Carrot or Stick: Overcoming Silos in Enterprise Architectures

Bibtex

Cite as text

						@Select Types{,
							 
							 
							 
							 
							 
							Journal   = "Band-1",
							 Title= "Carrot or Stick: Overcoming Silos in Enterprise Architectures", 
							Author= "Marcel Cahenzli", 
							Doi= "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_m3-cahenzli", 
							 Abstract= "Silo mentality is a phenomenon describing the aversion of sharing e.g. talent, data, and know-how beyond one’s immediate functional and hierarchical environment. Thereby, these silos are mental constructions, which are reflected in procedures and therefore information systems. In an economic environment that is information-driven, getting business units to share information across these organizational silos is highly relevant. This paper uses an enterprise architecture management (EAM) view on silos, where some actors (e.g. architects) guide other actors (e.g. project managers) towards contributing to enterprise-wide goals. To reach desired outcomes in EAM, compliance with enterprise architecture guidelines should be reached. For this setting, the present study investigates drivers for information sharing policy compliance. It combines General Deterrence Theory with Compliance Theory and employs an online experiment. The results reveal that sanctions, rewards, and their interaction significantly affect compliance, whereas the certainty of these sanctions or rewards to materialize did not.

", 
							 Keywords= "General Deterrence Theory, Silo Mentality, Sanction, Reward, Compliance Theory, Enterprise Architecture Management.", 
							}
					
Marcel Cahenzli: Carrot or Stick: Overcoming Silos in Enterprise Architectures. Online: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_m3-cahenzli (Abgerufen 05.10.22)

Abstract

Abstract

Silo mentality is a phenomenon describing the aversion of sharing e.g. talent, data, and know-how beyond one’s immediate functional and hierarchical environment. Thereby, these silos are mental constructions, which are reflected in procedures and therefore information systems. In an economic environment that is information-driven, getting business units to share information across these organizational silos is highly relevant. This paper uses an enterprise architecture management (EAM) view on silos, where some actors (e.g. architects) guide other actors (e.g. project managers) towards contributing to enterprise-wide goals. To reach desired outcomes in EAM, compliance with enterprise architecture guidelines should be reached. For this setting, the present study investigates drivers for information sharing policy compliance. It combines General Deterrence Theory with Compliance Theory and employs an online experiment. The results reveal that sanctions, rewards, and their interaction significantly affect compliance, whereas the certainty of these sanctions or rewards to materialize did not.

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

General Deterrence Theory, Silo Mentality, Sanction, Reward, Compliance Theory, Enterprise Architecture Management.

References

Referenzen

1. Cilliers, F., H. Greyvenstein: The impact of silo mentality on team identity: An organisational case study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 38(2) (2012)
2. Wilhelm, K.: Breaking down silos and coordinating across departments. In: Making Sustainability Stick, Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 162-164 (2014)
3. Ross, J.W., P. Weill, D.C. Robertson: Enterprise Architecture as Strategy. Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press (2006)
4. Kitchens, B., et al.: Advanced Customer Analytics: Strategic Value Through Integration of Relationship-Oriented Big Data. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 35(2), 540-574 (2018)
5. Bannister, F.: Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration. Inf. Syst. J. 11(1), 65-84 (2001)
6. Mohapeloa, T.: Effects of silo mentality on corporate ITC’s business model. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Business Excellence. 11(1), 1009-1019 (2017)
7. Gardner, H.K.: When senior managers won’t collaborate. Harvard Bus. Rev. 93(3) (2015)
8. Lyytinen, K., V. Grover: Management Misinformation Systems: A time to revisit? Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 18(3), 206-230 (2017)
9. Nance, W.D., D.W. Straub: An investigation into the use and usefulness of security software in detecting computer abuse. ICIS 1988 Proceedings. 36 (1988)
10. Pearson, F.S., N.A. Weiner: Toward an Intergration of Criminological Theories. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 76(1), 116-150 (1985)
11. Straub, D.W., R.J. Welke: Coping with Systems Risk: Security Planning Models for Management Decision Making. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 22(4), 441-469 (1998)
12. Etzioni, A.: A comparative analysis of complex organizations : on power, involvement, and their correlates / by Amitai Etzioni. New York: Free Press (1975)
13. Chen, Y., K. Ramamurthy, K.W. Wen: Organizations’ Information Security Policy Compliance: Stick or Carrot Approach? J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 29(3), 157-188 (2012)
14. The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Version 9.1. TOGAF Series. Zaltbommel: Van Haren Publishing (2011)
15. Hylving, L., B. Bygstad: Nuanced Responses to Enterprise Architecture Management: Loyalty, Voice, and Exit. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 36(1), 14-36 (2019)
16. Lange, M., J. Mendling, J. Recker: An Empirical Analysis of the Factors and Measures of Enterprise Architecture Management Success. Eur. J. Information Systems. 25(5), 411-431 (2016)
17. Schmidt, C., P. Buxmann: Outcomes and Success Factors of Enterprise IT Architecture Management: Empirical Insight from the International Financial Services Industry. Eur. J. Information Systems. 20(2), 168-185 (2011)
18. Tamm, T., et al.: How Does Enterprise Architecture Add Value to Organisations? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 28(1), 141-168 (2011)
19. Schilling, R.D., S. Aier, R. Winter: Designing an Artifact for Informal Control in Enterprise Architecture Management. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2019): Munich, Germany (2019)
20. Hotaran, I.: Silo effect vs. supply chain effect. Review of International Comparative Management. 10(1 (special issue)), 216-221 (2009)
21. Gyrd-Jones, R.I., C. Helm, J. Munk: Exploring the impact of silos in achieving brand orientation. J. Mark. Manage. 29(9-10), 1056-1078 (2013)
22. Vermeulen, F., P. Puranam, R. Gulati: Change for Change’s Sake. Harvard Bus. Rev. 88(June), 6 (2010)
23. ISO/IEC/IEEE: Systems and Software Engineering—Architecture Description (ISO/IEC/IEEE Std 42010:2011). ISO/IEC and IEEE Computer Society (2011)
24. Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media (2005)
25. Boh, W.F., D. Yellin: Using Enterprise Architecture Standards in Managing Information Technology. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23(3), 163-207 (2006)
26. Simon, D., K. Fischbach, D. Schoder: An Exploration of Enterprise Architecture Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 32(1), 1-72 (2013)
27. Brosius, M., S. Aier, K. Haki: Introducing a Coordination Perspective to Enterprise Architecture Management Research. In: Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR), Quebec City: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 71-78 (2017)
28. Brosius, M., et al.: A Learning Perspective on Enterprise Architecture Management. In: International Conference of Information Systems, Dublin (2016)
29. van Steenbergen, M., S. Brinkkemper: The architectural dilemma: Division of work versus knowledge integration. (2009)
30. Richardson, G.L., B.M. Jackson, G.W. Dickson: A Principles-Based Enterprise Architecture: Lessons from Texaco and Star Enterprise. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 14(4), 385- 403 (1990)
31. Aier, S., B. Gleichauf, R. Winter: Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design – An Empirical Analysis. In: the 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2011), Zurich, Switzerland (2011)
32. Foorthuis, R., et al.: A theory building study of enterprise architecture practices and benefits. Information Systems Frontiers. 18(3), 541-564 (2016)
33. Ross, J.W., A. Quaadgras: Enterprise Architecture Is Not Just for Architects. Center for Information Systems Research Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA (2012)
34. Winter, R.: Architectural Thinking. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(6), 361-364 (2014)
35. Schilling, R.D., K. Haki, S. Aier: Dynamics of Control Mechanisms in Enterprise Architecture Management: A Sensemaking Perspective. In: 39th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2018), San Francisco, USA (2018)
36. Straub, D.: Effective IS Security: An Empirical Study. Inf. Syst. Res. 1(3), 255-276 (1990)
37. Siponen, M., A. Vance: Neutralization: New insights intot the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 34(3), 487-A12 (2010)
38. Boss, S.R., et al.: If someone is watching, I’ll do what I’m asked: mandatoriness, control, and information security. Eur. J. Information Systems. 18(2), 151-164 (2009)
39. Bulgurcu, B., H. Cavusoglu, I. Benbasat: Information Security Policy Compliance: An Empirical Study of Rationality-Based Beliefs and Information Security Awareness. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 34(3), 523-548 (2010)
40. Eisenhardt, K.M.: Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches. Manag. Sci. 31(2), 134-149 (1985)
41. Thye, S.R.: Logical and philosophical foundations of experimental research in the social sciences. In: Laboratory experiments in the social sciences, M. Webster and J. Sell, Editors, Elsevier/Academic Press: London, UK, pp. 53-82 (2014)
42. Webster, M., J. Sell: Why do experiments? In: Laboratory experiments in the social sciences, M. Webster and J. Sell, Editors, Elsevier/Academic Press: London, UK, pp. 5-22 (2014)
43. Herath, T., H.R. Rao: Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organisations. Eur. J. Information Systems. 18(2), 106-125 (2009)
44. Ryan, M.J.: Behavioral intention formation: The interdependency of attitudinal and social influence variables. J. Cons. Res. 9(3), 263-278 (1982)
45. Venkatesh, V., et al.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 27(3), 425-478 (2003)
46. Mason, W., S. Suri: Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Beh. Res. Methods. 44(1), 1-23 (2012)
47. Dziuban, C.D., E.C. Shirkey: When is a Correlation Matrix Appropriate for Factor Analysis? PsyB. 81(6), 358-361 (1974)
48. Hashim, M.J., J.C. Bockstedt: Overcoming Free-Riding in Information Goods: Sanctions or Rewards? In: 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4834-4843 (2015)

Most viewed articles

Meist angesehene Beiträge

GITO events | library.gito