Keywords

1 Introduction

The postindustrial era has made the IT-systems usage a crucial factor of competitiveness, as digitalization of business processes and mapping of information into an understandable format assists management in making decisions which are now based on more than just personal experience and intuition but also on data sources [1]. Nevertheless, information technologies may lead to negative results that can make a company lose its competitive position [2]. On the other hand, if certain resources were contributed to the achievement of an IT-business alignment state then it will give some advantage [3]: rising profit, ROI increase in IT projects, strengthening of competitive position.

The issue of IT-business alignment is widely covered in the current literature. The importance of accordance of IT and business was described in [4,5,6,7,8]. This evidence of the IT-business alignment benefit for the business shows that this aspect is vital to the companies [9, 10]. Moreover, IT-business alignment issue has been staying in the top of priorities for a long time until now [11, 12] (Fig. 1). This fact emphasizes the need to contribute to this topic from both research and practical points of view.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Top of IT-issues (according to [12])

Full size image

Deepening the IT-business misalignment literature it’s possible to find the way of detection misalignment symptoms [14,15,16]. It is sufficiently appropriate but symptoms bank is not comprehensive and there is no obvious way of symptoms elimination. That is why, this study envisages the algorithm of IT-business misalignment redress. The novelty of this research is proposed model integration which is able to provide specific artifacts and set of actions to get an IT-business alignment state.

Most current research investigates [9, 13,14,15] IT-business alignment/misalignment in the terms of detection but they are not targeted on a specific set of actions to solve this issue. We introduce one set of such actions and demonstrate the benefits of integrated model application in the case of one company operating in electronic trade sector. So, the algorithm presented in this research in a form of a guideline of the specific IT-business misalignment symptoms eliminating via set of corrective actions is proposed. It can be used by business analytics for a construction of aligned enterprise architecture.

In order to see misalignment symptoms it is necessary to diagnose and redress them via an enterprise architecture approach. So, the present research seeks for a way of detection and leveling of IT-business misalignment via usage of advantages of current IT-business alignment methodologies.

The paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 describes the theoretical background of the research, Sect. 3 presents our approach to the integration of the models on the base of a concrete business case in the sector of electronic trade, Sect. 4 is dedicated to the conclusions and future directions of the research.

2 Theoretical Background and a Tools Overview

2.1 IT-Business Misalignment Definition

The current literature provides a definition of IT-business alignment [17–19] which makes it possible to formulate an IT-business misalignment definition:

  1. 1.

    The extent to which the IT strategy does not support/is not supported by the business strategy;

  2. 2.

    The extent to which the IT mission, goals, and plan are not available.

Therefore, synchronization should be established between business and IT artifacts. IT-business misalignment may be viewed in terms of the following dimensions:

  1. 1.

    Intellectual (strategic) dimension: the level of mutual assistance between business and IT plans/strategies. Misalignment indicates that the organization has no documented plans;

  2. 2.

    A structural one is the level of structural conformity of IT and acceptance of law decisions, relationships in the field of reporting, centralization/IT decentralization, and deployment of IT personnel;

  3. 3.

    A social one is a social status and understanding among business units and their commitment of mission, goals, and plans of business and IT;

  4. 4.

    A cultural one emphasizes the cultural relevance between business and IT as a precondition for everyone to plan information systems.

In this study, achieving alignment between IT and business is examined precisely from the point of view of intelligent measurement through the use of discipline in enterprise architecture and the search for symptoms.

To place the present contribution in a proper context this section outlines some related works and important concepts. In this study, we will focus mainly on the intellectual aspect of IT-business discrepancy, since most of the developed methods are aimed specifically at it. Moreover, the intellectual dimension is more measurable than the structural one due to the documented nature of this IT-business alignment. But the other dimension should not be neglected.

The Enterprise Architecture approach provides the business and IT specialists with complete and ready-made recommendations for adjustment in order to achieve targeted business results that take into account the corresponding failures in the business. Thus, the architecture of the enterprise represents the basis for applying methodologies to avoid IT-business misalignment in the direction of matching all architectural levels to each other.

It should also be noted that the researchers mostly study the IT-business misalignment in statics, although dynamics is also important.

In this research, compliance achievement will include a tremendous work with methodologies based on IT-business misalignment in the intellectual dimension via enterprise architecture highlighting the organization's architectural levels to align each of them through symptom identification.

For now, there is a sufficiently thorough definition of the concept of IT-business misalignment, the selected dimension (intellectual) and the enterprise architecture based approach. These theoretical findings help to select proper methods to achieve an IT-business alignment state on the base of high-leveled alignment models and to establish the relationship between them on the basis of the overlapping shortcomings of each of them.

2.2 SAM

In 1991, the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) [20] was proposed which differentiates the external and internal forces of IT and business (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Strategic Alignment Model (according to [20])

Full size image

There are four domains of alignment:

  1. 1.

    Business strategy (business domain) is the company’s place in the external competitive environment: positioning, a competitive advantage condition, and a key success factor;

  2. 2.

    Organizational infrastructure and processes (business domain): organizational structure and business processes;

  3. 3.

    IT strategy (IT domain) is the company’s place in the IT market—technologies that can form new business initiatives; information system attributes that can help support the current or create a new business strategy; diversification of available IT resources to support the business;

  4. 4.

    IT-infrastructure and processes (IT domain): an information system architecture, a set of applications, IT processes and, in addition, decisions that affect the time required by IT professionals to manage the corporate technical infrastructure.

Thus, there are two ways of domain integration:

  1. 1.

    A strategic one is business strategy + IT strategy, which means IT strategy usage to support or formulate the business strategy;

  2. 2.

    A functional one is organizational structure + process and IT-infrastructure to display the consistency of the requirements and expectations of employees and the capabilities of the IT department.

Moreover, SAM includes cross-domain relations called alignment perspectives (Fig. 3). It should be emphasized that at least three of four domains have to be aligned to achieve IT-business alignment.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Alignment perspectives (according to [20])

Full size image

It should also be noted that the effectiveness of the SAM model was called into question and this sounds reasonable, but this study just shows how it can be successfully used together with other models.

Despite the overall theoretical importance, this model is a conceptual one and does not propose an algorithm of achieving an IT-business alignment state.

2.3 BISMAM

The Business and Information Systems Misalignment model (BISMAM) [22] uses the terminology of medical sciences (misalignment = disease). In order to eliminate IT-business misalignment the model establishes the nomenclature and semantics of misalignment, divided into three aspects: organ system, symptom, etiology. A three-step algorithm is used:

  1. 1.

    Identification of inconsistencies: compare the AS-IS state of the organization with the symptoms (Figs. 4 and 5)

    Fig. 4
    figure 4

    Symptoms library (1/2) (according to [22])

    Full size image
    Fig. 5
    figure 5

    Symptoms library (2/2) (according to [22])

    Full size image
  2. 2.

    Correction of symptoms via therapy (Figs. 6 and 7).

    Fig. 6
    figure 6

    Therapy library (1/2) (according to [22])

    Full size image
    Fig. 7
    figure 7

    Therapy library (2/2) (according to [22])

    Full size image
  3. 3.

    Prevention of the non-compliance: use the collection of preventive measures (Figs. 8 and 9) to prevent reoccurrence of the same situation (Figs. 10 and 11).

    Fig. 8
    figure 8

    Prophylaxis library (according to [22])

    Full size image
    Fig. 9
    figure 9

    Prophylaxis library (according to [22])

    Full size image
    Fig. 10
    figure 10

    Proposed solution (prophylaxis and therapy) (1/2) (according to [22])

    Full size image
    Fig. 11
    figure 11

    Proposed solution (prophylaxis and therapy) (2/2) (according to [22])

    Full size image

This generalized approach resembles the methods of systemic thinking and analysis: the methods are universal for situations and can be used in organizations engaged in various subject areas.

On the figures above OA, BA, IA, AA and TA mean Organizational, Business, Information, Application, and Technology Architecture. Despite the architectural and system approach, this model neglects the driving forces of alignment and has no documented artifacts which help to resolve the IT-business misalignment issue.

2.4 Luftman’s Symptoms

The BISMAM symptom base covers many of the possible manifestations of IT-business misalignment; however, it does not cover all its aspects.

Therefore, the symptom bank was expanded with a collection of Lufthman’s symptoms [23]. These are precisely the symptoms that are associated with similar BISMAM symptoms in terms of expressing IT-business misalignment of the same aspect, which means that they can be “cured” with the same treatment and prevention measures. The symptoms of Luftman are presented in Fig. 12. They extend the bank of BISMAM and improve the indicators collection.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Luftman’s symptoms (according to [23])

Full size image

3 Integration of Models

Now it is time to add some novelty to all mentioned models and approaches (Fig. 13).

Fig. 13
figure 13

SAM and TOGAF [21] integration (according to [24])

Full size image

Our approach is based on the searching for similar notions in analyzed models and making generalization of the concepts. The final result in this phase may be represented as a catalogue of actions and further as a software program.

The first integration of SAM and TOGAF was done in [24] (Fig. 13) demonstrating that it leads to overlapping the drawbacks of one another: one (SAM) takes into account the perspective of IT-business alignment; another proposes some artifacts, which should be developed according to the chosen perspective. We will go deeper than the SAM + TOGAF integration and propose the dynamic measure for prophilaxy. Though these approaches contain different terminology, it was possible to align it partially. The IT-business alignment by means of terminology alignment constitutes a new promising branch of further research. Firstly, BISMAM and the Luftman’s symptoms indicate where something is misaligned. That is why the BISMAM symptoms were associated with the Luftman’s ones (column 1, 3 of Fig. 12).

The principle of association means that each Luftman’s symptom is of a nature similar to the selected BISMAM one. This rule is convenient because similar symptoms cover a misalignment issue wider. Secondly, these symptoms were embedded into the artifacts of ADM phases on the SAM basis. Thus, if we find a symptom, this will enable us to understand what artifact should be developed and what therapy/prophylaxis should be used (column 2, 4 of Fig. 12).

Thirdly, there will be an example of usage of the integration of these models.

The principle of association means that each Luftman’s symptom is of a nature similar to the selected BISMAM one. This rule is convenient because similar symptoms cover a misalignment issue wider. Secondly, these symptoms were embedded into the artifacts of ADM phases on the SAM basis. Thus, if we find a symptom, this will enable us to understand what artifact should be developed and what therapy/prophylaxis should be used (column 2, 4 of Fig. 12).

Thirdly, there will be an example of usage of the integration of these models (Fig. 14).

Fig. 14
figure 14

BISMAM and the Luftman’s symptoms linked with TOGAF artifacts in terms of ADM

Full size image

If an individual desires to use this model integration, he/she should perform the following sequence of acts in order to avoid IT-business misalignment symptoms and balance the IT and the business sphere of such individual’s organization.

  1. 1.

    Define what IT-business alignment perspectives prevail in the organization and select those that must be supported (SAM, Fig. 2);

  2. 2.

    Identify IT-business misalignment symptoms (BISMAM, Luftman) via interview and analysis of stakeholders (Figs. 6, 7 and 10);

  3. 3.

    Conduct therapy and prophylaxis via elaboration of artifacts within the ADM model (TOGAF) which should be taken into account according to the symptoms (Fig. 11) in the order defined by alignment perspectives.

Now we demonstrate some cases of the derived algorithm application. It represents more than just a detection tool, but the tool that proposes a specific set of actions:

Example 1 (Fig. 13):

  • Identified symptoms of non-compliance: S1, S2, S3, LF2

  • SAM Perspective: Strategy Execution

  • ADM phase sequence: A, B, C, D

  • Treatment. T1: define the mission, goals, strategies, and allocate them to employees (Principal Catalog, Driver/Goal/Objective Catalog); T2: Identify and appoint owners and responsible business processes (Role Catalog, Process Flow)

  • Prevention. P1: Identify and communicate the mission, strategy, and goals of the organization; P2: Identify and designate owners and responsible business processes.

This example is presented in Fig. 15.

Fig. 15
figure 15

Example of model integration

Full size image

In Fig. 15 AA, DA and TA mean Application, Data, and Technology architecture. Another example has alternative SAM perspective, so the tabular structure representation should be the same but with another order of SAM domains, architectural domains, and ADM phases.

Example 2:

  • Identified symptoms of non-compliance: S7, S8, S9, LF1

  • SAM Perspective: Competitive Potential

  • ADM phase sequence: C, A, B, D

  • Decision. T3: Define and assign business roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines (Organization Decomposition Diagram); T4: Define the goals of business processes and associate them with the goals of the organization (Goal/Objective/Service Diagram, Process Flow Diagram)

  • Prevention. P3: Define and assign business roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines; P4: Define the goals of business processes and their relationship with organizational goals.

In an analyzed company, there exists the prospect of an IT-business alignment—technological potential. As a rule, a business formulates what it needs in order to attract users and make the product more competitive, and IT already decides how to do this in the shortest possible time.

According to the TOGAF-ADM development model and integration with SAM: the phase sequence will be as follows: CABD.

  1. 1.

    SAM: Business strategy (TOGAF ADM: A)

    1. 1.

      S.01 (Principle Catalog)

      • T.1 Define and communicate the mission, strategy, and goals of the organization

      • Recommendation: to declare the mission, strategy, and goals of the organization periodically—once a year the general director of the company comes to motivate employees—let him mention the organization’s guidelines and they should be placed on the information stand (Principle Catalog).

    2. 2.

      SAM: IT-infrastructure (TOGAF ADM: C (Application))

    3. 3.

      LF.04 (Actor/Role Matrix)

      • T.5 Identify and designate owners and responsible information entities

      • Recommendation: misunderstanding may arise due to the fact that it is not clear who is responsible for what, in order to clarify this, there must be a document (Actor/Role Matrix), with which you can determine who can be contacted.. SAM: IT-infrastructure (TOGAF ADM: C (Data))

    4. 4.

      LF.06 (Data Dissemination Diagram)

      • T9 Implement information systems management

      • Recommendation: create a data distribution diagram to determine which data to send to which application. All these recommendations were accepted by the organization as the base for IT-business alignment realizations.

To recap the integration, this set of acts has several advantages:

  1. 1.

    It considers the architectural levels, which guarantees that there will be no improvement of one aspect of the organization that leads to degradation in another one;

  2. 2.

    It offers not just the identification of an IT-business misalignment state, but also some advice as to what to do and what artifacts to elaborate;

  3. 3.

    The set of actions is more specific due to the extended symptom diagnostics and the choice of an alignment perspective.

To sum up, this new algorithm has no analogues and provides great assistance in making an organization more IT-business aligned. That is the crucial novelty of the research. This research can also be continued on the field of models validation [25–28], using the approach adopted in [29].

4 Conclusions

All in all, the result of this research is the novel algorithm of an Enterprise Architecture based approach to the IT-business misalignment detection and redress with an extended symptoms collection. There were defined misalignment symptoms and the diagnostics method.

The goal of the research is the search for a way of detection and leveling of IT-business misalignment via usage of advantages of current IT-business alignment methodologies. To emphasize, the novelty of the research is a proposed algorithm of IT-business misalignment redress.

The search for a way of detection and leveling of IT-business misalignment via usage of advantages of current IT-business alignment methodologies was successful. It was presented as the linkage between BISMAM and the Luftman’s symptoms and the artifacts of ADM phases of the TOGAF methodology which takes into account strategic alignment perspectives of the SAM-methodology.

Moreover, there was the demonstration of model usage to solve misalignment issues of one IT-company. Thus, it shows how an integrated model is effective on the real case.

Notwithstanding the multiple linkages to get an integrated model, there can be some further study directions:

  1. 1.

    A computer automation of the algorithm;

  2. 2.

    Extension of the IT-business misalignment symptom library collection;

  3. 3.

    Extension of the IT-business misalignment therapy library collection.

  4. 4.

    A comparison analysis with other known methods.

  5. 5.

    A realization of a concrete artifact realizing the overall approach of misalignment symptoms detection and a targeted prophylaxis.