What Are the Business Benefits of Enterprise Mashups?

Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011

What are the Business Benefits of Enterprise Mashups? Volker Hoyer University of St. Gallen [email protected]

Katarina StanoevskaSlabeva University of St. Gallen katarina.stanoevska @unisg.ch

Abstract Enterprise mashups (EMs) are a new technology that enables the automation of situational needs of knowledge workers. EMs imply a new development paradigm based on the peer production philosophy and empower end users to create individual applications without the involvement of the IT department. So far, there is insufficient research on potential benefits of EMs. This paper contributes to fill this gap by designing an EM benefit model. By following the design science approach, the balance scorecard concept is leveraged to identify and structure potential benefits of EMs. By means of a laboratory experiment and a case study, the applicability of the designed benefit model is demonstrated.

1. Introduction 1.1. Motivation In recent years, enterprise mashups (EMs) are increasingly considered by companies as an innovative technology for addressing ad-hoc and situational needs of knowledge workers [9]. At the core of the mashup paradigm are three aspects [16, 17]: first, instead of long-winded software development processes, existing and new applications are enhanced with interfaces (socalled Application Programming Interfaces, APIs) and provided as user-friendly building blocks; second, end users are empowered to cover ad-hoc needs by reuse and combination of existing APIs of available sources by way of light-weighted composition; and third, a new software development paradigm is introduced based on broad involvement of users and peer production approaches. Peer production “refers to production systems that depend on individual action that is selfselected and decentralized rather than hierarchically assigned” [2]. With EMs the creative energy of a large number of people is used to react flexible on continuous dynamic changes of the business environment. By providing intuitive ways to modify the individual working environments according to situational needs, EMs have the potential to empower knowledge workers who are engaged in information-

Simone Kramer SAP Research St. Gallen

Andrea Giessmann SAP Research St. Gallen

[email protected]

[email protected]

intensive activities [31]. Due to EMs, knowledge workers can enjoy increased flexibility and can react on the continuously changing business environment, without the need to directly involve the IT department. Since the early 1960s, several studies have identified a movement from manual to mental work, from less to highly trained labor, implying the growth of knowledge workers. [10] and [14] state that between one-fourth and one-third of all workers in advanced economies are knowledge workers. A challenging management task is to make knowledge work more productive. Given the often published potential of EMs to support knowledge workers in case of unstructured processes (see for example [17, 32]), this paper addresses two main research questions: first, what are the potential business benefits of EMs; and second, how can they be structured in a systematic way. The goal is to identify specific benefit items of EMs and the cause-and-effect relationships between them as well as to systematically present these items and relationships in a generic EM benefit model. Thereby, business benefits are interpreted to involve both organizational and user benefits.

1.2. Research Design: Design Science applied For answering the research questions, which are characterized by a practical nature, the design science approach is adopted. Design science is considered as a problem-oriented approach [15] and aims at creating and evaluating IT artefacts. To come to rigorous and relevant research results based on the design science approach, we draw upon [24] to structure the research process as follows: Problem Identification and Motivation. Section 1, has specified the research problem, explained its practical relevance and justified the value of a solution. Based on the problem scope, the research questions guiding this paper were derived. Define the Objectives for a Solution. Section 2 infers the objectives of a solution from the problem definition and knowledge of the state of problems. Based on a literature review, the underlying principles of the EM paradigm are explained and an

1530-1605/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE

1


overview of published ICT benefit evaluation concepts is given. Design. Section 3, proposes an EM benefit model artefact. First, a framework for the model artefact is constructed by leveraging the balanced scorecard concept. This framework considers the benefits from four perspectives: user orientation, operational excellence, future orientation, and financials. Second, by means of literature review, each dimension of the benefit framework is refined. Finally, the relationships between the benefit items are described in a cause-and-effect diagram. Demonstration and Evaluation. By means of a laboratory experiment and a single case study section 4 demonstrates the applicability of the designed aretefact. The final section of the paper briefly summarizes the results, discusses the limitations of the conducted research, and points out further research directions.

2. Objectives of the Solution 2.1. Enterprise Mashups In literature, the definition of EMs is open to debate. In this work, we consider the following definition: “An enterprise mashup is a Web-based resource that combines existing resources, be it content, data or application functionality, from more than one resource by empowering end users to create individual information centric and situational applications” [17]. The relevant architectural components of the EM paradigm are resources, widgets, and mashups. Resources represent actual contents, data or application functionality that are the core building blocks of mashups. They are accessible via welldefined public interfaces (APIs i.e., WSDL, RSS, Atom, etc.) allowing the loosely coupling of existing resources – a major quality of the service-oriented architecture (SOA) paradigm [1]. Resources are created by professional software developers. Either existing internal enterprise applications are extended with interfaces or Web resources from external providers (e.g. Amazon or Google) are utilized. Despite being simple, APIs might still be too complicated for end users. Thus, in order to abstract from the complexity of the underlying resources and APIs, widgets are created by professional developers that encapsulate APIs into a visual, user-friendly und easy-to-use interfaces. Available widgets are provided through EM platforms, that act as a central access point where widgets are used and combined. By configuring and personalizing the widgets, the underlying resources can be used according to the individual requirements.

Finally, end users are able to combine such visual widgets according to their individual business needs, thus creating a mashup that supports a certain activity or process. The process of composing widgets by linking their in-/ outports is called wiring and requires no programming skills. If necessary, users are able to configure the mashup to some extent, e.g. by (de)activation of functionalities, moving widgets, etc. Even though EMs platforms can be designed to support single users, the full potential of EMs can only be exploited in community- and peer production-based EM environments [17]. In such environments, widgets and mashups can be developed collaboratively, reused, and shared within a community of end users.

2.2. Overview of IT Value and Benefit Models The benefit evaluation of information and communication technology (ICT) is a continuous discussion [6] and can be traced back to the discourse about the productivity paradox of ICT [5]. Meanwhile, the question is no longer whether ICT contributes to the creation of value, but rather to what extent it contributes to value creation [30]. While the estimation of costs represents a relatively easy task, the benefit evaluation is much more complex. Since ICT belongs to the support activities of an organization [25], a source-specific assignment of benefits is problematic. Most of the existing approaches for evaluation of IT investments deal with the benefits as well as the cost side of ICT. For example, the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis takes into account all costs related to an information system. In this way, cost drivers as well as hidden costs are identified in advance of an investment decision [13]. By focusing on the financial aspects, several top-tier measures such as for example the return on investment (ROI) or the economic value added (EVA) are conceivable [28]. So far, however, the TCO approach does not provide specific guidelines on how to identify the benefits of specific ICT solutions. [12] present a framework for classification of IT applications based on an eight-rung ladder. Each rung, starting from mandatory changes (first rung) to business transformation (eighth rung), represents a class of applications. According to the authors each higher rung increases the complexity of evaluation and the degree of risk and uncertainty, but at the same time increases the possible returns on investments” [12]. [11] present a more integrated view on the benefits of information systems and show how ICT can impact the business performance. They develop the widely accepted Information System success model consisting of six dimensions: system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and

2


organizational impact [11]. [27] propose a twodimensional matrix to classify information systems effectiveness measures. While the first dimension describes the type of system (i.e., a single IT application or all IT applications used by an organization), the second dimension is represented by the stakeholder in whose interests the system is being evaluated. The matrix developed allows the classification of 30 different measures of effectiveness, which evaluate IT mainly from system perspective [8]. One common characteristic of the above described evaluation approaches, is the focus on the evaluation of system and operational excellence [8, 22]. Since the goal of EMs is to empower end users, aspects like end user value proposition and increased innovation rate should be taken into account. The analysis of the business benefits of the community-driven EM paradigm implicates a holistic viewpoint integrating the three information systems perspectives: people, ICT, and organization [21]. An approach that is suitable to enable a holistic view on the evaluation of ICT is the management concept balanced scorecard. In the heart of the concept is the thinking in different perspectives (customer, internal process, innovation/ learning, and financial) [18]. The four perspectives are linked in a casual relationship that in the end can also be related to the business strategy of a company. After the successful introduction of the balanced scorecard concept in the strategic management area, it was increasingly applied for ICT evaluation [32]. By leveraging the holistic structure of the balanced scorecard concept, in the reminder of the paper a specific EM benefit model is developed.

3. Design: Towards an EM Benefit Model The design of the EM benefit model follows a three-step approach: First an EM benefit framework is developed in alignment with the generic four balance scorecard perspectives. Then each framework perspective is refined with respective benefit items. Finally, the identified perspectives and business items and their cause-and-effect relationships are summarized in an EM benefit model.

3.1. The EM Benefit Framework By considering the common characteristics of ICT benefits, and the specific characteristics of EMs, the four generic balance scorecard perspectives can be adjusted to the context of EMs as follows: User Orientation. The main beneficiaries of EMs are knowledge workers in the business units. Thus, this perspective refers to the specific value

proposition, i.e. benefits EMs can provide for knowledge workers. Operational Excellence. This perspective addresses the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness in business processes through EMs. Future Orientation. EMs enable continuous improvement and preparation for future challenges. A company can achieve its visions by sustaining innovation and change capabilities. Financials. EMs enhance financial performance and contribute to the value of the business units and the company as a whole.

3.2. Refinement of the EM Benefit Framework The specific EM benefit items detailing each framework perspective were identified based on literature related to EMs. In addition, benefit items in existing IT evaluation concepts (see section 2.2) were considered to complete the model. The User Orientation Perspecive Increased Flexibility. The term flexibility refers to the users’ ability to design his or her working environment by efficiently accessing available internal and external data sources and by creating ad-hoc applications thanks to a flexible mashup platform [4, 7]. Individual ad-hoc problems can be solved within minutes or hours by users themselves. In accordance with [26], the following common flexibility dimensions are identified: • Information search: Ease of integrating and linking different resources and accessing all data needed to reply to ad-hoc requests. • Process integration: Ease of integrating a complete business process, e.g. all relevant information is available and their processing can be adjusted to meet the requirements of ad-hoc requests. • User-customizability: Ability to customize the mashup platform to better carry out business activities, to react on uncertainty without influencing stability of the system, and to conduct changes without the help of IT staff. Increased Involvement. The core of the mashup paradigm is related to the empowerment and involvement of actual end users, as they can create situational applications with little or no programming skills. Furthermore, users get actively involved through tagging, rating, sharing, and recommending of the mashable components, which are typical community and collaboration features in the peer production philosophy [4]. Users can provide valuable feedback to the mashup creator and directly contribute to its adoption and improvement. Two aspects of involvement are identified [3]:

3


Networking: Users feel involved when they are able to work collectively for mutual support, share knowledge, and participate in a community. Communicate own experience: Users feel involved when they can make their opinions, ideas, and experience known to other users, and when their contribution influences future features of the ICT. Increased Satisfaction. User satisfaction and motivation increase at work as users experience more flexibility and involvement by using mashups. Besides flexibility and involvement, two further criteria determine user satisfaction (adapted from [29]): Reliability of information: Degree of quality, accuracy, and actuality of data. Ease of use: Simplicity in using IT applications. The Operational Excellence Perspective Support of Unstructured Processes. Knowledge workers are often involved in ad-hoc, unstructured decision processes, which cannot be modeled in advance and are typically not supported by available applications. In such decision situations, only unstructured information is available, which has to be pulled together from several information sources [4]. The seamless integration of different data sources according to the requirements of ad-hoc decision processes reduces the processing time and improves decision making of knowledge workers. Improved Decision Making. Besides increasing the speed of decision making, EMs can also improve the quality of the decisions made. [19] suggest to judge decision quality by evaluating the underlying process of decision making and not by its outcome. This process-oriented approach considers three criteria to evaluate a decision’s quality (adapted from [19]): • Complete set of choices: Adequate, reliable information is available, also from new sources. • Correct sequence of action: The problem or goal of the decision maker is clearly structured and well-defined. This allows a logic and correct sequence of actions for making the decision. • Repeatability: The process of decision making can be repeated and will lead to the same result. Reduced Process Breaks. Without the use of EMs, knowledge workers have to mentally combine relevant information and manually transfer information across different systems. Through enabling interoperability between different information sources, working processes are simplified as well as cutting, pasting, and switching among browser windows can be avoided. By eliminating these process breaks, the error rate can be significantly reduced. This again results in better decision quality.

The Future Orientation Perspective Rapid Response to Changing Markets. Through improvements in the operational excellence perspective, actionable knowledge can be provided more rapidly and allows an immediate implementation of decisions made. This is in particular essential as there is often only a small window of opportunity in competitive market situations. Improved Competitiveness. Faster and better decision making with EMs increases the competitiveness of a company. Increased Innovation Rate. Another benefit of using EMs is that the enterprise can take advantage of the creativity of a large number of users. They become engaged with the development of software, mashup existing business processes, and create new ones, leading to an increased innovation rate. According to [16], “an ubiquitous laboratory for innovation throughout an organization” is created and competitive advantage can be gained. The Financial Perspective Improved Productivity. Improvements made in the operational excellence perspective by decreasing the processing time lead to a higher user productivity. Preserved Investments. The technical foundation of EMs is the SOA. The IT landscape and systems are built on modular components, which can be reused and integrated in new ways. By putting a face on SOA, EMs do not replace it. Instead, the paradigm allows leveraging the existing capabilities and therewith preserves investments. The Enterprise Mashup Benefit Model A specific characteristic of the balanced scorecard approach is not only the specification of the four perspectives, but also the identification of the causeand-effect relationships among the identified items. Figure 1 summarizes the resulting EM benefit model and includes the four perspectives, the respective benefit items, and their transitive cause-and-effect relationships reflected by arrows. At the core of the EM paradigm is user orientation and the user value proposition. Thus, the user orientation perspective is assigned at the lowest layer of the model. The lowest layer is the starting point for the identification of cause-and-effect relationships driving and supporting the upper perspectives. As an example, increased user flexibility through EMs increases user satisfaction and also leads to a faster and better decision making. This benefit then improves competitiveness of the organization in the future orientation perspective, which in turn improves productivity in the financial perspective.

4


Figure 1: Benefit Model for Enterprise Mashups

4. Demonstration and Evaluation The applicability of the designed EM benefit model was evaluated by means of a laboratory experiment and a case study. The laboratory experiment focused on evaluating the user orientation perspective. The case study focused on evaluating the organizational perspective. The results of the evaluation are summarized in the subsequent sections.

4.1. User Orientation: Laboratory Experiment The laboratory experiment leveraged the existing mashup platform FAST (http://fast.morfeo-project.eu). A specific evaluation task was designed, consisting of a given decision problem. The assignment for the experiment participants was to solve the decision problem by using the FAST platform. In order to achieve this, the participants had to identify relevant information that is necessary to make the decision, to select widgets required for decision making from among a set of available widgets in the FAST platform, and to mash the selected widgets in a way so that the resulting information is sufficient to solve the problem. Further details of the evaluation task are available at http://sites.google.com/site/fastonlinecontest. The experiment took place at four different locations: a German university, a Swiss university, a Spanish university, and the SAP Research Lab located in Switzerland. Interested students and research assistants were invited to participate in the experiment by attending an evaluation workshop. At each location, experiment participants were provided with all necessary equipment (laptop and Internet connection).

The setup of the evaluation workshop was as follows. First, a short introductory presentation explained the principles of the EM paradigm to the participants. Second, the participants watched an introductory video of 15 minutes, which was produced specifically for the evaluation workshop. The video demonstrated the features of the mashup platform in a simple scenario. The participants did not receive a dedicated training session. Third, the participants had to accomplish the assigned task. In the fourth and final step, the participants’ feedback was collected. The collection of feedback was conducted by means of a questionnaire. Each participant was asked to fill out a questionnaire in order to provide his or her individual opinion and impression. The designed questionnaire considered the identified user benefits of the user orientation perspective. The user benefits were broken down into individual elements, each of which were operationalized in a separate question. Each question involved a seven- point Likert rating scale: 1 disagree strongly; 2 disagree; 3 tend to disagree; 4 neutral; 5 tend to agree; 6 agree; 7 agree strongly. The evaluation results are summarized in Table 1. In total, 41 participants joined the experiment and provided feedback regarding the mashup benefits. 20 participants reported to have programming skills and thus represent technical users. 21 participants reported to have no or limited programming experiences and thus represent business users. The introduction of the EM paradigm requires openness to new technologies on the user side. The user attitudes towards innovations were analyzed by dedicated questions. The technical group indicated a higher attitude to new technologies (mean of 5.30) in comparison to the business group (mean of 4.83). However, 39% of all participants agree or agree strongly to be open to technical innovation.

5

Increased Satisfaction Reliability of external information: I trust the data quality I received from company external sources. Reliability of information: I can reduce error sources because I don’t have to switch and copy-paste between IT systems. Ease of use: Creating applications with EMs is easy for me. Ease of use: Using the mashup platform the first time was easy. Overall: I would like to use a future EM platform at work.

5.25 (1.33) 4.30 (1.26) 5.25 (1.12) 4.75 (0.91) 4.93

5.62 (0.92) 4.05 (1.12) 5.38 (1.07) 4.95 (1.12) 5.02

5.44 (1.14) 4.17 (1.18) 5.32 (1.08) 4.85 (1.01) 4.95

5.25 (1.33)

4.95 (1.20)

5.10 (1.26)

44%

4.85 (1.18)

4.90 (1.34)

4.88 (1.25)

29%

4.15 (1.79) 5.05

5.05 (1.12) 4.93

4.61 (1.53) 4.99

3.65 (1.14) 4.80 (1.51) 4.45 (1.67) 3.40 (1.85) 4.45 (1.67) 4.80

4.29 (1.06) 5.57 (1.03) 4.43 (1.08) 4.81 (1.50) 4.95 (1.16) 4.77

3.98 (1.13) 5.20 (1.33) 4.44 (1.38) 4.12 (1.81) 4.71 (1.44) 4.43

1

Total (n=41)

Increased Involvement Networking: I’d like to participate in the community by sharing and creating applications with my colleagues. Making known own experience: I feel empowered through the introduction of a mashup platform because I’m able to influence future capabilities of the enterprise IT system. Overall: I’m involved and empowered in creating my own working environment although I don’t have programming skills.

Business (n=21)

Overall: My daily working flexibility increases.

Technical (n=20

Benefits (Questions) Increased Flexibility Information Search: The aggregation of various information sources increases my decision quality. Process Integration: EMs allow covering the requirements of the complete business process. User Customizability: Using EMs allows me to react more flexible on adhoc requirements than using non-integrated IT systems.

High Agreement


54% 22% 44% 24% 37%

29% 37% 10% 51% 22% 27% 29% 27%

Table 1. Benefits User Orientation Thus, the experiment participants represent a good sample for assessing the benefits of EMs. The benefit of increased flexibility is acknowledged by the experiment users and results in a total mean of 4.95 and 37% of answers in the category “high agreement” (see Table 1). Looking at the individual items of the flexibility benefit, especially the integration of different data sources (system connectivity) is highly valued by 54% of the users, who strongly agree to the statement in the questionnaire. Also, the aspect of customizing own 1

High agreement indicates participants who have rated the statement with at least 6 on the seven-point Likert rating scale.

mashups to react on ad-hoc requests (user customizability) is rated high with 44% of users strongly agreeing. However, users do not believe in the capability of mashups to integrate a complete business process resulting in a high agreement of 22%. With respect to involvement and empowerment, 37% of the users show a high agreement with a mean of 4.99 (see Table 1). Looking at the individual items of the involvement benefit, users strongly feel involved as they can participate in the community (networking: 44% high agreement). Still 29% of the test users strongly agree to the statement of feeling empowered as they can influence future capabilities of the system (making own experience known). The benefit of satisfaction is overall assessed by the question if users would like to use EMs at their

6


work. 29% strongly agreed. Looking at the different items of the satisfaction benefit, the reliability of information is judged very ambiguously: on the one hand, users do not fully trust the data quality of external sources and only 10% strongly agree to this aspect; on the other, the aspect of reducing error sources is regarded as very positive with 51% users strongly agreeing. The ease of use of EMs is on the positive scale with means of 4.12 and 4.44, respectively. In summary, the experiment results in the following main user-oriented benefits (high agreement): • Aggregation of various information sources (54%) • Reduced error sources and improved decision quality (51%) • Networking and community involvement by sharing of content – building blocks (44%) • Customization of individual working environments for reacting on ad-hoc events (44%)

4.2. Operational Excellence: Case Study In order to measure the benefits within the operational excellence perspective of the EM benefit model, a real-world mashup scenario was implemented. The companies that provided the realworld scenario and the applied EM platform prototype want to remain unnamed. Thus, the information about the scenario and the EM platform are provided in anonymous form. The real-world mashup scenario involved a typical unstructured decision process of the company’s logistic planning unit and was implemented on the company’s existing ICT infrastructure. The considered existing infrastructure comprised the following applications: the enterprise transaction system in use at the case company, several other internal data sources, and relevant external Web resources that are typically used by the logistic planning unit. Existing interfaces to the company's internal and external resources were made available in the widget repository of the EM platform. After these preparations, the EM platform was provided to test users in the company. The chosen case process is a typical unstructured decision process performed many times by business analysts working in the unit for the logistic planning of resources. Each business analyst is responsible for the optimization of the logistics of personnel, material, and transportation resources (i.e. ships, cars, and others). The business analyst has to ad-hoc distribute personnel and material depending on the current status of traffic, weather, specific distribution of material and personnel at a specific point in time, and ad-hoc unpredicted demand and events. Often, the business analyst has to

decide within a limited time frame (mostly < 30 minutes) on an ad-hoc appearing decision situation. The underlying unstructured business process of the case scenario is depicted in Figure 3. As proposed by [32], the business process is structured into three phases: identification, development, and selection. To make the abstract scenario more tangible, Figure 3 presents a screenshot of the implemented mashup, which supports the process. The goal of the real-world case implementation was to evaluate the benefit items of the organizational excellence perspective by measuring and comparing the performance of the chosen decision process with and without the EM platform. The evaluation was based on several evaluation instruments: observation of the test users, measuring of process time and process breaks and assessment of feedback from test users. The test participants participated in the evaluation and performed the process with and without the EM platform. The observation of the test users revealed substantial differences in the way how the process is performed. Below, the three phases of the decision process are described from two perspectives. One perspective considers the process being performed manually, i.e. without the mashup platform. The other perspective considers the process being performed with the EM platform. Identification. The identification phase starts when the business analyst identifies an unexpected situation. This could be understaffing of a unit, insufficient material status, or considerable change in other influencing factors (e.g. weather). Triggered by an unexpected event, the business analyst starts to identify relevant information and collects real-time information from different internal and external sources, e.g. weather information for a specific region, or information from the enterprise transaction system, which shows the status of the resources that the business analyst is responsible for. In the manual process, the information are collected by manually accessing different sources. The collected information is often available in different formats and has to be integrated manually. There is no central working platform where data integration can take place. The business analyst has to switch between different systems and needs to copy-paste data. This working process is highly inefficient and prone to error as information is transferred manually. When the process is performed with the research EM platform, the business analyst can set up an initial combination of widgets that provide him or her with real time information for all resources he is responsible for. All this aggregated information can be visualized on a geographic information system (GIS) map (see Figure 3). An opportunity for optimization can thus be

7


Figure 2: Business Process of the Implemented Enterprise Mashup Process detected easier and faster. At the same time, the existing widget set can be extended with additional widgets accessing other information sources that might be necessary (e.g. traffic information). Development. In the development phase the collected data is analyzed in detail and one or more alternative solutions to the decision problem are developed. A deeper analysis helps to understand and locate the problem, e.g. by analyzing the current personnel situation or by checking the material stock. In the manual process version, the detailed analysis requires again access to additional information sources and manual organizing of the resulting information. In the mashup version of the process, the business analyst can customize the widgets, add widgets to new sources and integrate resulting data into different solution alternatives within the EM platform. Selection. In the selection phase, the different solutions are evaluated and compared to each other. Often, the business analyst needs to discuss the analysis results with other employees or his manager. In the manual process, this is done by sending emails, talking over the phone or organizing meetings. In the mashup process, the business analyst can add a widget for real-time communication services to the EM platform and thus share the data with other employees. When the decision is made, another widget can be added that supports the execution of the decision (e.g. a widget for placing an order). The implemented scenario furthermore served as foundation to quantify the business value of the operational excellence dimension. Some of the benefits items from the organizational excellence perspective as process time and process breaks can be measured

directly. Other benefit items as "Improved decision quality" can only be measured in qualitative way. Table 2 summarizes findings from the measurement. Considerable improvements of the processing time were achieved with EMs in all phases of the process. Furthermore, due to the support of the EM platforms, it was possible to eliminate all process breaks. During the whole process, the EM platform served as a central aggregation point where information was collected, integrated and flexibly combined. Thus the main benefit experienced due to EMs is the automation of unstructured decision processes. Besides improved processing time, the participants experienced improvements in the decision quality. The highest improvement in decision quality was experienced in the development phase of the process. Major reasons for the improvement in decision quality are: the support for easy and seamless individual collection, processing, integration and visualization of necessary data and the seamless working processes. Even if the uncertainty in decisions cannot be eliminated completely, more information sources can be consulted in a short period of time. The obtaining of heterogeneous information and the possibility to dedicate more time to information analysis then to organizing the processing of information improves decision quality as well. This positive impact of EM platforms is in particular relevant in times when the business analyst has to react on up to 100 alerts per day. Overall, the informational and automational effects of EMs lead to a new stage of productivity of knowledge workers. Faster and better decision making with EMs increases furthermore the competitiveness of companies.

8


Figure 3: Screenshot of the designed Enterprise Mushup Effect Type

Identification

Development

Selection

Support of unstructured processes Processing Time

6Æ1 (-83%)

12 Æ 3 (-75%)

8 Æ 5:20 (-65%)

Process breaks

5Æ0

3Æ0

4Æ0

++

+++

++

Decision Quality Decision quality

involvement of the users (knowledge workers). Only if they feel empowered and they recognize the benefits, the EM paradigm will succeed. Future work will deal with extending the research on the cost perspective in order to create a business case for EMs serving as an investment decision for introducing mashups in corporation environments.

6. References

Transformational

[1] G. Alonso, F. Casati, H. Kuno, and V. Machiraju, Web Services: Concepts, Architectures and Applications. Berlin et al.: Springer, 2004

Competiveness ++ +++ + Table 2. Business Values (Operational Excellence)

[2] Y. Benkler, The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2006

5. Conclusion

[3] F. Brandfied, and P. Beresford, Making User Involvement Work: Supporting Service User Networking and Knowledge. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006

The aim of this paper was the design of a benefit model artefact for EMs. In order to achieve this, the design science methodology was applied. After defining the main terms related to EMs and analyzing published value frameworks, a benefit model was developed by leveraging the balanced scorecard concept. By means of a laboratory experiment and a case study, the applicability of the benefit model artefact was demonstrated and evaluated by users. We observed the driving force of the EM paradigm to be user orientation. The improved flexibility and efficiency of knowledge workers due to EM implicates all other benefits, for instance the automation of unstructured decision processes. As a practical guideline, the successful introduction of future EMs environments requires the direct

[4] A. Bradley, and D. Gootzit, Building a Business Case for Enterprise Mashups: A Gartner Framework. Stamford: Gartner Research, 2009 [5] E. Brynjolfsson, The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology. Communications of the ACM, 36(12), 67-77, 1993 [6] N. G. Car,. Does it matter? Information technology and the corrosion of competitive advantage, Harvard Business School Press, 2004 [7] N. Carrier, T. Deutsch, C. Gruber, M. Heid, and L.L. Jarret, The Business Case for Enterprise Mashups, IBM White Paper, August 2008.

9


[8] P. Costello, A. Sloane, and R. Moreton. IT Evaluation Frameworks – Do They Make a Valuable Contribution? A Critique of Some of the Classic Models for use by SMEs. The Elecrtonic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 10(1), 57 - 64, 2007

[20] B. Kirwin, IT Performance Reporting Inadequacies Impact IT Value Proposition. Gartner, 2006

[9] M. Chui, A. Miller, and R.R. Robert, Six Ways to make Web 2.0 work. The McKinsey Quarterly, February 2009, 7, 2009

[22] P. Lillrank, S. Holopainen, and T. Paavola, Catching Intangible IT Benefits. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 4(1), 2001

[10] T.H. Davenport, Improving Knowledge Worker Performance. In: Pantaleo, D. and Pal, N.: From Strategy to Execution. Berlin: Springer, 2008.

[23] H. Mintzberg, D. Raisinghani, and A. Theoret, The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246-275, 1976

[11] W. H. DeLone, and E. R. McLean, Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95, 1992 [12] B. Farbey, F. Land, and D. Targett, A Taxonomy of Information Systems Application - The Benefits Ladder. uropean Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 41 - 50, 1995 [13] C. Gartner, TCO Analyst. A White Paper on GartnerGroup’s Next Generation Total Cost of Ownership Methodology. TCO Analyst White Paper GartnerConsulting, 1997 http://www.netvoyager.co.uk/pdf/TCO_analyst.pdf. [14] S. Haag, M. Cummings, D. McCubbrey, A. Pinsonneault, and R. Donovan, Management Information Systems For the Information Age (3rd Ed.). Canada: McGraw Hill Ryerson, 2006 [15] A.R. Hevner, S.T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 1, 75-105, 2004 [16] D. Hinchcliffe, The 10 top Challenges Facing Enterprise Mashups, 2007 blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=141 [17] V. Hoyer, K. Stanoevska-Slabeva, T. Janner, and C. Schroth, Enterprise Mashups: Design Principles towards the Long Tail of User Needs. IEEE International Conference on Service Computing (SCC’08). Volume 2, 601-602, 2008 [18] R. S. Kaplan, and D. P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 1, 71-79, 1992 [19] G. Keren, and W. Bruine de Bruin, On the Assessment of Decision Quality: Considerations Regarding Utility, Conflict and Accountability. In: Hardman, D. and Macchi, L. (Eds.): Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making. New York, Wiley, pp. 347363, 2003

[21] A. Lee, Inaugural Editor’s Comments. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), V-XI, 1999

[24] K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, M. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee, A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77, 2008 [25] M. E. Porter Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, USA: Free Press, 1985 [26] M. Scherrer-Rathje, T.A. and Boyle, An End User Taxonomy of Enterprise Systems Flexibility: Evidence from a leading European Apparel Manufacturer. Working Paper, 2009 [27] P. B. Seddon, D. S. Staples, R. Patnayakuni, and M. J. Bowtell, The is Effectiveness Matrix: The Importance of Stakeholder and System in Measuring is Success. In Proceedings of the international conference on Information systems (pp. 165-176). Helsinki, Finland: ACM, 1998 [28] A. C. Shapiro, Capital Budgeting and Investment Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005 [29] H. Van der Zee, Measuring the Value of Information Technology. London: Idea Group Publishing, 2002 [30] J. vom Brocke, J. C. Recker, and J. Mendling, Value-oriented Process Modeling: Integrating Financial Perspectives into Business Process Redesign. In: Business Process Management Journal (BPMJ), 16, 2, 2010 [31] S. Weber, L. Thomas, and E. Ras, Investigating the Suitability of Mashups for Informal Learning and Personal Knowledge Management. Paper presented at the Workshop on Mashup Personal Learning Environments (MUPPLE), Maastricht, Netherlands, 2008 [32] L. Willcocks, Information Management. The Evaluation of Information Systems Investements. London: Chapman & Hall, 1995

10