An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy

Information systems and information technology (IS/IT, hereafter just IT) strategies usually depend on a business strategy. The alignment of both strategies improves their strategic plans. From an external perspective, business and IT alignment is the extent to which the IT strategy enables and drives the business strategy. This article reviews strategic alignment between business and IT, and proposes the use of enterprise engineering (EE) to achieve this alignment. The EE approach facilitates the definition of a formal dialog in the alignment design. In relation to this, new building blocks and life-cycle phases have been defined for their use in an enterprise architecture context. This proposal has been adopted in a critical process of a ceramic tile company for the purpose of aligning a strategic business plan and IT strategy, which are essential to support this process. © 2011 Taylor & Francis.Cuenca, L.; Boza, A.; Ortiz, A. (2011). An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 24(11):974-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2011.579172S9749922411(1993). CIMOSA: Open System Architecture for CIM. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58064-2Ang, J., Shaw, N., & Pavri, F. (1995). Identifying strategic management information systems planning parameters using case studies. International Journal of Information Management, 15(6), 463-474. doi:10.1016/0268-4012(95)00049-dAvison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3), 223-246. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002Avgerou, & McGrath. (2007). Power, Rationality, and the Art of Living through Socio-Technical Change. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 295. doi:10.2307/25148792Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., & Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management, 41(8), 1003-1020. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.10.004Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Schmidt, G. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on Enterprise Architecture. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24744-9Bleistein, S. J., Cox, K., Verner, J., & Phalp, K. T. (2006). B-SCP: A requirements analysis framework for validating strategic alignment of organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process. Information and Software Technology, 48(9), 846-868. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.12.001Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (1998). The information audit: An integrated strategic approach. International Journal of Information Management, 18(1), 29-47. doi:10.1016/s0268-4012(97)00038-8Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2007). The information audit: Role and scope. International Journal of Information Management, 27(3), 159-172. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.01.002Chen, D., & Vernadat, F. (2004). Standards on enterprise integration and engineering—state of the art. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 17(3), 235-253. doi:10.1080/09511920310001607087Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647-659. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.016Chen, H.-M., Kazman, R., & Garg, A. (2005). BITAM: An engineering-principled method for managing misalignments between business and IT architectures. Science of Computer Programming, 57(1), 5-26. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2004.10.002Cuenca, L., Ortiz, A., & Vernadat, F. (2006). From UML or DFD models to CIMOSA partial models and enterprise components. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 19(3), 248-263. doi:10.1080/03081070500065841Davis, G. B. (2000). Information Systems Conceptual Foundations: Looking Backward and Forward. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 61-82. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35505-4_5Gindy, N., Morcos, M., Cerit, B., & Hodgson, A. (2008). Strategic technology alignment roadmapping STAR® aligning R&D investments with business needs. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21(8), 957-970. doi:10.1080/09511920801927148Goethals, F. G., Lemahieu, W., Snoeck, M., & Vandenbulcke, J. A. (2007). The data building blocks of the enterprise architect. Future Generation Computer Systems, 23(2), 269-274. doi:10.1016/j.future.2006.05.004Greefhorst, D., Koning, H., & Vliet, H. van. (2006). The many faces of architectural descriptions. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), 103-113. doi:10.1007/s10796-006-7975-xGregor, S., Hart, D., & Martin, N. (2007). Enterprise architectures: enablers of business strategy and IS/IT alignment in government. Information Technology & People, 20(2), 96-120. doi:10.1108/09593840710758031Hartono, E., Lederer, A. L., Sethi, V., & Zhuang, Y. (2003). Key predictors of the implementation of strategic information systems plans. ACM SIGMIS Database, 34(3), 41-53. doi:10.1145/937742.937747Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472-484. doi:10.1147/sj.382.0472Hirschheim, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Detours in the Path toward Strategic Information Systems Alignment. California Management Review, 44(1), 87-108. doi:10.2307/41166112Hoogervorst, J. A. P. (2009). Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92671-9Johnson, A. M., & Lederer, A. L. (2010). CEO/CIO mutual understanding, strategic alignment, and the contribution of IS to the organization. Information & Management, 47(3), 138-149. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.01.002JONKERS, 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(03), 257-287. doi:10.1142/s0218843004000985King, W. R. (1978). Strategic Planning for Management Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 2(1), 27. doi:10.2307/249104Leonard, J. (2007). Sharing a Vision: comparing business and IS managers’ perceptions of strategic alignment issues. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 15(1). doi:10.3127/ajis.v15i1.299Luftman, J. N., Lewis, P. R., & Oldach, S. H. (1993). Transforming the enterprise: The alignment of business and information technology strategies. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 198-221. doi:10.1147/sj.321.0198Luftman, J., Ben-Zvi, T., Dwivedi, R., & Rigoni, E. H. (2010). IT Governance. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(2), 13-25. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010040102Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani. (2004). Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283. doi:10.2307/25148636Newkirk, H. E., & Lederer, A. L. (2006). Incremental and Comprehensive Strategic Information Systems Planning in an Uncertain Environment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(3), 380-394. doi:10.1109/tem.2006.877446Noran, O. (2003). An analysis of the Zachman framework for enterprise architecture from the GERAM perspective. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 163-183. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2003.09.002Noran, O. (2005). A systematic evaluation of the C4ISR AF using ISO15704 Annex A (GERAM). Computers in Industry, 56(5), 407-427. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2004.12.005Ortiz, A., Lario, F., & Ros, L. (1999). Enterprise Integration—Business Processes Integrated Management: a proposal for a methodology to develop Enterprise Integration Programs. Computers in Industry, 40(2-3), 155-171. doi:10.1016/s0166-3615(99)00021-4Panetto, H., Baïna, S., & Morel, G. (2007). Mapping the IEC 62264 models onto the Zachman framework for analysing products information traceability: a case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(6), 679-698. doi:10.1007/s10845-007-0040-xPapp, R. (Ed.). (2001). Strategic Information Technology. doi:10.4018/978-1-87828-987-2Peñaranda, N., Mejía, R., Romero, D., & Molina, A. (2010). Implementation of product lifecycle management tools using enterprise integration engineering and action-research. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23(10), 853-875. doi:10.1080/0951192x.2010.495136Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81. doi:10.2307/3250980Sledgianowski, D., & Luftman, J. (2005). IT-Business Strategic Alignment Maturity. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(2), 102-120. doi:10.4018/jcit.2005040107Sowa, J. F., & Zachman, J. A. (1992). Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 31(3), 590-616. doi:10.1147/sj.313.0590Van Grembergen, W., & De Haes, S. (2010). A Research Journey into Enterprise Governance of IT, Business/IT Alignment and Value Creation. International Journal of IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(1), 1-13. doi:10.4018/jitbag.2010120401Xueying Wang, Xiongwei Zhou, & Longbin Jiang. (2008). A method of business and IT alignment based on Enterprise Architecture. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics. doi:10.1109/soli.2008.468649

Construction and Applications of Billion-Scale Pre-trained Multimodal Business Knowledge Graph

Business Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are important to many enterprises today, providing factual knowledge and structured data that steer many products and make them more intelligent. Despite their promising benefits, building business KG necessitates solving prohibitive issues of deficient structure and multiple modalities. In this paper, we advance the understanding of the practical challenges related to building KG in non-trivial real-world systems. We introduce the process of building an open business knowledge graph (OpenBG) derived from a well-known enterprise, Alibaba Group. Specifically, we define a core ontology to cover various abstract products and consumption demands, with fine-grained taxonomy and multimodal facts in deployed applications. OpenBG is an open business KG of unprecedented scale: 2.6 billion triples with more than 88 million entities covering over 1 million core classes/concepts and 2,681 types of relations. We release all the open resources (OpenBG benchmarks) derived from it for the community and report experimental results of KG-centric tasks. We also run up an online competition based on OpenBG benchmarks, and has attracted thousands of teams. We further pre-train OpenBG and apply it to many KG- enhanced downstream tasks in business scenarios, demonstrating the effectiveness of billion-scale multimodal knowledge for e-commerce. All the resources with codes have been released at \url{https://github.com/OpenBGBenchmark/OpenBG}.Comment: OpenBG. Work in Progres

Towards the development of the framework for inter sensing enterprise architecture

[EN] Inter-enterprise architecture (IEA) is a new concept that seeks to apply the tools and methodologies of enterprise architecture (EA) in a collaborative context, in order to model collaborative organizations in an inclusive manner. According to the main enterprise architectures proposed to this point, an EA should be conformed at least for a framework, a methodology and a modelling language. Sensing enterprise (SE) is an attribute of an enterprise or a network that allows it to react to business stimuli originating on the Internet. These fields have come into focus recently, and there is not evidence of the use of IEA for modelling a SE, while finding an interesting gap to work on. Thus, this paper proposes an initial framework for inter sensing enterprise architecture (FISEA), which seeks to classify, organize, store and communicate, at the conceptual level, all the elements for inter-sensing enterprise architectures and their relationships, ensuring their consistency and integrity. This FISEA provides a clear idea about the elements and views that create collaborative network and their inter-relationships, based on the support of Future Internet.This work was supported by the European Commission FP7 UNITE Project, through its Secondment Programme and the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia ADENPRO-PJP project (ref. SP20120703).Vargas, A.; Cuenca, L.; Boza, A.; Sacala, I.; Moisescu, M. (2016). Towards the development of the framework for inter sensing enterprise architecture. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. 27(1):55-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0901-zS5572271Adaba, G., Rusu, L., & Mekawy, M. (2010). Business-IT alignment in trade facilitation: A case study. In organizational, business, and technological aspects of the knowledge society. Communications in Computer and Information. Science, 44(112), 146–154.Afsarmanesh, H., & Msanjila, S. (2008). Inter-organizational trust in VBEs. In L. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & M. Ollus (Eds.), Methods and tools for collaborative networked organizations (pp. 91–118). New York: Springer.Afsarmanesh, H., Camarinha-Matos, L., & Ermilova, E. (2008). VBE reference framework. In L. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & M. Ollus (Eds.), Methods and tools for collaborative networked organizations (pp. 35–68). New York: Springer.Arango, M., Londoño, J., & Zapata, J. (2010). Arquitectura empresarial- Una visión general. Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín, 9(16), 101–111.Audy, J., Lehoux, N., & D’Amours, S. (2012). A framework for an efficient implementation of logistics collaborations. International Transactions in Operational Research, 19(5), 633–657.Boza, A., Cuenca, L., Poler, R., Michaelides, Z., & Systems, Enterprise Information. (2014). The interoperability force in the ERP field. Enterprise Information Systems,. doi: 10.1080/17517575.2013.866697Camarinha-Matos, L., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005). Collaborative networks: A new scientific discipline. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16(4–5), 439–452.Camarinha-Matos, L., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). Collaborative networks: Reference modeling. New York: Springer.Camarinha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., & Ollus, M. (2008). ECOLEAD and CNO base concepts. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & M. Ollus (Eds.), Methods and tools for collaborative networked organizations (pp. 35–68). New York: Springer.Chalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2003). ARDIN extension for virtual enterprise integration. The Journal of Systems and Software, 67(3), 141–152.Chen, D., Vallespir, B., & Doumeingts, G. (1997). GRAI integrated methodology and its mapping onto generic enterprise reference architecture and methodology. Computers in Industry, 33(2), 387–394.Choi, Y., Kang, D., Chae, H., & Kim, K. (2008). An enterprise architecture framework for collaboration of virtual enterprise chains. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(11–12), 1065–1078.CIMOSA Asociation. (1996). CIMOSA Primer on key concepts, purpose and business value.Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals CSCMP. (2010). CSCMP. Glosary of terms. from http://cscmp.org/resources-research/glossary-terms . Accessed 9 February 2013Coutinho, C., Cretan, A., Ferreira, C., Ghodous, P., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2014). Service-based negotiation for advanced collaboration in enterprise networks. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,. doi: 10.1007/s10845-013-0857-4Cuenca, L. (2009). Marco arquitectónico para la propuesta IE-GIP. Extensión de la arquitectura CIMOSA. Aplicación a una empresa del sector cerámico. Tesis Doctoral Universidad Politecnica de Valencia.Cuenca, L., Boza, A., & Ortiz, A. (2011). An enterprise engineering approach for the alignment of business and information technology strategy. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 24(11), 974–992.Cuenca, L., Ortiz, A., & Boza, A. (2005). Arquitectura de Empresa. Visión General. Gijón: IX Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización.Dong, X., Liu, Q., & Yin, D. (2008). Business performance, business strategy, and information system strategic alignment: An empirical study on Chinese firms. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 348–354.Ermilova, E., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2007). Modeling and management of profiles and competencies in VBEs. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(5), 561–586.Estimali, H., Gardesh, H., & Sikari, S. (2010). Validating ITIL maturity to strategic business-IT alignment. In 2nd International conference on computer technology and development (ICCTD 2010).European Commission European Society and Media. (2007). Dygital Business Ecosystems. In F. Nachira, P. Dini, A. Nicolai, M. Le Louarn, & L. Rivera (Eds.). http://www.digital-ecosystems.org/book/ . Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Accessed 15 October 2012Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government. (2012). A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture. The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf . Accessed 13 August 2013Franco, R., Gomez, P., Ortiz, A., & Navarro, R. (2012). Integrated approach for interoperability in collaborative networs and service-based ecosystems. In R. Poler, G. Doumeingts, B. Katzy, & R. Chalmeta (Eds.), Enterpise interoperability V (pp. 329–339). London: Springer.Force, I. F. I. P.-I. F. A. C. Task. (1998). GERAM: Generalised enterprise reference architecture and methodology. International Federation for Information Processing, 1(2), 30.Future Internet Enterprise Systems (FInES) Cluster. (2012). FInES Research Roadmap 2025. From http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/enet/documents/fines-research-roadmap-v30_en.pdf . Accessed 13 October 2013Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 472–484.Hu, Q., & Huang, D. (2006). Using the balanced scorecard to achieve sustained IT-business alignment: A case study. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17, 181–204.ISO 15704. (2000). Industrial automation systems–Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies.ISO/CEN 19439. (2006). Enterprise integration–Framework for enterprise modelling.Kilger, C., Reuter, B., & Stadtler, H. (2008). Collaborative planning. In H. Stadtler & C. Kilger (Eds.), Supply chain management and advanced planning-concepts, models software and case studies (pp. 263–284). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., & Zelm, M. (1999). CIMOSA: Enterprise engineering and integration. Computers in Industry, 40(2), 83– 97.Lankhorst, M. (2009). Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis. New York: Springer.Luftman, J. (2004). Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4, 99.Maes, R. (1999). Reconsidering information management through a generic framework. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Department of Accountancy & Information Management.Mehandjiev, N., & Grefen, P. (2010). Dynamic business process formation for instant virtual enterprises. London.Mekawy, M., Rusu, L., & Ahmed, N. (2009). Business and IT alignment: An evaluation of strategic alignment models. In best practices for the knowledge society. Knowledge, Learning, Development and Technology for All, 49, 447–455.Moisescu, M., Sacala, I., Stanescu, A., & Serbanescu, C. (2012). Towards integration of knowledge extraction form process interoperability in future internet enterprise systems. Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, 14(1), 1458–1463.Ortiz, A. (1998). Propuesta para el Desarrollo de Programas de Integración Empresarial en Empresas Industriales. Aplicación a una Empresa del Sector Cerámico: Tesis Doctoral Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.Palmer, C., Harding, J., Swarnkar, R., Das, B., & Young, R. (2013). Generating rules from data mining for collaboration moderator services. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24, 313–330.Pijpers, V., Gordijn, J., & Akkermans, H. (2009). Aligning information system design and business strategy–A starting internet company. In the practice of enterprise modeling. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 15, 47–61.Plaza, J., Burgos, J., & Carmona, E. (2010). Measuring stakeholder integration: Knowledge, interaction and adaptational behavior dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 419–442.Romero, D., Galeano, N., & Molina, A. (2010). Virtual organisation breeding environments value system and its elements. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(3), 267–286.Sacala, I., Moisescu, M., & Repta, D. (2013). Towards the development of the future internet based enterprise in the context of cyber-physical systems. In 2013 19th International conference on control systems and computer science (CSCS), (pp. 405–412).Santana, R., Daneva, M., van Eck, P., & Wieringa, R. (2008). Towards a business-IT aligned maturity model for collaborative networked organizations. In 12th International conference on advanced information systems engineering.Schekkerman, J. (2004). Enterprise architecture validation. Achieving business-aligned and validated entreprise architectures. Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments (IFEAD). http://enterprise-architecture.info/Images/Extended%20Enterprise/Extended%20Enterprise%20Architecture2.htm . Accessed 10 October 2011Schekkerman, J. (2006). Extended enterprise architecture framework essentials guide. Retrieved 2012 from Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments (IFEAD). http://enterprise-architecture.info/Images/E2AF/Extended%20Enterprise%20Architecture%20Framework%20Essentials%20Guide%20v1.5.pdf . Accessed 23 September 2012Stadtler, H. (2009). A framework for collaborative planning and state-of-the-art. OR Spectrum, 31, 5–30.Stelzer, D. (2010). Enterprise architecture principles: Literature review and research directions. Service-Oriented Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 12–21.Swarnkar, R., Choudhary, A., Harding, J., Das, B., & Young, R. (2012). A framework for collaboration moderator services to support knowledge based collaboration. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23, 2003–2023.The, OPEN GROUP. (2011). TOGAF. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/ . Accessed 18 November 2011U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2000). Treasury enterprise architecture framework. http://www.treasury.gov/Pages/default.aspx . Accessed 23 November 2011United States Department of Defense. (2010). Department of defense architecture framework. http://dodcio.defense.gov/dodaf20/dodaf20_capability.aspx . Accessed 28 November 2011Vargas, A., Boza, A., & Cuenca, L. (2011). Towards interoperability through Inter-enterprise collaboration architectures. In R. Meersman, T. Dillon, & P. Herrero (Eds.), On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2011 workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7046, pp. 102–111.Vargas, A., Boza, A., Cuenca, L., & Sacala, I. (2013a). Inter-enterprise architecture and internet of the future. Technological Innovation for the Internet of Things, 394, 25–32.Vargas, A., Boza, A., Cuenca, A., & Ortiz, A. (2013b). Towards a framework for inter-enterprise architecture to boost collaborative networks. In On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2013 workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8186, 179–188.Vargas, A., Boza, A., Cuenca, L., & Ortiz, A. (2014). The importance of strategic alignment in enterprise collaboration. In J. C. Prado-Prado & J. García-Arca (Eds.), Annals of industrial engineering 2012 (pp. 71–78). London: Springer.Vernadat, F. (2003). Enterprise modelling and integration: From fact modelling to enterprise interoperability. Enterprise inter- and intra-organizational integration: Building international consensus. Series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 108.Vesterager, J., Tølle, M., & Bernus, P. (2002). VERA: Virtual enterprise reference. GLOBEMEN final plenary: In GMNBook.Wang, X., Zhou, X., & Jiang, L. (2008). A method of business and IT alignment based on enterprise architecture. In IEEE international conference on service operations and logistics, and informatics, pp. 740–745.Zachman, J. (1997). Enterprise architecture: The issue of the century. Database Programming and Design, 1–13

Organisational learning - a critical systems thinking discipline

Original Paper European Journal of Information Systems (2001) 10, 135–146; doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000394 Organisational learning—a critical systems thinking discipline P Panagiotidis1,3 and J S Edwards2,4 1Deloitte and Touche, Athens, Greece 2Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK Correspondence: Dr J S Edwards, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK. E-mail: [email protected] 3Petros Panagiotidis is Manager responsible for the Process and Systems Integrity Services of Deloitte and Touche in Athens, Greece. He has a BSc in Business Administration and an MSc in Management Information Systems from Western International University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; an MSc in Business Systems Analysis and Design from City University, London, UK; and a PhD degree from Aston University, Birmingham, UK. His doctorate was in Business Systems Analysis and Design. His principal interests now are in the ERP/DSS field, where he serves as project leader and project risk managment leader in the implementation of SAP and JD Edwards/Cognos in various major clients in the telecommunications and manufacturing sectors. In addition, he is responsible for the development and application of knowledge management systems and activity-based costing systems. 4John S Edwards is Senior Lecturer in Operational Research and Systems at Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK. He holds MA and PhD degrees (in mathematics and operational research respectively) from Cambridge University. His principal research interests are in knowledge management and decision support, especially methods and processes for system development. He has written more than 30 research papers on these topics, and two books, Building Knowledge-based Systems and Decision Making with Computers, both published by Pitman. Current research work includes the effect of scale of operations on knowledge management, interfacing expert systems with simulation models, process modelling in law and legal services, and a study of the use of artifical intelligence techniques in management accounting. Top of pageAbstract This paper deals with the application of critical systems thinking in the domain of organisational learning and knowledge management. Its viewpoint is that deep organisational learning only takes place when the business systems' stakeholders reflect on their actions and thus inquire about their purpose(s) in relation to the business system and the other stakeholders they perceive to exist. This is done by reflecting both on the sources of motivation and/or deception that are contained in their purpose, and also on the sources of collective motivation and/or deception that are contained in the business system's purpose. The development of an organisational information system that captures, manages and institutionalises meaningful information—a knowledge management system—cannot be separated from organisational learning practices, since it should be the result of these very practices. Although Senge's five disciplines provide a useful starting-point in looking at organisational learning, we argue for a critical systems approach, instead of an uncritical Systems Dynamics one that concentrates only on the organisational learning practices. We proceed to outline a methodology called Business Systems Purpose Analysis (BSPA) that offers a participatory structure for team and organisational learning, upon which the stakeholders can take legitimate action that is based on the force of the better argument. In addition, the organisational learning process in BSPA leads to the development of an intrinsically motivated information organisational system that allows for the institutionalisation of the learning process itself in the form of an organisational knowledge management system. This could be a specific application, or something as wide-ranging as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation. Examples of the use of BSPA in two ERP implementations are presented

Construction informatics in Turkey: strategic role of ICT and future research directions

Construction Informatics deals with subjects ranging from strategic management of ICTs to interoperability and information integration in the construction industry. Studies on defining research directions for Construction Informatics have a history over 20 years. The recent studies in the area highlight the priority themes for Construction Informatics research as interoperability, collaboration support, intelligent sites and knowledge sharing. In parallel, today it is widely accepted in the Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry that ICT is becoming a strategic asset for any organisation to deliver business improvement and achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, traditionally the AEC industry has approached investing in ICT with a lack of strategic focus and low level of priority to the business. This paper presents a recent study from Turkey that is focused on two themes. The first theme investigates the strategic role of ICT implementations from an industrial perspective, and explores if organisations within the AEC industry view ICT as a strategic resource for their business practice. The second theme investigates the ‘perspective of academia’ in terms of future research directions of Construction Informatics. The results of the industrial study indicates that ICT is seen as a value-adding resource, but a shift towards the recognition of the importance of ICT in terms of value adding in winning work and achieving strategic competitive advantage is observed. On the other hand, ICT Training is found to be the theme of highest priority from the academia point of view

Asset Building in Low-income Communities of Color, Part 2

Examines practices and policies in states not ranked highly for promoting asset building in large communities of color. Compares factors viewed as supportive of asset accumulation as well as promising practices with those in states ranked highly

Competences of IT Architects

The field of architecture in the digital world uses a plethora of terms to refer to different kinds of architects, and recognises a confusing variety of competences that these architects are required to have. Different service providers use different terms for similar architects and even if they use the same term, they may mean something different. This makes it hard for customers to know what competences an architect can be expected to have.\ud \ud This book combines competence profiles of the NGI Platform for IT Professionals, The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), as well as a number of Dutch IT service providers in a comprehensive framework. Using this framework, the book shows that notwithstanding a large variety in terminology, there is convergence towards a common set of competence profiles. In other words, when looking beyond terminological differences by using the framework, one sees that organizations recognize similar types of architects, and that similar architects in different organisations have similar competence profiles. The framework presented in this book thus provides an instrument to position architecture services as offered by IT service providers and as used by their customers.\ud \ud The framework and the competence profiles presented in this book are the main results of the special interest group “Professionalisation” of the Netherlands Architecture Forum for the Digital World (NAF). Members of this group, as well as students of the universities of Twente and Nijmegen have contributed to the research on which this book is based

Construction informatics in Turkey: strategic role of ICT and future research directions

Construction Informatics deals with subjects ranging from strategic management of ICTs to interoperability and information integration in the construction industry. Studies on defining research directions for Construction Informatics have a history over 20 years. The recent studies in the area highlight the priority themes for Construction Informatics research as interoperability, collaboration support, intelligent sites and knowledge sharing. In parallel, today it is widely accepted in the Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) industry that ICT is becoming a strategic asset for any organisation to deliver business improvement and achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, traditionally the AEC industry has approached investing in ICT with a lack of strategic focus and low level of priority to the business. This paper presents a recent study from Turkey that is focused on two themes. The first theme investigates the strategic role of ICT implementations from an industrial perspective, and explores if organisations within the AEC industry view ICT as a strategic resource for their business practice. The second theme investigates the ‘perspective of academia’ in terms of future research directions of Construction Informatics. The results of the industrial study indicates that ICT is seen as a value-adding resource, but a shift towards the recognition of the importance of ICT in terms of value adding in winning work and achieving strategic competitive advantage is observed. On the other hand, ICT Training is found to be the theme of highest priority from the academia point of view

Situational Enterprise Services

The ability to rapidly find potential business partners as well as rapidly set up a collaborative business process is desirable in the face of market turbulence. Collaborative business processes are increasingly dependent on the integration of business information systems. Traditional linking of business processes has a large ad hoc character. Implementing situational enterprise services in an appropriate way will deliver the business more flexibility, adaptability and agility. Service-oriented architectures (SOA) are rapidly becoming the dominant computing paradigm. It is now being embraced by organizations everywhere as the key to business agility. Web 2.0 technologies such as AJAX on the other hand provide good user interactions for successful service discovery, selection, adaptation, invocation and service construction. They also balance automatic integration of services and human interactions, disconnecting content from presentation in the delivery of the service. Another Web technology, such as semantic Web, makes automatic service discovery, mediation and composition possible. Integrating SOA, Web 2.0 Technologies and Semantic Web into a service-oriented virtual enterprise connects business processes in a much more horizontal fashion. To be able run these services consistently across the enterprise, an enterprise infrastructure that provides enterprise architecture and security foundation is necessary. The world is constantly changing. So does the business environment. An agile enterprise needs to be able to quickly and cost-effectively change how it does business and who it does business with. Knowing, adapting to diffident situations is an important aspect of today’s business environment. The changes in an operating environment can happen implicitly and explicitly. The changes can be caused by different factors in the application domain. Changes can also happen for the purpose of organizing information in a better way. Changes can be further made according to the users' needs such as incorporating additional functionalities. Handling and managing diffident situations of service-oriented enterprises are important aspects of business environment. In the chapter, we will investigate how to apply new Web technologies to develop, deploy and executing enterprise services