Enterprise Architecture as a Tool in Military Change Management

Enterprise Architecture as a Tool in Military Change Management Juha Mattila1 and Simon Parkinson2 1Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland 2RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Existing Enterprise Architecture (EA) models and frameworks appear to be incapable of capturing the dynamic and extended nature of military enterprises. An improved understanding of the evolution of enterprise structures over extended periods of time may help architects in planning military transformations. This paper approaches the Military enterprise architecture from the viewpoint of qualitative research using the fundamentals of systems science and evolutionary theory. The paper merges the results of five related studies that each explore the evolution of a single domain or layer of the military enterprise. The resulting merged model, referred to as the coherent EA model, combines the domains of knowledge, information, and information security management on the layer of ICT Infrastructure. The coherent model defined for this work is composed of layers of knowledge management, information management, information security management and ICT infrastructure. The coherent EA model is tested in experimentation where three separate transformation journeys of different Armed Forces are analysed from starting point to end state. The validity of the model is assessed according to its usability in determining possible positive and negative forces affecting the transformation of a military enterprise and providing advice to manage the change. The EA model focuses on helping architects working in the field of military Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information (C4I), to examine their existing situation, to find realistic paths for transformation and to provide advice in each step of change of military enterprise. Keywords: enterprise architecture, extended enterprise, dynamic architecture, military transformations, change management, military command, control, communications, computers and information (C4I) 1. Introduction Over the past 25 years, the authors have been involved in or observed several transformations of military enterprises. Enterprises have had different ambitions to drive the transformation, through focusing on one or more of business, organisation structure, cost-effectivity, adversary, or technology. Most of these transformational activities have been analysed and planned using some level of Enterprise Architecture, System Architecture, or Defence Analysis. Even with thorough planning and assessing, there have been several failures in military enterprises ability to adapt intended doctrines, organizations, processes, or technology. Enterprise Architecture (Giachetti, 2010; 101-116) has been promising to help the enterprise planners and transformation implementers in creating a better understanding of the complex structure of the enterprise. Nevertheless, the existing architecture models have failed to capture the dynamic adaptivity of socio-technical enterprise. Several approaches (Akhigbe, Amyot and Richards, 2014) (Korhonen, Lapalme, McDavid and Gill, 2016) have been proposed to model the dynamic nature of architecture components and their interrelationship. These features are not yet evident in militarily oriented architectures, for example, NAF and DODAF. This paper uses the foundations of evolutionary science (Mokyr, 2002) to understand the dynamism and the forces affecting the changes in each layer of military enterprise. The architecture layers chosen in Figure 1 are those essential for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information (C4I) related capabilities of military organisations. The layers of military enterprise in the coherent EA model are knowledge management consisting of decision making and sense-making supported by organisational learning; information; information security, computing and networking managed by ICT -operations. The layers are affected by forces both from outside and inside. Outside the enterprise, the environment powers are assessed with the posture model (Gattorna, 2010; 24) between confronting parties (Blue on Red). Inside the enterprise, the layers are affected significantly by the process strategy (Ross, Weill and Robertson, 2006; 29) a military force has adopted. The proposed EA model compiles the evolution of each layer. The paper experiments the EA model with data captured from three different transformations of Armed Forces. The proposed EA model is to help enterprise architects in analysing the strategies of military enterprises and in providing advice on transformations. 194 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson Figure 1: Military enterprise structure from enterprise architecture viewpoint emphasising C4I related capabilities The paper explains the research by explaining the challenge and hypothesis in literature review section 2; then it describes the used method and process for research in section 3. The results and their analysis are presented in section 4, and the study is concluded in section 5. 2. Literature review 2.1 The challenge The research intends to help an enterprise architect when trying to assess the current situation of military enterprise, find possible paths towards the future in each layer of enterprise structure, and foresee the challenges on the transformation journey towards achieving given strategic goals. Notably, the research focuses on improving the understanding of evolutionary and transformational forces affecting the digital transformation of military enterprise (Akhigbe, Amyot and Richards, 2014). Therefore, the research helps architects of military enterprises to hit a moving target (i.e., future structure of a military socio-technological enterprise) from a moving position (i.e., the current structure of enterprise affected by past and present vectors of force) (Geels, 2004). Military Enterprises have been trying to transform themselves using digitalization and information enabled features (e.g., network-enabled). The aimed endstate has been hard to gain as the military enterprise's ability to adapt intended doctrines, organizations, processes, or technology has not gone as planned as sampled in Table 1. Table 1: Samples of challenges and failures in military transformations Organization NATO Era of transformation 2000 Forsvaret, Sweden 2000 Puolustusv oimat, Finland 2008 US DOD 2000 Canada 19802000 Main Challenge Main Cause of the Failure Network Enabled Capabilities to create more effect out by connecting post-Cold War armament platforms The common C4ISTAR platform was missing until ISAF operation demanded the Afghan Mission Network be assembled by 2012. This led to NATO Federated Mission Network established by 2015. (NATO, 2017) Implementation was on its way when the Government decided to cut the spending thus halting the new investments. (Lindstrom, 2005) Nätverkbaserad Forsvaret, a major transformation of Cold War era force to smaller, digitalised and information enabled. Reorganization of the Defence of Finland from stovepiped Service to three Joint Commands taking responsibility of joint defence in their area of operation. Force Transformation to improve the Situational Awareness of troops and implement new doctrine. Transformation from Cold War capabilities to meet post 911 threats 195 Despite the apparent intention, renewed C4ISTAR capabilities and reorganization, the FINDEF failed to establish Joint Commands mainly due to the cultural fixations. (Prime Minister’s Office, Finland, 2017) The ISR transformation left the division and above levels with digital awareness but neglected the lower troops, which was a hard lesson in Objective Peach operation 2003. (Chizek, 2003) The transformation was not achieving the timeliness due to the lack of renewed education for officers. (Horn and Bentley, 2007) Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson Kegan and Lahey (2009; 89) are calling the forces that guide the transformation management or oppose the change as immunity to change. A quick summary of samples presented in Table 1 illuminates some causes for transformation failures: lack of focus, a sudden change in environment, traditional culture, wrong focus, and lack of competency. The military organisation may not be that rational of an entity, they may not be designed only, or people may not be as economic beings as the classical organisation theory assumes (Burnes, 2014; 1529). The challenge for the military enterprise architect may not, after all, be hitting a fixed target along the line of sight from a firm foothold. 2.2 The possible solution Enterprise Architecture (Giachetti, 2010; 101-116) provides frameworks to enterprise planners and transformation implementers in designing the transformation of a complex, intertwined structure of the enterprise. The Zachman framework (Zachman, 2008) introduced an ontology model to consider various parts of the enterprise structure. TOGAF (Desfray and Raymond, 2014) presented a content framework, architecture development method, and reference models to describe knowable structures. Large military forces are using tailored enterprise architecture frameworks like Department of Defence Architecture model (DODAF) (US DoD, 2018) or NATO Architecture model (NAF) (NATO, 2016) mainly as “a common approach for DoD to architecture description development, presentation, and integration” (Dam, 2015; 12). They do not support nor hinder architects in capturing the dynamic adaptability of the socio-technological military enterprise. The broader understanding of enterprise architecture is described as the “fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution” (ISO/IEC 42010: 2011). The definition recognises the design as top-down driven transformation and the evolution as incremental change usually driven bottom-up. Several approaches (Akhigbe, Amyot and Richards, 2014) (Korhonen, Lapalme, McDavid and Gill, 2016) have been proposed to model the dynamic nature of architecture components and their interrelationships. It seems that civilian architects are becoming better in the shooting, i.e., defining TO-BE moving enterprise end statements from a current evolving situation than their military colleagues. The military enterprise is moving but slowly (Bousquet, 2009; 4-7). Hence, firstly the understanding what brings the enterprise to its current position and structure and secondly analysing whether it either transforms or evolves should be an easier task than in fast moving commercial affairs. The evolutionary forces behind the military enterprise can be modelled using Joel Mokyr’s evolutionary theory for human and technical structures (Mokyr, 2002). The forces of transformation can be modelled using Kurt Lewin’s force field model in organizational change (Cameron and Green, 2012; 120-123). Mokyr (2002; 284-297) argues that the development and change of a socio-technical system can be modelled using evolutionary theory. In long-term transformation, the organisation is gaining knowledge and uses the knowledge to adapt outside and inside changes. According to the system of systems optimistic evolutionary model (Mattila, 2016) developed based on Mokyr’s theory, the knowledge to cope in a new way is gained in three ways: Preadaptation, Adaptation, and Exaptation. Using the above evolution model, Mattila and Parkinson have studied the evolutionary forces and roadmaps of several layers of military enterprises mainly focusing on command, control, communications, and information (C4I) functions extended with enterprise resource planning (ERP) related features. They explain and prove their model in the layers of business, information, and technology. The changes at business levels are described as an evolution of military affairs (Mattila and Parkinson, 2017 a). The stages on the roadmap for military affairs are defined to be diversification, coordination and unification, optimizing, and holistic control. The military business view is characterized by the confrontation between two parties of blue and red using the postural analysis (Gattorna, 2010;24) and the operational modelling (Ross, Weill and Robertson, 2006; 29). Mattila (2016) defines the business processes essential for C4I and ERP related capabilities to be: Sensemaking, Decision making, and Organizational learning. The roadmap for military sensemaking is set, according to environment and situation, following stages of known, knowable, complex and chaotic. The creation of roadmap is based on the Cynefin framework (Kurtz and Snowden, 2003) applied to Boyd’s OODA loop (Osinga, 2007). The roadmap for military decision making follows the stages of authoritarian, shared intent, mission command, collaborative and selfsynchronised. The model is created based on Alberts and Nissen (2009) studies on military decision making and Choo’s theory (1988) on organizations ways to construct meaning and make decisions. The evolution of both sensemaking and decision making are based on military knowledge acquisition. The roadmap merges the theory 196 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson of Nonaka, Toyama, and Hirata (2015) with basic education methods (Hergenhahn and Olson, 2008) and illustrates the following stages: drilling, understanding, experimenting, and knowledge creation. Information management is presented as a separate layer between the technology and business. The roadmap for information management follows the stages of print, file, folder, page, social media, and semantic content (Mattila and Parkinson, 2016). The roadmap emerged from the combination of Cook’s (1996) ideas for the stages of management of unstructured information and Thorpe’s et al. (2008) views in the evolution of business knowledge. The technology views of military enterprise architecture are divided into ICT -operations, information security and ICT infrastructure composed of computing and networking. The information security (Mattila and Parkinson, 2017 b) roadmap is based on trust model derived from Chen and Gong (2012:11). The roadmap follows the evolution of military foundations for trust: physical, domain, monitor, service, and content. The ICT infrastructure (Mattila and Parkinson, 2017 c) roadmap is based on studies of the Defence Forces in Finland. The stages of computing roadmap are PC/Mainframe, LAN computing, Domain computing, Forrest computing, Cloud computing, and Software-defined computing. The equivalent networking roadmap follows the path of circuit switching, SDH trunks, Mobility and WDM, Roaming, and Software-defined networking. The computing and networking roadmaps have been proven feasible in modelling also ICT-infrastructure changes in other Armed Forces. Binding the technical layers together and extending towards ICT related business model, the ICToperations define the following evolutionary stages: Element management, System management, Service management, and Value chain management. The roadmap has been modelled using ITU-T, ITIL, eTOM and supply chain frameworks (Mattila and Parkinson, 2017 c). The EA model presented in this paper merges the above layers and defines the forces interacting between the layers of an enterprise structure shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: A simplified model for the evolution of military enterprise presented in a roadmap The postulate is that the resulting merged EA model can help enterprise architects in analysing both long-term evolutionary and contemporary change specific forces, increasing the chance of success in planning military transformations. The research presented in the next sections answers the questions of: ƒ Does the EA model help military enterprise architects in analysing the AS-IS and possible paths towards TOBE including the explanations of possible forces affecting the journey of transformation? ƒ Does the EA model assist in recognising the challenges in the actual event of the transformation of military enterprise and therefore improve the chances of success? 3. Research method and process The research objective of the paper is to measure the helpfulness of the EA model in helping architects to recognise the forces affecting the longitudinal evolution of military enterprise, identify the forces affecting the actual change event and use these insights in providing advice in C4I and ERP related military transformations. 197 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson The hypothesis of organisational change is based on force fields (Cameron and Green, 2012; 120-123), which help to explain the effect of driving and resisting forces in change. Lewin (Cameron and Green, 2012; 120-123) based his postulate on the theory of homeostasis of organizational structure. Homeostasis in this context means that every organization tends to maintain its equilibrium when facing disrupting changes. Therefore, Lewin proposed the three functions of change: 1. Unfreeze the current situation, 2. Move from the old state to new, and 3. Refreeze the new state as new equilibrium. In conclusion, there are Mokyr’s (2002) evolutionary paths that military organizations follow in their C4I, and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) infrastructure development and each step on the evolutionary journey can be modelled using Lewin’s three-step model (Cameron and Green, 2012; 120-123) illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3: Merging both organizational change force models: Lewin’s (Cameron and Green, 2012; 120-123) change and Mokyr’s (2002) evolution models The approach of this research is pragmatic (Creswell, 2014; 10-11) since the work intends to solve observed problems in military C4I enabled transformations. The literature review is used to explore the challenge military enterprises have faced in efforts of transformation. The hypothetical EA tool is composed of previous work and separate studies using qualitative deduction (Saunders & Lewis, 2012; 113). Therefore, the causal relationships between the layers of military enterprise emerge at more systems level (Ackoff & Emery, 2008) rather than in each layer. The testing of hypothetical EA model proceeds using two methods in sequence: case study to capture data while preserving the context and experimentation to assess the validity of the hypothesis. The case studies chosen for this paper were only three, but the intention was to gather different transformations from the international base (Blue – holistic, Red – ICT infrastructure, and Orange - ERP) to provide variation and different eras to offer a more longitudinal reference. The sample of architects in experimentation is small but very experienced. Two of them are from Finland and one from Austria, which triangulates the scope and widens the degree of difference in architecture experience. The results were analysed by two researchers in the quest to mitigate the effect of bias in interpretation of results. One of the researchers has a background in military architecture while the other is experienced in enterprise architecture from defence industry viewpoint. 3.1 The case study The data is collected and normalised from the failures and successes of three separate descriptive case studies concerning transformations of different Military Forces. The case study method is chosen to answer why the transformations may have failed or succeeded in their context and environment (Saunders & Lewis, 2012; 116). The cases are selected from different periods of time to provide longitudinal view and different strategies to give broader viewpoints. Cases are anonymised (Blue, Red, and Orange) to ensure objectivity and confidentiality (Remenyi, 2012; 33). The case data is collected through observations and open source archival research. The following sub-section offers a sample of case descriptions illustrating the cases, the circumstance that they took place in and their outcome with failures and successes. 3.1.1 Description of the Blue transformation The Blue Force went through a transformation of all military affairs between 2004 – 2008 as the former Warsaw Pact threat reappeared from contemporary Russia. The Blue transformation was driven by the goals of gaining more military performance with fewer resources from the society and a broadening of ability to project force in a variety of situations. The key enablers for the transformation were assumed to be a new C2, improved ERP, flattening the hierarchy, and sourcing the military functions differently. The Blue transformation was prepared during 2004-2007, and a new organisation was implemented at the beginning of 2008. The preparation included migration of integrated ERP, establishing a new joint C2 support system, the transfer of ICT infrastructure from 198 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson being bound to garrisons towards supporting remotely provided knowledge work and migrating from personal information management to organisational information ownership. Outsourcing and strategic partnership were among the ways to achieve better cost-efficiency. The transformation was completed by mid-2008 when the old organisations were closed, and the new were fully functioning. There were few shortcomings in the end, for example, cost-efficiency was not achieved as planned, the regional joint command was not accomplished entirely, and some of the transfers took longer than expected. 3.2 The experimentation The proposed coherent EA model is experimented to find out signs of better understanding the situation and challenge (Saunders and Lewis, 2012; 114). The validity of proposed EA model is determined by two metrics: 1. ability to define stages on the EA model and foresee the transformation challenges, 2. ability to focus efforts over the three phases of military transformation (Unfreeze, move, and refreeze) (Cameron and Green, 2012; 120-123). Request for participation was sent to five known enterprise architects with extensive experience in military transformations and their architecture definitions. Three of the recipients accepted the challenge. They were provided with a pamphlet explaining the EA method, data sheets from case studies, a booklet illustrating the Lewin’s fields of forces in change and templates for EA roadmaps and force analysis. The architects were asked to fulfil the following tasks: ƒ Use the EA roadmap templates to position the AS-IS and TO-BE in each of the transformation cases. ƒ Analyse, using the evolutionary forces described in the EA model, what challenges those involved in the transformation would face and offer them insights to improve the success. ƒ Consider each transformation on Lewin’s three-phase change model and provide those involved in the transformation with advice on how to execute the unfreeze, move and refreeze steps in each of the layers of the military enterprise. The tasks were accomplished on-line. The researchers provided remote support through the experimentation. 3.2.1 Use EA roadmap template to analyse the transformation A sample of answers for the first task is presented using EA roadmap template in Figure 4. The black line shows the architects understanding of the AS-IS situation in Blue Force transformation 2004. The light blue (grey) line presents the TO-BE statement in 2008. Figure 4: Analysing Blue architecture transformation with the EA model 3.2.2 Analyse the challenges of transformation The following sample was captured from one experiencing architect in defining the difficulties in the transformation of Blue Force: 199 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson “The posture of the Blue Force appeared to continue the evolutionary strategy since there was a need to maintain the deterrence high with legacy capabilities while gradually migrating towards more cost-efficient and flexible force. The operational improvement appeared to target joint force utilisation, while support functions were unified.” (Captured from analysis of one experimenting architect) 3.2.3 How to execute the unfreeze, move and refreeze steps in each layer? The following samples were captured from one of the experimenting architects in defining the challenges in executing the change: “EA tool indicates that enterprise-level unfreezing forces remain weak and questions if end-users’ expectations are strong enough to compensate.” “EA tool indicates that the focus of transformation is too ICT constrained. Thus, outcomes may appear less valuable.” 4. Results and discussion The experiment with the three case studies shows that the EA model is applicable as a tool to perform the fundamental enterprise architecture analyses of AS-IS and TO-BE through the essential layers of the military enterprise concerning C4I and ERP related transformations. The participants were able to recognise the evolutionary forces between enterprise layers. Only concerning the relationship between structure and its environment, there were partial results. At least one of the architect experimenters were able to find causalities in force fields of change and advice in focusing the effort. The results of the experimentation are presented in Table 2. All the three experimenters were able to analyse and map both the current position and an intended end state for all three cases. In 80% of the cases, the participant architects were able to recognise the evolutionary forces affecting the development of each layer of enterprise structure. Only in the relationship between enterprise and its environment, the participants were not fully able to describe the outside forces effect to enterprise transformation. The experiment also indicated that in all cases some of the architects were able to point improvements in change management. In eight events out of 15, the architects were able to give advice in all phases of change (Unfreeze, Move and Refreeze). Only in two cases, a single architect was able to provide advise in focusing the force field in change. Mainly (4 out of 6) the challenges were in analysing the environmental forces and within knowledge related business processes. Table 2: Testing EA model in Force transformations Evolutionary force vectors Environment – System Evolution through knowledge management path Evolution through information management path Evolution through ICT technology paths Interlayer forces and their effects Evolutionary Challenges in transformations Blue red orange 2/3 3/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 2/3 EA model value in Forces of Change (UNFREEZE, MOVE AND REFREEZE) blue red orange U/M/U/M/U/M/R U/M/R -/M/-/M/- 3/3 3/3 3/3 U/-/R U/M/R U/M/R 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 -/M/R U/M/R U/M/R U/M/R U/M/R U/M/R The results indicate that the proposed EA model helps the military enterprise architects in recognising both evolutionary and change force fields and ensures analysed advice to transformation management. 5. Conclusions The EA model is composed of separate studies, each focusing on one or few layers of the military structure. The EA model is validated with experimentation using data collected from three different cases of military transformation. According to findings, the architecture model for the military enterprise appears to improve the success of Enterprise Architects in assessing the situation of military organisation, recognising the possible positive and negative forces affecting its evolutionary development, and defining more specific insights in actual 200 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson events of change to support strategic ambitions. The EA model needs improvement in modelling the forces between the system and its environment and forces affecting between the architecture layers. The paper does not study maturity models for processes or services but the evolution and dynamism of military enterprise architecture at the macro level. The paper does not analyse or compare different technologies or architectures to each other. Neither is this article extending to other military capabilities than related to command, control, communications, computers, and information (C4I). The EA model in its current format can help military enterprise architects to find deeper causality in military enterprises and better understand the evolutionary forces within the organisation. The model also helps architects to recognise efforts needed in the implementation of the particular change, in order to overcome the immunity for change. Since the model is tested only with military-specific data, it may be beneficial to study if private or other public enterprises digitalisation follows similar evolutionary paths and find deeper forces behind the evolution and change. As the sample of testers remained small, there is room for testing the EA model with a larger group of architects. The change model used was Lewin’s simplistic force field model, so there is possibility extend the study using, for example, more systemic change models. References Ackoff, Russel L., and Emery, Fred E. (2008): On purposeful systems. 3rd Edition. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey. ISBN 978-0-202-30798-0 Akhigbe O., Amyot D., Richards G. (2014): A Framework for a Business Intelligence-Enabled Adaptive Enterprise Architecture. In: Yu E., Dobbie G., Jarke M., Purao S. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8824. Springer. Alberts, David S. & Nissen, Mark E. (2009): Toward Harmonizing Command and Control with Organization and Management Theory. The International C2 Journal, vol 3, no 2, 2009. CCRP Bousquet, Antoine (2009): The scientific way of warfare. Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN: 978-0-231-70079-5 Burnes, Bernhard (2014): Managing change, 6th Edition. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow. ISBN 978-0-273-77896-7 Cameron, Esther and Green Mike (2012): Making sense of change management. A complete guide to the models, tools, and techniques of organizational change. 3rd Edition. Kogan Page Ltd, London. ISBN 978-0-7494-6435-6 Chen, Lidong, and Gong, Guang (2012): Communication system security. CRC Press, Boca Raton. ISBN 978-1-4398-4036-8. Chizek, Judy G. (2003): Military transformation: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. Report to Congress, January 17, 2003. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/74950265/Military-Transformation-ISR Choo, Chun Wei (1988): The Knowing Organization. How organization use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. Oxford University Press, NY. ISBN 0-19-511012-9 Cook, Melissa, A. (1996): Building Enterprise Information Architectures, Reengineering information systems. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, ISBN 0-13-440256-1. Pp.1-40 Creswell, John, W. (2014): Research design. SAGE Publication Inc, London. ISBN 978-1-4522-2610-1 Dam, Stephen H. (2014): DoD Architecture Framework 2.0. SPEC Innovations, Manassas. ISBN; 978-1502757623 Desfray, Philippe, and Raymond, Gilbert (2014): Modeling enterprise architecture with TOGAF. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham. ISBN 978-0-12-419984-2 Gattorna, John (2010): Dynamic supply chains. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education Ltd. Harlow. ISBN 978—0-273-73040-8 Geels, Frank W. (2004): From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Elsevier Research Policy 33 (2004) 897-920. Giachetti, Ronald E. (2010): Design of enterprise systems. Theory, architecture, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton. ISBN 978-1-4398-1823-7 Hergenhahn, B.R. & Olson Matthew H. (2008): An Introduction to theories of learning. 7th edition. New Delhi, Prentice-Hall of India. Horn, Bernd, and Bentley, Bill (2007): The road to transformation: Ascending from the decade of darkness. Canadian Military History Vol 16: Issue 4, Article 4. ISO/IEC 42010:2011: Systems and software engineering – architecture description. Homepage: http://www.isoarchitecture.org/ieee-1471/ Kegan, Robert, and Lahey, Lisa (2009): Immunity to change. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston. ISBN 978-1-4221-17361 Korhonen, Janne; Lapalme, James; McDavid, Doug, and Gill, Asif (2016): Adaptive Enterprise Architecture for the Future: Towards a Reconceptualization of EA. IEEE 18th Conference on business informatics, 29. Aug. – 1. Sept. 2016, Paris, France Kurtz, C.F., and Snowden, D.J. (2003): The new dynamics of strategy. IBM Systems Journal Vol 42, no 3. Lindstrom, Jorgen (2005): Natverskorienterat forsvar focus och aktiviteter in nogra lander. Totalforsvarets Foskninginstitut. Retrieved from http://docplayer.se/17352815-Natverksorienterat-forsvar.html 201 Juha Mattila and Simon Parkinson Mattila, Juha (2016): Military Knowledge Management: Sense-making, decision-making and knowledge creation. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Knowledge Management 1-2.9.2016 Ulster University Northern Ireland UK; Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading. ISBN: 978-1-911218-03-6 Mattila, Juha, and Parkinson, Simon (2016): Evolution of military information management. Published in Poland, National Defence University Scientific Quarterly 2016; 105 (4) ISSN 0867-2245 Mattila, Juha, and Parkinson, Simon (2017 a): Evolution of military enterprise from architecture viewpoint. Presented in ISMS 2017, Oslo, Norway. 16. November 2017 Mattila, Juha, and Parkinson, Simon (2017 b): Evolution of military information security. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security ECCWS 2017 University College Dublin Ireland 29 - 30 June 2017; Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading. ISBN 978-1-911218-44-9 Mattila, Juha, and Parkinson, Simon (2017 c): Predicting the architecture of military ICT infrastructure. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems Management 14-15 September 2017; Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading. ISBN 978-1-911218-53-1 Mokyr, Joel (2002): The gifts of Athena. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. ISBN 0-691-12013-7 NATO (2016): NATO Architecture Framework 4.0 draft. Retrieved from http://nafdocs.org/introduction/ NATO (2017): Federated mission networking. Retrieved from http://act.nato.int/fmn Nonaka, Ikujiro & Toyama, Ryoko, and Hirata, Toru (2015): Managing Flow. A process theory of the knowledge-based firm. Palgrave Mcmillan, Hampshire. ISBN 978-1-137-49482-5 Osinga, Frans P.B. (2007): Science, Strategy, and War. The strategic theory of John Boyd. Routledge, NY. ISBN: 978-0-41545952-5 Prime Minister’s Office (2017): Government’s Defence Report. Prime Minister’s Office Publications 7/2012. ISBN:978-952287-374-3 Remenyi, Dan (2012): Case study research. Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Ltd. Reading, UK. ISBN 9781-909507-17-3 Ross, Jeanne; Weill, Peter and Robertson, David (2006): Enterprise architecture as strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. ISBN 978-1-59139-839-4 Saunders, Mark, and Lewis, Philip (2012): Doing research in business and management. Pearson Education Ltd. Harlow. ISBN 978-0-273-72641-8 Thorpe, Richard; Jones, Oswald; Macpherson, Allan, and Holt, Robin (2008): The evolution of business knowledge in smaller firms. An article in Evolution of business knowledge, Edited by Harry Scarborough. Oxford University Press. Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-922960-4. Pp. 23-49 US DoD (2017): The DoDAF Architecture Framework Version 2.02, Homepage: http://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoDArchitecture-Framework/ Whitworth, Brian, and Ahmad, Adnan (2010): The evolution of computing. In the encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. 2nd Edition. Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/socio-technical-system-design Zachman, John A. (2008): The Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework. Retrieved from https://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework 202