Nils Labusch

In this Chapter we present a reference framework, more specifically a catalogue of capabilities, needed for doing ACET. As such, it also provides guidance on which elements/artefacts of enterprise architecture can be used to support which aspects of enterprise architecture. For architects, it shows where their services might generate value, if requested. For transformation managers, it provides a “capability catalogue”, describing for which parts of enterprise architecture they may seek advice from the enterprise architects. The framework as a whole provides a structure for the solution components that addresses the challenges as presented in Part II, and it comprises of the perspectives of strategy, value and risk, design, implementation, and change. The capabilities of all the perspectives together support transformation management, which is concerned with the management tasks at the overall transformation level, and with the architectural coordination function, which forms an umbrella function of integrating the individual perspectives into a consistent whole.

In this chapter we report on the case of a globally operating insurance company that has leveraged enterprise architecture management to support business transformations. In order to do so, the company has developed enterprise architecture management capabilities that help the business structuring the business transformation particularly in the early stages before handing over respective responsibilities to more specialized corporate functions later on. This case is interesting for understanding ACET because it is one of the rare cases where enterprise architecture management truly bridges the business–IT gap.

In this chapter we address the fact that not all ACET problems are equal, and ACET solutions therefore need to be configured to address the specifics of the respective ACET problem. We approach this configuration problem by the means of situational method engineering. We find that the two most important differences of ACET problem situations result from the enterprise architecture management approach used, and the respective type of the transformation. We therefore present classifications for enterprise architecture management and enterprise transformation, and propose an appropriate ACET problem situation matrix. We finally demonstrate how ACET solutions are configured to a given problem situation.

Due to their holistic approach and some common terminology, Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) and Business Transformation Management (BTM) are two disciplines that need to be investigated in order to better understand their synergies, and to understand where each is best applied. This article aims at clarifying the relationship of EAM and BTM, as well as their respective methods. The article is based not only on the authors' discussion of the Enterprise Architecture and Business Transformation question, but on ten interviews with experts from science, consulting and industry practice, and on feedback provided by a sounding board of several SAP experts and managers. It was discussed with the experts who key users and stakeholders are, which problems need to be addressed, which goals are pursued, and the benefits and value added. The authors further investigated capabilities and competencies needed and how EAM and BTM are evolving.