A CAPABILITY-DRIVEN ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE FRAMEWORK FOR SMART HIGHER EDUCATION ECOSYSTEMS
Sari
Digital transformation in higher education requires effective integration of academic, learning, administrative, and decision-support services. However, existing Enterprise Architecture (EA) approaches often lack adaptability and capability-oriented mechanisms to support continuous organizational evolution. This study proposes a Capability-Driven Adaptive Enterprise Architecture Framework (CDA-EAF) to support the development of an integrated intelligent higher education ecosystem. The framework is developed using the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology, with TOGAF ADM as the architectural foundation, enhanced through capability-based planning, enterprise integration, and adaptive mechanisms. Validation is conducted through a higher education case study involving expert evaluation and architecture quality assessment. The results demonstrate that the proposed framework improves business–IT alignment, service interoperability, decision-making effectiveness, and organizational adaptability compared to conventional EA approaches. The study contributes a capability-driven adaptive enterprise architecture model that can serve as a reference for universities in developing integrated, sustainable, and smart campus ecosystems that support digital transformation.
Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, Adaptive Enterprise Architecture, Capability-Based Planning, Smart Campus, Digital Transformation, Higher Education.
Teks Lengkap:
PDFReferensi
Aier, S., & Gleichauf, B. (2010). Applying capability-based planning in enterprise architecture management. Proceedings of the IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW), 1–10.
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2020). Technology acceptance in smart campus environments. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 2345–2368.
Alhari, M. I., et al. (2022). A strategy to achieve e-government dimension of smart systems through enterprise architecture. Journal of Information Systems and Informatics.
Alshammari, A. Y. (2022). Challenges of enterprise architecture adoption in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7891–7912.
Hazen, B., Boone, C., Wang, J., & Khor, H. (2017). Perceived quality of business analytics and organizational performance. Information & Management, 54(6), 729–739.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
Hoogervorst, J. (2009). Enterprise governance and enterprise engineering. Springer.
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.
Hussein, M. B., Hassan, M. M., & Alamri, A. (2021). Smart campus framework: A solution for educational digital transformation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74, Article 103118.
Ifenthaler, M., & Gibson, D. (Eds.). (2020). Adoption of data analytics in higher education learning and teaching. Springer.
Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2020). Agile and adaptive governance in digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(2).
Korhonen, A., & Molnar, J. (2014). Enterprise architecture as capability management. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 10(3), 12–23.
Kotusev, S. (2021). The practice of enterprise architecture: A modern approach to business and IT alignment (2nd ed.). SK Publishing.
Lankhorst, M. (2017). Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication and analysis (4th ed.). Springer.
Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing business–IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(14), 1–50.
Nama, G. F., & Kurniawan, D. (2017). An enterprise architecture planning for higher education using The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF): Case study University of Lampung. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC).
Okoli, J., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2020). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Korhonen, A., & Molnar, J. (2014). Enterprise architecture as capability management. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 10(3), 12–23.
Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing business–IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(14), 1–50.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations, and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2020). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business School Press.
Scholta, H., Mertens, B., & Kowalkiewicz, J. (2023). From digital transformation to digital ecosystems: Enterprise architecture perspectives. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(4), 1287–1304.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teece, D. J. (2025). Dynamic capabilities. Cambridge University Press.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
The Open Group. (2022a). TOGAF® Standard (10th ed.). The Open Group.
The Open Group. (2022b). TOGAF® Series Guide: Capability-Based Planning. The Open Group.
Ulmi, U., Pribadi, M. R., & Setiawan, A. (2020). Enterprise architecture planning for enterprise university information system using TOGAF architecture development method. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 879(1).
van de Wetering, R. (2021a). Dynamic enterprise architecture capabilities and organizational benefits: An empirical mediation study. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63(4), 345–361.
van de Wetering, R. (2021b). Enterprise architecture resources, dynamic capabilities, and their pathways to operational value. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(5), 490–510.
van de Wetering, R., Mikalef, P., & Pateli, A. (2022). Strategic alignment between IT flexibility and dynamic capabilities: An empirical investigation. Information & Management, 59(4).
van Riel, J., & Proper, D. (2022). Strategy execution through enterprise architecture and capability-based management. In Enterprise Architecture and Capability Management Research (CEUR Workshop Proceedings).
Wagter, M., Proper, D., & Witte, J. (2012). Dynamic enterprise architecture. Wiley.
Winter, R., & Fischer, R. (2007). Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3(2), 7–18.
Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276–292.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33559/eoj.v8i3.4049
Refbacks
- Saat ini tidak ada refbacks.
Negara Pengunjung
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi 4.0 Internasional.