Table of context Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction / Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Research questions ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Theoretical framework ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Culture ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Maturity assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Steenbergen/Berg DYA model ................................................................................................................... 5

Ross and Weill EA Maturity model ............................................................................................................ 6

Four schools ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Industry of direct mail ................................................................................................................................... 8

The Organizational Culture in EM Group ...................................................................................................... 8

Maturity assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 9

The four schools .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion and suggestions ............................................................................................................................. 10

Maturity assessment ................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Reflection ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Literature ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

2

Executive Summary The purpose of this paper is to provide a basic understanding for and use of the concept of enterprise

architecture in a theoretical perspective. The theory is applied in a practical context to illustrate how

enterprise architecture can create value for SMME’s. The aim was to discuss how small and medium sized

Danish enterprises can benefit from adopting some of the theoretical understanding in their work with

enterprise architecture. The theoretical approach in the paper is based on Bernard’s upper level of the EA

Cube framework and complemented with Schein Organizational Culture and Leadership 2004 followed up

with a maturity assessment compiled from the Steenbergen/Berg DYA model. The empirical data were

collected through case and interview with EM Group that will be in focus in this paper. With the framework by Ross/Weill we had the ability to describe the benefits and drawbacks of EM Group

being situated in the Silo stage.

The important things we found in this project were the development of a clear strategic plan when

implementing EA into an enterprise and through this a mission and vision derived from the culture and

acknowledged by the employees. We finds that a SWOT-analysis as a living document accessible for all

employees, structure EM groups approach towards innovation by using the competences and knowledge

within the company.

3

Introduction / Motivation This project is created in order to support the class ’T8 – Enterprise Architecture’ at IT University of

Copenhagen, spring 2013. We, the participants of the group, share a similar interest in the subject and are

all about to start the Master Thesis either fall 2013 or spring 2014.

For some of the members, Enterprise Architecture (EA) are to be a core subject of the master thesis, as EA

practitioners currently are in high regard and EA in general is a growing area of expertise. We aim to enable

ourselves to be a part of this growing market.

Denmark as a country consists of a majority of SMME’s. The case company, EM Group, is in this category,

which supports the desire for investigating companies in a Danish and Scandinavian context. We find it

interesting to gain an understanding about which and how EA components and artifacts can assist growing

SMME’s. By gaining an understanding of this we aim to create relevant and useful knowledge in using EA as

a strategic parameter in companies where EA historically have no or low priority. Our hypothesis is that

using EA forces a bureaucratic standard top-down wise in enterprises, which may limit the agility of

SMME’s.

Acknowledgements The Direct email marketing business that EM Group operates in are notoriously closed and are often

described as borderline ‘lawbreakers’ and ‘spammers’. Therefore some data about systems and

competitive advantages were kept secret. Despite the (limited) secrecy, EM Group has been willing to

participate and have shown great interest in the project. A special thanks to Kasper Larsen, Technical

Manager, who have been the main contact and has provided information and data when needed.

Research questions The focus of the report is agility and SMME’s combined with theories from Enterprise Architecture. The

assumption of the group is that excessive governance and control hinders the corporate agility in SMME’s

which is a large factor in creating a competitive advantage over large enterprises. With this in mind we do

see potential gain in applying EA processes and artifacts to further develop and heighten this competitive

advantage. These thoughts have led to following research questions, which are sought answered

throughout the report.

How do we see Enterprise Architecture creating value for SMME’s?

How can SMME’s retain agile competitive advantages while using EA?

Which challenges can be identified in a case company with chosen theoretical framework in mind?

The project is focused on investigating corporate agility in SMME’s in Danish context, where organizational

culture tends to vary from how enterprises in other parts of the world are structured. The Scandinavian

way of using flat hierarchies and sharing project-ownership poses questions and challenges in adopting EA

frameworks and governance. This potentially limits the analysis from being applicable for other

organizational cultures and in large enterprises - Danish as well as foreign.

4

Methodology The methodology of this report is centered on interviews and follow-up questionnaires’. In the first section

we will describe and discuss EA practices that support SMME´s ability to be competitive - especially the

corporate agility and adaptability that is general for the Scandinavian company culture. In that light, there

will be an extra focus on the maturity with the organizational aspect and the cultural constraints.

In the second section the output of the discussion in the first section will be sought applied to a case

company, which beyond the above theory will be described in regard of the four schools theory, the model

centric’, ‘planning centric’, ‘standard centric’ or ‘organization centric’. This section ends out with an

evaluation and discussion about how the chosen EA is applicable in the case.

Third section will be a general discussion and reflection about how we see EA potentially creating value for

SMME´s and which areas that is to be focused on when deciding to start an EA program. Basis for the

discussion is the first two sections of the report. We will in our discussion and reflection propose some of

the relevant artifacts within the Bernard framework, which will be suitable for EM group to use.

Limitations This report mainly focuses on the upper level of the EA3 and an analysis of the lower level, the more

technical and process oriented, is therefore deselected. The four schools of thoughts is in the report used

for identification of the case company´s current EA approach, but will not be further analyzed or discussed,

and in addition to this we limit us from giving an estimation of the future for EM group in regard of the four

schools of thought.

Theoretical framework

This chapter describes theories used to analyze EM Group in an EA context. The theoretical approach is

based on Bernard [1] to holistically describe the case company from a strategic, business or technical view.

This approach gives an opportunity to look at a company from a top-down or bottom-up approach. Bernard

describes a way of how to map a company´s current and future EA architecture. The theories are all a part

of the course T8 Enterprise Architecture.

In this project we will address the upper level of the EA Cube framework and focus on the strategic

decisions regarding EA. In addition to the Bernard’s general framework, the associated terms will in this

report be used when appropriate.

Culture Schein [1] was interested in the management’s role in the development and maintenance of corporate

culture and he look at culture as a group phenomenon. He made a model of organizational culture in his

studies, which divides culture into three levels according to the degree of visibility for the observer. His

division into levels ranging from the very tangible and visible manifestations to the more unconscious and

basic assumptions, defined as culture core [5].

5

The artifacts: Are the most visible in the model consists of the physical and social environment in which a

company's members have created. Examples of artifacts are architectural documents, furniture,

technology, clothing, and written documents [5].

Espoused values: Represent underlying assumption of preferences and ideas about how things "should" be

done in the company. It is not the organization that holds these values, but the individuals in the

organization. Management values, plays a critical role in the creation of an enterprise culture and how the

strategies, goals and philosophies are [6].

The basic assumptions and Values: This area is the essence of the culture, and least visible level in a

general context. This addresses the core assumptions that individuals in a group have about the world and

how it works.

Maturity assessment This section will describe theories regarding the maturity of an enterprise; how to define the state the

enterprise is in right now, and towards what levels of architecture the enterprise may wish. Establishing a

maturity assessment analysis is a way of assessing and determining the current maturity of an enterprise in

relation to technical status, organizational culture and management. A maturity assessment can also be

used to identify the challenges the organization will be facing, and by this what processes that needs to be

mended or refactored to remedy these challenges. It will not be a comprehensive analysis of maturity

assessment theories, though we discuss thoughts that could be taken into account when deciding how to

assess maturity and chose relevant model for this.

Steenbergen/Berg DYA model

Usage of the DYA model gives an overview of many of the architectural processes. It makes it possible to

map the different domains in the enterprise. The DYA model provides a framework for ensuring the right

activities are prioritized at the right time. It addresses eighteen key areas that will be relevant for the

architectural function. Those areas are shown in a matrix to illustrate where, in an overall progress, the

relevant areas will be categorized in different levels and stages. The Architecture Maturity Matrix1 gives an

overview of the entire architectural process, most important it shows the key areas to be implemented and

the order of when the different areas are to be implemented. It is important to ensure that appropriate

choices are made, so most value is provided. The prioritized areas have a level from A to C (or D in some

cases) that shows the maturity of the specific area.

The matrix shows that every area has its own path to follow, which enables to follow the overall process for

every stage. By this it is possible to tell if a key area needs to reach a higher level of maturity before

initializing the process towards a new key area. Every area starts from stage zero as notion of no

architectural function has begun. Through the stages not all key areas will be affected for every enterprise,

this depends solely on the enterprise and its purpose of an architectural function developed. In

incorporating the DYA model, it is most common that there are three areas that are almost mandatory to

prioritize from start, they are described below;

1 Appendix 1

6

Practice has taught us that it is generally advisable to take first steps toward level A in three areas:

development of architecture (as architecture can only be incorporated into work if it first exists), alignment

with business (to prevent, right from the start, architecture work from becoming cut off from business

goals), and commitment and motivation (to secure the necessary support from management)2

Ross and Weill EA Maturity model

Ross & Weill´s theory states that every enterprise moves through four stages while experiencing growth;

1. Business Silos Architecture

The business silo stage is where enterprises focus entirely on maximizing their repository of IT solution and

deliveries. It is often startup companies or smaller companies that find themselves on this stage,

endeavoring to create as much local business as possible. This implies that most of the IT is geographical

centralized same place. The architecture does not impose constraints on development and innovation; by

this the enterprise also has the opportunities to make changes to any strategic activities. On this stage the

enterprise has the ability to enhance its competitiveness towards other enterprises. A crucial factor to this

stage could be the time to market. Enterprises tends to, over time, create legacy systems that does not

seem to be interoperational to other systems. It is costly and time consuming to link legacy systems, and

the operations would add a lot of complexity.

2. Standardized Technology Architecture

This stage engages companies to be prone to move some of the legacy systems to a shared infrastructure.

The intentions are that the companies move towards fewer platforms and simplify the repository of

systems to lower the cost of IT and to reduce redundancy. With a large number of legacy systems the

possibility of redundant systems is most likely. Reducing the numbers of platforms will affect the cost of

systems; hence the management of shared systems will be decreased as well. Though it is to be considered

that while the business silo stage tends to be without development and innovation constraints, the

standardized stage is more vulnerable to limit the company to certain platforms endorsed to a shared

infrastructure standard. The data will also shift from centralized, in each silo, to be more decentralized in

the different systems through the company and can be a reason to insecurity. When data moves across

platforms and systems that might be situated different places in the world insecurity can arise, since

complexity occurs.

2 Berg, M. V. D, Steenbergen, M. V., Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice page 14 line 13

7

3. Optimized Core Architecture

This stage the enterprise architecture is being introduced through the implementation of systems that

transact across platforms and locations. It is no longer local systems and infrastructure but instead

enterprise systems and shared data that are collected and transacted. The companies will focus on

digitizing their business processes to capture the essence of their business, but there are some drawbacks

with this stage, due to the complication in making changes to the business processes. In this stage the

possibility of incorporating ERP systems throughout the enterprise occurs. With this the enterprise achieves

the ability, when merging or expanding, to reuse systems and data across the organization.

4. Business Modularity Architecture

The final stage of maturity grasps the possibility of connecting customized systems, assuming they already

have reached the stage of optimized core. This opens the opportunity of linkage between different business

processes. Managers have the ability to configure the business processes, which they did not at the third

stage. It is though imperative that the requirements to the previous stages are met. Managers have the

innovative possibility that they had in the first stage, but lost in the second stage.

The two different Maturity approaches, the DYA and Ross/Weil models, each have benefits and can be used

when seen most beneficially. The Ross/Weill model gives, in contrast to the DYA model, a lightweight view

on EM group and will therefore be used to map the company´s current EA maturity level. The DYA models

more comprehensive and structured approach will benefit the company, when an actual approach has

been taken, and is favorable when producing a what-to-do-when” EA plan.

Four schools In order to identify how to address

EA in relation to the case

company, we will use “The four

schools of thoughts” different

perspectives on EA. The four

schools focus on the four

thoughts; the model centric, the

planning centric, the standard

centric and the organization

centric.

Figure 1 - Four School

8

Analysis In this chapter are we will get an overview of EM Group, their industry, company culture and a maturity

assessment. EM Group consists of advertising companies that specializes in direct email, advertising

campaigns, CPM sales, SEM and SEO.

Industry of direct mail The world has seen a rapid pace of globalization over the last decades. Technological development, the

easiness of trade and traveling have amongst other things made the world a smaller place. Today’s realities

of increasing globalization are to a higher degree forcing firms to consider the possibilities of venturing into

foreign markets. Many new ideas is coming and the companies have to move fast to be in the top. This

paper will look at a company that is in the industry of direct mail. The industry faces a high competitiveness

and fragmentation with low barriers to entry. The companies compete with many manufacturers and

distributors, both domestic and on an international level. To stay in this industry the companies have to

adapt to new technology and be very fast to change strategy, it is therefore important that they have an

agile organization.

EM group was founded in 2007. The management was previously working in car sales and IT support. In

2010, EM Group hired their first employee and the company kept growing. In the beginning they were

hiring mainly developers and media content producers. The company began exploring the market for new

business areas and created EM Bingo, EM Million, EM Network, EM Estate and EM Online in 2010.

The organization structure in EM Group is horizontal; there are now 18 full time employees and offices

located in Aalborg, Aarhus and Munich. The Aalborg office handles IT infrastructure and harbors

developers, graphic designers and a sales responsible. The Munich office is the “Production” office, where

the actual marketing is created and therefore staff responsible for creation of this is situated here along

with sales and support. The Aarhus office is the smallest, and is basically the “home” of EM Group’s main

CEO. He resides here along with one employee from the production team.

The Organizational Culture in EM Group EM Group has a horizontal organization structure. In this section the importance of staying agile and

adapting to new trends in the industry, in order to keep up with the competitors, for companies such as EM

Group, will be illustrated.

The planned impact, management in EM Group has on the company culture, is very interesting. All initial

company culture derives from the founders, but maybe transformation of knowledge and culture has

expanded to or changed initial set. The founder’s backgrounds are not in management, but they are more

open-minded, and maybe that is the reason for the high agility and adaptability to change and new trends

or standards in the industry. Therefore is it important to look at the future to see to what kind of

opportunities the management has in order to maintain an agile organization structure, even though they

continue to grow and get more employees.

Every Friday morning EM Group have a status meeting, where the employees get to talk about the things

they are working with and how it is going, but the management also takes time to listen to what the

employees have to say about new trends in the industry or ideas related to existing or new business

opportunities. This process has been the foundation to some of the current business areas, such as EM

9

Bingo and EM Dating, where employees identified working trends and suggested that they were to be

adopted by EM Group in order to broaden the possible target segments in the customer database. It is

therefore very important for EM Group to have these meetings, while it gives the employees a comfort and

insight on where and how the company is doing. This contributes to the construction of a strong culture

that is taught to new members. When the main way of teaching culture is socialization, there can be

problems related to this. The screening process to ensure that future employees have the “right” set of

assumptions, beliefs and values is a large part of interviews before employment. This has worked well so

far, as only few employees have been needed, but as the company grows, it will get harder to find talent

with the “right” set. As stated by Schein [2], when individuals are not aligned with the “right” set, they need

to be “acculturated”, which means that they have to be forced to adopt desired set of values, which

potentially clashes with the personality of talents. Schein identifies three outcomes of socialization: 1) A

custodial orientation, where norms are fully adopted and the individual is fully integrated. 2) Creative

individualism, where norms are learned and respected, but are challenged. This response has a potential of

creating “role innovation”, where norms and values are challenged and new ones appear. 3) Rebellion,

where culture are totally rejected, which ultimately will lead to chaos or sabotage by the respective

employee.

Retaining existing culture in EM Group is seen as vital. There are issues combined with growth in this area.

Schein [2, page 5] says: “the individual autonomy that members are expected to exercise may become

destructive and have to be replaced by more disciplined behavior”, which eventually can be a potential issue

for companies experiencing rapid growth, like EM Group. In the interview with EM Group, they were asked

how long the decision process was if they got a new idea “Sometime we take a decision over a game of

table football (foosball) and just try it”.3

Maturity assessment The current situation for EM group is that they have several products in the company; these are in some

extent working independently without linkage to the other products. From this point of view EM Group is,

according to Ross and Weill4, at the first stage, Business silos architecture, while the investment made is

mostly for addressing a need in the local market and decentralization of data. Each individual product has

the possibility to be further developed, but it may be necessary to align all products, so they contribute to

the bigger purpose. This decision should have been carried out at the strategic level within the enterprise,

but seems to have been neglected.

Why is it important for EM group to adopt EA? At the moment EM group is working from an agile point of

view, by this they achieve the ability to develop and innovate their pipeline of product almost instantly, and

this is one of the forces that they have fabricated into their reputation. With the portfolio of direct mail

services they gain the insight of the current trends and interests among users, thus they can direct their

product more specifically towards those users.

3 Appendix 2

4 Ross, Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, Chapter 4 page 72 line 3

10

When EM group devotes to early-majority5 the time to market is crucial. The time from a technology hits

the marked until EM group provides the market with a product with the equivalent technology, are the

most critical factor to how competitive EM group will be in the specific market.

The research questions ask why EM group should adopt EA since they, at the moment, in the position of

working from an agile perspective and continuously introducing new products. In time they will gain a

whopping repository of system and lose perspective. Redundancy in the systems will be a costly affair, from

which EM group when expanding with more products might suffer from. It is inevitable for EM Group to

elaborate the necessities in incorporating a new architecture when they reach a certain size. EM Group has

grown in two years from 5 to 18 employees6, which must be considered as a relatively large growth.

The four schools EM Group uses a form of the organizational centric thoughts, where each employee is responsible for

certain areas and there is a functioning organizational structure in which the company can remain agile. For

the organization centric school to be well functioning, the employees need to be up to date in how the

company operates. The organizational centric school focuses on the knowledge of the company and

therefore supports the EM group´s current EA state. All the knowledge generated inside the EM group, is

one of the main parameters for their success, so it is important for EM group to maintain an environment

that embraces this.

Discussion and suggestions This chapter is a general discussion and reflection about how we see EA potentially creating value for

SMME´s. An assumption for EM Group is that continuous growth appears, so how do the previous chapters

support this?

Implementing EA can be a complex and time consuming exercise, and the question is; will the extra

bureaucratic processes affect the company’s competitive advantages? How can you adopt a structure

within an SMME and still maintain the agile and innovational approach from which the company in large

degree has benefited from?

It is important that the company`s general framework and directions becomes clear to the surroundings

and especially the employees. In our interviews and related analysis, it has become clear to us that EM

Group is in lack of an overlying purpose and direction. With this in mind it will be favorable to focus on the

upper layer of the Bernard’s EA3, especially the Goals and Initiatives Level and how implementing some of

the components and artifacts can benefit the company.

EM Groups lack of a strategic plan shines through the whole company and it will benefit from adopting

some of the artifacts from Bernard’s Strategic plan framework. A well thought out mission and Vision that

sets and explains the purpose for the company, will secure that the employees know and understand the

direction the management see for the company. The espoused values and underlying assumptions already

exists in the company and are supported by key employees. Creation of artifacts to explain these ensures

5 Appendix 3

6 Appendix 4

11

that they are kept and taught to new employees without having to be a mouth-to-mouth deliverance. If

basic assumptions that are strongly rooted in the group control everyday behavior and decisions, members

will perceive any behavior based on a different basis, as incomprehensible.

A SWOT analysis gives a company an overview of the external threats and opportunity the company may

force. This could be an opportunity for the company to try to streamline its innovative process. The

question is though; who is responsible for the maintenance and development? We recommend that EM

group develops an open SWOT-analysis document, in which every employee can access at all time and

thereby keep the relational governance approach in regard of mutual trust and in larger degree benefit

from the knowledge within the company. The document should not have an updating limitation, but should

be accessible 24/7; this also follows Bernard’s thoughts about strategic plans as a living document. A

weekly discussion about new entries can occur during already existing Friday-meetings.

“Strategic plans should be viewed as “living documents” which are updated periodically and which help an

enterprise understand itself and adapt to changing conditions”7

However there must be a governance structure relative to the decision rights, so the management still

keeps their roles as decision makers when deciding to produce new products.

Maturity assessment Through theoretical discussion about choice of maturity model, the framework by Ross/Weil were chosen

due to the lightweight nature of it combined with the EA inexperience in EM Group - they are starting from

scratch. The analysis with Ross/Weil showed us that the silo stage at the moment is to be preferred, due to

the fact that EM group remain the initiative of working from an agile perspective, when they have the

possibility to customize their portfolio of products. The transition towards the last stage would be a rather

implicating conversion, and the loss of agility during the transition would have a huge impact. A realistic

choice for EM Group, from our point of view, would be not to move away from the silo stage. At least not

before they would have aligned all their business processes with the development processes.

The reason for not choosing the DYA model for maturity assessment were that it required a higher level of

understanding and contribution by multiple employees, which we were unable to establish during the

correspondence with EM Group. The DYA model is great way of establishing a “what-to-do-when” plan for

EA implementation. We suggest that the DYA model is too applied when the desired components and

artifacts in Goals and Initiatives are established and company dedication to an EA plan is formed at a

management level.

Steenbergen recommends that the use of the DYA model starts out with the following three areas because

he sees those as imperative to start an EA plan and architecture. 1) Development of architecture. 2)

Alignment with business. 3) Commitment and motivation. With these three key areas prioritized to begin

with on a level A, it is now possible to begin initializing on further key areas if the enterprise choose to go

further with incorporating the architectural function, according to Steenbergen.

7 Bernard, S. A, 2012, An introduction to Enterprise Architecture third edition, Authorhouse page 114 line 5

12

The principle “just enough, just in time” also applies to architectural practice. It is more sensible to set a

lower stage as an initial target: for example, stage 3. Once this goal is achieved, the organization can then

decide if this is sufficient8

Using the DYA model, Steenbergen suggests that stage 6 would be sufficient to reach a basic level in all the

key areas. EM group ought to, by reaching stage 6, have the foundation for a profound architecture that

involves both business and development processes. The most important aspect EM group has to consider is

what key areas will provide value to the organization. Therefore is it essential for them to focus only on the

most necessary areas to take into account. Looking into the maturity matrix it figures that at stage 6, areas

such as alignment with the development process will go from level A to B, this process will go from an ad

hoc to a structural;. This is important in the long run for EM Group to channel changes in such a way that

the business goals are achieved in the most effective manner. Furthermore is maintenance of the

architectural process incorporated in this stage, allowing the evaluation of the processes to enhance the

improvements? This will be a natural part of the architectural functions lifecycle. After stage 6 the

development of the architectural function can more or less stagnate though the process will always be an

evolving process. Moving further up in the stages may be redundant to EM Group, stage 7 introducing

quality management in a retrospective matter and will probably not be an assessment that are important

right from the start.

Conclusion By taking into account that adding EA standards upon a SMME´s culture you possibly change some vital

organisms within the SMME and limit its possibility to perform on its competitive advantages. Therefore

the standards that are added to the company must support both the espoused values and the basic

underlying assumptions. It is our belief that if a SMME adapts artifacts which support the employees and

benefit from the knowledge within the company, successive SMME in large degree can benefit from this

approach by achieving the support from the employees. Furthermore is it essential that the EA artifacts can

assist the time to market aspects that can be vital for SMME´s.

In regard to our case company, EM Group, it is essential that they develop a Strategic plan and especially

focus on developing a mission and vision that reflects the purpose and direction of the company. It is

equally important that EM Group given, the importance of the employees, develop a mission and vision

that is rooted in the current culture and is acknowledge by the employees. To utilize the knowledge within

the company and keep the agile approach, the introduction of a living SWOT-analysis document provides

the company with an artifact that both analysis the external threats and opportunities while engaging the

knowledge inside the company through its employees. The use of the SWOT-analysis document will put a

standard upon EM group that structures the innovation progress and makes it possible to maintain a short

term strategy or none at all. This will intrigue EM Group towards the alignment within the internal

processes, and could be the stepping stone to introducing standards in the organization. A standardization

of processes would be the move to the second stage stated in the Ross/Weill model. With this move a more

8 Berg, M. V. D, Steenbergen, M. V., Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice page 90 line 15

13

structured approach will be a necessity. The DYA model will support this structured approach, and enable a

simple overview which deals with every aspect of the EA.

Reflection When we started this project, we all had the idea that, in every sense, EA would benefit to an enterprise.

The introduced theories have taught us that implementing EA in full on a SMME can be disadvantageous,

and therefore it has to gradually implement with focus on selected Key areas. If not, a result could be that

they sacrifice their competitive advantage. With this in mind, the process of implementing EA into an

enterprise is rather progressive, and should be done judiciously. Therefore there can be areas that,

beneficially, could have been further elaborated.

After finishing the project and the work with EM Group, we thought of the idea - what would be the

outcome of this project if we had interviewed an executive consultant from EM Group instead of the

technical manager. This could have changed our main approach and given us insight in the overlying

direction of the company that apparently is missing or only grounded in the management.

Besides recommendations in the report, it would be beneficial for EM group to use the DYA model and

establish a structured and well prioritized approach that takes the complex composition of the individual

company´s into account.

14

Literature 1. Bernard, S. A, 2012, An introduction to Enterprise Architecture third edition, Authorhouse

2. Schein, E. H, 1990, Organizational Culture, American Psychologist

3. Ross, Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, Chapter 4

4. Berg, M. V. D, Steenbergen, M. V., Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice

5. http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_schein_three_levels_culture.html

6. http://www.managementstudyguide.com/edgar-schein-model.htm

7. Interview with Kasper Larsen, EM Group, http://kortlink.dk/cbkk

15

Appendix

1.

2. 20:33: Det kommer enormt hurtigt nogen gange, hvor der nogen der har snakket om et eller andet over et spil bordfodbold. Så får vi jo bare, det er det her vi skal gøre, sæt i gang. Så det er ikke noget med at det bliver aftalt i flere måneder, det er mere eller mindre nu og her at vi skal lave det. Så man skal være god til at omstille sig. 20:33: sometimes it comes enormous quickly, where someone get an idea over a game of table football. So we're just doing this is what we need to do, set the time. So it's not something that is agreed for several months, it is more or less here and now that we have to fix it. So you should be good to adapt.

3.

4. 3.30 : I dag er vi 18 fuldtids medarbejder.

3.30: Today we are 18 full times employees