This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
Svyatoslav Kotusev is an independent researcher, educator and consultant. Since 2013 he focuses on studying enterprise architecture practices in organizations. He is an author of the book "The Practice of Enterprise Architecture: A Modern Approach to Business and IT Alignment" and many articles on enterprise architecture that appeared in various academic journals and conferences, industry magazines and online outlets (visit http://kotusev.com for more information). Svyatoslav received his PhD in information systems from RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Prior to his research career, he held various software development and architecture positions in industry. He can be reached at [email protected]
In the current turbulent and unpredictable markets, competitive advantage can no longer be achieved through high product quality or efficient processes alone
Rogier van de Wetering; Sherah Kurnia; Svyatoslav Kotusev. The Role of Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2237 .
AMA StyleRogier van de Wetering, Sherah Kurnia, Svyatoslav Kotusev. The Role of Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformations. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (4):2237.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRogier van de Wetering; Sherah Kurnia; Svyatoslav Kotusev. 2021. "The Role of Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformations." Sustainability 13, no. 4: 2237.
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a collection of artifacts describing various aspects of an organization from an integrated business and IT perspective. EA practice is an organizational activity that implies using EA artifacts for facilitating decision-making and improving business and IT alignment. EA practice involves numerous participants ranging from C-level executives to project teams and effective engagement between these stakeholders and architects is critically important for success. Moreover, many practical problems with EA practice can be also attributed to insufficient engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders. However, the notion of engagement received only limited attention in the EA literature and the problem of establishing engagement has not been intentionally studied. This paper intends to explore in detail the problem of achieving effective engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders in an organization, identify the main inhibitors of engagement and present a theoretical model explaining the problem of establishing engagement in practice. This paper is based on a single in-depth revelatory case study including nine interviews with different participants of EA practice (e.g. architects and other EA stakeholders) and documentation analysis. It leverages the grounded theory method to construct a conceptual model explaining the problem of engagement in the studied organization. This paper identifies 28 direct and indirect inhibitors of engagement and unifies them into a holistic conceptual model addressing the problem of achieving engagement that covers the factors undermining both strategic and initiative-based engagement between architects and other EA stakeholders. This paper focuses on the notion of engagement and offers arguably the first available theoretical model that explains how typical engagement problems between architects and other stakeholders inhibit the realization of value from EA practice. However, the developed model has a number of limitations and we call for further empirical research on engagement problems in EA practice and coping strategies for addressing these problems.
Sherah Kurnia; Svyatoslav Kotusev; Graeme Shanks; Rod Dilnutt; Simon Milton. Stakeholder engagement in enterprise architecture practice: What inhibitors are there? Information and Software Technology 2021, 134, 106536 .
AMA StyleSherah Kurnia, Svyatoslav Kotusev, Graeme Shanks, Rod Dilnutt, Simon Milton. Stakeholder engagement in enterprise architecture practice: What inhibitors are there? Information and Software Technology. 2021; 134 ():106536.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSherah Kurnia; Svyatoslav Kotusev; Graeme Shanks; Rod Dilnutt; Simon Milton. 2021. "Stakeholder engagement in enterprise architecture practice: What inhibitors are there?" Information and Software Technology 134, no. : 106536.
Enterprise architecture is a collection of artifacts describing various aspects of an organization from an integrated business and IT perspective. Practicing enterprise architecture in organizations implies using these artifacts to facilitate information systems planning and improve business and IT alignment. Despite its long history, the enterprise architecture discipline still remains largely atheoretical and lacks a solid theoretical basis. Based on our previous empirical studies of the practical usage of enterprise architecture artifacts in multiple organizations and broad literature analysis, this conceptual article identifies and discusses in detail 10 theories that can be considered key for understanding how an enterprise architecture practice works: actor-network theory, boundary objects theory, cognitive fit theory, communities of practice theory, decision-making theories, information processing theory, knowledge management theory, management fashion theory, media richness theory, and uncertainty principle. Taken together, these theories offer a comprehensive theoretical view of an enterprise architecture practice explaining the role of enterprise architecture artifacts, their usability, and participation of stakeholders and, therefore, may constitute a theoretical basis of the entire enterprise architecture discipline. Although this article does not elaborate on any of these theories, it brings these theories to light, establishes their critical importance for comprehending an enterprise architecture practice, and positions them as central to the enterprise architecture discourse. Each of these theories can be leveraged by enterprise architecture scholars in their future studies for analyzing enterprise architecture practices through respective theoretical lenses. This article intends to provide fresh theoretical insights on enterprise architecture, spark new waves of theoretical enterprise architecture research, and contribute to the development of a sound theoretical foundation for the enterprise architecture discipline.
Svyatoslav Kotusev; Sherah Kurnia. The theoretical basis of enterprise architecture: A critical review and taxonomy of relevant theories. Journal of Information Technology 2020, 36, 275 -315.
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev, Sherah Kurnia. The theoretical basis of enterprise architecture: A critical review and taxonomy of relevant theories. Journal of Information Technology. 2020; 36 (3):275-315.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev; Sherah Kurnia. 2020. "The theoretical basis of enterprise architecture: A critical review and taxonomy of relevant theories." Journal of Information Technology 36, no. 3: 275-315.
In recent years, the literature has emphasized theory building in the context of Enterprise Architecture (EA) research. Specifically, scholars tend to focus on EA-based capabilities that organize and deploy organization-specific resources to align strategic objectives with the technology’s particular use. Despite the growth in EA studies, substantial gaps remain in the literature. The most substantial gaps are that the conceptualization of EA-based capabilities still lacks a firm base in theory and that there is limited empirical evidence on how EA-based capabilities drive business transformation and deliver benefits to the firm. Therefore, this study focuses on EA-based capabilities, using the dynamic capabilities view as a theoretical foundation, and develops and tests a new research model that explains how dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities lead to organizational benefits. The research model’s hypotheses are tested using a dataset that contains responses from 299 CIO’s, IT managers, and lead architects. Based on this study’s outcomes, we contend that dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities positively enhance firms’ process innovation and business–IT alignment. These mediating forces are both positively associated with organizational benefits. The firms’ EA resources and specifically EA deployment practices are essential in cultivating dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities. This study advances our understanding of how to efficaciously de-lineate dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities in delivering benefits to the organization.
Rogier Van De Wetering; Sherah Kurnia; Svyatoslav Kotusev. The Effect of Enterprise Architecture Deployment Practices on Organizational Benefits: A Dynamic Capability Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8902 .
AMA StyleRogier Van De Wetering, Sherah Kurnia, Svyatoslav Kotusev. The Effect of Enterprise Architecture Deployment Practices on Organizational Benefits: A Dynamic Capability Perspective. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):8902.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRogier Van De Wetering; Sherah Kurnia; Svyatoslav Kotusev. 2020. "The Effect of Enterprise Architecture Deployment Practices on Organizational Benefits: A Dynamic Capability Perspective." Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8902.
Svyatoslav Kotusev. The Hard Side of Business and IT Alignment. IT Professional 2020, 22, 47 -55.
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. The Hard Side of Business and IT Alignment. IT Professional. 2020; 22 (1):47-55.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. 2020. "The Hard Side of Business and IT Alignment." IT Professional 22, no. 1: 47-55.
Enterprise architecture is a description of an enterprise from an integrated business and IT perspective intended to bridge the communication gap between business and IT stakeholders and improve business and IT alignment. Enterprise architecture consists of multiple different artifacts providing certain views of an organization and the available enterprise architecture literature offers a number of comprehensive lists of artifacts that can be used as part of an enterprise architecture practice. However, these lists of enterprise architecture artifacts were never validated empirically and the practical usage of different artifacts still remains largely unexplored. Based on a comprehensive empirical analysis of enterprise architecture artifacts used in 27 diverse organizations, this study identifies the list of 24 common artifacts that proved useful in practice and describes in detail their usage and purpose. Although this study does not attempt to theorize on the findings, it makes a significant empirical contribution to the enterprise architecture discipline. In particular, this study (1) provides the first consistent list of enterprise architecture artifacts that actually proved useful in organizations, (2) offers the first available systematic description of their usage, (3) questions the common view of enterprise architecture as a set of business, information, applications and technology architectures and (4) questions the widely accepted conceptualization of enterprise architecture as a set of the current state, future state and transition roadmap. This study provides compelling empirical evidence in favor of reconceptualizing enterprise architecture and calls for further research in this direction.
Svyatoslav Kotusev. Enterprise architecture and enterprise architecture artifacts: Questioning the old concept in light of new findings. Journal of Information Technology 2019, 34, 102 -128.
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. Enterprise architecture and enterprise architecture artifacts: Questioning the old concept in light of new findings. Journal of Information Technology. 2019; 34 (2):102-128.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. 2019. "Enterprise architecture and enterprise architecture artifacts: Questioning the old concept in light of new findings." Journal of Information Technology 34, no. 2: 102-128.
Organizations use enterprise architecture (EA), which describes an enterprise from an integrated business and IT perspective, to improve business and IT alignment. The literature describes many different methodologies to organize EA practice. However, organizations typically adapt these EA methodologies to their specific needs rather than use them directly “out of the box”. As a result, actual EA practices often differ substantially from the original EA methodologies. Unsurprisingly, establishing a successful EA practice remains troublesome even though multiple detailed methodologies exist. However, researchers have yet to investigate the adaptation of EA methodologies in organizations. In this paper, based on an in-depth qualitative case study, I explore the adaptation of the most popular EA methodology, TOGAF, to address this gap. In this paper, I holistically describe a TOGAF-based EA practice and analyze the adaptation of the TOGAF methodology in an organization. From my findings, I conclude that none of the TOGAF-specific recommendations proved useful in the studied EA practice. Supported by ample indirect evidence available in the existing EA literature, this study questions the value of TOGAF as a standard for EA practice. Moreover, the studied EA practice hardly resembles any established EA methodologies or theoretical conceptualizations. Therefore, the EA practice that this case study describes presents a new, largely unexplored empirical phenomenon. Although this study raises multiple “inconvenient” questions challenging the status quo in the EA discipline, it does not provide definite answers to most of these questions, which calls for further research on methodological aspects of EA practice.
Svyatoslav Svyatoslav Kotusev, RMIT University. TOGAF-based Enterprise Architecture Practice: An Exploratory Case Study. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2018, 43, 321 -359.
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Svyatoslav Kotusev, RMIT University. TOGAF-based Enterprise Architecture Practice: An Exploratory Case Study. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2018; 43 ():321-359.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Svyatoslav Kotusev, RMIT University. 2018. "TOGAF-based Enterprise Architecture Practice: An Exploratory Case Study." Communications of the Association for Information Systems 43, no. : 321-359.
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a description of an enterprise from an integrated business and IT perspective intended to improve business and IT alignment, and is used in the majority of large companies. However, despite that EA was established as an independent discipline long ago, a commonly accepted “big picture” in EA research is still missing. As a result, the scope of the EA discipline is vague, the extent of diversity in EA publications is poorly understood and the progression of the EA research stream over time is unclear. In this paper I conduct a comprehensive EA literature review covering 1075 publications aiming to structure, clarify and consolidate the whole EA research stream. I analyze the distribution of the EA research stream by time, source, research methodology and attitude, code all the issues discussed in EA publications into 42 narrow EA-related topics and 11 broader themes, establish the conceptual relationship between them and present a picture of the EA discipline “on a page”. Moreover, I classify all EA-related topics into four categories according to their lifecycles helping future EA researchers to better understand the evolution of the EA discipline and make the maximum contribution to it.
Svyatoslav Kotusev. Enterprise Architecture: What Did We Study? International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 2017, 26, 1 .
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. Enterprise Architecture: What Did We Study? International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems. 2017; 26 (4):1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. 2017. "Enterprise Architecture: What Did We Study?" International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 26, no. 4: 1.
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a description of an enterprise from an integrated business and IT perspective. Enterprise architecture management (EAM) is a management practice embracing all the management processes related to EA aiming to improve business and IT alignment. EAM is typically described as a sequential four-step process: (i) document the current state, (ii) describe the desired future state, (iii) develop the transition plan and (iv) implement the plan. This traditional four-step approach to EAM essentially defines the modern understanding of EA. Based on a literature review, this paper demonstrates that this four-step approach to EAM, though practiced by some companies, is inadequate as a model explaining the EAM phenomenon in general. As a substitute, this paper synthesizes the generic conceptual model of EAM providing a more realistic conceptualization of EAM describing it as a decentralized network of independent but interacting processes, artifacts and actors.
Svyatoslav Kotusev. Conceptual Model of Enterprise Architecture Management. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 2017, 26, 1 .
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. Conceptual Model of Enterprise Architecture Management. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems. 2017; 26 (3):1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. 2017. "Conceptual Model of Enterprise Architecture Management." International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 26, no. 3: 1.
The current enterprise architecture (EA) theory originates from the Business Systems Planning (BSP) methodology initiated by IBM in the 1960s and describes EA as a comprehensive blueprint of an enterprise organized according to a certain framework and describing the current state, the desired future state and the roadmap for transition between them. However, in this paper I demonstrate that the current EA theory poses more questions than answers and is, arguably, in an unsatisfactory state. This paper highlights the critical questions in EA research and is intended to spark further conversation in the EA research community. All the formulated questions address the fundamental aspects of the current EA theory that are critically important for the whole EA discipline. Although this paper does not propose any answers to these questions, it makes a non-theoretical contribution to the EA discipline by critically evaluating the current EA theory, provoking new thoughts and stimulating further research that will substantially alter the EA discipline in the future.
Svyatoslav Kotusev. Critical Questions in Enterprise Architecture Research. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems 2017, 13, 50 -62.
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. Critical Questions in Enterprise Architecture Research. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems. 2017; 13 (2):50-62.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev. 2017. "Critical Questions in Enterprise Architecture Research." International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems 13, no. 2: 50-62.
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a description of an enterprise from an integrated business and IT perspective. Enterprise architecture management (EAM) is a management practice of using EA aiming to achieve business/IT alignment. Popular EA literature states that EA always includes a documentation of current and future states of enterprises and describes EAM as an iterative step-wise process. However, plenty of evidence suggests that the real situation in EA practice and theory is much more diverse but a consolidated understanding of EAM is absent. In this paper we consolidate EAM research and present (1) a reasonable definition of EA taking into account all that we know about EA practice and (2) a consolidated view of EAM describing what we know about it beyond the most popular approaches. We also discuss the relationship between our consolidated view of EAM and the previous research, its implications and directions for future research.
Svyatoslav Kotusev; Mohini Singh; Ian Storey. Consolidating Enterprise Architecture Management Research. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2015, 4069 -4078.
AMA StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev, Mohini Singh, Ian Storey. Consolidating Enterprise Architecture Management Research. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2015; ():4069-4078.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSvyatoslav Kotusev; Mohini Singh; Ian Storey. 2015. "Consolidating Enterprise Architecture Management Research." 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , no. : 4069-4078.