Social and health care enterprise architecture maturity assessment: towards a more efficient steering

Authors

• Riikka Vuokko Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, Helsinki
• Sari Palojoki Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, Helsinki

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23996/fjhw.97350

Keywords:

strategic planning [http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p13653], social welfare [http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3281], health care [http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2641], steering, evaluation [http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7413], methods [http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1913]

Abstract

In the social and health care sector, results of enterprise architecture (EA) have not been extensively assessed even though the method has been utilized for almost two decades. The aim of the study is to examine and compare some of the key maturity models and their application of EA. Based on the literature, the study was grounded on the assumption that increasing the maturity of the EA benefits steering of the public administration. The method of the narrative literature review was applied. The study produced a comparison of maturity assessment models EAMM, DyAMM, MIT CISR, and SAMM. Additionally, the evaluation components of DyAMM and SAMM were examined. Results indicate that the maturity assessment of EA has been examined to a small extent. The weakness of the theoretical foundation challenges the EA development and its maturity assessment. The dimensions identified in the theoretical models could be applied more widely in order to make more effective use of the EA in its role of the steering support in public administration. The development of maturity assessment models requires further research, in which the theoretical examination is accompanied by testing the model with real data. In this way, models can be developed evidence-based and not just on the terms of individual projects. By these means, the models would provide a reliable and target-specific assessment to improve steering in public administration.

References

Whitehouse D, George C, Duquenoy P. eHealth: legal, ethical and governance challenges: an overview. Proc. Med-e-Tel 2011;353-358. ISSN 1818 – 9334.

Virkanen H, Mykkänen J. Analysis of central enterprise architecture elements in models of six eHealth projects. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:141-5.

Sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon kokonaisarkkitehtuuriryhmän asettaminen. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön päätös 7.3.2018, 1162470 v.4, STM/3810/2017 [Julkaisematon asiakirja].

Valtioneuvoston kanslia. Eheä yhteiskunta ja kestävä hyvinvointi - Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön tulevaisuuskatsaus. Valtioneuvoston julkaisusarja 22/2018. Helsinki: Valtioneuvosto; 2018. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-596-9.

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin kohdealueen KA hallintamalli 1.0, 4.12.2012. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö; 2012. [Viitattu 17.9.2020] Saatavissa: https://www.avoindata.fi/data/dataset/b073c0fb-89e6-4688-9fb0-92d1b73c7522/resource/094b4d6c-d370-464d-a9cf-6a6e7c3d7523/download/terveydenjahyvinvoinninkohdealueenkahallintamalli0.1.0.zip (Tutkimuksessa käytetty julkaisematonta v1.5, 2017.)

JHS 179. Kokonaisarkkitehtuurin suunnittelu ja kehittäminen, v. 30.1.2018. Julkisen hallinnon tietohallinnon neuvottelukunta (Juhta); 2018 [Viitattu 17.9.2020]. Saatavissa: http://www.jhs-suositukset.fi/suomi/jhs179.

Pentikäinen M, Kärkkäinen A, Mykkänen J, Penttinen J, Hyppönen K, Siira T, Jalonen M. Sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakas- ja potilastietojen kansallinen kokonaisarkkitehtuuri, versio 2.1, 10/2019. Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, Kanta; 2019 [Viitattu 17.9.2020] Saavissa: https://yhteistyotilat.fi/wiki08/display/THLSTAP.

Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön kärkihankkeiden arviointi. Raportteja ja muistioita 2019:36. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö; 2019. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-4071-0.

Virtanen A. Kokonaisarkkitehtuuri – kokonaisnäkemystä etsimässä. FinJeHeW 2014;6(1):27-31.

van den Berg MJBK. Improving IT Decisions with Enterprise Architecture. PhD thesis. SIKS Dissertation Series; 22. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; 2019. 258 p.

Becker J, Knackstedt R, Pöppelbuss J. Developing Maturity Models for IT Management – A Procedure Model and its Application. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2009;1:213-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–235. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329

Meyer M, Helfert M, O'Brien C. An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks. In: Grabis J, Kirikova M (eds). Perspectives in Business Informatics Research. BIR 2011. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 90. Berlin, Heidelberg; Springer: 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24511-4_13.

de Bruin T, Rosemann M, Freeze R, Kulkarni U. Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. ACIS 2005 Proceedings (16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems), 109. ACIS; 2005. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005/109

Carcary M. Design Science Research: The Case of the IT Capability Maturity Framework (IT CMF). The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 2011;9(2):109-118.

van Steenbergen M, Bos R, Brinkkemper S, van de Weerd I, Bekkers W. Improving IS Functions Step by Step: The use of focus area maturity models. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 2013;25(2):35-56.

Seppälä A, Puranen K. Sote-tieto hyötykäyttöön 2020 strategian väliarviointi: Loppuraportti 14.11.2018. Raportteja ja muistioita 2019:1. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö; 2019. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-4023-9.

Kaisler SH, Armour F. 15 Years of Enterprise Architecting at HICSS: Revisiting the Critical Problems. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. HICSS; 2017. p. 4807-4816.

Valtiovarainministeriö. Julkisen hallinnon kokonaisarkkitehtuuri. Julkisen hallinnon KA-kypsyystasomalli, määrittely 1.0, 4.4.2012. Helsinki: Valtiovarainministeriö; 2012. Saatavilla: https://vm.fi/documents/10623/307673/Kypsyystasomalli/e15a9c97-bdcf-4cbf-b1fa-31e9e99a188b/Kypsyystasomalli.pdf

Poorebrahimi A, Razavi F, Razavi FSR. Presenting VALIT Frameworks and Comparing between Them and Other Enterprise Architecture Framework. Int J Advanced Networking and Applications 2016;7(4):2805-2809. ISSN 0975-0290.

Kurniawan NB, Suhardi S. Enterprise Architecture Design for Ensuring Strategic Business IT Alignment (Integrating SAMM with TOGAF 9.1). [Conference paper] 2013 Joint International Conference on Rural Information & Communication Technology and Electric-Vehicle Technology (rICT & ICeV-T), November 26-28, 2013, Bandung-Bali, Indonesia; 2013. p. 1-7. doi: 10.1109/rICT-ICeVT.2013.6741505.

van den Berg M, van Steenbergen M. Building an Enterprise Architecture Practice. Tools, Tips, Best Practices, Ready-to-Use Insights. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2006. 206 p.

Montealegre R. A Process Model of Capability Development: Lessons from the Electronic Commerce Strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil. Organization Science 2002;13(5):514-531. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.514.7808.