnitelma, miten muuntaudutaan nykyisestä liiketoimintamallista tavoitetilan liiketoimintamalliin. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Tietoelementti on data tai informaatio.

13. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten liiketoiminnalle tärkeiden tietojen nykytilaa? 0. Liiketoiminnan tärkeitä tietoelementtejä ei ole tunnistettu eikä dokumentoitu. 1. Liiketoiminnan tärkeät tietoelementit on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 2. Liiketoiminnan nykytilan tärkeät tietoelementit ja informaatio sekä niiden tiedonvälityspaketit, tuottajat ja kuluttajat on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 3. Liiketoiminnan ylätason tavoitetila, joka mahdollistaa konsolidoinnin sekä tiedon jakamisen, on määritelty. 4. Yritys on laatinut suunnitelman, joka sisältää toimintatavat tiedon levittämiseen ja turvallisuuteen. 5. En osaa sanoa.

14. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten IT-sovellusten nykytilaa? 0 Käytössä olevia sovelluksia ei ole kattavasti luetteloitu eikä dokumentoitu. 1. Käytössä olevat sovellukset on luetteloitu ja dokumentoitu. 2. Käytössä olevien sovellusten liitynnät liiketoimintaprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT- infrastruktuuriin on kattavasti dokumentoitu. 3. Tavoitetilan sovellukset on määritelty ja niiden liitynnät liiketoimintaprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT-infrastruktuuriin. 4. Tavoitetilan sovelluksille on laadittu suunnitelma, joka toimii siirtymäsuunnittelun sekä IT investointien tärkeänä ajurina. Sovelluksilta edellytetään standardisointia ja uudelleen käytettävyyttä. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Siirtymäsuunnittelu on kuvaus yrityksen toimenpiteistä, joilla sen tavoitetila saavutetaan.

15. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten IT-teknologia tuotteiden nykytilaa? Teknologia tuotteilla, kuten IT- infrastruktuuri ja tietoliikenneverkot, luodaan IT-sovelluksille toimintaympäristö. 0. IT-teknologiatuotteita ei ole tunnistettu. 1. IT-teknologiatuotteet on tunnistettu. 2. IT-teknologiatuotteet on linkitetty liiketoimintaprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja sovelluksiin. 3. IT-teknologiatuotteille on määritelty tavoitetila ja linkitetty liiketoimintaprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja sovelluksiin. Yhteensopivuusvaatimukset liiketoimintayksiköille on määritelty. 4. Tavoitetilan IT-teknologiatuotteille on laadittu suunnitelma, joka toimii siirtymäsuunnittelun sekä IT investointien tärkeänä ajurina. Sovelluksilta edellytetään standardisointia ja uudelleen käytettävyyttä. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Avoimet kysymykset:

Yritysarkkitehtuurin (Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin) kehittäminen

Mikä on merkittävin yritysarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana?

Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu?

Yhteystiedot

Mikä on edustamasi yritys?

Yhteystiedot

Mikä on sähköpostiosoitteesi?

Tämä tieto tarvitaan vastaajalahjan toimittamista varten.

Questions for municipalities in Finnish

Julkinen sektori

Ohjeita vastaajalle

Valitse väittämistä kuntasi nykytilaa kuvaava vaihtoehto.

Vastaa kuntasi toimintojen näkökulmasta.

Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin määritelmä:

Kokonaisarkkitehtuuri on keino ymmärtää ja hallita laajoja kokonaisuuksia. Kokonaisarkkitehtuuri on menetelmä, joka tunnistaa yrityksen (julkisen sektorin) pääkomponentit, liiketoiminnan (palveluliiketoiminnan) tavoitteet sekä hyödynnettävät tiedot, sovellukset ja teknologiat. Kokonaisarkkitehtuuri kuvaa tavat, jolla nämä komponentit toimivat yhdessä saavuttaakseen asetetut liiketoiminnan (palveluliiketoiminnan) tavoitteet.

Kokonaisarkkitehtuuri koostuu liiketoiminta-arkkitehtuurista, informaatioarkkitehtuurista, sovellusarkkitehtuurista ja teknologia-arkkitehtuurista.

Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin kypsyysaste teemoittain

1. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten kuntasi nykytilaa? 1. Palveluyksiköissä on käytössä paikalliset IT-sovellukset. 2. IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisut on yhdenmukaistettu koko organisaatiossa. 3. Kunta käyttää standardoituja palveluprosesseja. 4. Kunta käyttää uudelleenkäytettäviä sovellus- ja palveluprosesseja. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Palveluyksikkö on esimerkiksi koulu tai sairaala. Usein synonyymi termille on toimipaikka. Uudelleenkäytettävissä sovelluksissa hyödynnetään jo olemassa olevia sovellusratkaisuja.

2. Kysymys Mitkä ovat tietotekniikan kehityksen painopisteet? 1. Paikallisten palveluyksiköiden sovellukset, jotta ne vastaisivat paremmin palveluyksikön paikallisia vaatimuksia. 2. Standardoidut IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisut, joilla vähennetään ylläpidettävien ratkaisujen määrää. 3. Kunnanlaajuiset sovellusratkaisut. 4. Uudelleenkäytettävät sovellus- ja palveluprosessimoduulit. 5. En osaa sanoa.

3. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten palvelutoiminnan vaatimuksia tietohallinnolle? 1. IT-projekteilta edellytetään ratkaisuja palveluyksiköiden paikallisiin vaatimuksiin. 2. Tietohallinnolta edellytetään tehokkuutta ja kustannussäästöjä. 3. IT-sovelluksilta edellytetään integroituvuutta tehostamaan palveluprosesseja. 4. IT-sovelluksilta edellytetään nopeaa käyttöönottoa uusille palvelualueille. 5. En osaa sanoa.

4. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten tietohallinnon kyvykkyyttä vastata palvelutoiminnan tarpeisiin? 1. Tietohallinnolta edellytetään investointien takaisinmaksua mitattavissa olevilla palvelutoiminnan hyödyillä. 2. Standardisoidut IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisut rajoittavat palveluyksikön palveluprosesseja ja niiden kehittämistä. Tietohallinnossa keskitytään infrastruktuuri standardien hallintaan. 3. Kunnansisäiset, yhteiset palveluprosessit on määritelty, käyttöönotettu ja mitattu. Tietohallinnossa keskitytään kunnansisäisten palveluprosessien tukemiseen. 4. Uudelleenkäytettävät sovellus- ja palveluprosessit ovat määritelty, käyttöönotettu ja mitattu. Tietohallinnossa keskitytään uudelleenkäytettävien sovelluskomponenttien hallintaan. 5. En osaa sanoa.

5. Kysymys Kuka määrittelee IT-järjestelmät? 1. Palveluyksiköiden johto niin, että ne tukevat palveluyksiköiden paikallisia tarpeita. 2. Palveluyksiköiden johto määrittelee IT-järjestelmien vaatimukset, mutta tietohallinnon johto määrittelee järjestelmä- ja teknologiratkaisut. 3. Palvelutoiminnan prosessienomistajat. 4. Palvelutoiminnan- ja tietohallinnon johto määrittävät standardisoidut palveluprosessit. Palveluyksikön johto valitsee standardisoiduista palveluprosesseista yksikössä käytettävät prosessit. 5. En osaa sanoa.

6. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten tietohallinnon johtamismallia? 1. Palveluyksikön johto vastaa kaikista palvelutoimintaan ja IT-toimintoihin liittyvistä päätöksistä. 2. Tietohallinto tarjoaa johtamismallin standardisoitujen IT-infrastruktuuriratkaisujen hallintaan. 3. Tietohallinto tarjoaa johtamismallin kunnanlaajuisten sovellusratkaisujen hallintaan. 4. Tietohallinto tarjoaa johtamismallin uudelleenkäytettävien sovelluskomponenttien hallintaan. 5. En osaa sanoa.

7. Kysymys Mikä ohjaa tietohallinnon strategista suunnittelua? 1. Palveluyksiköiden paikallinen osa-optimointi. 2. Tietohallinnon kustannustehokkuus. 3. Palvelutoiminnan operatiivinen tehokkuus. 4. Palvelutoiminnan strateginen ketteryys. 5. En osaa sanoa.

9. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten palvelutiedon standardisoitumisastetta? 1. Sovellusten tuottama palvelutieto on sovelluskohtaista. 2. Sovellusten tuottama palvelutieto on sovelluskohtaista mutta palvelutietoa jaetaan tietovaraston avulla yhteistä raportointia tai analysointia varten. 3. Sovellusten tuottama kriittinen palvelutieto on standardoitu ja sovellukset ovat integroitu standardoidun palvelutiedon osalta. 4. Sovellusten tuottama kriittinen palvelutieto on standardoitu ja sovellukset ovat integroitu standardisoidun palvelutiedon osalta. Lisäksi uusia sovelluksia käyttöönotetaan sisäisistä tai ulkoisista lähteistä mm. web-palvelun kautta. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Palvelutieto on julkisen sektorin sisäisistä (palvelut, tuotteet), ulkoisista (asiakkaat) tai henkilökohtaisista tietolähteistä (suunnitelmat, ennusteet) kertyvää tietoa.

10. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten sovellusten integroitumisastetta? 1. Sovelluksia ei ole integroitu. 2. Sovelluksia ei ole integroitu mutta yhden tai useamman sovellusten tuottamaa palvelutietoa jaetaan tietovaraston avulla raportointia tai analysointia varten. 3. Sovellukset on integroitu standardoidun palvelutiedon osalta. 4. Sovellukset on integroitu standardoidun palvelutiedon osalta. Lisäksi integroidutaan partneriverkostoon, jota kautta uusia sovelluskomponentteja voidaan käyttöönottaa. 5. En osaa sanoa.

11. Kysymys Kuinka montaa palveluyksikköä kuntasi tietohallinto palvelee? 1. 1 – 5 palveluyksikköä. 2. 6 – 10 palveluyksikköä. 3. 11 – 20 palveluyksikköä. 4. Enemmän kuin 20 palveluyksikköä. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin kypsyysaste arkkitehtuurityypeittäin

12. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten kuntasi palveluprosessien nykytilaa? 0. Palveluprosesseja ei ole tunnistettu eikä dokumentoitu. 1. Palveluprosessit on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 2. Palveluprosessien nykytila ja niiden liitynnät sovelluksiin, keskeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT- infrastruktuuriin sekä palvelutoiminnan tärkeisiin elementteihin, kuten asiakkaat, sidosryhmät ja organisaatiot, on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 3. Palveluprosessien tavoitetila ja niiden liitynnät sovelluksiin, keskeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT- infrastruktuuriin sekä palvelutoiminnan tärkeisiin elementteihin, kuten asiakkaat, sidosryhmät ja organisaatiot, on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 4. Palveluprosesseille on laadittu suunnitelma, miten muuntaudutaan nykyisestä palvelumallista tavoitetilan palvelumalliin. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Tietoelementti on data tai informaatio.

13. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten kuntasi palvelutoiminnalle tärkeiden tietojen nykytilaa? 0. Palvelutoiminnan tärkeitä tietoelementtejä ei ole tunnistettu eikä dokumentoitu. 1. Palvelutoiminnan tärkeät tietoelementit on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 2. Palvelutoiminnan nykytilan tärkeät tietoelementit ja informaatio sekä niiden tiedonvälityspaketit, tuottajat ja kuluttajat on tunnistettu ja dokumentoitu. 3. Palvelutoiminnan ylätason tavoitetila, joka mahdollistaa konsolidoinnin sekä tiedon jakamisen, on määritelty. 4. Kunta on laatinut suunnitelman, joka sisältää toimintatavat tiedon levittämiseen ja turvallisuuteen. 5. En osaa sanoa.

14. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten kuntasi IT-sovellusten nykytilaa? 0. Käytössä olevia sovelluksia ei ole kattavasti luetteloitu eikä dokumentoitu. 1. Käytössä olevat sovellukset on luetteloitu ja dokumentoitu. 2. Käytössä olevien sovellusten liitynnät palveluprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT- infrastruktuuriin on kattavasti dokumentoitu. 3. Tavoitetilan sovellukset on määritelty ja niiden liitynnät palveluprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja IT-infrastruktuuriin. 4. Tavoitetilan sovelluksille on laadittu suunnitelma, joka toimii siirtymäsuunnittelun sekä IT investointien tärkeänä ajurina. Sovelluksilta edellytetään standardisointia ja uudelleen käytettävyyttä. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Siirtymäsuunnittelu on kuvaus julkisen sektorin toimenpiteistä, joilla sen tavoitetila saavutetaan.

15. Kysymys Mikä väittämä kuvaa parhaiten kuntasi IT-teknologia tuotteiden nykytilaa? Teknologia tuotteilla, kuten IT-infrastruktuuri ja tietoliikenneverkot, luodaan IT-sovelluksille toimintaympäristö. 0. IT-teknologiatuotteita ei ole tunnistettu. 1. IT-teknologiatuotteet on tunnistettu. 2. IT-teknologiatuotteet on linkitetty palveluprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja sovelluksiin. 3. IT-teknologiatuotteille on määritelty tavoitetila ja linkitetty palveluprosesseihin, tärkeisiin tietoelementteihin ja sovelluksiin. Yhteensopivuusvaatimukset palveluyksiköille on määritelty. 4. Tavoitetilan IT-teknologiatuotteille on laadittu suunnitelma, joka toimii siirtymäsuunnittelun sekä IT investointien tärkeänä ajurina. Sovelluksilta edellytetään standardisointia ja uudelleen käyttävyyttä. 5. En osaa sanoa.

Avoimet kysymykset:

Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin kehittäminen

Mikä on kuntasi merkittävin kokonaisarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana?

Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu?

Yhteistiedot

Mikä on edustamasi kunta?

Yhteistiedot

Tämä tieto tarvitaan vastaajalahjan toimittamista varten.

Mikä on sähköpostiosoitteesi?

Appendix E

Questionnaire sent to following organizations in 2014: Large companies 1 Nokia 34 Fazer 2 Neste Oil 35 Elisa 3 SOK 36 VR-Yhtymä 4 UPM-Kymmene 37 Atria 5 Kesko 38 Gasum 6 Metso 39 Itella Posti Oy 7 Kone 40 PVO Yhtiöt 8 Fortum 41 Veho Group 9 Metsä Group 42 Suomen Lähikauppa 10 Wärtsilä 43 Ahlstrom 11 YIT 44 Orion 12 Outokumpu 45 Kuusakoski Group 13 Tamro 46 ALSO Nordic Holding 14 Cargotec 47 PKC Group 15 Rautaruukki 48 Paulig 16 HKScan 49 Uponor 17 Oriola-KD 50 Pöyry 18 Finnair 51 DNA 19 Sanoma 52 NCC Rakennus 20 Huhtamäki 53 Fiskars 21 Teboil Oy 54 Pirkanmaan Osuuskauppa 22 Lemminkäinen 55 Vapo 23 Kemira 56 Cramo 24 Konecranes 57 Lassila & Tikanoja 25 Stockmann 58 Tikkurila 26 Outotec 59 SRV Yhtiöt 27 Itella 60 Patria 28 Tieto 61 Valtra Oy Ab 29 Veikkaus 62 Finnlines 30 HOK-Elanto 63 Planmeca 31 Luvata 64 Raisio 32 Wihuri 65 Rolls-Royce Oy Ab 33 Nokian Renkaat

Medium-sized companies

1 Meca-Trade Oy 43 Rautanet Koski Oy

2 Kaivon Liha Kaunismaa konserni 44 Karis Järn Ab - Karjaan Rauta Oy

3 Conrastock Oy 45 Micros-Fidelio Finland konserni

4 Hyvinkään Tieluiska Oy 46 Iisveden Metsä Oy

5 Flowrox konserni 47 Aspocomp Group konserni

6 Lihajaloste Korpela Oy 48 Vahterus konserni

7 EEROLA-YHTIÖT OY 49 Tampereen Autocenter Oy

8 Servaali Oy 50 Loval konserni

9 Mitron Group konserni 51 Aurajoki konserni

10 Plannja Oy Ab 52 Descom Group konserni

11 Loomis Suomi konserni 53 Tamware konserni

12 Lammin Betoni konserni 54 Autotalo Antti-Roiko Oy

13 Vink Finland konserni 55 Tampereen Säästö-Tex konserni

14 Nutricia Baby Oy 56 Saint-Gobain Glass Finland Oy

15 Kainuun Puhelinosuuskunta konserni 57 Meda Oy

16 Peura-Trans konserni 58 Istekki Oy

17 Amplit Oy 59 Talenom konserni

18 Eskopuu Oy 60 N-Clean konserni

19 Printal Oy 61 Mitron Oy

20 Kamppi Center Investments Oy 62 Tuomo Erjala Oy

21 Rakennustoimisto Rasto Oy 63 Infratek Finland Oy

22 PNO Trailer Oy 64 Mikkelin Betoni konserni

23 Oy Robit Rocktools Ltd 65 Rakennustoimisto Reno-Rakennus Oy

24 TETRA Chemicals Europe Oy 66 Mäntsälän Sähkö konserni

25 MSD Finland Oy 67 Med Group konserni

26 Marinetek Group konserni 68 Turun Korjaustelakka konserni

27 Fin-Seula Oy 69 Wursti J & J konserni

28 Espotel konserni 70 Suomen Maastorakentajat Oy

29 Lasten Päivän Säätiö 71 Mauste-Sallinen Oy

30 Axellus Oy 72 Turun Satama

31 Oy Valitut Palat - Reader`s Digest Ab 73 Arctech Helsinki Shipyard Oy

32 Transmar konserni 74 UPC Konsultointi Oy

33 Rakennustoimisto V.O. Mattila Oy 75 Premix konserni

34 Salon Kone ja Rauta konserni 76 Peab Industri Oy

35 Exide Technologies Oy 77 Reijo Tervo Oy

36 Pohjois-Suomen Hirsitalokeskus Oy 78 Oy Duell Bike-Center Ab

37 Marja Hentilä Oy 79 Nautor Oy

38 Oy Scandic Trans Ab 80 Alte konserni

39 Perheleipurit Oy 81 Tallqvist konserni

40 Embra Oy 82 Belvedere Mining Oy

41 Uudenmaan Mestari-Rakentajat Oy 83 Pentti Hämeenaho Oy 42 FS Film Oy 84 Berggren konserni 85 KSB Finland Oy 86 Kiitokori konserni

87 Renewa konserni

88 Suomen Telakone Oy

89 Pikval Oy

90 Deltamarin konserni

91 Uudenkaupungin Rautavalimo konserni

92 Jukka Vornanen Oy

93 Rakennus Oy Wareco

94 Enter konserni

95 Juha ja Mari Kupiainen Oy

96 Peesipatu Oy

97 Beiersdorf Oy

98 Marko Strand Oy

99 Auto-Kehä Oy

100 JPJ-Wood Oy

101 Oy Combi Cool Ab

102 Airam Electric konserni

103 Halmesvaara konserni

104 Konica Minolta Business Solutions Finland Oy

105 Geodis Calberson finland Oy

106 Heikki Takamäki Oy

107 Solving konserni

108 V-P Tolonen Oy

109 British American Tobacco Nordic Oy

110 Lojer konserni

111 Mijorak konserni

112 Promens Oy

113 Tomi Huuho Oy

114 Dragon Mining Oy

115 Jarintori, Jari Hakala Oy

116 Rantalainen-Yhtiöt konserni

117 Tom K Eriksson Oy

Municipalities

1 Helsinki 42 Raisio

2 Espoo 43 Tornio

3 Tampere 44 Varkaus

4 Vantaa 45 Kemi

5 Turku 46 Iisalmi

6 Jyväskylä 47 Hollola

7 Kuopio 48 Lempäälä

8 Lahti 49 Siilinjärvi

9 Kouvola 50 Hamina

10 Pori 51 Valkeakoski

11 Joensuu 52 Mäntsälä

12 Lappeenranta 53 Äänekoski

13 Hämeenlinna 54 Heinola

14 Vaasa 55 Pietarsaari

15 Rovaniemi 56 Pieksämäki

16 Seinäjoki 57 Mustasaari

17 Kotka 58 Naantali

18 Salo 59 Sipoo

19 Mikkeli 60 Laukaa

20 Porvoo 61 Pirkkala

21 Lohja 62 Forssa

22 Kokkola 63 Kauhava

23 Hyvinkää 64 Akaa

24 Nurmijärvi 65 Lieto

25 Rauma 66 Janakkala

26 Järvenpää 67 Loimaa

27 Kajaani 68 Kempele

28 Tuusula 69 Orimattila

29 Kirkkonummi 70 Kuusamo

30 Savonlinna 71 Parainen

31 Kerava 72 Loviisa

32 Nokia 73 Uusikaupunki

33 Ylöjärvi 74 Nastola

34 Kaarina 75 Lapua

35 Kangasala 76 Ylivieska

36 Riihimäki 77 Kurikka

37 Raasepori 78 Kontiolahti

38 Vihti 79 Kauhajoki

39 Imatra 80 Ulvila

40 Sastamala 81 Kalajoki

41 Raahe 82 Eura 83 Liperi 128 Uusikaarlepyy

84 Lieksa 129 Suonenjoki 85 Alavus 130 Harjavalta

86 Ilmajoki 131 Virrat

87 Kankaanpää 132 Outokumpu

88 Kitee 133 Ikaalinen

89 Mänttä-Vilppula 134 Haapavesi

90 Pedersören kunta 135 Kemiönsaari

91 Sotkamo 136 Kristiinankaupunki

92 Huittinen 137 Iitti

93 Paimio 138 Viitasaari

94 Hämeenkyrö 139 Parkano

95 Keuruu 140 Pälkäne

96 Lapinlahti 141 Juva

97 Leppävirta 142 Inari

98 Alajärvi 143 Vöyri

99 Saarijärvi

100 Hattula

101 Masku

102 Ii

103 Orivesi

104 Muurame

105 Liminka

106 Närpiö

107 Hanko

108 Somero

109 Kuhmo

110 Karkkila

111 Muhos

112 Kauniainen

113 Hausjärvi

114 Sodankylä

115 Suomussalmi

116 Pudasjärvi

117 Keminmaa

118 Pöytyä

119 Asikkala

120 Loppi

121 Nurmes

122 Kemijärvi

123 Jalasjärvi

124 Mynämäki

125 Kokemäki

126 Oulainen

127 Haapajärvi

Questionnaire sent to following organizations in 2014: Large companies

1 Nokia 42 Tamro

2 Neste Oil 43 Gasum

3 UPM 44 Veho

4 Kesko 45 Ahlstrom

5 SOK 46 Suomen Lähikauppa

6 KONE 47 Orion

7 Outokumpu 48 Osuuskauppa Hämeenmaa

8 Varma 49 Also Nordic Holding

9 Fortum 50 Uponor

10 Ilmarinen 51 PKC Group

11 Metsä Group 52 Paulig

12 North European Oil Trade 53 Vapo

13 Wärtsilä 54 Patria

14 St1 Group 55 NCC Rakennus

15 Metso 56 Fiskars

16 Nordea Henkivakuutus 57 Skanska

17 Cargotec 58 Pirkanmaan Osuuskauppa

18 Valmet 59 Dna

19 Oriola-KD 60 Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta

20 Finnair 61 Pohjolan Voima

21 Huhtamäki 62 Consolis

22 Teboil 63 Kuusakoski

23 ABB 64 Tokmanni

24 Kemira 65 Raha-automaattiyhdistys

25 Sanoma 66 SRV-yhtiöt

26 Lemminkäinen 67 Planmeca

27 Konecranes 68 Lassila & Tikanoja

28 LähiTapiola Eläkeyhtiö 69 Cramo

29 Stockmann 70 Tikkurila

30 Valio 71 Pöyry

31 Itella 72 Rolls-Royce

32 HOK-Elanto

33 Veikkaus

34 Eläke-Fennia

35 Wihuri

36 Onvest

37 Tieto

38 Luvata

39 Nokian Renkaat

40 VR-Yhtymä

41 Atria

Medium companies 1 Häggblom Oy, Ab A. 36 Combi Cool Ab, Oy 2 PHD Finland Oy 37 Uudenmaan Pikakuljetus Oy 3 Meca-Trade Oy 38 Satakunnan Liikenne Oy 4 Vihannes-Laitila Oy 39 Schenker East Ab, Oy 5 Accenture Technology Solutions Oy 40 HFT Network Oy 6 Embra Oy 41 Novita Oy 7 Fresh Servant Oy Ab 42 Kupiainen Oy, Juha ja Mari 8 Kymp Oy 43 Lining Ab, Oy 9 Premix Oy 44 Scandic Trans Ab, Oy 10 Starfood Finland Oy 45 Nobina Finland East Oy 11 Laattapiste Oy 46 Rittal Oy 12 Kankaanpää Works Oy 47 BIM Finland Oy 13 Lännen Tractors Oy 48 Rakennusliike Reponen Oy 14 Osk. Lindroos Ab, Oy 49 KVPS Tukena Oy 15 Suomen Kerta Oy 50 Meconet Oy 16 Rakennustoimisto Rasto Oy 51 YH Länsi Oy 17 Inspecta Tarkastus Oy 52 SKS Mekaniikka Oy 18 Yhtyneet Medix Laboratoriot Oy 53 LKI Käldman Ltd. 19 Lasten Päivän Säätiö 54 Kontram Oy 20 Burger-In Oy 55 Palin Granit Oy 21 Arizona Chemical Oy 56 Mitron Oy 22 Saimaa Terminals Ab, Oy 57 Selective Investor Ab, Oy 23 Katsa Oy 58 Närko Ab, Oy 24 Konepaja Häkkinen Oy 59 Lejos Oy 25 NHK-Keskus Oy 60 Cybercom Plenware Oy 26 Marja Hentilä Oy 61 Tikomet Oy 27 PNO Trailer Oy 62 Peab Industri Oy 28 SPU Oy 63 K. Sivonen Oy 29 Verman Ab, Oy 64 Destia Kalusto Oy 30 Servaali Oy 65 Dinolift Oy 31 Unituli Oy 66 OEM Finland Oy 32 Jetflite Oy 67 Nordic Waterproofing Oy 33 Axellus Oy 68 Nordic Cosmetics Ltd Oy 34 Vetrea Terveys Oy 69 Medi-It Oy 35 Gasum Energiapalvelut Oy 70 Logset Oy

71 CWT Finland Oy 72 Vink Finland Oy 73 Norex Spirits Ab, Oy 74 Tampereen Säästö-Tex Oy 75 M & S Åstrand Oy 76 Aki Hyrkkönen Oy 77 Turun Seudun Rakennustekniikka Oy 78 Eskimo Finland Oy 79 Auto Aho Oy 80 HB-Betoniteollisuus Oy 81 Rakennuskartio Oy 82 Kanteleen Voima Oy 83 Bookwell Oy 84 Tormets Oy 85 Mercamer Oy 86 STRABAG Oy 87 Rakennusliike U. Lipsanen Oy 88 Suomen Kuitulevy Oy 89 Meka Pro Oy 90 Peura-Trans Oy 91 Eezy Osk 92 Torp Frys Ab 93 Elecster Oyj 94 V-P Tolonen Oy 95 Rakennustoimisto Reno-Rakennus Oy 96 Warner Music Finland Oy 97 Suomen Lämpöikkuna Oy 98 UPC Konsultointi Oy

Municipalities

1 Helsinki 42 Tornio

2 Espoo 43 Lempäälä

3 Tampere 44 Iisalmi

4 Vantaa 45 Hollola

5 Oulu 46 Kemi

6 Turku 47 Jämsä

7 Jyväskylä 48 Varkaus

8 Kuopio 49 Siilinjärvi

9 Lahti 50 Valkeakoski

10 Kouvola 51 Hamina

11 Pori 52 Mäntsälä

12 Joensuu 53 Äänekoski

13 Lappeenranta 54 Heinola

14 Hämeenlinna 55 Pietarsaari

15 Vaasa 56 Mustasaari

16 Rovaniemi 57 Pieksämäki

17 Seinäjoki 58 Sipoo

18 Mikkeli 59 Naantali

19 Kotka 60 Laukaa

20 Salo 61 Pirkkala

21 Porvoo 62 Forssa

22 Lohja 63 Lieto

23 Kokkola 64 Akaa

24 Hyvinkää 65 Kauhava

25 Nurmijärvi 66 Janakkala

26 Järvenpää 67 Loimaa

27 Rauma 68 Orimattila

28 Tuusula 69 Kuusamo

29 Kirkkonummi 70 Uusikaupunki

30 Kajaani 71 Parainen

31 Savonlinna 72 Loviisa

32 Kerava 73 Nastola

33 Nokia 74 Ylivieska

34 Ylöjärvi 75 Lapua

35 Kangasala 76 Kontiolahti

36 Vihti 77 Kurikka

37 Raasepori 78 Kauhajoki

38 Imatra 79 Ulvila

39 Sastamala 80 Kalajoki

40 Raahe 81 Liperi

41 Raisio 82 Eura 83 Ilmajoki 120 Mynämäki

84 Lieksa 121 Kemijärvi 85 Alavus 122 Jalasjärvi

86 Kankaanpää 123 Oulainen

87 Kitee 124 Kokemäki

88 Nivala 125 Haapajärvi

89 Mänttä-Vilppula 126 Uusikaarlepyy

90 Paimio 127 Harjavalta

91 Sotkamo 128 Ikaalinen

92 Hämeenkyrö 129 Haapavesi

93 Huittinen 130 Outokumpu

94 Alajärvi

95 Lapinlahti

96 Saarijärvi

97 Leppävirta

98 Hattula

99 Masku

100 Ii

101 Muurame

102 Orivesi

103 Närpiö

104 Kauniainen

105 Somero

106 Hanko

107 Muhos

108 Kuhmo

109 Karkkila

110 Hausjärvi

111 Kiuruvesi

112 Pöytyä

113 Laitila

114 Keminmaa

115 Suomussalmi

116 Pudasjärvi

117 Asikkala

118 Loppi

119 Nurmes

Questionnaire sent to following organizations in 2016: Large companies

1 Neste Oil 40 Atria

2 UPM 41 Outotec

3 Kesko 42 Nokian Renkaat

4 OP-ryhmä 43 VR-Yhtymä

5 KONE 44 Tamro

6 SOK 45 Lidl Suomi

7 Outokumpu 46 Alko

8 Ilmarinen 47 Gasum

9 Varma 48 Veho

10 Metsä Group 49 Uponor

11 Wärtsilä 50 Orion

12 Fortum 51 Ahlstrom

13 St1 Group 52 Suomen Lähikauppa 14 Elo 53 Hankkija

15 Nordea Henkivakuutus 54 Paulig

16 St1 Nordic 55 Etera

17 Metso 56 Skanska

18 Cargotec 57 Dna

19 Valmet 58 PKC Group

20 Caverion 59 Pirkanmaan Osuuskauppa

21 Finnair 60 LähiTapiola Vahinkovakuutus

22 Huhtamäki 61 Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta

23 Amer Sports 62 Fiskars

24 Kemira 63 Planmeca

25 Teboil 64 Tokmanni

26 ABB 65 Osuuskauppa Arina

27 Lemminkäinen 66 Fennia

28 Konecranes 67 NCC Rakennus

29 Valio 68 Consolis

30 HOK-Elanto 69 Sanitec

31 Posti Group 70 SRV-yhtiöt

32 Stockmann 71 Raha-automaattiyhdistys

33 YIT 72 Kauppahuone Laakkonen

34 Wihuri International 73 Kuusakoski

35 Fazer 74 Cramo

36 Oriola-KD 75 Pohjolan Voima

37 Luvata 76 Osuuskauppa KPO

38 Elisa

39 Tieto

Medium-sized companies 1 Compass Group Finland Oy 36 Mäkelän Kone Oy 2 Sarlin Oy Ab 37 EasyZone Oy 3 Dieffenbacher Panelboard Oy 38 Otis Oy 4 Kyrel Oy 39 Viafin Process Piping Oy 5 Medix Ab, Oy 40 Insinööritoimisto Comatec Oy 6 Loval Oy 41 Rantalainen Oy IA International 7 Duell Bike-Center Ab, Oy 42 Lännen Tractors Oy 8 Uudenmaan Pikakuljetus Oy 43 FSP Finnish Steel Painting Oy 9 Profile Vehicles Oy 44 Ojala Machine Oy 10 Flowrox Oy 45 KSF Media Ab Pohjois-Karjalan Tietotekniikkakeskus 11 Oy 46 MPY Palvelut Oyj 12 Patria Finance Oyj 47 Kuljetuspolar Oy 13 Rakennusliike U. Lipsanen Oy 48 Auramarine Oy 14 Outokummun Metalli Oy 49 Nordic Waterproofing Oy 15 Rakennus Oy Antti J. Ahola 50 Medi-It Oy 16 Mercamer Oy 51 Uudenkaupungin Rautavalimo Oy 17 Ehon Kiinteistö Oy 52 Schindler Oy 18 Rakennusliike Evälahti Oy 53 Embra Oy Karis Lastbilscentral - Karjaan Kuorma-autokeskus Oy, 19 Backman - Trummer Ab, Oy 54 Ab 20 Image Wear Oy 55 Jokilaakson Terveys Oy 21 Mäntsälän Sähkö Oy 56 Egencia Finland Oy 22 Ovenia Oy 57 Ferrometal Oy 23 Dr. Oetker Suomi Oy 58 Patrol Ab, Oy 24 Schneider Electric Fire & Security Oy 59 Cybercom Plenware Oy 25 Saimaa Terminals Ab, Oy 60 Mepco Oy 26 Timbertime Oy Ltd 61 Muuntosähkö Oy 27 Kontram Oy 62 Futurice Oy 28 Myllyn Paras Oy Pakasteet 63 Hartela-Forum Oy 29 Merivaara Oy 64 KotiSun Oy 30 Hella Lighting Finland Oy 65 Symbio Finland Oy 31 Comptel Communications Oy 66 Liebherr-Finland Oy Ab 32 Arctia Icebreaking Oy 67 Belor Agro Oy 33 Bella-Veneet Oy 68 Manpower Business Solutions Oy 34 Unanimous Oy 69 Kruunuasunnot Oy 35 Espotel Oy 70 Medix Laboratoriot Oy

71 KuntaPro Oy 72 Snellman Pro Oy 73 NHK-Keskus Oy 74 Katsa Oy 75 Lakeuden Etappi Oy 76 Tekonivelsairaala Coxa Oy 77 Kaskipuu Oy 78 Barona Palvelut Oy 79 Kouvolan Asunnot Oy 80 Rauman Energia Oy 81 Lejos Oy 82 Kanteleen Voima Oy 83 iLOQ Oy 84 Kaukora Oy 85 Kumera Drives Oy 86 Kattotutka Oy 87 Mikalo Oy 88 RL-Trans Ab, Oy 89 Atoy Automotive Oy 90 Norex Spirits Ab, Oy 91 Valukumpu Oy 92 Paperipalvelu Koskimo ja Rännäli 93 AW-Insto Oy 94 Beamex Oy Ab

Municipalities 1 Helsinki 41 Jämsä 2 Espoo 42 Valkeakoski 3 Tampere 43 Hamina 4 Vantaa 44 Mäntsälä 5 Oulu 45 Äänekoski 6 Jyväskylä 46 Heinola 7 Lahti 47 Mustasaari 8 Kuopio 48 Naantali 9 Joensuu 49 Pirkkala 10 Lappeenranta 50 Laukaa 11 Hämeenlinna 51 Pieksämäki 12 Vaasa 52 Forssa 13 Rovaniemi 53 Kempele 14 Seinäjoki 54 Akaa 15 Mikkeli 55 Janakkala 16 Kotka 56 Kauhava 17 Salo 57 Loimaa 18 Porvoo 58 Orimattila 19 Lohja 59 Kuusamo 20 Hyvinkää 60 Uusikaupunki 21 Järvenpää 61 Parainen 22 Rauma 62 Kontiolahti 23 Kirkkonummi 63 Lapua 24 Tuusula 64 Ulvila 25 Kajaani 65 Kalajoki 26 Savonlinna 66 Liperi 27 Kerava 67 Ilmajoki 28 Nokia 68 Eura 29 Ylöjärvi 69 Kankaanpää 30 Kaarina 70 Nivala 31 Kangasala 71 Hämeenkyrö 32 Raasepori 72 Paimio 33 Imatra 73 Mänttä-Vilppula 34 Sastamala 74 Sotkamo 35 Raahe 75 Huittinen 36 Hollola 76 Keuruu 37 Tornio 77 Lapinlahti 38 Iisalmi 78 Muurame 39 Kemi 79 Ii 40 Varkaus 80 Kauniainen

81 Orivesi 82 Somero 83 Karkkila 84 Hanko 85 Kuhmo 86 Sodankylä 87 Hausjärvi 88 Kiuruvesi 89 Laitila 90 Keminmaa 91 Suomussalmi 92 Asikkala 93 Pudasjärvi 94 Loppi 95 Nurmes 96 Kemijärvi 97 Kokemäki 98 Harjavalta 99 Ikaalinen 100 Säkylä 101 Virrat 102 Kemiönsaari 103 Iitti 104 Kristiinankaupunki 105 Inari 106 Tyrnävä 107 Parkano 108 Vöyri 109 Kruunupyy 110 Pälkäne

Appendix F

The results of the surveys are presented as percentage in the following tables.

Survey results in 2013. Large companies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 4,55 9,09 0,00 0,00 Option 1 Option 1 9,09 0,00 4,55 45,45 0,00 4,55 0,00 0,00 4,55 0,00 4,55 27,27 18,18 36,36 18,18 Option 2 Option 2 63,64 22,73 27,27 18,18 59,09 18,18 9,09 9,09 45,45 18,18 36,36 31,82 31,82 27,27 31,82 Option 3 Option 3 22,73 63,64 54,55 31,82 18,18 72,73 54,55 0,00 22,73 54,55 22,73 18,18 31,82 18,18 22,73 Option 4 Option 4 4,55 13,64 13,64 0,00 22,73 4,55 36,36 90,91 22,73 27,27 36,36 9,09 9,09 18,18 22,73 Option 5 I don' know 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,55 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,55 0,00 0,00 9,09 0,00 0,00 4,55 I don' know

Medium-sized companies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 6,90 17,24 6,90 6,90 Option 1 Option 1 27,59 13,79 20,69 24,14 20,69 31,03 6,90 17,24 24,14 24,14 72,41 27,59 31,03 44,83 34,48 Option 2 Option 2 51,72 27,59 24,14 13,79 34,48 24,14 6,90 10,34 41,38 34,48 13,79 31,03 31,03 37,93 24,14 Option 3 Option 3 13,79 51,72 55,17 55,17 20,69 34,48 55,17 13,79 6,90 31,03 0,00 13,79 0,00 0,00 27,59 Option 4 Option 4 0,00 3,45 0,00 0,00 17,24 0,00 20,69 48,28 13,79 3,45 10,34 3,45 10,34 3,45 0,00 Option 5 I don' know 6,90 3,45 0,00 6,90 6,90 10,34 10,34 10,34 13,79 6,90 3,45 17,24 10,34 6,90 6,90 I don' know

Public sector Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 28,89 33,33 13,33 0,00 Option 1 Option 1 22,22 6,67 13,33 26,67 6,67 20,00 8,89 2,22 46,67 15,56 17,78 33,33 42,22 53,33 64,44 Option 2 Option 2 62,22 46,67 28,89 33,33 60,00 28,89 22,22 8,89 40,00 48,89 15,56 20,00 0,00 26,67 20,00 Option 3 Option 3 6,67 37,78 51,11 26,67 11,11 44,44 53,33 6,67 4,44 26,67 11,11 6,67 6,67 2,22 11,11 Option 4 Option 4 6,67 8,89 4,44 2,22 17,78 0,00 15,56 75,56 4,44 4,44 51,11 0,00 6,67 2,22 2,22 Option 5 I don' know 2,22 0,00 2,22 11,11 4,44 6,67 0,00 6,67 4,44 4,44 4,44 11,11 11,11 2,22 2,22 I don' know

Survey results in 2014. Large companies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 10,53 10,53 0,00 0,00 Option 1 Option 1 0,00 5,26 0,00 21,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,26 10,53 5,26 21,05 10,53 36,84 42,11 42,11 Option 2 Option 2 47,37 15,79 36,84 15,79 68,42 15,79 36,84 0,00 36,84 15,79 42,11 47,37 15,79 31,58 36,84 Option 3 Option 3 47,37 68,42 57,89 57,89 15,79 78,95 52,63 5,26 21,05 68,42 5,26 31,58 26,32 21,05 10,53 Option 4 Option 4 5,26 10,53 5,26 0,00 15,79 5,26 10,53 89,47 31,58 10,53 31,58 0,00 10,53 5,26 10,53 Option 5 I don' know 0,00 0,00 0,00 5,26 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 I don' know Medium-sized companies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 16,67 25,00 8,33 16,67 Option 1 Option 1 12,50 4,17 16,67 16,67 8,33 37,50 8,33 12,50 25,00 4,17 45,83 37,50 20,83 41,67 12,50 Option 2 Option 2 58,33 45,83 25,00 12,50 33,33 20,83 8,33 4,17 16,67 37,50 20,83 4,17 12,50 12,50 37,50 Option 3 Option 3 16,67 37,50 58,33 45,83 20,83 33,33 50,00 0,00 25,00 37,50 16,67 20,83 16,67 20,83 8,33 Option 4 Option 4 12,50 8,33 0,00 4,17 25,00 4,17 29,17 70,83 25,00 16,67 8,33 12,50 20,83 12,50 16,67 Option 5 I don' know 0,00 4,17 0,00 20,83 12,50 4,17 4,17 12,50 8,33 4,17 8,33 8,33 4,17 4,17 8,33 I don' know

Public sector Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 26,42 28,30 7,55 3,77 Option 1 Option 1 22,64 15,09 11,32 35,85 7,55 9,43 11,32 9,43 50,94 26,42 16,98 41,51 35,85 69,81 56,60 Option 2 Option 2 56,60 50,94 39,62 15,09 62,26 35,85 20,75 3,77 33,96 37,74 16,98 16,98 20,75 16,98 26,42 Option 3 Option 3 9,43 26,42 41,51 26,42 5,66 39,62 49,06 5,66 9,43 18,87 20,75 5,66 3,77 1,89 5,66 Option 4 Option 4 7,55 3,77 5,66 1,89 15,09 1,89 13,21 75,47 0,00 9,43 43,40 0,00 1,89 0,00 3,77 Option 5 I don' know 3,77 3,77 1,89 20,75 9,43 13,21 5,66 5,66 5,66 7,55 1,89 9,43 9,43 3,77 3,77 I don' know

Survey results in 2016. Large companies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 4,17 8,33 20,83 0,00 Option 1 Option 1 4,17 12,50 0,00 20,83 4,17 4,17 4,17 0,00 4,17 0,00 37,50 12,50 37,50 45,83 29,17 Option 2 Option 2 50,00 8,33 29,17 16,67 70,83 12,50 16,67 0,00 45,83 16,67 25,00 54,17 37,50 12,50 37,50 Option 3 Option 3 25,00 58,33 58,33 58,33 12,50 79,17 45,83 0,00 37,50 58,33 8,33 20,83 12,50 20,83 25,00 Option 4 Option 4 20,83 20,83 12,50 4,17 12,50 4,17 29,17 100,00 12,50 25,00 29,17 4,17 4,17 0,00 8,33 Option 5 I don' know 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 I don' know

Medium-sized companies Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 3,70 7,41 14,81 3,70 Option 1 Option 1 22,22 7,41 14,81 25,93 7,41 44,44 3,70 7,41 14,81 7,41 55,56 18,52 22,22 25,93 14,81 Option 2 Option 2 59,26 25,93 11,11 11,11 48,15 18,52 18,52 7,41 48,15 37,04 22,22 33,33 18,52 29,63 48,15 Option 3 Option 3 3,70 55,56 62,96 48,15 14,81 29,63 40,74 7,41 14,81 37,04 14,81 18,52 33,33 18,52 14,81 Option 4 Option 4 14,81 11,11 11,11 3,70 29,63 7,41 37,04 70,37 22,22 18,52 7,41 18,52 14,81 11,11 11,11 Option 5 I don' know 0,00 0,00 0,00 11,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,41 0,00 0,00 0,00 7,41 3,70 0,00 7,41 I don' know

Public sector Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 22,50 27,50 5,00 2,50 Option 1 Option 1 7,50 5,00 10,00 40,00 7,50 17,50 15,00 10,00 30,00 17,50 20,00 42,50 30,00 72,50 45,00 Option 2 Option 2 65,00 45,00 35,00 20,00 65,00 17,50 30,00 5,00 45,00 42,50 17,50 12,50 20,00 20,00 32,50 Option 3 Option 3 15,00 35,00 47,50 25,00 10,00 42,50 40,00 5,00 2,50 25,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 0,00 7,50 Option 4 Option 4 10,00 10,00 7,50 2,50 15,00 7,50 10,00 72,50 5,00 7,50 47,50 2,50 2,50 0,00 0,00 Option 5 I don' know 2,50 5,00 0,00 12,50 2,50 15,00 5,00 7,50 17,50 7,50 5,00 15,00 20,00 2,50 12,50 I don' know

Appendix G

The results of the surveys are presented calculated with weight factors in the following tables.

Large companies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUM: 2016 0,66 0,72 0,71 0,61 0,58 0,71 0,73 1,00 0,65 0,77 7,14 2014 0,64 0,71 0,67 0,57 0,62 0,72 0,68 0,95 0,68 0,71 6,96 2013 0,56 0,73 0,69 0,44 0,66 0,69 0,82 0,95 0,64 0,77 6,95

Medium-sized companies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUM: 2016 0,53 0,68 0,68 0,52 0,67 0,50 0,78 0,81 0,61 0,67 6,44 2014 0,57 0,60 0,60 0,49 0,59 0,49 0,73 0,76 0,58 0,65 6,07 2013 0,43 0,56 0,59 0,54 0,55 0,46 0,67 0,68 0,46 0,50 5,44

Public sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUM: 2016 0,56 0,60 0,63 0,41 0,57 0,53 0,59 0,81 0,37 0,52 5,58 2014 0,49 0,53 0,59 0,38 0,52 0,52 0,63 0,84 0,37 0,49 5,36 2013 0,48 0,62 0,61 0,46 0,58 0,53 0,69 0,86 0,39 0,53 5,74

Appendix H

The results of open questions are presented in the following tables.

Survey results for large companies in 2013 Mikä on merkittävin yritysarkkitehtuurien Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? kehittämiseen liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? yhteisen toimintamallin kokobaisvaltainen määrittäminen (organisoituminen, tukee ja mahdollistaan yrityksen kannatavan kasvun prosessti/ / laatu, informaatio, sovellukset, infra) ja sen käyttöönoton eteenpäin vieminen Online myynnin kasvattaminen ja asiakaskokeman parantaminen Web kanavan uudistus Liiketoiminta-arkkitehtuurien tavoitetilan Perustaksi liiketoiminnan kehittämiselle ja IT-investointien suuntaamiselle. määrittely eri liiketoiminta-alueilla. Jotta löydetään vastinparit busineksen puolelta strategiselle IT:lle yritysarkkitehtuurin ja uusien kyvykkyyksien Liiketoiminta prosessien omistajien identifiointi ja roolin kuvaamiseen ja kehitys roadmap:ien luomiseen kirkastaminen ja ymmärryksen lisääminen Eri liiketoimintayksiköitä palveleva, mutta keskitetty järjestelmä tarvittiin uusi ERP Ottamalla käyttöön enenevässä määrin standardoituja palveluja Standardoinnin lisääminen entisestään Yrityksen liiketoimintaprosessien tunnistaminen Prosessien harmonisointi, tehokkuunden lisääminen ja dokumentointi standardoidulla tavalla Prosesseja tukevien järjestelmäkokonaisuuksien toimivuuden perusta Master Data-alueen hankkeet konserninlaajuinen ERP ja toimintaprosessien kuvaus + Liiketoimintaympäristön muuttumisen vuoksi mittaus+ kehitystoimenpiteet Kokonaiskuvan parantamiseksi Arkkitehtuurin tavoitetilan määrittäminen ja uusien kehityshankkeiden helpottamiseksi ja eri arkkitehtuuritasojen kuvaaminen Ketteryys, jaettavuus, kustannukset Yhteisten komponenttipohjaisten ratkaisujen kehittäminen arkkitehtuurin selkiyttämiseksi Organisoituminen ja toiminnan käynnistäminen IT hallinnon tehostaminen integraatiopolitiikka Toiminnan tehostamisen takia AD harmonisointi Yritysarkkitehtuurin merkitys on tunnistettu ylintä johtoa myöten, mutta kapasiteetti ei ole riittänyt kaikkiin hankkeisiin uuden toiminanohjauksen käyttöönotto Yhtenäisyysden aikaansaaminen tukiprosesseissa Yritysarkkitehtuurikapasiteetin lisääminen 200%:lla Yhteinen HR järjestelmä

Survey results for large companies in 2014 Mikä on merkittävin yritysarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? Jota liiketoiminnan KPI tietoja voitaisiin vertailla Talouden standardien kehittäminen eteenpäin… Ollaan siirtymässä sovellus- ja prosessilähtöisyydestä kokonaisvaltaisempaan Kohdentaaksemme voimavarat ja kehityshankkeet paremmin tarpeellisiin kehityskohteiseen, ja kyvykkyyslähtöiseen vältääksemme osaoptimointia, parantaaksemme kehityssuunnittelun läpinäkyvyyttä ja (capability) kehityksen ohjaukseen. Kuvausjärjestelmiä parannettu, teknologiastartegista yhteisymmärrystä liiketoimintaorganisaatiossamme. ohjausta valinnoissa kehitetty. Kustannus säästöt Datacenterin kilpailutus ja vaihto edesauttamaan keskustelua liiketoiminnan kanssa ja pohjaksi ITIL-palveluprosessien arkkitehtuurin kuvaaminen keskustelupohjaksi liiketoiminnan kanssa, globaalin yhtenäistämiselle sovelluskatalogin määrittely Strategisen tavoitetilan ja muutosohjelman määrittämiseksi Liiketoiminta-arkkitehtuurin tavoitetilan kuvaaminen päätoimialalla Paremman näkyvyyden luominen ja faktapohjaisen päätöksenteon mahdollistaminen Yritysarkkitehtuurin hallintajärjestelmän käyttöönoton käynnistäminen Yksinkertaistaa kokonaisuutta ja parantaa kustannustehokkuutta & laatua Yksittäisten ratkaisujen korvaaminen platform ratkaisuilla Kokonaisarkkitehtuuriprojektin käynnistäminen ja sen myötä tietoisuuden ja strategisten tavoitteiden ja operatiivisen (kustannus)tehokkuuden edistämiseksi suunnitelmallisuuden lisääntyminen.

Liiketoimintaprosessien yhtenäistämisen mahdollistamiseksi yritysarkkitehtuurin nostaminen yhtiötason kehityskohteeksi ja ohjauksen keinoksi läpinäkyvyyden ja johtamisen kannalta ERP parantamaan liiketoiminnan ohjattavuutta ja helpottamaan järjestelmäkehitystä erp Kustannustehokkuuden ja paremman liiketoimintahyödyn saavuttamiseksi Harmonisoidun liiketoimintaprosessimallin luominen Lakivaatimus ja oman vanhan järjestelmän päivitys ajan tasalle Yhtenäistäminen Verottajaraportointi (1.7. voimaan tullut rakennusalan tiedonantovelvollisuus)

Survey results for large companies in 2016

Survey results for medium-sized companies in 2013 Mikä on merkittävin yritysarkkitehtuurien Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? kehittämiseen liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? prosessin virtaviivaistaminen webshop

Tuottamaan liiketoiminnasta monitasoista ja -puolista informaatiota ja parantamaan informaation saatavuutta. Integroidun järjestelmän rakentaminen koska en tiedä :D En osaa sanoa Vanha järjestelmä ei ollut enää palveluna saatavissa Taloushallintaohjelmiston hankinta Vastaamaan kasvunopeutta IT-kokonaisarkkitehtuurin päivitys Myyntikohfiguraattorin ja tuotekonfiguraattorin myyntiprosessin tehostamiseksi integraatio Koska yritys oli kasvannut paljon ja prosessit olivat liian monimutkaisia vanhalle järjestelmälle. Uuden ERP-järjestelmän käyttöönotto.

Ei ollut ylempään johtoon soveltuvaa henkilöä niin Organisaation lyhentäminen sekä jätettiin väliporras pois. Tuotannohjausjärjestelmää ei ollut aiemmin. tuotannonohjausjärjestelmän käyttöönotto. raportit HQ:ssa suoraan ERP harmonisointi

Kaikkien prosessien kartoitus ja niiden jaktuva jotta yrityksen kannattavuus paraneisi tehostaminen Uuden domainserverin ja verkon uudelleen Liikenteen nopeuttamiseksi arkkitehtuurin rakentaminan N/ A Ei tehty

Survey results for medium-sized companies in 2014 Mikä on merkittävin yritysarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? Yrityksen tarve IT-tuelle vähäinen IT-palvelut ulkoistettu ulkopuoliselle kumppanille Tämä mahdollistaa reaaliaikasen seurannan ja antaa tietoa ajotavasta. Lisäksi palkan maksu kuljettajille menee järjestelmän kautta. Toiminnanohjausjärjestelmä on myös integroitu tähän järjestelmään. Kehittämistoimenpiteitä ei ole tehty useaan vuoteen. Reaaliaikaisen tiedonsiirto järjestelmän laitto kaikkiin Kansainvälinen laajentuminen autoihin ja osaan perävaunuista. Kustannusten allokoinnin vuoksi Globallit liiketoimintamallit, BI tarpeesta Uusi palvelinalusta. Kustannustehokkuden vuoksi Varaston hallinta sovellus Haluamme digitalisoida tuen ydinprosesseillemme sekä mahdollistaa digitalisaation tuoman liiketoimintapotentiaalin uusi toiminnanohjausjärjestelmä Tehokkuutta SAP:n käytön tehostaminen CRM sekä verkkokauppa projektit Ipad mobiliteetti integroitu crm-järjestelmään

Survey results for medium-sized companies in 2016 Mikä on merkittävin yritysarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? Taloushallinnon ja tuotannonohjauksen järjestelmiin Tarpeisiin sopivaa valmista sovellusta ei olemassa. integroidun oman hankintasovelluksen kehittäminen IT-partnerin kanssa. Toiminnan tehostamiseksi paremman asiakaspalvelun vuoksi Järjestelmien integraatiot Kilpailukyvyn parantaminen prosesseja nopeuttamalla ja suoraviivaistamalla Digitalisoinnin eteenpäin vieminen Vanhan tuki loppui. Uusi toiminnanohjausjärjestelmä Käytettävyyden, hallittavuuden, integraatioiden valmiusasteen noston sekä teknologisen edelläkävijyydenPilvi-siirtymät nimissä. Riskien hallinta, uudet ratkaisut ICT-ympäristön kartoitus Kustannussyistä Internet of Things Työmaiden tiedon kokoaminen yhteen tietokantaan sähköisenä kaikkien käytettäväksi. KOHO tuntiensyöttö-ja laskutusohjema Prosessien tehostamiseksi ja läpinäkyvyyden saavuttamiseksi. Paperittomaan työmaahan siirtyminen Saadaan aikaan tehokkuutta ja suunnitelmallisuutta tehtävään työhön. Liiketoimintaprosessin integrointi toiminnanohjausjärjestelmään. Tulevaisuuden tarve edellyttä ERP ja CRM toimintojen kehittäminen. Päätös siirtyä ensi vuonna kehittämään uutta nykyaisempaa toiminnanohjausjärjestelmää

Survey results for public sector in 2013 Mikä on kuntasi merkittävin kokonaissarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen liittyvä toimenpide Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? viimeisen vuoden aikana? Pohja KA työlle KA hallintamallin rakentaminen. Palveluiden ja prosessien kuvauksen aloittaminen

perustettu tietohallinnon ohjausryhmä - jotta tietohallintoa ja operatiivista palvelutuotantoa voitaisiin tehostaa B3tietojärjestelmäluettelo tekeillä - tietoaineistojen luettelointi alkamassa Dokumentaation ylläpitämiseksi ja tietoturvan kehittämiseksi Sovellusohjelmien listaus on päivitetty ja IT-teknologian riippuvuuksia selvitetty

Kajaanin kaupungissa on tehty päätös tietohallinnon uudelleen organisoinnista. Siihen liittyen on tehty selvitystyö, jonka tuloksien perusteella toteutus käynnistetään syksyllä 2013. Eri yksiköiden ICT-palvelutuotanto yhdistetään, johtosuhteet selkeytetään ja kokonaisuutta ryhtyy ohjaamaan Nykyinen yksikkökohtainen malli syö kehittämisresursseja ja henkilöstön ammattitaito kaupungin tietohallinnon ohjausryhmä. Ohjasuryhmässä edustettuna kaikki tietohallinnon asiakkaat - valuu hukkaan, kun he joutuvat juoksemaan paikasta toiseen. Keskittämällä saamme hoidettua ict-palvelut prosessien omistajat. Teknologisessa ja tietojärjestelmä mielessä ryhdytään luomaan yhteisiä palveluja, joka tehokkaammin tarkoittaa nykyisen osa-optimoinnin sijasta kokonaisuuksien rakentamista, kutsutaan yhteisiksi palveluiksi. ja meille vaoautuu resurssia kehitystyöhön. Henmilöstö pääsee syventämään osaamista uusissa työnkuvissa. Täsätä siis päätetty, toteutus alkaa syksyllä. Lähinnä eAMS:n takia. TOJ aloittaminen. haluttiin ottaa standardi järjestelmä käyttöön Sähköposti muutos tarve ohjata kehitystä KA-hallintamalli, toimialakohtaiset KA-määritykset Jotta voidaan päättää kehityssuunnista. Koulujen tietotekniikkaselvitys. Vastataan mm. tetohallintolain velvoitteisiin Hallintamallin määrittely ja käyttöönotto Päätetty siirtyä strategissa sovelluksissa omasta Sopiva ajankohta tuotantoympäristön muutokselle. tuotantoympäristöstä sovellusten ostopalveluun. Projektityömenentelmä todettiin KA-kehittämispolussa keskeiseksi välineeksi Projektisalkunhallinta sekä MDM-viitearkkitehtuuri Palvelukokonaisuuksien tunnistaminen ICT palvelusopimukset

Tuloskorttitavoitteessa on asettu tavoitteeksi KA-hallinnnan KA toimintamalli päätetty, sen käyttöönotto saaminen osaksi kaupungin johtamisjärjestelmää ja KA-menetelmistön soveltaminen aloitettu ensimmäisissä kohdealueissa. KA työtä ei voitu tehdä, ellei kehittäminen ole hallinnassa Konsernitasoinen kehittämismallin luonti, johon voidaan KA työ kiinnittää KA:n tarpeellisuuden ymmärtäminen Karkki-projektin myötä KA-hallintamalli ja sähköisen asioinnin viitearkkitehtuuri Laaja yhteistyö, runsaasti yhteisiä sovelluksia/ järjestelmiä, yhteisesti linjatut tavoitteet Kokonaisarkkitehtuurityö on käynnistetty yhdessä Kotkan, Kouvolan ja Carean kanssa

Taloudellinen niukkuus, asiakasprosesseihin herääminen, Kunnna kokonaisedun oivaltaminen federatiivisessa hallintokuntien osa-optimoinnin vähentäminen, sähköisen asioinnin muutostarpeet toimintaan. viidakossa. Yhteisen tekemisen tunnistaminen, uudelleenkäyttö.. Kunnan omat voimavarat ja aiemmin toteutetut järjestelyt ovat osoittautuneet riittämättömiksi, jolloin haetaan lisävoimaa Tieran ja kuntayhteistyön keinoin Kuntien Tieran palvelujen käyttöönotto tietohallinnon kehittämiseksi välttämätön arkkitehtuurityön järjestäytymisessä hallintamalli Uusien palvelinten käyttöönotto helppoa. Kustannussäästöjä. Palvelinten virtualisointi. Laki edellyttää kokonaisarkkitehtuurityön käynnistämistä. Kokonaisarkkitehtuurityön aloittaminen. Yritys on valittu strategiseksi yhteistyökumppaniksi. Yhteistyön aloittaminen Kuntien Tieran kanssa.

VAKAVA-projektiin liittyminen ja sen myötä tulevien tehtävien Laatunäkökulma + kansalliset vaatimukset. suorittaminen. Sote-toimialan prosessien kuvaaminen.

1. Hallittavuuden parantamiseksi 2. Tietohallinnon uudelleen organisointi käsittämään palvelutuotannon Kustannussäästöjen saavuttamiseksi vaikuttavuuden kautta (IT-infra) sekä hallintokuntien kehittöämisen tukemisen (kokonaisarkitehtuuriviitekehys)

Sovellusten välisillä yhteyksillä pyritään poistamaan käsin tehtävät työvaiheet. Tavoitteena on luoda aidosti sähköiset asiointiketjut kuntalaiselta palveluntuottajalle. Sähköisen asioinnin käyttöönottosuunnitelman laatiminen Eläkkeelle siirtymisen johdosta Ict- vetovastuun vaihtuminen toiselle henkilölle

Survey results for public sector in 2014 Mikä on kuntasi merkittävin kokonaissarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? Jotta saadaan jonkinlainen käsitys sovelluksista ja päästää sitä kehittämään Tietojärjestelmäluettelo ja niihin liittyvä kokonaisuus JHS:n mukaan Verkkotunnuksen automaatio. Henkilöstöhallinnon ohjelman ja AD:n yhdistäminen. Tietohallintolaki ja kaupungin yhteentoimivuuden varmistamiseen liittyvät tekijät. Kokonaisarkkitehtuurityö on käynnistetty ja tavoitetila löytymässä. Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin ketterän hallintomallin liittämien kunnan Palvelumallin tavoitetila vaatii strukturoitunutta asiakokonaisuuksien hallintaa. palvelutietostrategiaan tiedollajohtamisen tueksi. Kaupunkistrategian painopisteiden perusteella valittujen palvelujen tavoitetilan määrittely ED.vastaus sis. Vastauksen. ja niiden toteutettavuusedellytysten selvittäminen pilotoimalla niitä tukevia tietojärjestelmiä. Jotta järjestelmille voitasiin määritellä elinkaari ja jatkokehityssuunnitelma. Kattava järjestelmäselvitys Se on pohjana kokonaisarkkitehtuurin mukaiselle kehittämiselle. Prosessien johdonmukainen kuvaamisen käynnistäminen . Hankkiaksemme edellytyksiä kokonaisarkkitehtuurin käyttämiselle kunnassa. Osallistuminen valtakunnalliseen koulutukseen.

Tietohallintomallia ei ole kuvattu ja tietohallinnon kehittäminen on Tietohallinto-ohjelman valmistelu. Loppuvuodesta valmistuva tietohallinto-ohjema ollut hajautettua ja se on heijastunut toimintaan. sisältää tietohallintomallin kuvauksen ja keskeiset kehittämisen painopisteet sekä hankesalkun. Palvelualojen ja organisaatioiden välisen yhteistoiminnan mahdollistamiseksi. Toimialueiden yhdistäminen. Aikaisemmin 5, nyt 1. Tavoitteena hyötylähtöisemmät ja kusannustehokkaammat ratkaisut. ICT-ratkaisukehitysmallin ja KA-kuvausvälineen käyttöönotto, Siihen saatiin asiantuntija jka valtion rahoitusta On arvioitu kokonaisarkkitehtuurin kehittämis- ja ylläpitomallia rahaa ei vain ole kulujen leikkaus Jotta on saatu selkeämpi kuva organisaation järjestelmistä kuntaliitosselvityksiä varten. Kokonaisarkkitehtuuriin liittyviä osa-alueita on dokumentoitu kuntaliitosselvityksien yhteydessä. Jotta saadaan henkilöstö ymmärtämään tietoturvan tärkeys organisaatiossa. Tietoturvan parantaminen

1. Toiminnan, tietojen ja tietojärjestelmien kuvaaminen 2. Formaali menettely, jolla operatiivinen yksikkö ja tietohallinto yhteistyössä arvioivat tietojärjestelmähankkeiden kustannukset, Tietojärjestelmäkokonaisuuden haltuunotto vaikutukset toimintaan ja laskevat saavutettavan hyödyn jotta saadaan periaatteellinen ohjaus toiminnan ja tietojärjestelmien kehittämiseen toimialuearkkitehtuurien kuvaaminen Nykytilan kuvaus haluttiin ajantasalle. Tästä on hyvä jatkaa tavoitetilan määrittelyjä. Nykytilan kuvaus, tietojärjestelmälistaus ja tietovirrat näiden välillä Kehittämistyö on aloittamista vaille valmis.

Laaja ja hajautettu organisaatio myös tietohallinnonn osalta. Tämän takia osaan kysymyksistä oli käytännössä pakko vastata kriittisesti, kun puhuttiin tilan olevan kattava. Osaamisen pitää olla myös hajautettu. Kustannustehokkuuden ja hallintokuntarajojen ylittävien prosessien Kokonaisarkkitehtuuriajattelun jalkauttaminen, suurimmat hankkeet kehittämistarpeiden takia. hyödyntävät menetelmiä ja toimintatapoja. saatiin haltuun kaikki ict-kustannukset, jotka oli hajallaan liiketoiminatsovellusten perustietojen täydennyskierros-2 Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin periaatteet asiakirja. Toimii uusien hankkeiden tarkistusvälineenä. Kaikki kaupungin uudet hankkeet keskitetysti: hyväksytään/hylätään. Toimialoilla EI itsenäistä Järjestelmäkirjon vähentäminen. Kansallisiin ratkaisuihin ohjaaminen. hankintaoikeutta. Koulutuksen hankkiminen kokonaisarkkitehtuurista Saadaan kaikki kunnan toiminta kuvattua ja dokumentoitua QPR EA:n käyttöönotto Hankkeiden/projektien laadukas läpivienti Projektityömallin edelleen jalkauttaminen Liittyy kuntarakenneselvitykseen. Sovellusten kartoitus ja dokumentointi. Yhteistyössä ulkopuolisen asiantuntijatahon kanssa kokonaisvaltainen virtualisointi omassa konesalissa Kartoitus Osana tiedolla johtamisen hanketta Tietovirtojen määrittely Toimintatavat eivät prosessien mukaiset, jolloin työaikaa tuhlaantuu vääriin asioihin. Tietohallintoprosessien uudistaminen ja kouluttaminen Kuntamme ICT palvelut on yhtiöitetty seudulliseen osakeyhtiöön. Synergiaetujen takia ja päällekkäisyyksien karsimiseksi, hankintojen kilpailuttamiseksi Yhtiö tuottaa ICT palvelut seudun kunnille ja kuntayhtymille

Survey results for public sector in 2016 Mikä on kuntasi merkittävin kokonaissarkkitehtuurien kehittämiseen Miksi edellä mainittu toimenpide on toteutettu? liittyvä toimenpide viimeisen vuoden aikana? Tiedon ylläpitämisen helpottamiseksi ja tiedon jakamiseksi. Työkalu kokonaisarkkitehtuurin dokumentointiin Kypsyystaso ei mahdollista vielä vaativampia toimenpiteitä. Toimenpiteellä pyritään välttämään päällekkäinen kehitys ja tuoda toimialueiden tietoon kansallisen ja alueellisen kehittämisen kokonaisuudet. Tiedon jakaminen kansallisista ja alueellisista hankkeista. Organisaation kehittäminen sekä kokonaisarkkitehtuuriin liittyvien Jotta päästään alkuun työtapojen ja työkalujen kuvaus Paremman palveluohjauksen takia (johtamisjärjestelmä) ja osaaminen, jotta organisaatio kykenee tekemään työtä suunnitelmallisesti. Osaamisen lisääminen organisaatiossa, johtamisjärjestelmän uudistus. Taitaa olla vähän pakko alkaa perehtyä. Tutustuttu aiheeseen. Luodaan valmiudet KaPAn hyödyntämiseen Osallistuminen KaPA -valmisteluun-->pilotin suunnitteluvaihe Tarve kasvaa koko ajan. Sähköiseen asiointiin liittyvän arkkitehtuurin suunnittelun aloitus. Aikaisemmin sovitettu kokonaisarkkitehtuurin soveltamismalli Kokonaisarkkitehtuurimenetelmän soveltaminen tietohallinnon ja ei toiminut halutulla tavalla. toimialojen välisessä kehittämistoiminnassa.

Kuvauksia ei ole ehditty tekemään riittävästi, eikä niitä ole päivitetty riittävästi, eikä niille ole ollut selvää yhtä paikkaa, jonne niitä tallennetaan. Parhaillaan olemme hankkimassa kokonaisarkkitehtuurin kuvausjärjestelmää. Jotta saadaan parempi kokonaisymmärrys vaikutuksista Eri osa-alueiden linkittäminen toisiinsa Haluttiin kartoittaa nykytila sekä hahmottaa mitä pitää tehdä Kokonaisarkkitehtuuriselvitys Tietohallintolain ja omien tarpeiden vuoksi Nykytilakuvausten laatiminen Järjestelmäkartta, eli arkkitehtuurikuvaus A0-kokoisena liiketoiminnan Saadaan yhteinen kokonaiskuva kehittämisen pohjaksi. ja tietohallinnon väliseen kommunikointiin. Pyritään hyödyntämään tuotokset Ei mitään erityisiä toimenpiteitä. Kustannussyyt, hallinnan helpottaminen Kansallinen yhteistyö mm. viitearkkitehtuurien tekemisessä. Kokonaisuuden hallitsemiseksi ja mahdollisien sovellusvaihdoksien mahdollistamiseksi Tampereen seudun kanssa yhteisen vakiointimallin luominen ja sen käyttöönotto.

Sovellusten välisten riippuvuuksien tunnistamiseksi (nykytila) ja kehittämisen mahdollistamiseksi (tavoitetila), sekä KA-työn mahdollistamiseksi. Liittymien dokumentointi Tietojärjestelmärekisterin ja -kartan laatiminen tietovirtoineen, Tuki KA-työn toteutukselle sekä niiden ylläpitosuunnitelman laatiminen. Jotta kaikilla olisi kunnan toiminnasta edes karkea kokonaiskuva eikä tehtäisi päällekkäisiä ratkaisuja Hallintamallin määrittely Nykytilan kartoitus ja arkkitehtuurisäännöt tehtiin aiemmin, nyt on aloitettu arkkitehtuurin jalkauttaminen yksiköihin