Enterprise Architecture
To Business or Not to Business? That Is The Question!
Nestori Syynimaa
Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Gerenios Ltd, Tampere, Finland
Sovelto Plc, Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, Scope, Business, ICT.
Abstract: The concept of enterprise architecture (EA) is widely known in Information Systems (IS) field. Traditionally
EA is categorized as an IS issue, focusing mainly on information and communications technology (ICT)
aspects. Recently some researchers have insisted that the scholars and practitioners should pay more attention
to the business aspects EA. This scoping study seeks to find out the current status of EA research in
Management Science (MS) field. For this purpose, we reviewed the top MS journals to find out if and how
the concepts related to EA are researched by MS scholars. The results revealed that EA concepts are
researched by MS scholars and reported in top MS literature. However, although conceptually same, the
vocabulary used in EA and MS fields are different.
1 INTRODUCTION
Enterprise Architecture (EA) was introduced in
1980’s and has been in the interest of scholars and
practitioners ever since. The seminal article by John
Zachman (1987) introduced us a framework for
information systems architecture. Since then, EA has
been seen as an Information Systems (IS) issue
(Gregor, Hart, & Martin, 2007). EA frameworks,
such as TOGAF (The Open Group, 2009), has
typically four layers; business, information,
information systems, and technology. The business
layer includes concepts such as business services and
business processes; issues typically studied in
Management Sciences (MS). However, it is very
common that EA is used merely to describe the
business, not to manage or develop it. Recently some
scholars have insisted that EA should more strongly
pay attention to areas outside ICT, including business
management (Rahimi, Gøtze, & Møller, 2017). A
recent study demonstrated that the term “enterprise
architecture” does not appear in the studies published
in the top MS journals (Syynimaa, 2017). This
implies that either MS scholars are not studying
anything related to EA or that they are using different
terminology. The motivation for this paper is to find
out whether the EA related concepts are studied in
MS field.
Let us first define the concepts and terms used in this
paper. We define enterprise architecture as a formal
description of the current and future state of the
enterprise, and a managed change from the current
state towards a desired future state (Syynimaa, 2015).
Formal description means that the descriptions are
produced using a pre-defined notation agreed to be
used in the enterprise. For this purpose, notations
such as ArchiMate (Jonkers et al., 2004) can be used.
Managed change refers to an endeavour where the
enterprise is deliberately changed from the current
state to the planned future state. By enterprise, we
refer to a social organization defined by its
boundaries (Syynimaa, 2017). These boundaries are
not fixed and depend on what we choose to include to
the enterprise, as illustrated in Figure 1. Thus, besides
being a social organisation, it is also a system of social
organisations. If we follow Boulding’s (1956)
definition, the system is located in its environment.
The environment can be defined as uncontrollable
variables residing outside enterprise’s boundaries
(Rahimi et al., 2017).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
the next section, we will briefly summarize findings
from our previous literature review on EA. In the
third section, we introduce our research method and
walk through the research process. The results of the
Syynimaa, N.
Enterprise Architecture.
DOI: 10.5220/0006685106230631
In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2018), pages 623-631
ISBN: 978-989-758-298-1
Copyright
c
 2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
623

literature review are presented in the fourth section,
followed by a discussion.
Figure 1: Hierarchical Levels of Enterprise Architecture
(adapted from Syynimaa, 2017).
2 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
IN IS AND MS LITERATURE
In our previous paper (Syynimaa, 2017) we studied
the underpinning theories of enterprise architecture.
As part of that study, we conducted a literature review
including the leading IS and MS journals. We focused
on leading journals because the state-of-the-art of any
discipline is likely to be found from the top journals
(Webster & Watson, 2002). In the review, we
searched top IS journals ranked by Association of
Information Systems (AIS, 2011) between 2000 and
2016 for the term “enterprise architecture”. The
results are presented in Table 1 (rows 1 to 8). As the
results indicate, we found 14 EA articles from the top
IS journals. We also decided to include MISQE in our
review, and, to our surprise, we found 10 EA articles.
This encouraged us to include top MS journals to our
review as ranked by Association of Business Schools
(ABS, 2010). Results are presented in Table 1 (rows
10 to 16). As it can be seen, unfortunately, we did not
find any EA articles from top MS journals.
As mentioned earlier, this led us to a conclusion
that EA is still seen purely as an IS issue or that
different terminology is used by MS scholars.
3 RESEARCH METHOD
Enterprise architecture as a discipline is relatively
young when compared for instance to IS and MS.
Table 1: EA Literature on top IS and MS Journals 2000-
2006.
Journal
# of EA
articles
1. European Journal of Information
S
y
stems
6
2. Information Systems Journal 3
3. Information Systems Research 0
4. Journal of AIS 2
5. Journal of Information Technology 1
6. Journal of MIS 1
7. Journal of Strategic Information
S
y
stems
1
8. MIS Quarterly 0
9. MIS Quarterly Executive 10
10. Academy of Management Journal 0
11. Academy of Management Review 0
12. Administrative Science Quarterly 0
13. Journal of Management 0
14. British Journal of Management 0
15. Journal of Management Studies 0
16. Harvard Business Review 0
Total 24
When conducting a literature review on young
discipline, it is recommended to include literature
from other disciplines (Webster & Watson, 2002). As
the results of the previous section revealed, the term
“enterprise architecture” is not used in MS literature.
Therefore, we need to consider other search terms to
find possibly relevant literature.
The concept of enterprise architecture has two
components; a description of an enterprise and a
managed change between the current and future states
of the enterprise. Thus, it would be natural to use
these constituent concepts (i.e. description, change,
and enterprise) as search terms. For better coverage,
we used Oxford Dictionaries (2010) to find synonyms
for each term. The concepts and search terms are
listed in Table 2.
We used EBSCOhost Business Source Elite to
search each top MS journals listed in Table 1. The
search had two rounds, one for each search term sets.
The first set contains the description search terms and
enterprise terms, and the second one change search
terms and enterprise terms. In the first round, we
searched for “(TI (<description>)) AND
(TI (<enterprise))” where <description>
Department
Organisation
Industry
sector
Society
Individual
ICEIS 2018 - 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
624

Table 2: Literature Review Concepts and Search Terms.
Concep
t
Search terms
description representation depiction
delienation rendition
characterization description
model
change alte
r
adjus
t
adapt turn
improve modify
convert revise
recast reform
reshape redesign
remake remodel
reorganize refine
transfor
m
enterprise
b
usiness wor
k
firm company
enterprise venture
organization corporation
bureau office
strategy
concept, and <enterprise> to all search terms of the
enterprise concept. On the second round we searched
for “(TI (<change>)) AND (TI
(<enterprise))”, where <change> refers to all
search terms of the change concept.
In total, 145 articles were found. After reading the
abstracts and removing out-of-scope articles, 86
articles remained. The full list of the articles can be
seen in Appendix. The number of articles per journal
is summarised in Table 3.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Statistics
We categorized the publications by their type
(description and change) and by their focus. For the
focus, we used the hierarchical levels of enterprise, as
illustrated in Figure 1. The summary is presented in
Table 4.
Most of the articles (81/86) were related to
descriptions of the enterprise, while only five was
about the change. If we study the findings by the
hierarchical level, we can see that the focus of the
most of articles (73/86) was the organisation.
The timescale of the articles was from 1930 to
2017. As it can be seen in Figure 2, majority of
articles were published after 1970 and a peak year (8
artiles) was 2011.
Table 3: Literature Review Publications.
Journal
# of
articles
1. Academy of Management Journal 10
3. Academy of Management Review 24
3. Administrative Science Quarterly 5
4. Journal of Management 11
5. British Journal of Management 7
6. Journal of Management Studies 11
7. Harvard Business Review 18
Total 86
Table 4: Literature Review Summary.
Level
Publications
Description Change Total
Society 3 1 4
Industry sector 6 0 6
Organisation 69 4 73
Department 0 0 0
Individual 3 0 3
Total 81 5 86
Figure 2: Published Articles per Year.
4.2 Findings
As the results revealed, the majority of the articles
found from top MS journals were about modelling
organisations. For instance, Zott, Amit & Massa
(2011) provided a review of recent developments and
future research of business models, Ovans (2000)
discussed the patentability of business models, and
Foss & Saebi (2017) provided a review of 15 years of
business model innovation. The business model can
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1930 1963 1966 1968 1976 1978 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2014 2016
# Articles
Publication Year
Enterprise Architecture
625

be simply defined as a plan how an organisation
makes money (Lewis, 1999). Although it is not called
a business architecture, that is what the business
model in essence is.
Models for organisations have been crafted long
before the introduction of enterprise architecture. For
instance, Nutt (1976) presented six decision-making
models to assists with organisational decision
making, and Beach and Mitchell (1978) modelled a
process how decision makers choose a strategy for the
organisation. The question how to model
organisations goes even further back. For instance,
Brown (1967) introduced various techniques how to
model organisations.
Choosing a strategy to an organisation is
conceptually same than choosing or creating a future
state business architecture. Similarly, executing the
strategy (i.e., change) is conceptually same than the
managed change from the current state to the future
state of the organisation. Therefore, it was a surprise
that there were only five articles related to change. It
was assumed that executing the change would be in
the more important role in MS journals. The low
number of change articles can partly be explained by
the categorisation used in this paper. For instance, if
the article proposed a new way to execute a change,
that is actually a new model of performing your job,
and therefore categorised as a model type of article.
The role of information and communications
technology (ICT) also seems to be an important issue
in MS literature. For instance, Dewett and Jones
(2001) discussed the role of ICT in organizations.
According to their findings, ICT effects enterprise’s
strategic outcomes, efficiency and innovation. This is
hardly a surprise to IS scholars but may indicate the
rising understanding and interest of ICT among MS
scholars.
The literature review, including the articles above,
clearly indicates that although the term enterprise
architecture is not present in MS journals and likely
not known to MS scholars, the constituent
components of enterprise architecture are. The rising
importance of ICT and the need to quickly adapt to
the changing environment calls for more
comprehensive planning, taking into account the
whole organisation and its components. This is where
we believe enterprise architecture could help.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusions
In this scoping study, we researched management
science (MS) literature to find out whether the
constituent concepts of enterprise architecture (EA)
are researched by MS scholars. As the results
revealed, these concepts, namely a description and a
managed change of an enterprise, are indeed
researched by MS scholars. When MS scholars are
studying the enterprise’s plans for the future, they do
not call them future state architecture descriptions but
business models and strategies. Nevertheless,
conceptually these are same things, which indicates
that there is a potential terminology issue among IS
and MS scholars. This is problematic as it may widen
the gap between business and ICT.
5.2 Implications
The evidence from the literature review shows that
the concepts of enterprise architecture are researched
also by MS scholars. Authors would like to encourage
EA scholars to expand the scope of EA outside of
traditional ICT and IS thinking. We believe that both
fields would greatly benefit from the future
cooperation.
5.3 Limitations
This study is a scoping study and, as such, is touching
only a limited portion of available MS literature. The
literature review did not cover, for instance, scientific
conferences or books. However, we believe that by
systemically researching the top MS literature gave
us a reasonable view of the current state of enterprise
architecture research in MS field.
5.4 Directions for Future Research
The limitations mentioned above led to the first
suggestion for further research. A more
comprehensive study of MS literature would likely
give a better view of how EA research is currently
evolving in MS field. Also, it would help to confirm
our results.
The second direction for future research would be
to study the terminology used by EA and MS
scholars. It would be interesting to know how
different the used terminology of conceptually same
thing is, and does the differences affect the
cooperation.
REFERENCES
ABS. (2010). Academic Journal Quality Guide. Version 4.
Retrieved from http://www.associationofbusiness
ICEIS 2018 - 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
626

schools.org/sites/default/files/Combined%20Journal%
20Guide.pdf
AIS. (2011). Senior Scholars' Basket of Journals.
Retrieved from http://aisnet.org/general/custom.asp
?page=SeniorScholarBasket
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A Contingency
Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies.
Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439-449.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1978.4305717
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General Systems Theory-The
Skeleton of Science. Management Science, 2(3), 197-
208. doi:doi:10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197
Brown, W. B. (1967). Model-Building and Organizations.
Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 10(2),
169-178. doi:10.2307/254635
Dewett, T., & Jones, G. R. (2001). The role of information
technology in the organization: a review, model, and
assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 313-346.
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen Years of Research
on Business Model Innovation. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 200-227.
doi:10.1177/0149206316675927
Gregor, 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.
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.
Lewis, M. (1999). The New New Thing: A Silicon Valley
Story. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Nutt, P. C. (1976). Models for Decision Making in
Organizations and Some Contextual Variables Which
Stipulate Optimal Use. Academy of Management
Review, 1(2), 84-98. doi:10.5465/AMR.1976.4408670
Ovans, A. (2000). Can You Patent Your Business Model?
Harvard Business Review, 78, 16-16.
Oxford Dictionaries. (2010). Oxford Dictionaries. April
2010. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/
Rahimi, F., Gøtze, J., & Møller, C. (2017). Enterprise
Architecture Management: Toward a Taxonomy of
Applications. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 40(1, Article 7), 120-166.
Syynimaa, N. (2015). Modeling the Dynamics of Enterprise
Architecture Adoption Process. Paper presented at the
ICEIS 2015, LNBIP 241.
Syynimaa, N. (2017). The Quest for Underpinning Theory
of Enterprise Architecture: General Systems Theory.
Paper presented at the 19
th
International Conference on
Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017), Porto,
Portugal.
The Open Group. (2009). TOGAF Version 9. Zaltbommel,
Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to
Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.
MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13-23.
Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information
systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3).
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business
Model: Recent Developments and Future Research.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-1042.
doi:10.1177/0149206311406265
Enterprise Architecture
627

APPENDIX: LITERATURE REVIEW ARTICLES
Article
Type Focus
Description Change Individual Organisatio Industry Societ
y
Anderson, R. L., & Terborg, J. R. (1988). Employee Beliefs and Support for a Work Redesign Intervention. Journal
of Management, 14(3), 493-503.
X X
Andrew, G. (1965). An Analytic System Model for Organization Theory. Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge, 8(3), 190-210. doi:10.2307/254787
X X
Arogyaswamy, K., Barker, I. I. I. V. L., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1995). FIRM TURNAROUNDS: AN
INTERGRATIVE TWO-STAGE MODEL. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 493-525.
X X
Barney, J. (1991). Special Theory Forum: The Resource-Based Model of the Firm: Origins, Implications, and
Prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97.
X X
Bartlett, D. (2003). Management and Business Ethics: A Critique and Integration of Ethical Decision-making
Models. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 223-235. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00376
X X
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies. Academy of
Management Review, 3(3), 439-449. doi:10.5465/AMR.1978.4305717
X X
Behling, O. (1980). The Case for the Natural Science Model for Research in Organizational Behavior and
Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 483-490. doi:10.5465/AMR.1980.4288944
X X
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). DOES STAKEHOLDER ORIENTATION
MATTER? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT MODELS AND FIRM
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 42(5), 488-506.
doi:10.2307/256972
X X
Betton, J., & Dess, G. G. (1985). The Application of Population Ecology Models to the Study of Organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 750-757. doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4279098
X X
Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. (2012). The Effects of Culture and Structure on Strategic
Flexibility during Business Model Innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 279-305.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01030.x
X X
Bogner, W. C., & Thomas, H. (1993). THE ROLE OF COMPETITIVE GROUPS IN STRATEGY
FORMULATION: A DYNAMIC INTEGRATION OF TWO COMPETING MODELS.
J
ournal of Management
Studies, 30(1), 51-67.
X X
Brown, W. B. (1967). Model-Building and Organizations. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 10(2),
169-178. doi:10.2307/254635
X X
Buckland, R. (2009). Private and Public Sector Models for Strategies in Universities. British Journal of
Management, 20(4), 524-536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00593.x
X X
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A Model of the Interaction of Strategic Behavior, Corporate Context, and the Concept of
Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 61-70. doi:10.5465/AMR.1983.4287661
X
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm.
Administrative science quarterly, 28(2), 223-244.
X X
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to Design A Winning Business Model. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1/2), 100-107.
X
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Tarziján, J. (2012). When One Business Model Isn't Enough. Harvard Business Review,
90(1/2), 132-137.
X X
Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three Models of Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 89-98.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4277354
X X
Chandler, D., & Hwang, H. (2015). Learning From Learning Theory: A Model of Organizational Adoption
Strategies at the Microfoundations of Institutional Theory. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1446-1476.
doi:10.1177/0149206315572698
X
Charan, R. (1991). How Networks Reshape Organizations--For Results. Harvard Business Review, 69(5), 104-115. X X
Cliffe, S. (2011). When Your Business Model Is in Trouble. Harvard Business Review, 89, 96-98. X X
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Dau, L. A. (2009). PROMARKET REFORMS AND FIRM PROFITABILITY IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 52(6), 1348-1368.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.47085192
X X
ICEIS 2018 - 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
628

Article
Type Focus
Description Change Individual Organisatio Industry Societ
y
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. Academy of
Management Review, 9(2), 284-295. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277657
X X
Dewett, T., & Jones, G. R. (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: a review, model, and
assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 313-346.
X X
Dyck, B., & Starke, F. A. (1999). The Formation of Breakaway Organizations: Observations and a Process Model.
Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 792-822.
X X
Eddy, W. B., Boyles, B. R., & Frost, C. F. (1968). A Multivariate Description Of Organization Process. Harvard
Business School Working Knowledge, 11(1), 49-61. doi:10.2307/255196
X X
Elangovan, A. R. (1995). MANAGERIAL THIRD-PARTY DISPUTE INTERVENTION: A PRESCRIPTIVE
MODEL OF STRATEGY SELECTION. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 800-830.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9512280022
X X
Eyring, M. J., Johnson, M. W., & Nair, H. (2011). New Business Models In Emerging Markets. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1/2), 88-95.
X X
Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation. Journal of Management,
43(1), 200-227. doi:10.1177/0149206316675927
X X
French, W. (1963). Process Vis-a-Vis Systems: Toward a Model of the Enterprise and Administration. Harvard
Business School Working Knowledge, 6(1), 46-57. doi:10.2307/254876
X X
Friesen, P. H., & Miller, D. (1986). A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF
ORGANIZATIONS. Journal of Management Studies, 23(1), 1-25.
X X
Gaddis Ross, D. (2014). TAKING A CHANCE: A FORMAL MODEL OF HOW FIRMS USE RISK IN
STRATEGIC INTERACTION WITH OTHER FIRMS. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 202-226.
doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0107
X X
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2011). How to Build Risk into Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review, 89(5),
100-105.
X X
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2014). four paths to business model innovation. Harvard Business Review, 92(7/8), 96-
103.
X X
Golembiewski, R. T. (1966). Personality and Organization Structure: Staff Models and Behavioral Patterns.
H
arvard
Business School Working Knowledge, 9(3), 217-232. doi:10.2307/255120
X X
Gong, Y. (2003). Toward a Dynamic Process Model of Staffing Composition and Subsidiary Outcomes in
Multinational Enterprises. Journal of Management, 29(2), 259-280.
X X
Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2011). The CEO's Role In Business Model Reinvention. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1/2), 108-114.
X X
Gragg, C. I. (1939). REFORM LAW AND BUSINESS STATESMANSHIP. Harvard Business Review, 17(4), 414. X X
Griffin, R. W. (1991). RESEARCH NOTES. EFFECTS OF WORK REDESIGN ON EMPLOYEE PERCEPTIONS,
ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIORS: A LONG-TERM INVESTIGATION. Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge, 34(2), 425-435. doi:10.2307/256449
X X
Gyllenhammar, P. G. (1977). How Volvo adapts work to people. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 102-113. X X
Hanan, M. (1974). Reorganize your company around its markets. Harvard Business Review, 52(6), 63. X X
Hansen, J. R., & Jacobsen, C. B. (2016). Changing Strategy Processes and Strategy Content in Public Sector
Organizations? A Longitudinal Case Study of NPM Reforms' Influence on Strategic Management. British
Journal of Management, 27(2), 373-389. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12157
X X
Harrison, J. R., & Carroll, G. R. (1991). Keeping the Faith: A Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal
Organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 36(4), 552-582.
X X
Heinen, J. S., & Jacobson, E. (1976). A Model of Task Group Development in Complex Organizations and a
Strategy of Implementation. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 98-111. doi:10.5465/AMR.1976.4396620
X X
Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). CORPORATE POLITICAL STRATEGY FORMULATION: A MODEL OF
APPROACH, PARTICIPATION, AND STRATEGY DECISIONS. Academy of Management Review, 24(4),
825-842. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2553256
X X
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for
Research in Organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623-641.
X X
Enterprise Architecture
629

Article
Type Focus
Description Change Individual Organisatio Industry Societ
y
Hoy, F., & Hellriegel, D. (1982). The Kilmann and Herden Model of Organizational Effectiveness Criteria for Small
Business Managers. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 25(2), 308-322. doi:10.2307/255993
X X
Hunt, B. C. (1930). RECENT ENGLISH COMPANY LAW REFORM. Harvard Business Review, 8(2), 170-183. X X
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing Your Business Model. (cover story).
Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50-59.
X X
Kahn, W. A., & Kram, K. E. (1994). AUTHORITY AT WORK: INTERNAL MODELS AND THEIR
ORGANIZATIONAL CONSEQUENCES. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 17-50.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1994.9410122007
X X
Kavadias, S., Ladas, K., & Loch, C. (2016). THE TRANSFORMATIVE BUSINESS MODEL. Harvard Business
Review, 94(10), 90-98.
X X
Kehr, H. M. (2004). INTEGRATING IMPLICIT MOTIVES, EXPLICIT MOTIVES, AND PERCEIVED
ABILITIES: THE COMPENSATORY MODEL OF WORK MOTIVATION AND VOLITION. Academy of
Management Review, 29(3), 479-499. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670963
X X
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). THE IMPACT OF CULTURAL VALUES ON EMPLOYEE
RESISTANCE TO TEAMS: TOWARD A MODEL OF GLOBALIZED SELF-MANAGING WORK TEAM
EFFECTIVENESS. Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 730-757. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9708210724
X X
Klein, H. J. (1989). An Integrated Control Theory Model of Work Motivation. Academy of Management Review,
14(2), 150-172. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4282072
X X
Klein, J. I. (1989). PARENTHETIC LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS: TOWARD THE UNLEARNING OF
THE UNLEARNING MODEL. Journal of Management Studies, 26(3), 291-308.
X X
Klein, J. I. (1990). Feasibility Theory: A Resource-Munificence Model of Work Motivation and Behavior. Academy
of Management Review, 15(4), 646-665. doi:10.5465/AMR.1990.4310871
X X
Kotha, R., Kim, P. H., & Alexy, O. (2014). TURN YOUR SCIENCE INTO A BUSINESS. Harvard Business
Review, 92(11), 106-114.
X X
Kroll, M., & Caples, S. (1987). Managing Acquisitions of Strategic Business Units with the Aid of the Arbitrage
Pricing Model. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 676-685. doi:10.5465/AMR.1987.4306719
X X
Lange, K., Geppert, M., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Becker-Ritterspach, F. (2015). Changing Business Models and
Employee Representation in the Airline Industry: A Comparison of British Airways and Deutsche Lufthansa.
British Journal of Management, 26(3), 388-407. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12096
X X
Litschert, R. J., & Bonham, T. W. (1978). A Conceptual Model of Strategy Formation. Academy of Management
Review, 3(2), 211-219. doi:10.5465/AMR.1978.4294847
X X
Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H.-y. (2005). An Action Pattern Model of Inter-firm Cooperation. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(6), 1123-1153. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00536.x
X X
Lähdesmäki, M., & Siltaoja, M. (2010). Towards a Variety of Meanings – Multiple Representations of Reputation in
the Small Business Context. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 207-222. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2009.00631.x
X X
Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86-92. X X
Mahoney, J. T. (1992). THE ADOPTION OF THE MULTIDIVISIONAL FORM OF ORGANIZATION: A
CONTINGENCY MODEL. Journal of Management Studies, 29(1), 49-72.
X X
Malos, S. B., & Campion, M. A. (1995). AN OPTIONS-BASED MODEL OF CAREER MOBILITY IN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 611-644.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080332
X X
Mason, K. J., & Leek, S. (2008). Learning to Build a Supply Network: An Exploration of Dynamic Business
Models. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 774-799. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00769.x
X X
Montanari, J. R. (1978). Managerial Discretion: An Expanded Model of Organization Choice. Academy of
Management Review, 3(2), 231-241. doi:10.5465/AMR.1978.4294853
X X
N
eilsen, E. H., & Rao, M. V. H. (1987). The Strategy-Legitimacy Nexus: A Thick Description. Academy of
Management Review, 12(3), 523-533. doi:10.5465/AMR.1987.4306567
X X
ICEIS 2018 - 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
630

Article
Type Focus
Description Change Individual Organisatio Industry Societ
y
N
emiroff, P. M., Ford, D. L., & Jr. (1976). Task Effectiveness and Human Fulfillment in Organizations: A Review
and Development of a Conceptual Contingency Model. Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 69-82.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1976.4396478
X X
N
utt, P. C. (1976). Models for Decision Making in Organizations and Some Contextual Variables Which Stipulate
Optimal Use. Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 84-98. doi:10.5465/AMR.1976.4408670
X X
O'Farrell, P. N., & Moffat, L. A. R. (1991). An Interaction Model of Business Service Production and Consumption.
British Journal of Management, 2(4), 205.
X X
Ovans, A. (2000). Can You Patent Your Business Model? Harvard Business Review, 78, 16-16. X X
Patzelt, H., zu Knyphausen-Aufse, D., & Nikol, P. (2008). Top Management Teams, Business Models, and
Performance of Biotechnology Ventures: An Upper Echelon Perspective. British Journal of Management, 19(3),
205-221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00552.x
X X
Paul, K., & Barbato, R. (1985). The Multinational Corporation in the Less Developed Country: The Economic
Development Model Versus the North-South Model. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 8-14.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4277326
X X
Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2015). DISTANT SEARCH, NARROW ATTENTION: HOW CROWDING
ALTERS ORGANIZATIONS' FILTERING OF SUGGESTIONS IN CROWDSOURCING. Harvard Business
School Working Knowledge, 58(3), 856-880. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0458
X X
Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the 'Realist Turn' in Organization and Management Studies. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(8), 1621-1644. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00559.x
X X
Shin, Y. (2004). A Person-Environment Fit Model for Virtual Organizations. Journal of Management, 30(5), 725-
743. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.03.002
X X
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and
Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-
1289. doi:10.1177/0149206310385943
X X
Slater, S. F., & Zwirlein, T. J. (1992). Shareholder Value and Investment Strategy Using the General Portfolio
Model. Journal of Management, 18(4), 717.
X X
Spencer, B. A. (1994). MODELS OF ORGANIZATION AND TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT: A
COMPARISON AND CRITICAL EVALUATION. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 446-471.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1994.9412271807
X X
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The
Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935. Administrative science quarterly, 28(1), 22-39.
X X
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). A Task Contingent Model Of Work-Unit Structure. Administrative
science quarterly, 19(2), 183-197.
X X
Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A Multi-Theoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations:
Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 141-
173. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00586.x
X X
Yiu, D. W., Lu, Y., Bruton, G. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2007). Business Groups: An Integrated Model to Focus
Future Research. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1551-1579. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00735.x
X X
Zook, C., & Allen, J. (2011). The Great Repeatable Business Model. Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 106-114. X X
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1019-1042. doi:10.1177/0149206311406265
X X
Enterprise Architecture
631