تأثیر معماری فناوری اطلاعات بر همکاری بین‌سازمانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه مدیریت صنعتی و فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه مدیریت صنعتی و فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف: همکاری سازمانی به­‌عنوان ابزاری پدیدار می­‌شود که به اعضای شبکه همکاری اجازه می­‌دهد تا بر اساس اطلاعات به‌اشتراک­‌گذاشته­‌شده و تبادل­‌های دوطرفه، تصمیم‌­گیری کنند. هماهنگی و همگام­‌سازی فعالیت­‌ها با هدف جلب رضایت بازار و افزایش سود مشترک را موجب می­‌شود. شبکه­‌های همکاری از سازمان­‌هایی تشکیل می­‌شوند که تمایل قبلی برای همکاری با یکدیگر را دارند تا با استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات و از طریق تصمیم­‌گیری مشترک و مشارکت مؤثر به منافع مشترک خود دست یابند. هدف از این پژوهش، بررسی شبکه­‌ها (CNs) و فرآیند همکاری است که به آن­ها امکان افزایش تعامل در محیط را می­‌دهد. این ابزارهای جدید مبتنی بر معماری سازمانی (EA) ات. از طرفی سازمان­‌هایی که به قصد کسب مزیت رقابتی و مقابله با پیچیدگی­‌های محیطی اقدام به همکاری با دیگر سازمان­ها می­‌کنند، هر یک معماری سازمانی منحصر به خود را دارند. بررسی تأثیر این معماری سازمانی بر معماری شبکه همکاری سازمان‌­ها، مدنظر این پژوهش است. در این راستا با بررسی مبانی نظری و با استفاده از روش مدل­سازی ساختاری ـ تفسیری (ISM) به تدوین چارچوبی برای برسی تأثیر معماری فناوری اطلاعات سازمان بر معماری همکاری بین سازمانی پرداخته شده است. نتایج این پژوهش مبین 5 بُعد معماری سازمان و 6 بٌعد معماری همکاری میان­‌سازمانی و چگونگی سطح‌­بندی و ارتباط میان آن­ها در قالب یک مدل نهایی است. بینشی که این چارچوب به سازمان‌­ها ارائه می­‌کند، می­‌تواند در طراحی بهتر معماری سازمان برای برخورداری از یک همکاری مؤثر و مزایای حاصل از آن مفید باشد. معماری سازمانی یک فرآیند مستمر پس از آغاز است. استقرار چنین فرآیندی شامل تعامل با ابعاد مختلف سازمان است؛ بنابراین ابعاد فرهنگی، انسانی، فنی، ساختاری،‌ رویدادی و غیره در سرتاسر سازمان، مسائل اساسی در اجرای موفقیت‌­آمیز معماری سازمانی هستند. با توجه به اینکه اجرای معماری سازمانی پرهزینه و گران است، پیاده­‌سازی ضعیف آن مشکلات متعددی را برای سازمان فراهم می‌­کند.
یافته‌ها: در موضوع فناوری اطلاعات مشترک ابعاد حقوقی، استانداردها، خطوط راهنمای کنترلی، چارچوب‌­های زمانی و صورت‌­وضعیت­‌ها تقویت و به‌­طور دقیق مشخص می‌­شود. بررسی و تحلیل MICMAC نشان داد که مؤلفه‌­های مدل محتوایی (توصیف مفهومی) معماری سازمان، مدل منطقی (توصیف سیستمی) معماری سازمان و استراتژی­‌های کسب­و­کار همکاری بیشترین میزان نفوذ را بر دیگر مؤلفه‌­ها دارند و جو مؤلفه­‌های کلیدی در شکل‌­گیری فرآیند همکاری محسوب می­‌شوند. سایر مؤلفه­‌های مورد­بررسی از قدرت نفوذ و وابستگی بالایی برخوردار هستند و در ناحیه پیوندی قرار می­‌گیرند. این مؤلفه­‌ها دارای ارتباط دو­طرفه با یکدیگر هستند. با توجه به نتایج پژوهش، پیشنهادهای زیر ارائه شد: نتایج پژوهش نشان می­‌دهد فناوری نقش بسیار مهمی در توسعه همکاری بین­‌سازمانی دارد؛ بنابراین پیشنهاد می­‌شود سازمان­‌ها نسبت به طراحی سیستم‌­های اطلاعاتی بین­‌سازمانی اقدام کنند. در میان عوامل سطح 1 دانش همکاری عامل اثرگذاری بر همکاری بین­‌سازمانی است بر همین اساس در معماری سازمانی پیش­بینی سازوکارهای تولید، کسب و به‌­کارگیری دانش باید صورت پذیرد. طراحی و استقرار فرآیندهای مشخص برای همکاری بین‌­سازمانی ضرورتی است که در طراحی معماری سازمانی باید بین سازمان‌­ها لحاظ شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of Enterprise Architecture on Inter-Organizational Collaboration

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Otarkhani 1
  • Bahareh Khodaei 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Management and Information Technology, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Master's student, Department of Industrial Management and Information Technology, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction and Purpose: Organizational cooperation emerges as a tool that allows members of the cooperation network to make decisions based on shared information and two-way exchanges, which coordinate and synchronize activities with the aim of attracting market satisfaction and increasing shared profits. Cooperation networks are formed by organizations that have a prior desire to cooperate with each other in order to achieve their common interests by using information technology and through joint decision-making and effective participation. This research aims to investigate cooperation networks (CNs) and the cooperation process that allows them to increase interaction in the environment. These new tools are based on enterprise architecture (EA). On the other hand, organizations that cooperate with other organizations to gain a competitive advantage and deal with environmental complexities each have their own unique organizational architecture. Investigating the effect of this organizational architecture on the cooperation network architecture of organizations is the target of this research. In this regard, by reviewing the theoretical literature and using the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method, a framework has been developed to examine the impact of the organization's information technology architecture on the architecture of inter-organizational cooperation. The results of this research show five dimensions of organization architecture and six dimensions of inter-organizational cooperation architecture and how they are leveled and related in the form of a final model. The insight that this framework provides to organizations can help in better designing the architecture of the organization to enjoy effective cooperation and the benefits of it. Enterprise architecture is a continuous process after initiation. Establishing such a process involves interacting with different dimensions of the organization. Therefore, the cultural, human, technical, structural, and event dimensions throughout the organization are fundamental issues in the successful implementation of organizational architecture. Considering that the implementation of organizational architecture is costly, its poor implementation provides many problems for the organization.
Findings: In the subject of common information technology, we strengthen and precisely specify the legal dimensions, standards, control guidelines, time frames, and the form of situations. MICMAC analysis showed that the components of the content model (conceptual description) of the organization's architecture, the logical model (systemic description) of the organization's architecture, and business strategies of cooperation have the greatest influence on other components and are key components in forming the cooperation process. Other investigated components have high power of penetration and dependence and are located in the connected area, having two-way communication with each other. Based on the research results, the following suggestions were made: Technology plays a very important role in developing inter-organizational cooperation, so organizations should design inter-organizational information systems. Among the level 1 factors, knowledge cooperation is the most influential on inter-organizational cooperation. Therefore, in organizational architecture, the mechanisms of knowledge production, acquisition, and application should be anticipated. Designing and establishing specific processes for inter-organizational cooperation is a necessity that must be considered by organizations in the design of organizational architecture.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Enterprise architecture
  • Collaboration network
  • Inter-organizational Collaboration
  • Interpretive structural modeling
  • Information technology

مراجع

  1.  

     

    1. Adam, O., Hofer, A., Zang, S., Hammer, C., Jerrentrup, M., & Leinenbach, S. (2005). A Collaboration Framework for Cross-enterprise Business Process Management. In: First International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Software and Application, Geneva.
    2. Adel, A., & Bayat, K. (1387). Designing a business process model with an interprietive structural modeling approach. Information Technology Management Journal, 1(1), 3 – 18. (In Persian)
    3. Ambler, S.W. (2003). Agile Enterprise Architecture: Beyond Enterprise Data Modeling. In http://www.agiledata.org/ Accessed on 12 November 2004.
    4. Audy, J., Lehoux, N., & D’Amours, S. (2012). A framework for an efficient implementation of logistics collaborations. International Transactions in Operational Research, 19(5), 633–657.
    5. Beckhard, R., & Pritchard. W. (1992). Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
    6. Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., Rivard, S.(2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance, 41, 1003-1020.
    7. Bernard, A. (2012). An introduction to enterprise architecture. AuthorHouse, 2012
    8. Boughzala, I., VreedeG, J. (2012). A collaboration maturity model: Development and exploratory application. System Science. Hawaii: IEEE,
    9. Briggs, R. O., Kolfschoten, G. L., Vreede, G. J. de, & Dean, D. L. (2006). Defining Key Concepts for Collaboration Engineering. Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems, 121-128.
    10. Chen, D., Doumeningts, G., & Vernadat, F (2008). Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: past, present and future. Computers in industry, 59, 647–659
    11. Cheng, K., Popov, Y. (2004): Internet-enabled modelling of extended manufacturing enterprises using process-based techniques. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, 23, 148–153
    12. Chief Information Officers Council (1999). Federal enterprise architecture framesork-version 1/1. http://www.cio.gov/archive/ fedarch 1.pdf.
    13. Choi, Y., Kang, D., Chae, H., & Kim, K. (2008). An enterprise architecture framework for collaboration of virtual enterprise chains. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(11–12), 1065–1078.
    14. CIO (2001), A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture, Version 1/0, Chief Information Officer Council, Washington, DC.
    15. Cohen, (1996). Legislation can be found by law number on: (http://Thomas.loc.gov) PL104-106
    16. Curt, A., Avilla, T., Doyale, J., Marecic, J., Riordan, S., & Wells, D. (2007). State of Oregon Enterprise Architecture Maturity Assessment Iteration-1. Building the Foundation. Version 0/5.
    17. Dongwoo, K., Jeongsoo, L., Kwangsoo, K. (2010). Alignment of Business Enterprise Architecture using fact-based ontologies. Expert system with Application 37, 3274-3283.
    18. Elani, F., & Shams, A. (1383). UML survey in terms of coverability to Zachman’s framework. Master’s thesis. Shahid Behesti University, Faculty of Electrical and computer Engineering. Tehran 83. (In Persian)
    19. (2003). A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management. Version 1/1, 2003. (www.GAO.gov).
    20. )2003). A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management .Version 1.1, 2003.(www.GAO.gov)
    21. IDEAS, IDEAS Project Deliverables (WP1-WP7), Public Reports, 2003, ideasroadmap.net.
    22. : GERAM: (1999). Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology. International Federation for Information Processing, http://dl.ifip.org/index.php/index/index
    23. Instutute For Enterprise Architecture Development (IFEAD-2004). Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model (E2AMM), Version2/0, (Enterprise-Architecture.info).
    24. ISO 15704. (2000). Industrial automation systems–Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies.
    25. Jahani, B., Javadein, S., Abedi, H., & Jafari, S. R. (2010). Measurement of enterprise architecture readiness within organizations. Business Strategy Series, 11(3), 177 – 191
    26. James, A. G., & Burke, B. (2005). Understand the Maturity of Your Enterprise Architecture. Gartenr Reshearch, Program Publication Date: 17 November, ID Number: G00136105).
    27. Kannan G, AN. Haq, P.Sasikumar & S. Arunachalam (2008). Analysis and selection of green suppliers using interpretative structural modeling and analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(2), 163–82.
    28. Khayami, R. (2011). Qualitative characteristics of enterprise architecture. Procedia Computer Science3.1277-1282.
    29. Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F., & Zelm, M. (1999). CIMOSA: Enterprise engineering and integration. Computers in Industry, 40(2), 83–97.
    30. Lankhorst, M. (2005). Enterprise Architecture at Work –Modeling ,Communication and analysis. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, © Printed in Germany
    31. Levan, S.K. (2004). Travail collaboratif sur Internet: Concept, méthodes et pratiques des plateaux projet, Paris, France: Vuibert.
    32. Long, G., Rosser, B., & Stanley, C. (2003). Gartner 360˚: Enterprise Architecture, S. Symposium/IT, 23-27 March, San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, California.
    33. Margherita, A., Secundo, G. (2011). The Stakeholder University as Learning Model of the Extended Enterprise. Journal of Management Development, 30(2), 175–186.
    34. Matthes, F., Sabine, B., Leitel, J., & Schweda, C. M. (2008) Enterprise Architecture Management Tool Survey 2008. In: TU Munich, Chair for Informatics, 19 (sebis), Germany http :/ / de. slideshare . net /Aamir97 / enterprise - architecture - management - tool - survey -2008-4437612 Last Access: 27/06/2013
    35. Mokhtarzade, N., Razavi, S.M., Nilfrooshan, H., Faghei, M. )2018). An Investigation on the Factgors Affectiing the Success of Knowledge Transfer Process in Inter-Firm Collaborations (Case: Pharmaceutical Firm Collaborations), The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 32, 33-60.
    36. Niemann K. D. (2006) From Enterprise Architecture to IT Governance Elements of Effective IT Management. Vieweg, Wiesbaden http://site.ebrary.com/id/ 10191953 Last Access:27/06/2013
    37. Niemann K. D. (2008) Enterprise Architecture Management and its Role in IT Governance and IT Investment Planning. In: Saha P. (ed.) Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture. Science Reference, New YorkLast Access: 27/06/2013, 208–228
    38. Office of management and Budget (OMB-2005). OMB Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework. Version 1/5, May.
    39. Ordvan, M. (2015). Cham, a framework and methodology of organizational architecture. The12th International Conference of the Iranian Computer Association. Shahid Beheshti University. Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Tehran. March 85. (In Perssian)
    40. Pouly, M., Monnier, F., Bertschi, D. (2005). Success and Failure Factors of Collaborative Networks of Sme. In: Camarinha-Matos L.M., Afsarmanesh H., Ortiz A. (eds) Collaborative Networks and Their Breeding Environments. PRO-VE 2005. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 186. Springer, Boston, MA
    41. Rahimi, A., Akhavan, P., Philisofian, M., Darabi, A. (2022). Investigationg the Effect of using Blockchain Technology on Collaborative Interactions and Performance Improvement in the Defense Industry Supply Chain. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 12(45), 109-134. (In Persian)
    42. Ravi, V., Shankar, R. (2004). Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics. Technological Forecasting and Social Changes, 72(8), 1011–1029.
    43. Sage, A. (1977). Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for lLarge Scale Systems. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 91e164.
    44. Samadi, A. (1384). An introductiuon to organizational architecture. Secretariat of the Supreme Information Council (In Persian)
    45. Sasa, A., & Krisper, M. (2011). Enterprise architecture patterns for business process support analysis. The Journal of System and Software, 84(9), 1480-1506. Doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.02.043
    46. Schekkerman, J. (2004). Enterprise architecture validation. Achieving business-aligned and validated entreprise architectures. Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments (IFEAD). http://enterprisearchitecture.info/ Accessed 10 October 2011
    47. Shahryari Nia, A., Olfat, L., Amiri, M., Kazazi, A., & Hybrid, A. (2022) Approach to Develop a Structural Model of Factors Affecting Suply Chain Collaboration in Home Appliance Industry. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 10(37), 89-118.
    48. Soosay, C. A., & Hyland, P.)2015(.A Decade of Supply Chain Collaboration and Directions for Future Research. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(6), 613–630.
    49. Spekman, R., & Davis, E. W. (2016). The Extended Enterprise: A Decade Later.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(1), 43–61.
    50. THE OPEN GROUP. (2009). ARCHIMATE, The Power of Enterprise Architecture, http://www.archimate.org/en/home/
    51. The, OPEN GROUP. (2011). TOGAF. http://www.opengroup.org/ togaf/. Accessed 18 November 2011.
    52. Vargas, A.; Garcia, B., Cunca, L., Ortiz, B. ˊ. (2013a). Towards a framework for inter-enterprise architecture to boost collaborative networks. En On the Move to Meaningful Internest Systems: OTM 2013 Workshop. Springer Verlag (Germany). 179-188.
    53. Vargas, A., Cuenca, L., Ortiz Bas, Á., Sacala, I., Moisescu, M. (2014). Towards the development of the framework for inter sensing enterprise architecture. Springer Science, Business Media, New York 2014.
    54. Vargas, A., Boza, A., Patel, Sh., Patel,, Cuenca, L., Ortiz Bas, Á. (2015).Inter-enterprise architecture as a tool to empower decision making in hierarchical collaborative production planning, Data & Knowledge Engineering .
    55. Vargas, A., Boza Garcia, A., Cuenca, L. (2011). Towards interoperability through interenterprise collaboration architectures. En On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2011 Workshops. Springer Verlag (Germany). 7046, 102-111.
    56. Veasey, P. W. (2001). Use of enterprise architectures in managing strategic change. Business Process Management Journal, 7(5), 430-436.
    57. Vernadat, F. (1996). Enterprise Modeling and Integration. In: Principles and applications. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton.
    58. Zachman, J. (1997). Enterprise architecture: The issue of the century. Database Programming and Design, 1–13.

     

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار