Managing IT Investments Successfully & Generating Maximum Value: Why Some Organisations Succeed & Others Could Not

Although numerous literatures have indicated that managing IT investment initiatives successfully is a necessary condition for generating maximum value from the IT assets that results from the investments or for using the resulting IT assets to create enterprise value. According to Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, in IT Governance, ‘The companies that manage their IT investments most successfully generate returns that are as much as 40% higher than those of their competitors.’^[1] Yet, only 32% of enterprise IT investment initiatives/projects succeeds, according to the Standish Group Chaos report.^[2]

Five (5) explanations was given to explain the reasons why private, public, and not-for-profit enterprises are not able to manage their IT investments initiatives successfully, and subsequently generate maximum value from those investments..

Explanation 1: Successful Enterprises Govern IT Investments Better

The availability of effective IT governance architecture or mechanisms is the first explanation that was given for why some enterprises succeed in managing their IT investments, and subsequently generate maximum enterprise (business/organisation) value. In a study of 250 private/profit-making and public/non-profit enterprises, the duo of Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, in IT Governance, found that ‘top-performing enterprises governed IT differently than did other enterprises.’ ^[3] The duo also found that, enterprises that have effective IT governance architecture/design achieve greater results from their investments in IT than those that did not, which led them ‘to conclude that effective IT governance is the single most important predictor of the value that an organisation can generates from IT.’^[4]

Explanation 2: Successful Enterprises Are More Adept at Formulating IT Strategies and Designing Solution Architectures

The second explanation that was given to explain why some enterprises are able to successfully manage their IT investments and generate maximum value, while others are less successful and generate minimal value or no value at all, is that, successful enterprises are better able to formulate good IT strategies. This implies that, successful enterprises are more capable of formulating IT strategies that are aligned with their enterprise (business/organisation) strategies. Which also implies that, successful enterprises are more capable of specifying objectives for IT to achieve in order to contribute to the execution of their enterprise strategies, and in, identifying the right IT investment initiatives (prospective investment programmes/projects) that should be executed in order to achieve the IT objectives?

These enterprises also have the ability to design the solution architecture of the identified IT investment initiatives/opportunities better than those enterprises that do not succeed in managing their IT investments and generating maximum value. These explanations are based on the premise that, formulating business/organisation aligned IT strategy—that is, specifying IT objectives and identifying the right IT investment initiatives/opportunities helps to ensure that enterprises are investing in or doing the right things, and designing the solution architectures of the initiatives helps to ensure that the right things are done the right way.

The following authors helped to emphasise the importance of formulating good IT strategy to managing IT investments successfully and generating maximum value. The result of the study carried out by the duo of Paul B. Carroll and Chunka Mui, in Billion Dollar Lessons, indicated that, the reasons most of the very large investment projects fail or are written off is due to bad strategies—that is, not investing in the right investment initiatives/opportunities that will help to achieve its strategic objectives.^[5] Simon More, in Strategic Project Portfolio Management, corroborated the discoveries of Paul and Chunka by stating that, ‘Organisations that outperform do so because of a combination of strong execution and great strategy.’^[6] Simon further stressed that the lack of either strong execution or great strategy is the reason why enterprise investments fail.

The duo of Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, also affirm the significance of designing the solution architectures of the identified IT initiatives to executing IT investment projects the right way by stating that: ‘Specifying the functionality and architectural requirements of an IT project is only the first step in generating value from IT.’^[7] The duo them emphasised that, aside from specifying the functionalities and architectural requirements (i.e. designing solution architectures) that are necessary for executing the investments well, enterprises generates value from the enterprise changes that IT investment initiatives supports/enables.^[8]

Explanation 3: Successful Enterprises are more adept at selecting the best things from the right things, and getting them done well

The third explanation that was given to why some enterprises are able to successfully manage their IT investments and generate maximum value while others could not, or are less able, is that, successful enterprises are more adept at selecting IT investment opportunities with the greatest potential to deliver value from a portfolio of (right) IT investment initiatives/opportunities.

These enterprises were also able to fund these investment initiative/opportunities effectively, and deliver them on time, within budget, and with the required functionalities. In addition to the ability to fund and deliver IT investment initiatives-cum-programmes/projects, these enterprises were also able to manage the business and technology changes that are provoked by the outcome of these investments,^[9] why unsuccessful enterprises could not or are less able.

According to Georges Ataya, a professor at Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, assert that, the challenge facing enterprises today is not the lack of IT investment opportunities, but the lack of capability to select the strategic IT investment opportunities or projects with the greatest potential to generate value. ^[10] He also asserted that, enterprises are also faced with the challenge of executing the investments projects efficiently and effectively, so that, they can deliver their potential value.

The duo of Peter Weill and Richard Woodham corroborated explanations two (the challenges of conception or bad strategy), and three (the challenges of portfolio management and programme/project execution) above by stating that:

In recent years there have been spectacular failures of large information technology (IT) investments—major enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems initiatives that were never completed, e-business initiatives that were ill-conceived or poorly executed and new systems developed that were never used effectively.^[11]

The conclusion therefore is that, enterprises that manage their IT investments successfully and generate maximum value from the investments are more adept at selecting the best things from the right things, and getting them done well.

Explanation 4: Successful Enterprises Are More Capable of Deliverying High Quality and Cost Effective IT Services

The fourth explanation that was given to why some enterprises are able to successfully manage their IT investments and generate maximum value while others could not, or are less able, is that enterprises that were successful are more capable of sourcing/provisioning the right IT services, at the right level of quality, and cost than those that could not.^[12],[13]. This implies that enterprises that succeed in managing their IT investments and generating maximum value in return are more capable of delivering more value for the money they invested in IT, as well as, having more satisfied users of its IT systems/services.  According to Peter Weill and Marianne Broadbent, in Leveraging the New Infrastructure, ‘Firms with more satisfied people using their systems also get more business value from their investments in information technology.’^[14]

Explanation 5: Successful Enterprises Are More Adept at Performing Post Implementation Reviews and Harvesting the Expected Benefits of IT Investments in Full

The fifth and the last explanation that was given to why some enterprises are able to successfully manage their IT investments and generate maximum value while others could not, is that, enterprises that were successful usually have plan for reviewing their IT investment projects upon the completion of their implementation, and prior to their provisioning—called post implementation review (PIR). The duo of Richard Hunter and George Westerman, in The Real Business of IT, corroborated this assertion, by citing an MIT CISR survey that found ‘enterprises that do post-implementation reviews (PIRs) better than others get higher business value from IT.’^[15]

These enterprises also, usually have strategies and plans for realising/harvesting the benefits of their investments in IT in full. In addition, these enterprises make specific individuals to be responsible/accountable for their successful execution, and consequently, these strategies/plans are executed effectively and efficiently. According to the duo of Marianne Broadbent and Ellen S. Kitzis, in The New CIO Leader, ‘Having a benefits-management or value realization process in place is one of the big differences between those who do and those who don’t realize value from their initiatives.’^[16]

---

[1] Ross, J. W., & Weill, P. (2002, November). Six IT Decisions Your IT People Shouldn’t Make. Harvard Business Review, 1-10, p. 2.

[2] The Standish Group International, CHAOS Summary 2009, p.1

[3] Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results. US: Harvard Business Press, p. 3.

[4] Ibid., p. 4.

[5] Carroll, P. B., & Mui, C. (2008). Billion-Dollar Lessons: What you Can Learn from the Most Inexcusable Business Failures of the Last 25 Years . New York: Penguin Group Inc., p. 2.

[6] Moore, S. (2010). Strategic Project Portfolio Management: Enabling a Productive Organisation . US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

[7] Weill & Ross, IT Governance, p. 43.

[8] Ibid., p. 44.

[9] Milis, K., & Mercken, R. (2002). Success Factors Regarding the Implementation of ICT investment projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 106-117. p. 111.

[10] Ataya, G., & Thorp, J. (2007). Portfolio Management: Unlocking the Value of IT Investments. Information Systems Control Journal, 4, 1-2. p. 1.

[11] Weill, P., & Woodham, R. (2002, April). Dont Just Lead, Govern: Implementing Effective IT Governance. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, p. 1.

[12] Hunter, R., & Westerman, G. (2009). The Real Business of IT: How CIOs Create and Communicate Value. US: Harvard Business Press, p. 45.

[13] Broadbent, M., & Kitzis, E. (2005). The New CIO Leader: Setting the Agenda and Delivering Results. US: Harvard Business School Press, p. 193.

[14] Weill & Broadbent, Leveraging the New Infrastructure, p. 68.

[15] Hunter & Westerman, The Real Business of IT, p. 163.

[16] Broadbent & Kitzis, The New CIO Leader,  p. 139

What exactly is IT Governance?

IT governance is a very popular buzzword in business enterprises today, as a result, searching for the meaning of IT governance in Google returned over 20 million results, while searching for IT governance related journals in Google Scholar returned many journals with varying definitions of IT governance. With all these confusion on the real meaning of IT governance, no wonder business enterprises are still struggling with developing effective IT governance. This confusion led to this question “what exactly is IT governance?”

The first definition of IT governance considered in this blog is that of Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Rose, research scientists at the MIT Sloan School’s Center for Information Systems Research (CISR), they defined IT governance as ‘specifying the decision rights and accountability frameworks to encourage desirable behavior in the use of IT’ [1]. From another perspective, IT governance was defined as the process of clearly stating who has the professional obligation to make certain IT decisions, and the development/availability of the right mechanisms for holding them accountable for the outcome of their decisions; with the goal of ensuring that, IT objectives are achieved in a controlled and predictable fashion. The second definition of IT governance considered in this blog is that of the IT Governance Institute (ITGI), stated in the Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT) 4.1 frameworks documentation released in 2007, the ITGI defined IT governance as:

…the responsibility of executives and the board of directors, and consists of the leadership, organisational structures and processes that ensure that the enterprise’s IT sustains and extends the organisation’s strategies and objectives [2].

ITGI also point out that IT governance enables organisations to take advantage of information and information technology to maximise benefits/revenues, capitalise on opportunities, and to gain advantage over competitors. The third and the newest arrival to the fold of legendary IT governance definitions considered in this project is that of Deloitte, a global professional services firm, Deloitte defined IT governance as:

The organised capacity to guide the formulation of IT strategy and plans, direct development and implementation of initiatives and oversee IT operations in order to achieve competitive advantage for the organisation [3].

Finally, this blog defines IT governance as the arrangement of the right governance building blocks—styles, structures, processes, and communication mechanisms (i.e. designing the right governance architecture) for making effective IT management and investment decisions that ensures that business enterprises generate maximum business value from their investments in IT. On the other hand, IT governance capability is the ability of a business enterprise to make effective IT management and investments decisions that helps to achieve its objectives, be it operational and/or strategic objectives. According to Forrester Research:

At its most basic definition, IT governance is the process by which decisions are made around IT investments. How decisions are made, who makes the decisions, who is held accountable, and how the results of decisions are measured and monitored are all parts of IT governance [4].

Ryan Peterson, a professor of information systems management at Instituto de Empresa in Spain and a leading authority on governance, asserts that business enterprise needs to develop the following three key capabilities in order to be able to govern its IT investments effectively: structural IT governance capability, procedural IT governance capability, and relational (communicational) IT governance capability [5].

References

[1] Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results. US: Harvard Business Press, p. 8.

[2] IT Governance Institute, COBIT 4.1, p. 5.

[3] Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. (2010). Unlocking the value of IT Governance. Belgium: Deloitte Consulting, p. 5.

[4] Symons, C., Cecere, M., Young, G. O., & Lambert, N. (2005). IT Governance Framework: Structures, Processes, And Communication. US: Forrester Research Inc., p. 2.

[5] Peterson, R. (2004). Crafting Information Technology Governance. Information Systems Management, 7-22.

How Strategic IT Planning Relates to Enterprise Architecture – Revised

An excerpt from my upcoming book

30/07/2011

How it All Began – The Journey to Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Modeling (EM) is yet another popular methodology for carrying out IT planning activities. The simple philosophy that underpins the EM methodologies is that large organisations are too complex for one person to retain all the information that is required to support the process of making decisions about the ways a firm can be improved/transformed in his/her memory (head). As the information required for this type of decision-making is usually the information about the constituent’s parts of the organisation (i.e. structure, people, processes, systems, infrastructures, standards etc.), their interactions, and relationships and the principles guiding their evolution. This fundamental philosophy led to the evolution of EM as a methodology that provides the tools for developing a formal model (the documentation about organisation’s structure, processes, systems etc.) of the organisation that helps to facilitate effective planning, management, and controlling of large and geographically distributed complex entities [1].

Leon F. McGinnis, professor of Manufacturing Systems at Georgia Institute of Technology  define EM as:

A loosely defined, emerging discipline focused on developing formal models of the enterprise as tools to use in decision making, and especially in designing and implementing software systems that support enterprise operations [2].

Mark S. Fox and Michael Gruninger, professors at the University of Toronto, also gave another explicit definition and explanation of the essence of enterprise modeling. They define and assert that:

An enterprise model is a computational representation of the structure, activities, processes, information, resources, people, behavior, goals, and constraints of a business, government, or other enterprise. It can be both descriptive and definitional – spanning what is and should be. The role of an enterprise model is to achieve model-driven enterprise design, analysis, and operation [3].

The Evolution from Enterprise Modeling to Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise modeling (a methodology for IT strategic planning) has now evolved into what is now called Enterprise Architecture (EA), but the use of EA extends a little further than just developing the model enterprises. If so, is there any relationship between IT strategic planning and enterprise architecture? In order to find out if there is any form of relationship between these two major enterprise practices, this book will first seek to establish a common meaning for EA from two important perspectives.

The first perspective is the solution-oriented perspective; here two definitions of EA will be examined. The first definition is that of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) where it defined EA as: ‘The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and to the environment and the principles guiding its design and evolution’ [4]. The trio of Jeanne W. Ross, Peter Weill, and David C. Robertson stated the second solution-oriented perspective definition in Enterprise Architecture as Strategy as ‘the organising logic for business processes and IT infrastructure, reflecting the integration and standardisation requirements of the company’s operating model’ [5]. They also added that EA enables a company to develop a long-term view of its processes, systems and technologies so that they can embark on projects that builds capabilities, instead of just fulfilling immediate needs.

The second perspective is the documentation-oriented perspective; here Scott Bernard, an assistant professor at Syracuse University, gave the only definition examined in this perspective, he defined EA as ‘the analysis and documentation of an enterprise in its current and future states from an integrated strategy, business, and technology perspective’ [6]. He further added that, in order for organisations to get the most from their key assets­­—people, process, technology­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­—requires they think in terms of organisation-wide solutions rather than individual system development projects.

From the definitions above, it is obvious that enterprise architecture’s main objective is to facilitate, support, and enable enterprise analysis with the intent of designing of solutions that are based on enterprise-wide goals and/or long-term view of the enterprise.

The Similarity between EA and Strategic Planning

Therefore, to answer the earlier question—on whether there is a relationship between IT strategic planning and enterprise architecture (EA). The duo of Lakhdissi and Bounabat states that EA strongly related to IT strategic planning, and EA can serve as a new framework/methodology that helps to fill the gaps—lack of a formal, rigorous and agreed upon methodology, and tools—that exists in earlier IT strategic planning methodologies such as Critical Success Factors (CSF’s) and Value Chain Analysis [7]. Betsy Burton, VP Distinguished Analyst at Gartner, supported this statement by pointing out that EA is not IT strategic planning, but EA must support, facilitate and enable IT strategic planning [8]. In addition to this, Capgemini, an IT consulting firm, and early pioneer of EA, confirmed both statements by also indicating that that EA helps to improve IT planning, the management of IT roadmaps—IT initiatives prioritisation—and portfolios [9]. In addition to these claim and statements, extensive literature research reveals that both IT strategic planning and EA shares similar objectives/high-level intent—aligning IT strategy with business strategy, identifying opportunities to exploit IT for competitive, and enabling effective/efficient management of IT [10], [11]. 

The Difference between EA and Strategic Planning

Even though IT strategic planning and enterprise architecture (EA) have almost similar objectives/high-level intent and general scope, nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between the two approaches. This difference is mainly about the deliverables and/or end results of the two approaches. While the key deliverables (output) of IT strategic planning is a portfolio of strategic IT projects/programs and their budgets, that of EA consists of the current and future architecture descriptions of business, technology, and solutions, including their individual roadmaps and technical standards [12].

The Conclusion on the Similarities and Differences between EA and Strategic Planning

To conclude on these findings, it is now glaring that IT strategic planning and enterprise architecture complements each other, rather than be a substitute for each another, and there is great benefit in combining the elements of both to produce a new and revolutionary IT planning and management methodology/approach [13]. In short, EA is an enterprise analysis tool that can be used to support IT the strategic planning process—by providing the information required for enterprise analysis—and helping to design the architecture of IT initiatives/solutions identified during IT strategic planning process, as well as helping to develop the technical standards that will guide the evolution of the solution.

In support of the conclusion drawn above, Meta Group (now Gartner) states that: ‘A flexible enterprise architecture provide a consistent framework for strategic decisions about the information technology used to support business initiatives’ [14].

Existing EA Methodologies/Frameworks

So many different specific frameworks and methodologies exist today for modeling enterprise architectures, typical examples of which include:

• The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures: focused on solution design
• The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF): focused on achieving strategic alignment, identifying business and technology initiatives/solutions, and designing the architecture of the identified solutions,
• Capgemini Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF): focused on designing service oriented solutions to IT-related business problems,
• Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF): an architecture framework for the United States Department of Defense,
• Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA): the enterprise architecture of the United States Federal Government.

Enterprise Architecture (EA) Value Proposition

Apart from helping business enterprises to align the whole of their organisation (including IT) with their goals/objectives, as well as, helping business enterprises to identify and priorities IT initiatives/investments opportunities (solutions roadmap) that will help to achieve those objectives, and in some cases defining the architecture of the solutions, EA also delivers the following benefits to business enterprises:

1. EA helps to reduce IT solution development, delivery and maintenance cost and solve integration/coordination problems across strategic business units (SBU’s) by encouraging the use of EA standards to manage IT resources throughout the whole organisation, which then helps to facilitate the reusing of IT resources across business units [15], [16],  
2. EA helps to improve IT project delivery success [17], through the identification of the right technology initiatives (quality solutions) [18], which helps to lowers the risk of IT investment projects,
3. EA helps IT to become agile; this is, EA helps to increase the ability of IT to quickly and easily change to meet new business requirements, which in turn helps the business enterprises to become flexible; that is, business enterprises are now able to quickly change to cope with new conditions or situations [19].
4. EA helps the business enterprise to assess the need for new IT initiatives, and supports the translation of the IT initiatives into implementable IT-enabled solutions; that is, EA supports the design of the solutions architecture. EA also support the development of the business case for the new solution and later checks compliance with standards [20].

The Limitation of EA

What used to be the strength/advantage—the availability of documentation and its comprehensiveness—of popular enterprise architecture frameworks such as TOGAF over other strategic IT planning methodology has now grown to such an extent that, instead of being a source of strength, it now become its Achilles heel—the source of its weakness. The current release of the open group architecture framework (TOGAF version 9) documentation is seven hundred and forty four (744) pages long, it will take a die-hard business enterprise to make sense of the entire framework let alone apply it to strategic IT planning.

Endnote

[1] McGinnis, L. F. (2007). Enterprise Modeling and Enterprise Transformation. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 123-143.

[2] ibid., p. 123.

[3] Fox, M. S., & Grüninger, M. (1998). Enterprise Modeling . American Association of Artificial Intelligence, 109-122, p. 109.

[4] IEEE Computer Society. (2000). IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems. US: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, p. 3.

[5] Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy : Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p. 9.

[6] Bernard, S. A. (2005). An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture. Bloomington: Author House, p. 31.

[7] Lakhdissi, M., & Bounabat, B. (2011). Toward a Novel Methodology for IT Strategic Planning. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation (pp. 263-273). Academic Conference Ltd.

[8] Burton, B. (2009). EA Best and Worst Practices. US: Gartner.

[9] Capgemini. (2007). Enterprise, Business and IT Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework. France: Capgemini, p. 9.

[10]  Capgemini, Enterprise, Business and IT Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework, p. 9.

[11] Wilton, D. (2004, October). The Relationship Between IS Strategic Planning and Enterprise Architecture Practice. Proceedings of the First Postgraduate Conference of the Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences, 100-107, p. 201.

[12] Lakhdissi, M., & Bounabat, B. (2011). Toward a Novel Methodology for IT Strategic Planning. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation (pp. 263-273). Academic Conference Ltd, p. 266.

[13]  Wilton, The Relationship Between IS Strategic Planning and Enterprise Architecture Practice, p. 100.

[14]   Meta Group. (2002). CIO Insight. New York: Ziff Davis Enterprise.

[15] Boh, W. F., & Yellin, D. (2006). Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in Managing Information Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 163-207.

[16]  Meta Group, CIO Insight.

[17] Capgemini. (2006). Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework. France: Capgemini.

[18]  Meta Group, CIO Insight.

[19] Capgemini, Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework.

[20] Peters, A. (2008). EA Adds A Fourth Pillar To IT Value Management: Enterprise Architecture Is Fundamental To Good IT Governance. US: Forrester, p. 3.

How Strategic IT Planning Relates to Enterprise Architecture

Strategic IT planning is concerned mainly with understanding the business objectives/goals and architecture and identifying the right strategic IT initiatives (application software) that the organisation should invest in, so as to carry out its existing business strategies, it may also involve the creation of new IT strategies, and the development of technology architecture to support the application software. The time horizon for this planning stage is usually between 3 to 5 years, and it is the primary responsibilities of the senior management, and the CIO [1]. While, Enterprise Architecture (EA) is the fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principle guiding its design and evolution [2]

According to Lakhdissi and Bounabat, enterprise architecture is strongly related to IT strategic planning, and EA can serve as a new framework/methodology that helps to fill the gaps that exists in earlier methodologies[3]. Capgemini (an IT consulting firm, and early pioneer of EA), also support this view by stating that EA helps to improve IT planning, the management of IT roadmaps (IT initiatives prioritisation) and portfolios[4].

In addition to the above views and statements, extensive literature research reveals that both strategic IT planning and EA both delivers the same value proposition to the business enterprises i.e. aligning IT initiatives/investment business objectives/goals, identifying opportunities to exploit IT for competitive, developing EA/technology standards, and enabling effective/efficient management of IT (identifying and eliminating duplications)[5],[6].

References

[1] Lederer, A. L., & Sethi, V. (1996). Key Prescriptions for Strategic Information Systems Planning. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 35-62.
[2] Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Van Buuren, R., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Bonsangue, M., & Van Der Torre, L. (2004). Concepts for Modeling Enterprise Architectures. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(3), 257-287, p. 259.
[3] Lakhdissi, M., & Bounabat, B. (2011). Toward a Novel Methodology for IT Strategic Planning. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation (pp. 263-273). Academic Conference Ltd.
[4] Capgemini. (2007). Enterprise, Business and IT Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework. France: Capgemini.
[5] Capgemini, Enterprise, Business and IT Architecture and the Integrated Architecture Framework, p. 9.
[6] Earl, M. J. (1993, March). Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 1-24, p. 6.