The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2754-4214.htm

Toward a design theory of strategic Design theory

of SEMBI
enterprise management business maturitycapability
model
intelligence (SEMBI) capability
maturity model
Xin (Robert) Luo Received 15 November 2022
Revised 12 April 2023
Anderson School of Mangement, University of New Mexico, Accepted 16 June 2023
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, and
Fang-Kai Chang
Department of Business Administration, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that Strategic Enterprise Management (SEM) and
Business Intelligence (BI) have the potential to integrate management decisions vertically through an
organization’s hierarchy. This study also aims to present a design theory framework and build a model
dimension using eight principles serving as mid-range theories.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a design science perspective to posit how organizations
can successfully implement SEMBI (a union of SEM and BI). This study then completes the design theory by
building the method dimension using two principles. Finally, the study presents testable hypotheses for the
theory and an evaluation using stakeholder attitudes and judgments as proxies for objective measures.
Findings – In the search for a prescription for SEMBI success, this study finds that the notion of the Capability
Maturity Model (CMM) is a good artifact with which to organize the principles the authors are seeking. CMM
has since been adapted to suit different contexts by incorporating relevant principles from those domains.
Hereafter, this study refers to SEMBI–CMM as the adapted solution for SEMBI’s success.
Originality/value – This study coins and uses the term SEMBI to represent the union of SEM and BI. This
term retains its distinct identities and principles and forms a holistic and integrated view of SEM and BI
implementation strategies. In an effort to advance this line of research, this study employs a design science
perspective to address the question of how an organization can successfully implement SEMBI.
Keywords Design science, Strategic enterprise management, Business intelligence, Design theory
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Evidence-based management (EBM) or evidence-based decision-making is a recent
paradigmatic movement emphasizing two types of decision-making evidence: “Big E
Evidence” and “Little e evidence” (Rousseau, 2006). Big E Evidence stems from validated
theories that decision-making can be done deductively, whereas Little e evidence holds that
decision-making can be done inductively. The extant studies indicate that Strategic
Enterprise Management (SEM), as a Big E Evidence-based DSS, and Business Intelligence
(BI), as a Little e evidence-based DSS, are becoming the dominant DSS applications in
industry and have piqued increasing interest among information systems researchers
(Phillips-Wren, Daly, & Burstein, 2021; Ain, Vaia, DeLone, & Waheed, 2019).

© Xin (Robert) Luo and Fang-Kai Chang. Published in Journal of Electronic Business & Digital
Economics. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create Journal of Electronic Business &
Digital Economics
derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full Emerald Publishing Limited
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http:// e-ISSN: 2754-4222
p-ISSN: 2754-4214
creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/JEBDE-11-2022-0041
JEBDE Compared to its enterprise management application offspring (i.e., Enterprise Resource
Planning [ERP]), SEM emphasizes strategy-focused characteristics (Brignall & Ballantine,
2004). While ERP systems can provide integrated solutions for planning, executing and
controlling business processes horizontally across the value chain, SEM will extend these
principles vertically to support strategic management processes, such as strategic planning,
risk management, performance monitoring and value communication (Norton, 1999).
In essence, there is a trend to converge SEM and BI because of their inextricably
complementary nature. Real-time or operational BI emphasizes the integration of
technologies with business processes and with the management thereof: “Business value
of BI is in its use within management processes that impact operational processes (which in
turn, drive revenue or reduce costs), as well as its use within those operational processes
themselves” (Williams & Williams, 2003). Thus, we see some overlap with SEM, as BI begins
to emphasize integrating tactical and operational levels of management with the business
processes themselves (Ain et al., 2019). Since SEM is a strategic and systematic management
approach to plan, monitor, control and manage the implementation of business strategy, its
principles may integrate well with BI, which is more focused on tactical and operational levels
in the firm. For example, SEM can not only provide a strategic process to leverage BI
processes (Frolick & Ariyachandra, 2006), SEM can also provide strategic metrics with which
to leverage the BI output (Golfarelli, Rizzi, & Cella, 2004). The alignment of the SEM and BI
may take one of two forms: (1) SEM-driven top-down or (2) BI-enabled bottom-up.
In this study, we coin and use the term SEMBI to represent the union of SEM and BI. This
term retains its distinct identities and principles and forms a holistic and integrated view of
SEM and BI implementation strategies. In an effort to advance this line of research, we
employ a design science perspective to address the question of how an organization can
successfully implement SEMBI. Hevner, March, Park, and Ram (2004), Venable, Pries-Heje,
and Baskerville (2016) and Baskerville, Baiyere, Gregor, Hevner, and Rossi (2018) identify
seven guidelines for design science, the sixth of which claims that design science research
includes the search for an effective design artifact. In our search for a prescription for SEMBI
success, we find the notion of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a good artifact with
which to organize the principles we are seeking. CMM was originally developed to assess the
maturity of software development processes (Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis, & Weber, 1993); it has
since been adapted to suit different contexts by incorporating relevant principles (Lacerda &
von Wangenheim, 2018) from those domains. Hereafter, we refer to SEMBI-CMM as our
adapted solution for SEMBI’s success.
In the rest of this paper, we review the literature and outline our research method
(Section 2); we then construct the design theory for SEMBI-CMM (Section 3). Finally, we test
and evaluate the theory and present the theoretical contributions and practical implications
of the current work (Sections 4–6).

2. Literature review and research method

2.1 SEMBI as an information systems artifacts
According to March and Smith’s classification of IT research outputs (March & Smith, 1995),
we discovered that SEM is an IT artifact, and its associated research outputs can be
categorized into constructs, models, methods and instantiations. The findings of our analysis
are presented in Table 1. When it comes to constructs, scholars create a conceptual
framework that outlines the issues in the field and specifies their solutions (Teece, 2019).
Regarding models, researchers devise a set of propositions or statements that articulate the
relationships between structures (Brignall & Ballantine, 2004; Sen, Bingol, & Vayvay, 2017;
Regent, Glinkina, Ganina, Markova, & Kozhina, 2019; Khudyakova et al., 2020; Melnyk &
Zlotnik, 2020). For methods, scholars put forward a series of steps to accomplish a task
 BI Research Theoretical
Design theory
Authors Research purpose included outputs purpose of SEMBI
capability
Brignall and To study the interrelationships among Models Prediction
Ballantine (2004) SEM systems, PMM and maturity model
organizational change programs
within context, content and process
model
ZAITSEVA A justified procedure for choosing Methods Explanations
(2014) flexible strategic business
management methods is based on
using their capacities for self-
organization
Sestino (2016) By adopting a process-based V Instantiations Explanation
approach, businesses can improve and prediction
their competitiveness
Sen et al. (2017) Exploring the integration of a Models Explanations
balanced scorecard into innovative
strategic management, providing a
framework of interrelated issues
based on the existing literature and
application areas
Faizova et al. To outline the prospects and Methods Explanation
(2018) directions for improving the and prediction
methodology of strategic enterprise
management under the conditions of
its evolution into balanced enterprise
management
Akhmetshin et al. Development of a guideline for Instantiations Analysis
(2018) analysis of the economic activity of an
enterprise to control and ensure the
interaction of tasks and functions of
management in the current and
strategic aspects in the conditions of
innovative development
Teece (2019) The application of capability theory V Constructs Explanations
allows intellectual blinders to be
removed and an understanding of
differential firm-level resource
allocation and performance to emerge
Regent et al. Development of approaches to Models Analysis
(2019) improving a tourism enterprise’s
strategy management in the
international market
Melnyk and To systematize and compare the main Models Analysis
Zlotnik (2020) approaches to strategic management
Khudyakova To improve the model and mechanism Models Explanations
et al. (2020) of strategic management of the
investment policy of the enterprise in
the context of the environmental and Table 1.
economic status of the business Summary of the
relevant studies
(continued ) of SEMBI
JEBDE BI Research Theoretical
Authors Research purpose included outputs purpose

Mathrani (2021) To investigate the BI practices critical V Methods Explanation

in creating meta-knowledge and prediction
successfully for strategy-focused
analytical decision-making
Current study To present a design theory framework V Models and Design and
and build a model dimension using Methods Action
eight principles serving as mid-range
theories
Table 1. Source(s): Table by the authors

(ZAITSEVA, 2014; Faizova, Ivanova, & Pozhuieva, 2018; Mathrani, 2021). In the case of
instantiations, IT studies instantiate specific information systems and tools to address
various aspects of designing information systems (Sestino, 2016; Akhmetshin et al., 2018).
Moreover, with the advancement of big data analysis technology, the concept of BI has been
incorporated into the SEM artifact (Sestino, 2016; Teece, 2019; Mathrani, 2021). As a result,
there is some overlap between SEM and BI, as BI now emphasizes merging tactical and
operational-level management with business processes themselves. Furthermore, as an IT
artifact, the theoretical functions (Gregor, 2006) of related research can be categorized into
analysis (which states what is) (Akhmetshin et al., 2018; Regent et al., 2019; Melnyk & Zlotnik,
2020), explanations (which outlines what is, how, why, when and where) (ZAITSEVA, 2014;
Sen et al., 2017; Teece, 2019; Khudyakova et al., 2020), prediction (which anticipates what is
and what will be) (ZAITSEVA, 2014; Sen et al., 2017; Teece, 2019; Khudyakova et al., 2020),
explanation and prediction (which specifies what is, how, why, when, where and what will be)
(Sestino, 2016; Faizova et al., 2018; Mathrani, 2021) and design and action (which illustrates
how to do something). To further advance this line of research, we adopt a design science
perspective to tackle the question of how organizations can effectively implement SEMBI.
The knowing-doing gap is a challenging problem in CMM design (Mettler & Rohner,
2009): CMM is sometimes criticized for lacking rigor because it is an ad hoc method needing
theory and empirical support (Bach, 1994; Biberoglu & Haddad, 2002; Hansen, Rose, &
Tjørnehøj, 2004). In addition, CMM suffers when it lacks organizational relevance and does
not describe how to effectively perform requisite actions (Porte, 2018).
We believe that design science as a research paradigm can bridge this gap by
simultaneously addressing both the rigor and relevance concerns of CMM design methods.
We base this study on the design science research framework proposed by Hevner et al. (2004)
who assert that two research activities; i.e., building and evaluating, interact with one another
in the construction of an IT research artifact. In our case, the IT artifact is SEMBI–CMM.

2.2 SEMBI–CMM as an information systems design theory

March and Smith (1995) distinguish constructs, models, methods and instantiations as four
basic IT artifact types. CMM is rooted in the Quality Management Maturity Grid comprising
two dimensions: capability and capability improvement (Maier, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2009).
In this context, a capability is the application of competences to effect the desired end.
Capability improvement describes the development of capabilities over time, progressing
through different levels of repeatability from ad hoc toward some form of idealistic, perfectly
repeatable state. Thus, we can see that the capability dimension tends to be a model IT artifact
type because it uses constructs to represent capability problems and solutions. Likewise, the
capability improvement dimension tends to be a method IT artifact type because it describes Design theory
the process guiding capability improvement. of SEMBI
Mettler and Rohner (2009) assert that CMM fits between a model and method IT artifact.
In fact, models and methods are more closely interrelated than other artifact types of
capability
information systems design science research (Winter, 2008). Models and methods are two maturity model
sides of the same coin. In essence, models focus on the result and imply procedural aspects,
whereas methods focus on procedures and imply results.
Jones and Gregor (2007) divide design artifacts into material or abstract artifacts. They argue
that abstract artifacts including constructs, models and methods are theory or components of
the theory. Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2008) present a similar view, “. . .our interpretation is that
March and Smith’s use of the terms ‘model’ and ‘method’ – specified as desirable outputs of
[design science research] spans the meaning of the term ‘prescriptive design theory’ .” We adopt
this broad view of theory in our research to treat SEMBI–CMM as a theory including both a
model and a method corresponding to the two dimensions of any CMM.
Gregor (2006) distinguishes between theory for design and action and other types of
theories for analysis, explanation, prediction, explanation and prediction. Theory for design
and action is about the principles of form and function, methods and justificatory theoretical
knowledge that are used in the development of IT artifacts (Iivari, 2015). Such theories give
explicit prescriptions on how to design and develop an artifact, whether it is a technological
product or a managerial intervention. Drawing on this interdisciplinary philosophical
underpinning, CMM as a theory can be a type of design and action or a type of analysis
(i.e., CMM gives an unprejudiced reproduction of some aspects of reality). CMM can be
explanatory (i.e., CMM delivers a depiction of causal connections to better understand reality)
or predictive (i.e., CMM recommends an efficient solution state of a future reality) (Mettler &
Rohner, 2009). To search for a SEMBI solution, we position SEMBI–CMM as a theory for
design and action known as information systems design theory (ISDT) (Walls, Widmeyer, &
El Sawy, 1992; Gregor, 2002). However, this construction certainly does not prohibit SEMBI–
CMM from absorbing other types of theories from the knowledge base.
As a common agreed-upon language that is recognizable and repeatable, ISDT can be used
as a guiding framework to provide a way of systematically structuring the “how” design with a
“why” foundation. It also helps generate insights that would remain hidden without the use of
ISDT (Gregor, 2002). ISDT argues that design is both a product and a process, which means that
a design theory concerns two aspects: the design product and the design process. The product
and process perspectives of ISDT closely correspond to the model and method dimensions of
CMM. This alignment provides a way to theorize the model dimension of CMM as an ISDT
product and the method dimension as an ISDT process. However, since design leads to
satisfactory solutions without explicitly specifying all possible solutions (Hevner et al., 2004),
a designer’s orientation may lead to different design methods to fulfill the requirements.
In our search for a SEMBI–CMM solution, we find a variety of kernel theories from
different sources. For the purpose of tightening the scope of kernel theories and integrating
them consistently into our design, we introduce mid-range theories in the form of design
principles to reflect our design orientations (Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008). In the ISDT
framework, mid-range theories fall between kernel theories and design methods to facilitate
the extrapolating process. Table 2 is the ISDT framework as it pertains to SEMBI–CMM. In
an effort to further explain the employment of mid-range theories in the theoretical context,
we detail this customized framework in subsequent sections.

3. Building SEMBI, an information systems design theory

Although SEMBI is becoming paramount in today’s business environment, the increasing
problem is how to leverage this theory to successfully realize business value from its use
JEBDE (Ain et al., 2019). Therefore, our purpose is to formulate a design theory to help SEMBI
stakeholders deploy the SEMBI approach successfully. These stakeholders may include
organizations that are using or plan to use SEMBI, SEMBI consulting companies and vendors
of SEMBI systems.

3.1 Meta-requirements for design product/model

SEMBI success is the meta-requirement in our design theory that describes the class of goals to
which the design theory applies (Walls et al., 1992; Gregor, 2002). We decompose SEMBI success
as a general meta-requirement to achieve deeper levels of detail and IS success researchers
generally agree upon a three-step process model for so doing (Petter, DeLone, & McLean, 2012).
Some researchers identify the decomposition steps as the creation of a system, the use of
the system, and the consequences of system use; they claim the model is only a process model
(Seddon, Staples, Patnayakuni, & Bowtell, 1999). Others conceive of the three steps as
production, use and net benefit; because of their conceptualization of the variables, they
further claim that the model is also a variance model (DeLone & McLean, 2003). In particular,
they argue that “simply saying that more use will yield more benefits, without considering the
nature of this use, is clearly insufficient. Researchers must also consider the nature, extent,
quality, and appropriateness of the system use” (DeLone & McLean, 2003; Petter et al., 2012).
Building upon this prior work, we decompose SEMBI success into the following three
meta-requirements:
MR1: SEMBI–CMM should support the SEMBI production
MR2: SEMBI–CMM should support the SEMBI use
MR3: SEMBI–CMM should support the SEMBI net benefit realization

3.2 Meta-design of SEMBI capability model

This section focuses on the meta-design of the model dimension of CMM. These comprise the
mid-range theories governing the model design. As summarized in Table 3, we define and
explore eight model design principles in this section; we then define and explore the method
dimension in the next section.
(1) Principle 1: Capability in SEMBI–CMM is constructed within resource-based theory
(RBT) and the IS Capability lens.
As noted in Table 4, Resource is the lowest level construct and is defined as stocks of
available factors owned or controlled by a firm (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). RBT suggests
that organizations should invest in the resources they believe will best help them succeed in
achieving a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991, 1996). From a competitive
perspective, however, not all resources are equally valuable, as it has been argued that the

Design product/model dimension of SEMBI–CMM Design process/method dimension of SEMBI–CMM

A. Meta-requirements A. Meta-requirements
B. Meta-design B. Design method
C. Mid-range theories C. Mid-range theories
D. Kernel theories D. Kernel theories
Table 2. E. Testable design product hypotheses E. Testable design process hypotheses
ISDT framework for Source(s): Gregor, 2002; Walls et al., 1992; Stockdale & Standing, 2006
SEMBI–CMM Table by the authors
Dimension Principle# Principle
Design theory
of SEMBI
Covered in Section: Meta-design of SEMBI capability model capability
Model Principle 1 Capability in SEMBI–CMM is constructed within resource-based theory (RBT)
and the IS Capability lens maturity model
Model Principle 2 SEMBI is a dynamic capability distilled from operational capabilities
Model Principle 3 SEMBI capability model is prescribed a priori
Model Principle 4 SEMBI competence is operationalized by a practice-oriented process
Model Principle 5 Strategizing competences are designed from a business-IT alignment lens
Model Principle 6 Deploying competences are designed to match strategizing competences
Model Principle 7 Complementing competences are designed from an institutional lens
Model Principle 8 Adapting competences are designed from a dynamic capability lens
Covered in Section: Meta-design of SEMBI capability improvement method
Method Principle 9 Maturity is defined by a staged capability development process Table 3.
Method Principle 10 Maturity is measured with practice-oriented processes Design principles
Source(s): Table by the authors for SEMBI

Level Construct Definition

Enterprise Capability The strategic application of competences (Kangas, 1999; Peppard & Ward, 2004)
Organizing Competence A firm’s capacity to deploy resources, usually in combination, using
organizational processes, to effect a desired end (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993)
Resource Resource Stocks of available factors that owned or controlled by a firm (Amit & Table 4.
Schoemaker, 1993) SEMBI capability
Source(s): Table by the authors constructs

primary source of an organization’s competitive advantage will come from those resources
that are simultaneously valuable, rare, not fully imitable and irreplaceable – the so-called
VRIN conditions (Barney, 1991).
While resources are clearly a key element of RBT, there is a growing recognition that
resources alone do not create value. Rather, value is created by an organization’s ability to
mobilize, integrate and utilize these resources by applying competences (Black & Boal, 1994;
Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000). Thus, in the SEMBI–CMM, Competence plays an integrating
role. On the one hand, Competence links to Resources “to deploy resources, usually in
combination, using organizational processes” (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993), and on the other
hand, Competence also links to Capability “to effect a desired end” (Amit &
Schoemaker, 1993).
Capability is a higher level construct than Competence (Stalk, 1992), and it is used to
achieve specific organizational goals (McGrath, MacMillan, & Venkataraman, 1995). Within
this context, defining and creating the desired organizational Capability would be determined
by the organization’s future goals. In turn, this specification establishes the need to improve
or develop specific Competences. At any point in time, an organization’s current Capability,
derived from its existing Competences, either enables or inhibits goal achievement, at least in
the short-term (Peppard & Ward, 2004).
Just as these three constructs are adapted in IS context as IS capability, IS competence and
IS resource (Bharadwaj, 2000; Peppard & Ward, 2004; Wade & Hulland, 2004; Aral & Weill,
2007; Prasad, Heales, & Green, 2009), we adapt them in SEMBI context as referring to SEMBI
capability, SEMBI competence and SEMBI resource, and we use these constructs with their
underpinning principles in SEMBI–CMM design.
JEBDE (2) Principle 2: SEMBI is a dynamic capability distilled from operational capabilities
Not all Capabilities are of the same impact on an organization. Santhanam and Hartono (2003)
and Stoel and Muhanna (2009) suggest that capabilities should be distinguished into different
orders. There is a broad consensus in the literature that “dynamic capability” is more potent
than ordinary (or “operational”) capability (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Zollo & Winter,
2002; Winter, 2003). Teece et al. (1997) define a dynamic capability as “the firm’s ability to
integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly
changing environments”. Zollo and Winter (2002) note that dynamic and operational
capabilities have different effects on the generation and appropriation of rents, depending on
the pace of change in the environment.
Of course, effective operational capability is always a necessity, and superior operational
capability is always a source of advantage. But in a context where technological, regulatory
and competitive conditions are subject to rapid change, persistence in the same operational
capabilities quickly becomes hazardous. Systematic change efforts are needed to anticipate
and respond to environmental changes, and both superiority and viability will prove
transient for an organization that has no dynamic capability.
Dynamic capability is, in essence, a repeatable process that governs the rate of change of
operational capability (Winter, 2003). While operational capability enables the organization
to function under given resource conditions, dynamic capability changes the resource base of
the organization (Helfat et al., 2009). SEMBI is subject to a rapidly changing environment, and
the adaptability to such change is fundamental for enterprises to leverage SEMBI for their
competitive advantage. Therefore, in the SEMBI capability model, the dynamic capability is
emphasized and purposefully distilled from the operational SEMBI capabilities.
(3) Principle 3: SEMBI capability model is prescribed a priori
We define the SEMBI capability model as an a priori model comprising four categories of
competences spanning operational and dynamic capabilities (see Figure 1). Further, unlike an
a posteriori approach, which is generally considered to be theory-free and is adopted only in
those cases where little theoretical basis exists (Venkatraman, 1989), we arrive at the SEMBI
model based on design principles and their underlining kernel theories.
As shown in Figure 1, strategizing, deploying and complementing (governance and
culture) competence categories are operational capabilities and the adapting competence
category is a dynamic capability. Strategizing competences define the relationship between
capability and competence and are purposefully designed “to effect a desired end” (Amit &
Schoemaker, 1993). In contrast, deploying competences define the relationship between
resource and competence “to deploy resources, usually in combination, using organizational
processes” (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993).
While strategizing and deploying competence categories are fundamentally important to
link resources to goals, recent IS capability research based on Complementary Theory notes
the need for other competences to complement them (Prasad et al., 2009). Complementary
Theory asserts that, to maximize organizational payoff, complementary factors must be
changed in a coordinated fashion, in the right direction and in the right magnitude. When
Prasad et al. (2009) apply this theoretical perspective to the IS environment, they find that
complementary competences can not only contribute to other competences but also can
directly contribute to the business value realization. In the SEMBI capability model, as
depicted in Figure 1, we define two complementing competences: governance and culture.
While these three competence categories (strategizing, deploying and complementing)
enable SEMBI to function under the current resource conditions, organizations also need
competence to adapt to a changing environment (Teece et al., 1997; Helfat et al., 2009). The
“Adapt to change” competence is specially designed for this purpose.
 Design theory
of SEMBI
capability
maturity model

Figure 1.
SEMBI
capability model

In Principle 4, we prescribe the form of each competence and then in Principles 5–8, we specify
the design of each of the aforementioned four competence categories.
(4) Principle 4: SEMBI competence is operationalized by a practice-oriented process
Although capability is constituted from competences, and competence is prescribed as a
process, there are different types of processes. Any process is a combination of experience,
context, interpretation and reflection and involves more human participation than
information (Davenport, 2005). Therefore, understanding what kinds of knowledge people
create, share and reuse in the process should be an important perspective in determining
process type.
Marjanovic and Seethamraju (2008) contrast two types of processes based on the
difference in their knowledge nature. While the procedure-oriented process is characterized
by using explicit knowledge, the practice-oriented process is characterized by using tacit
knowledge. Unlike explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge is often very difficult to communicate
and is, therefore, also difficult to automate, organize or manage by technology. However, tacit
knowledge can be externalized, to some degree, through problem-solving, reflection,
knowledge-in-action and “working things out”.
Externalization of tacit knowledge in an organization results in the development of
organizational practices. Practice is a concept designed to capture the essence of “what people
actually do,” based on their knowledge, skills and experience and demonstrated by their
actions (Schultze & Boland, 2000). Practice is very concerned with “objects” and “ends,”
which makes it more specific and observable than competence (Carlile, 2002). Practice is not
“a mechanical reaction to rules, norms or models, but a strategic, regulated improvisation
JEBDE responding to the situation” (Schultze & Boland, 2000). In reality, all processes combine, to
some degree, both procedures and practices. Therefore, a practice-oriented process means its
practice component is more prominent than its procedural component and vice versa
(Marjanovic & Seethamraju, 2008).
Popovic, Coelho, and Jaklic (2009) characterize SEMBI-related processes as often non-
routine and creative (unclear problem space with many decision options). They note that
SEMBI process specifications cannot be predefined in detail, nor is their outcome certain and
yet their success often brings innovations and improvements. These characteristics determine
that their management should include flexibility (Meredith, 2008). Notably, SEMBI processes
tend to work better when not directly controlled and supervised, as those involved need
freedom and encouragement to explore and experiment. Moreover, excessive administration,
surveillance or a lack of autonomy tends to restrict SEMBI processes. All these points indicate
that SEMBI success requires a practice-oriented process environment, where people work
with autonomy and creativity to perform practices that apply their knowledge.
With this principle in mind, we prescribe SEMBI competence as a practice-oriented
process comprising of a set of practices and aimed at deploying combinations of firm-specific
resources to accomplish a given task. In so doing, we define what practices should be done to
represent a process structure; however, we avoid overprescribing it by not restricting how
practices should be done. Our design not only gives space for people to exercise creativity in
using their tacit knowledge, but we also apply the explicit knowledge in the form of process
structure to guide people to focus on important issues and stay within the normative
boundaries of the problem context.
This principle reflects the socially defined nature of practices as suggested by (Wenger,
McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) “a set of socially defined ways of doing things in a specific
domain: a set of common approaches and shared standards that create a basis for action,
problem solving, performance and accountability.” This principle is a natural extension of the
SEMBI capability model. While the model prescribes the SEMBI capability comprising a set
of competences, this principle goes further to provide each competence with a best practice
structure.
Having established the form of each competence in Principle 4, we now specify Principles
5–8, each of which defines one competence category (Strategizing, Deploying,
Complementing and Adapting). We operationalize each competence with a practice-
oriented process.
(5) Principle 5: Strategizing competences are designed from business-IT alignment lens
Traditional IS strategy researchers claim business-IT alignment is a way of IS/IT strategizing
and business value realization (Reich & Benbasat, 1996). While this view is still important
today, IS capability researchers go further to consider how well the organization develops,
nurtures and utilizes their competences to support both “aligning” and “aligned” business
and IT (Peppard & Ward, 2004). While “aligning” emphasizes the competence requirement of
agility and sustainability, “aligned” emphasizes the competence requirement of efficiency
and effectiveness.
In adapting business-IT alignment view for strategizing (Peppard & Ward, 2004),
distinguish two kinds of competences: IS strategy competences and IT strategy competences.
IS strategy competences translate the business strategy into processes, information and
systems investments and change plans that match the business priorities, and IT strategy
competences translate business strategy into long-term information architectures, technology
infrastructure and resourcing plans that enable the implementation of the strategy.
Adopting the new lens of business-IT alignment for Strategizing competences, we design
SEMBI competences for strategizing and then operationalize them in a practice-oriented
shown process in Table 5. As first illustrated in Figure 1, we identify two separate Design theory
Strategizing competences corresponding to IS strategy and IT strategy. The competence of SEMBI
“Define SEMBI contribution” is the IS strategy competence that focuses on new opportunities
resulting from businesses leveraging SEMBI. Within this competence, we design four
capability
practices. The first two practices concern the fit of SEM and BI at the strategic level (Frolick & maturity model
Ariyachandra, 2006) of the business; the second two practices focus on the integration of BI
with the operational process, i.e., the realization of operational BI, at the operational level of
the business (Williams & Williams, 2003; Panian, 2009).
In contrast, “Determine SEMBI system architecture” is an IT strategy competence that
focuses on building the SEMBI architecture. This competence also comprises four practices
derived from industry and academic knowledge. The practice “Determine ETL (extract,
transform, and load) plan” concerns the extraction of data from legacy systems and external
sources, the transformation and pre-processing necessary to produce useful integrated data
and the loading of resulting data into data warehouse structures (March & Hevner, 2007).
Srivastava and Chen (1999) note that ETL is time-consuming and expensive and that
businesses can choose from different strategies and techniques to accomplish it. So
determining a plan for this process should be a necessary practice for competence building.
Similarly, a data warehouse serves as a repository for data from ETL processes, and
Darmont, Boussaid, Ralaivao, and Aouiche (2005) note that warehouse architectures are also
numerous and vary widely. As a result, “Determine Data Warehouse architecture” is also a
necessary practice. Data mining techniques are specifically designed to identify relationships
and rules within the data warehouse (Jackson, 2002). These techniques, while quite powerful,
may be too complex and sophisticated for the average information consumer. Thus,
identifying the right data mining techniques for different types of problems and users is a
needed practice (March & Hevner, 2007). Finally, “Determine SEMBI application” is the
fourth practice for the “Determine SEMBI system architecture” competence. This practice
concerns deciding which applications should be developed in-house and which are best
outsourced from a vendor.
(6) Principle 6: Deploying competences are designed to match strategizing competences
Competence is a firm’s capacity to deploy resources to effect the desired end (Amit &
Schoemaker, 1993). While strategizing defines where the “desired end” is, deploying
competences addresses the need to deploy sufficient resources where and when needed to
achieve that end. This pairing of deploying with strategizing competences implies a matching
relationship exists between these two competence categories.
Table 6 shows the two Deploying Competences, also introduced in Figure 1, that support
the strategizing competences in SEMBI–CMM. “Manage deliver and support” is one of the
deploying competences and is concerned with supplying SEMBI solutions and support; it

Competence Practice

Define SEMBI contribution (i.e., the IS strategy) Identify and innovate SEM process
Align SEM process with BI
Identify and innovate operational BI process
Align operational process with BI
Determine SEMBI system architecture (i.e., the IT strategy) Determine ETL plan Table 5.
Determine Data Warehouse architecture Strategizing
Determine Data Mining technique competences designed
Determine SEMBI application from business-IT
Source(s): Table by the authors alignment lens
JEBDE comprises two practices. The practice “Manage service level agreements” focuses on
identifying service requirements, agreeing on service levels and monitoring the achievement
of those service levels; while the practice “Manage third-party services” focuses on
establishing relationships and bilateral responsibilities with qualified third-party service
providers and monitoring the service delivery to verify and ensure adherence to agreements.
These “best practices” are built upon similar concepts from IS capability researchers
(Feeny & Willcocks, 1998). The SEMBI–CMM “Manage third-party services” practice, for
example, corresponds to Feeny’s “vendor development,” while SEMBI–CMM “Manage
service level agreements” combines the “contract facilitation” and “contract monitoring”
constructs of Feeny & Willcocks (1998).
Also shown in Table 5, “Manage SEMBI human resources” is the second deploying
competence and is concerned with SEMBI human resource management. From the
competence point of view, these individuals possess SEMBI-related business and technical
skills, knowledge and experience. They possess what Wixom, Watson, Reynolds, and Hoffer
(2008) call “business-IT hybrid” skills. When technical personnel have more business acumen
and business people have more technical skills than most companies, these individuals
possess such hybrid skills. As such, they are key individuals for the effective use of SEMBI.
The “Identify and develop SEMBI human resources” practice concerns identifying
existing and also developing new SEMBI human resources, and the “Exploit SEMBI human
resource” practice concerns mobilizing and marshaling (Bassellier & Benbasat, 2004) these
individuals. Note that, just as we do not particularly strategize financial investments in
SEMBI, we also do not emphasize the deployment of financial resources. We treat them as
embedded in strategizing and deploying processes.
(7) Principle 7: Complementing competences are designed from institutional lens
Our Strategizing and Deploying competences are designed from RBT logic, which claims that
economically rational identification and use of valuable, rare, difficult-to-replicate and non-
substitutable resources can lead to enduring corporate variability and extraordinary profits
(Barney, 1991). Despite these significant insights, others argue that this logic has not looked
beyond the properties of resources and resource markets to explain enduring firm
differentiation. In particular, RBT logic has not examined the institutional context within
which resource selection decisions are embedded nor how this context might affect
sustainable firm differences (Oliver, 1997).
Neglecting institutional context can lead to a mismatch in resource strategizing and
deploying. Based on the economic rationale, the resource-based view assumes that economic
motivations drive resource procurement decisions and that economic factors in firm
competition and resource environments drive firm behavior and outcomes. In contrast, a
normative rationale from an institutional perspective asserts that firms operate within a
social framework of norms, values and taken-for-granted assumptions about what
constitutes appropriate or acceptable economic behavior (Oliver, 1997).
This resource-based view is particularly problematic for information system practitioners
who often embed an economically rational understanding when they look for rational

Competence Practice

Table 6. Manage deliver and support Manage service-level agreements

Deploying Manage third-party services
competences matched Manage SEMBI human resources Identify and develop SEMBI human resources
with strategizing Exploit SEMBI human resource
competences Source(s): Table by the authors
solutions to organizational and technical problems (Svejvig, 2009). The economic mindset can Design theory
also lead to frustration among project personnel when they encounter problematic of SEMBI
unexpected situations or discover ambiguous management decisions that deviate from the
“the rational path.” Institutions are multifaceted, durable and resilient social structures,
capability
composed of symbolic elements, social activities and material resources, and institutional maturity model
theory attempts to describe the deeper and more resilient aspects of how institutions are
created, maintained, changed and dissolved (Scott, 2013). Institutional theory suggests that
motivations for human behavior extend beyond economic optimization to social legitimacy
and social obligation (Zukin & DiMaggio, 1990).
Therefore, in these cases, the institutional theory might provide complementary
understanding and explanations to stimulate alternative solutions or "just" to reduce
frustration among project personnel, which may be good for the organization itself (Svejvig,
2009). SEMBI is particularly relevant to the institution. As an “Evidence-” and “evidence-”
based decision support system, SEMBI is characterized as “chaotic” and “subversive”
(Meredith, 2008). We will address each of these descriptors, in turn.
3.2.1 SEMBI is chaotic. First, “chaotic” means its future properties cannot be foreseen.
This unpredictability is not caused primarily by the SEMBI system itself but rather by how
the system is aligned with the business.
Different from other kinds of enterprise systems, SEMBI is more flexible and requires
more creativity to align with business systems (Meredith, 2008). Researchers also distinguish
between mandatory and voluntary systems (Alavi & Joachimsthaler, 1992). While other
kinds of traditional enterprise systems mandate that users’ operational processes align with
rigid enterprise processes, SEMBI falls in the voluntary category of system.
In this case, the “Evidence” or “evidence” to use and where to use such E/evidence for
meaningful decision support is largely determined by users surrounded and influenced by an
institutional context. From an RBT perspective, the E/evidences and the SEMBI system as
technical enabler are both resources, and their use means strategizing and deploying these
resources in organizations. In practice, however, management decisions often deviate from
the best available E/evidence, and the resulting “research-practice gap” is a prevalent
phenomenon in organizations (Rousseau, 2006).
From an institutional perspective, the failure to acquire and optimally use E/evidences is
not due to their lack of value or that SEMBI systems are not qualified to acquire or produce
them but rather because the E/evidences or the systems are inconsistent with the
organization’s historical, cultural or political context. In other words, when the company
believes that available resources are disgusting or politically inconsistent, the competition for
valuable resources between the company will be more limited (Oliver, 1997).
3.2.2 SEMBI is subversive. SEMBI is “subversive” in that it is intentionally designed to
transform organizational structures because SEMBI is strategic and can directly influence
decisions and change organizational goals and direction. This influence contrasts with other
kinds of systems that are intended to reinforce existing organizational structures, and while
they might also be transformative, their transformation of organizational structures is often
unanticipated and unplanned (Meredith, 2008). So, SEMBI can not only be influenced by the
host institution but can also dramatically influence that host. In this situation, any
institutional mismatch between the organization and the SEMBI will be a significant obstacle
impeding SEMBI success.
Oliver (1997) complements RBT with institutional theory and claims that a firm’s
sustainable advantage depends on its ability to manage resources. He believes that resource
capital and institutional capital are indispensable for sustainable competitive advantage,
where resource capital refers to value-enhancing assets and competences of the firm, and
institutional capital comprises the context surrounding resources and resource strategies
that enhance or inhibit optimal use of resource capital. Based on this understanding, SEMBI
JEBDE capability model prescribes Complementing competences from an institutional theory lens to
enhance the Strategizing and Deploying competence categories that are more directly related
to the resources and resource strategies.
3.2.3 Institutional competences. The chaotic and subversive nature of SEMBI also implies
that the institutional competences should be designed separately from those of other
enterprise systems. Where the latter is intended to provide competences for control,
predictability and conformance with corporate governance structures, the former can only be
successful in an environment that encourages flexibility and experimentation (Meredith,
2008). This is not, however, an argument for a completely free rein. Rather, it is an argument
for a balanced approach on one side to limit governance within well-defined boundaries and
on the other side to provide it with an environment that cultivates creativity. We organize the
SEMBI-related institutional competences into two dimensions: governance and culture.
Governance provides the leadership and political structure that function as formal rules, and
culture establishes a comparatively informal climate.
3.2.4 Governance competences. By adopting this balanced idea, SEMBI governance is
lightly weighted as only one competence “Establish SEMBI management leadership” that
consists of three practices as shown in Table 7. The “Build SEMBI competence center”
practice establishes a transparent, flexible and responsive organization that we name SEMBI
competence center. Members of SEMBI competence center are representatives of multiple
units who are entrusted with roles and responsibilities for improving SEMBI capability. This
concept is adapted from the business intelligence competence center concept (Unger, Kemper,
& Russland, 2008) and enhanced by the IT steering committee concept from IS governance
research (Karimi, Bhattacherjee, Gupta, & Somers, 2000).
The “Make SEMBI capability improvement plan” practice focuses on benchmarking and
prioritizing the competencies for improvement. This practice connects the SEMBI capability
model and the evolution method of SEMBI-CMM is covered later in Section Meta-design of
SEMBI capability improvement method. The third practice “Communicate SEMBI goal and
direction” is designed to establish a shared vision and build commitment among
stakeholders. This practice is also used in successful IT governance (Bowen, Cheung, &
Rohde, 2007).
3.2.5 Culture competences. In the culture dimension, EBM is emphasized (Rousseau, 2006).
As a movement, EBM emphasizes using the best evidence in decision-making. Its purpose is
to identify ways of closing the prevailing “research-practice gap” – the failure of
organizations and managers to base practices on the best available evidence (Rousseau,
2006). While SEMBI is congruent with this movement by providing a technical enabler, EBM
is essentially a culture of evidence: “Building a culture in which managers learn to learn from
evidence is a critical aspect of effective evidence use” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).
Thus, the task of designing competences for the culture dimension focuses on
institutionalizing evidence use as endorsed by a culture environment. For this purpose, as
shown in the first row of Table 8, we define three related evidence-based competences:
“Define EBM process”, “Establish EBM ba” and “Cultivate EBM culture”.

Competence Practices

Establish SEMBI management leadership Build SEMBI competence center

Table 7. Make SEMBI capability improvement plan
Governance Communicate SEMBI goal and direction
competences Source(s): Table by the authors
Competences Cultivate EBM culture → Establish EBM ba → Define EBM process
Design theory
of SEMBI
Practices Cultivate clan culture → Establish originating → Define EBM socialization capability
ba mode
Cultivate adhocracy → Establish dialoging ba → Define EBM externalization maturity model
culture mode
Cultivate market → Establish systemizing → Define EBM combination
culture ba mode
Cultivate hierarchy → Establish exercising → Define EBM internalization
culture ba mode Table 8.
Source(s): Table by the authors Culture competences

Starting from the right side of Table 7 and working left, “Define EBM process” competence
makes evidence-use effective; this design view is introduced by Zollo & Winter (2002) who
use a systemically designed learning mechanism going beyond semi-automatic stimulus-
response mechanism to actively influence the evolution of other competences. Their
mechanism addresses the role of experience accumulation, knowledge articulation and
knowledge codification processes in this evolution and is similar to Nonaka (1994) knowledge
conversion theory (Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-Eberl, 2007).
Nonaka (1994) knowledge conversion theory asserts that an organization creates
knowledge through a spiral process in which explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge interact
in four modes of knowledge conversion: Socialization, Externalization, Combination and
Internalization (SICA). As described below, knowledge conversion theory aligns well with the
two other competences in the culture dimension,
The practices within the “Define EBM process” competence are designed to
correspondence to Nonaka’s SECI modes of knowledge conversion. “Define EBM
Socialization mode” converts tacit evidence into new tacit evidence through social
interactions among members. “Define EBM Externalization mode” codifies tacit evidence
into explicit concepts. “Define EBM Combination mode” converts explicit evidence into more
systematic sets of explicit evidence by combining key pieces, and finally “Define EBM
Internalization mode” embodies explicit evidence into tacit evidence. By installing this
learning mechanism, the users interact with one another and with the SEMBI systems to
systemically create and use evidence, which in turn, contributes to the evolution of the other
competences.
User commitment would enable the foregoing practices to become more deeply rooted in
the institution’s culture. The “Establish EBM ba” and “Cultivate EBM culture” competencies
are designed for this purpose. “Ba” is a Japanese word meaning “a shared context in which
knowledge is shared, created, and utilized” (Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000). According to
Nonaka et al. (2000), ba is the key to knowledge creation, generation and regeneration, as it
provides the energy, quality and place to perform each of the SECI modes and to move along
the knowledge spiral. There are four types of ba corresponding with each of the SECI modes:
they are, originating ba, dialoguing ba, systemizing ba and exercising ba (Nonaka et al., 2000).
We design our “Establish EBM ba” competence and its component practices accordingly.
The “Establish originating ba” offers a context for socialization where individuals share
experiences, feelings, emotions and mental models; the “Establish dialoguing ba” offers a
context for externalization where individuals’ mental models and skills are shared, converted
into common terms and articulated as concepts; the “Establish systemizing ba” offers a
context for the combination of existing explicit knowledge using collective and virtual
interactions; and the “Establish exercising ba” mainly offers a context for internalization
using individual and virtual interactions.
JEBDE Culture as an influence on the knowledge process and ba is broadly discussed in the
literature (Nonaka et al., 2000; Gray & Densten, 2005). For our purpose to cultivate culture to
foster the SECI mechanism through ba, we design a competence “Cultivate EBM culture” by
adopting Gray and Densten (2005) cultural framework. As shown in Table 7, the “Define EBM
process” results from the “Establish EBM ba” a formulation supported by Nonaka et al. (2000)
work. Gray and Densten (2005) go further to foster these two competencies through a
“Cultivate EBM culture” competence (Nonaka et al., 2000).
These relationships also hold between practices in “Cultivate EBM culture” competence
and practices in both “Establish EBM ba” and “Define EBM process” competences. The four
practices in “Cultivate EBM culture” competence are “Cultivate clan culture,” “Cultivate
adhocracy culture,” “Cultivate market culture” and “Cultivate hierarchy culture,”
The “Cultivate clan culture” practice is designed for developing a culture of trust and
belongingness that facilities evidence sharing and socialization. The “Cultivate adhocracy
culture” practice is designed for developing a culture of flexibility, innovation and creativity that
is congruent with the externalization mode. The “Cultivate market culture” practice is designed
for developing a culture of rational goals that emphasize competitiveness, productivity, goal
clarity, efficiency and accomplishment. This culture provides users with knowledge about how
their efforts influence organizational outcomes and have a significant impact on organizational
effectiveness. The “Cultivate hierarchy culture” practice is designed for developing a
hierarchical culture that emphasizes information management, documentation, stability,
standardization and control. These culture facilities the internalization mode.
It may seem that the four types of practices are contradictory, as the first two practices
cultivate a culture of flexibility, while the latter two practices cultivate a culture of stability.
As noted earlier, in SEMBI a culture of flexibility concerned with tacit knowledge use is
emphasized; however, organizations are seldom characterized by a single cultural type (Gray
& Densten, 2005). Leaders in organizations should be able to simultaneously master
seemingly contradictory or paradoxical demands and balance them. Importantly, leaders
should know where different types of culture are applicable and to what extent they apply.
Thus, the culture dimension is prescribed, as three competences corresponding to
mechanism-context-culture institutions. Individually, these competences balance one
another; together, they complement Strategizing and Deploying competences. Once
institutionalized, a competence will tend to be enduring, socially accepted, resistant to
change and not directly reliant on rewards or monitoring for its persistence (Oliver, 1992). An
institutionalized competence also signals a cultural willingness among employees to commit
resources (Oliver, 1997) in support thereof.
We now turn to the final principle defining the SEMBI product. We will then define the
principles of SEMBI capability improvement processes next section and provide an initial
evaluation of the entire SEMBI design.
(8) Principle 8: Adapting competences are designed from a dynamic capability lens
A dynamic capability perspective is an extension of a capabilities approach and its appeal lies
in its potential to offer a solution to the rigidities inherent in capabilities over time; thus, there
is a tendency to make capabilities more dynamic (Barreto, 2010; Laaksonen & Peltoniemi,
2018). The guiding logic is the core of operating capabilities; additional dynamic functions are
designed to overcome the inherent risks that become stiff and trapped (Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-
Eberl, 2007). While capabilities are means through which resources and competences are
configured, dynamic capabilities can be thought of as means through which resources and
competences are reconfigured and thus, over time, are central to competence building.
Consistent with the capability approach, the dynamic capability approach argues that
competitive advantage is not sustainable and needs to be updated. Therefore, dynamic
capabilities cannot be the source of sustainable competitive advantage, but the source of Design theory
renewed competitive advantage. of SEMBI
Although all dynamic capability approaches are directed toward effecting change, there
are remarkably different theories of dynamic capabilities (Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-Eberl, 2007).
capability
The work of Teece et al. (1997) is the most notable, and SEMBI adopts this approach for our maturity model
kernel theory. Following Teece et al. (1997), a dynamic capability is conceived to be the
mechanism for adapting, integrating and reconfiguring integrated clusters of resources and
capabilities to match the requirements of a changing environment. The term “dynamic” refers
to the capacity to renew competences. They conceptualize three dimensions: position, path
and process. The four SEMBI practices in the “Adapt to change” competence is derived from
these, as shown in Table 9.
“Determine the SEMBI capability position” practice corresponds to Teece’s position
dimension and is used to determine both internal and external positions of SEMBI capability.
The internal position relates to the specific set of SEMBI resources available in a firm. The
external position refers to the specific market position/assets of the firm. This external
position acknowledges that a firm’s current position limits, to a certain extent, the future
decisions a firm can reach and realize.
The “Analyze SEMBI paths” practice corresponds to Teece’s paths dimension and is used
to analyze the history of SEMBI of an organization. Dynamic capabilities point out that a
company’s current position is largely shaped by patterns that have evolved in the past.
Furthermore, a company’s future direction depends on its current path and shaping forces.
Both “Apply organization learning” and “Reconfigure the SEMBI resources” practices
comprise the process dimension. The core idea of the dynamic capability process dimension is
to extend the scope of process constructs by including the learning and reconfiguration of
resource processes to ensure permanent adaptation and change in the organization. The
practice of “Applied Organizational Learning” corresponds to the process of learning
“learning,” which covers the process of incremental improvement (modifying current
positions) and identifying new opportunities. The practice of “Reconfigure the SEMBI
resources” corresponds to the reconfiguration of the resources process, changing a
company’s SEMBI resource structure through early-warning monitoring of environmental
discontinuities and subsequent fundamental changes.
Finally, we summarize the SEMBI product design in Table 10.

3.3 Meta-design of SEMBI capability improvement method

SEMBI–CMM comprises two dimensions of concern. In the prior section, we focused on the
SEMBI capability model; in this section, we address capability improvement and the method
dimension.
CMM generally can be divided into two architectures: staged and continuous (Team,
2002), and both architectures define maturity as a rating level on a predefined path for
improvement. The staged architecture rates the whole organization based on a proven
grouping and ordering of competences and associated organizational relationships; the

Competence Practice

Adapt to change Determine the SEMBI capability position Table 9.

Analyze SEMBI paths Adapting competence
Apply organization learning designed from a
Reconfigure the SEMBI resources dynamic
Source(s): Table by the authors capability lens
JEBDE Categories Competences Practice

Meta-design Strategizing Define SEMBI contribution Identify and innovate SEM process
Align SEM process with BI
Identify and innovate operational BI process
Align operational process with BI
Determine SEMBI system Determine ETL plan
architecture Determine Data Warehouse architecture
Determine Data Mining technique
Determine SEMBI application
Deploying Manage SEMBI human Identify and develop SEMBI human resources
resources Exploit SEMBI human resource
Manage deliver and support Manage service-level agreements
Manage third-party services
Complementing Establish SEMBI Build SEMBI competence center
management leadership Make SEMBI capability improvement plan
Communicate SEMBI goal and direction
Define EBM process Define EBM socialization mode
Define EBM externalization mode
Define EBM combination mode
Define EBM internalization mode
Establish EBM ba Establish originating ba
Establish dialoging ba
Establish systemizing ba
Establish exercising ba
Cultivate EBM culture Cultivate clan culture
Cultivate adhocracy culture
Cultivate market culture
Cultivate hierarchy culture
Adapting Adapt to change Determine the SEMBI capability position
Analyses SEMBI paths
Apply organization learning
Reconfigure the SEMBI resources
Mid-range  Principle 1: Capability in SEMBI–CMM is constructed within RBT and the IS Capability lens
theories  Principle 2: SEMBI is a dynamic capability distilled from operational capabilities
 Principle 3: SEMBI capability model is prescribed as a priori
 Principle 4: SEMBI competence is operationalized by a practice-oriented process
 Principle 5: Strategizing competences are designed from a business-IT alignment lens
 Principle 6: Deploying competences are designed to match strategizing competences
 Principle 7: Complementing competences are designed from an institutional lens
 Principle 8: Adapting competences are designed from a dynamic capability lens
Kernel  CMM (Bach, 1994; Paulk, 1996; Biberoglu & Haddad, 2002; Team, 2002; Hansen et al., 2004; Maier
theories et al., 2009)
 RBT and IS capability (Barney, 1991, 1996; Stalk, 1992; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Black & Boal,
1994; McGrath et al., 1995; Feeny & Willcocks, 1998; Kangas, 1999; Bharadwaj, 2000; Bowman &
Ambrosini, 2000; Bassellier & Benbasat, 2004; Peppard & Ward, 2004; Wade & Hulland, 2004;
Aral & Weill, 2007; Prasad et al., 2009)
 Dynamic capability (Teece et al., 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002; Winter, 2003; Helfat et al., 2009;
Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-Eberl, 2007; Stoel & Muhanna, 2009; Barreto, 2010; Laaksonen &
Peltoniemi, 2018)
 Business-IT alignment (Reich & Benbasat, 1996)
 SEMBI research (Srivastava & Chen, 1999; Williams & Williams, 2003; Darmont et al., 2005;
Frolick & Ariyachandra, 2006; March & Hevner, 2007; Meredith, 2008; Wixom et al., 2008;
Panian, 2009; Popovic et al., 2009)
 Knowledge management (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000; Schultze & Boland, 2000; Carlile,

Table 10. 2002; Wenger et al., 2002; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003; Davenport, 2005; Gray & Densten, 2005;
Meta-design, mid- Marjanovic & Seethamraju, 2008)
 Evidence based management (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Rousseau, 2006)
range theories and
kernel theories for  Institutional theories (Oliver, 1992, 1997; Scott, 2013; Svejvig, 2009)
SEMBI product Source(s): Table by the authors
continuous architecture rates each of the competences in relation to strategic business Design theory
objectives (Paulk, 1996; Team, 2002). Both architectures explicitly or implicitly share a of SEMBI
rationale about maturity as a
capability
. . . theory about how organizations or processes are ‘supposed’ to work and/or about how maturity model
organizational change is envisaged. . . . It is important to be clear about this underlying rationale as it
impacts on the interpretation of results and affects suggestions of how a chosen unit of analysis
should change to improve its performance. (Maier et al., 2009).
Building on this prior work, SEMBI–CMM is designed as a staged model rated with six
maturity levels, and each level comprises some of the SEMBI competences that we have
prescribed in the SEMBI capability model shown above in Table 9. However, one might
question the rationale behind staging competences into processes. In fact, SEMBI–CMM is a
process theory that focuses on the sequence of activities to explain how and why particular
outcomes evolve over time. While such a process theory is essential for CMM, no kernel
theories exist to support it. Lacking kernel theories opens CMM to the criticism it is built upon
ad hoc methods (Bach, 1994; Biberoglu & Haddad, 2002; Hansen et al., 2004). Our work is
aimed at filling the gap in kernel theories for maturity models.
Prevailing wisdom holds that (1) maturity modeling is an evolutionary process and
change cannot be achieved in one great leap (Kruger, 2005); (2) staging is a strategy to guide
those few improvement activities that will be most helpful if implemented immediately
because most organizations can only focus on a few process improvement activities at a time
(Paulk, 1996); and (3) CMM embeds an organization change approach that is incremental and
learning oriented (Maier et al., 2009).
Montealegre (2002) developed a process model of capability development that departs from
most literature in RBT and shows how a firm develops, manages and deploys capabilities.
This model illustrates that (1) capability development is a cumulative and expansive process
where path dependency matters; (2) capability development can be strategically planned, one
step at a time over time; and (3) capability development is not a black box, it is not random, and
instead, is inherent in the firm’s overall strategy formulation and implementation. The model
further conceptualizes capability development into three stages: Establishing Direction,
Focusing on Strategy Development and Institutionalizing the Strategy. Each stage calls upon
the competences of strategizing, flexibility, integrating and engendering trust.
Helfat and Peteraf (2003) model of capability lifecycle differs from Montealegre (2002) and
posits both a general pattern of organizational capability development and a set of possible
paths. They argue that the framework is general enough to incorporate the emergence,
development and advancement of virtually any type of capability into any type of
organizational setting, from small start-ups to large, diverse companies. The life cycle
consists of four stages: founding, development, maturity and finally transformation.
Aligned with the kernel theories advanced by Montealegre (2002) and Helfat and Peteraf
(2003), SEMBI–CMM design treats the staged competences as a SEMBI capability
development process, and we sequence the competences according to their nature and
function. The SEMBI–CMM process offers finer-grained stages (Ad Hoc, Initial, Performed,
Developed, Committed and Optimizing) that are similar to general CMM in form. This
discussion leads to Principle 9.
(9) Principle 9:Maturity is defined by a staged capability development process
Table 11 presents the stages in SEMBI–CMM and also depicts their mapping to process
models from Montealegre (2002) and Helfat and Peteraf (2003). Note that the competences
presented here were developed in Section B and summarized in Table 9. The SEMBI process
defines the Ad Hoc Stage (Stage 0) to represent that no competences are formally or purposely
developed. In Stage 1, three competences are developed. While the “Define SEMBI
JEBDE 0 1 2 3 4 5
Maturity level Ad hoc Initial Performed Developed Committed Optimizing

SEMBI Establish Manage Define Establish EBM ba Adapt to

Competences SEMBI SEMBI EBM change
management human process
leadership resources
Define SEMBI Manage Cultivate EBM
contribution deliver and culture
support
Determine
SEMBI
system
architecture
Montealegre Establishing Focusing on the Strategy Institutionalizing
(2002) Direction Development the Strategy
Table 11. Helfat and Founding Development Maturity Transformation
SEMBI–CMM staged Peteraf (2003)
process Source(s): Table by the authors

contribution” and “Determine SEMBI system architecture” competences help establish

direction, the “Establish SEMBI management leadership” competence is the foundational
competence in this Initial Stage.
In the Performed Stage “Manage SEMBI human resources” and “Manage deliver and
support” competences are evident. These competences ensure that resources are deployed in
line with the strategic direction of the organization.
The “Define evidence-based management (EBM) process” competence defines the
Developed Stage, as EBM competence yields effective and efficient execution of strategy. The
Committed Stage corresponds to the two culture competences “Establish EBM ba” and
“Cultivate EBM culture” that institutionalize and operationalize the former competences.
At the Optimizing Stage, the “Adapt to change” competence emerges. While we designed all
prior stages to establish incremental capability within given resource constraints, the
Optimizing Stage is designed to establish new capability by reconfiguring competences and
resources in a dynamic environment.
SEMBI–CMM capability building and operationalization comprise stages designed to
manage the conflicting requirements of exploitation and exploration (Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-
Eberl, 2007). This design requires that competences be developed in sequence; by extension, a
stage qualifies as mature if and only if all the component competencies qualify.
In the SEMBI capability model, competence is prescribed as a practice-oriented process
embedding a best practice pattern for problem-solving. However, although the pattern provides
practitioners with an action goal as a guide, how the practitioners reach the goal is essentially
determined by the practitioners’ continuous practices and through the tacit accumulation of
experience and sporadic acts of creativity (Zollo & Winter, 2002; Marjanovic & Seethamraju, 2008).
(10) Principle 10: Maturity is measured by practice-oriented processes
In SEMBI–CMM, when the practices of competence have reached a threshold level of
reliability we deem that competence “qualified.” A qualified competence is repeatable and
quite distinct from ad hoc problem-solving. Ad hoc problem-solving involves a high-paced,
contingent, opportunistic and perhaps creative search for satisfactory alternative behaviors;
as such, it might be characterized as non-repeatable “firefighting” (Winter, 2003). Similarly, a
“taking a first cut” practice does not constitute a qualified competence, although it can trigger
the building of a qualified competence (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003).
 Certainly “qualified” is a concept of degree, which itself can be quantified to different Design theory
levels. To avoid unnecessary complexity, we rate both competence and each component of SEMBI
practice with two levels: qualified or unqualified. Therefore, if the number of qualified
component practices reaches a threshold, the competence is qualified. Likewise, if all the
capability
competences of a stage are qualified, the organization achieves maturity at this stage. Thus, maturity model
SEMBI-CMM evolution method is essentially a dual process method. While the staged
process is external to competence and is used to define the maturity of the whole organization,
the practice-oriented process is internal to competence and used to measure it.
Note that an organization acquiring a specific level of maturity does not imply that all the
competences at this level have been maxed out. Organizations may differ in the efficiency or
effectiveness of a specific type of competence. To say that a competence is qualified simply
means that it has achieved some minimum level of functioning that allows the exercise to be
performed repeatedly and reliably. Some versions of a competence are better than others
(Helfat & Peteraf, 2003).
Moreover, in most cases, that a competence is qualified does not imply the competence
cannot evolve again. Capability is essentially a historical concept that combines experience
with current problem-solving practices to look to future directions (Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-
Eberl, 2007). Stressing the historical nature of a competence acknowledges that time is a basic
dimension of a competence.
Competence evolution is somewhat of a chain reaction triggered by an initial event that
establishes a competence trajectory. Competence evolution takes time, and the specific way in
which time has been taken (i.e., the intensity, frequency and duration of social interactions) is
relevant to the gestalt of a competence (Schrey€ogg & Kliesch-Eberl, 2007). Note also that the
competences in our design are not independent. The competences in Stages 3 and 4 are
intentionally designed as “meta-rules” – routines for changing routines – to systematically
and repeatedly produce improvement for prior competences established in Stages 1 and 2
(Zollo & Winter, 2002). So, after the competences in Stages 1 and 2 (Initial and Performed,
respectively) reach the minimum level of functionality and enter Stages 3 and 4 (Developed
and Committed, respectively), the competences in Stages 1 and 2 will continuously coevolve
with competences in Stages 3 and 4. As noted earlier, the competence in Stage 5 (Optimizing)
also has an impact on former competences by reconfiguring them.
The evolution method, although primarily a process theory, also embeds some variance
relationships. The process and variance relationships function together to allow SEMBI
capability to evolve both at an organization level and at each competence level. In Figure 2,

Design
Quality
method
Prac ce-oriented process (PoP) PoP - B
Coevolu on
PoP - A

Threshold

Staged
0 1 2 3 4 5
A dual process defines and measures SEMBI maturity
Figure 2.
SEMBI capability
development
Source(s): Figure by the authors
JEBDE the horizontal axis represents the staged process that directs SEMBI capability development
and the rate of organizational maturing. The vertical axis represents the “quality” of a
competence; i.e., a practice-oriented process or the overall skillfulness of the team in executing
the practices of the competence.
Competences with quality above the threshold level are qualified; otherwise, they are
unqualified. Along with the evolution of the staged process, each practice-oriented process
(PoP) will coevolve not only due to the accumulation of practices but also due to the casual
relationship embedded in the method. There are several practice-oriented processes in the
method; and to illustrate possible interactions and co-evolution, we map two of them in Figure 2.
The graphs show that PoP-A begins as an Ad Hoc practice with very low quality and gradually,
steadily becomes more mature and of higher quality; plateauing well above the threshold for a
qualified process. While PoP-B begins at the Initial Stage (more mature than PoP-A), the initial
quality is also very low, remains lower than PoP-A and requires more time to qualify; PoP-B
eventually achieves a higher level of quality on the maturity dimension than PoP-A.
To conclude the theory development portion of our work, Table 12 summarizes the mid-
range and kernel theories comprising the SEMBI–CMM method design.

4. Testable hypotheses stemming from SEMBI-CMM meta-requirements

We use hypotheses to determine whether the meta-design satisfies the meta-requirements as
per (Walls et al., 1992). For SEMBI–CMM, the meta-design is SEMBI capability model, and the
meta-requirement is “SEMBI-CMM should support the SEMBI success.” We decompose this
meta-requirement into three detailed meta-requirements comprising production, use and net
benefit. Accordingly, the testable design product hypothesis states, “The development of the
prescribed SEMBI capability has a positive effect upon SEMBI success.” This hypothesis can
be deconstructed into three component hypotheses corresponding to the three meta-
requirements. Table 13 shows these hypotheses and their relationship to the meta-
requirements.
As shown in Table 12, design process hypotheses check whether the design method
results in an artifact consistent with the meta-design (Walls et al., 1992). That is, SEMBI
capabilities prescribed by the SEMBI capability model can be instantiated by using the
prescribed evolution method. Therefore, the design process hypothesis proposes that “It is
feasible to develop SEMBI capability based on the SEMBI evolution method.” Finally, the
SEMBI–CMM model specifies that the design method is the SEMBI evolution method, and
the meta-design is the SEMBI capability model.

5. SEMBI evaluation survey and results

Evaluation is essential to demonstrate the utility, quality and efficacy of the design output in
design science research (Hevner et al., 2004; Baskerville et al., 2018). For a deep understanding

Mid-range • Principle 9: Maturity is defined by a staged capability development process

theories • Principle 10: Maturity is measured with practice-oriented processes

Kernel theories  CMM (Bach, 1994; Paulk, 1996; Biberoglu & Haddad, 2002; Team, 2002; Hansen et al.,
2004; Maier et al., 2009)
 Process model of capability development (Montealegre, 2002; Helfat & Peteraf, 2003)
Table 12.
 RBT and IS capability (Zollo & Winter, 2002; Schrey€
ogg & Kliesch-Eberl, 2007)
Mid-range and kernel
theories for SEMBI  Practice-oriented process (Marjanovic & Seethamraju, 2008)
design process Source(s): Table by the authors
Meta- MR: SEMBI–CMM should support the SEMBI success
Design theory
requirements MR1: SEMBI–CMM should MR2: SEMBI–CMM should MR3: SEMBI–CMM should of SEMBI
support SEMBI production support SEMBI use support SEMBI net-benefit capability
realization
Design product SEMBI capability model
maturity model
Design product H1: The development of the prescribed SEMBI capability has a positive effect upon SEMBI
hypotheses success
H1a: The development of the H1b: The development of H1c: The development of the
prescribed SEMBI the prescribed SEMBI prescribed SEMBI
capability has a positive capability has a positive capability has a positive
effect upon SEMBI effect upon SEMBI use effect upon SEMBI net
production benefit realization
Design process SEMBI evolution method Table 13.
Design process H2: It is feasible to develop SEMBI capability based on the SEMBI evolution method Hypotheses resulting
hypotheses from SEMBI–CMM
Source(s): Table by the authors meta-requirements

of the utility, quality and efficacy of our research output, a longitudinal multiple-case study
may be required. However, design science is also a spiral process in which building and
evaluation activities interact cyclically (Baskerville et al., 2018; Venable et al., 2016). In that
spirit and considering this early stage in our research, we conducted a pilot survey-based
evaluation of two real-world environments based on the Content, Context and Process (CCP)
framework (Stockdale & Standing, 2006). In the CCP framework, the Content construct
specifies what is to be evaluated, the Context construct specifies who participates in the
evaluation and what factors may influence the evaluation, and the Process construct specifies
how the evaluation is to be implemented.
In our evaluation, the content construct is the hypotheses advanced by design theory.
In contrast to the positivist view where the hypotheses focus on past actions, the two
hypotheses in our design theory are based on the realist view, which focuses on future actions
(Venable et al., 2016). The implication is that these hypotheses will be evaluated by their
perceived utility to solve the problems. In the SEMBI–CMM framework, both the SEMBI
capability model and the evolution method are prescriptions (or future actions) about a class
of problems, and the two hypotheses concern whether these prescriptions can solve the
problems. Our evaluation was conducted in two firms in China in 2011. We selected a
convenience sample of 21 individuals from these firms and their respective consulting and
implementation partners and ended up with 16 useable responses. Table 14 identifies our
hypotheses (Content row), briefly describes the two firms (Context row) and identifies the
4-step process (Process row) we used.
The questionnaire is shown in Table 15, with the results provided in Table 16.
Table 16 converts raw results from Table 14 to percentages, with values above 50%
shown in italic font. With this initial pilot survey, respondents generally indicated that all
practices contribute to one or more SEMBI success stages. These results are preliminary per
se, as we chose a small convenience sample and explicitly provided background SEMBI-CMM
information before administering the survey.

6. Conclusion and contributions

EBM considers two types of evidence to support decision-making; i.e., “Big E Evidence” and
“Little e evidence” (Rousseau, 2006). The extant studies indicate that SEM, as a Big E
JEBDE ContentH1: The development of the prescribed SEMBI capability has a positive effect to SEMBI success
- H1a: The development of the prescribed SEMBI capability has a positive effect upon SEMBI
production
- H1b: The development of the prescribed SEMBI capability has a positive effect upon SEMBI
use
- H1c: The development of the prescribed SEMBI capability has a positive effect upon SEMBI net
benefit realization
H2: It is feasible to develop SEMBI capability based on the SEMBI evolution method
Context Case 1: A famous retail company in Shenzhen, China
 The company is planning to use a balanced scorecard system
 A consulting company from Shanghai, China will help the company plan the implementation
 A “strategy management” department similar to a SEMBI competence center has been
established
 An employee has been trained to know the basic balanced scorecard principles
Case 2: The China branch of a famous logistics company
 The company has implemented a BI system
 A company in Shenzhen helped to implement the system
 An employee with one year experience is using the system
Process Select stakeholders from
 Two consulting companies
 Implementation companies (clients of the consulting companies’ stakeholders)
Educate the stakeholders on the SEMBI-CMM, so they understand the concepts in the survey
Survey the stakeholders with a questionnaire
Table 14. Analyze the data
Evaluation framework Source(s): Table by the authors

Evidence-based DSS, BI, as a Little e evidence-based DSS, are intertwined and

complementary in nature.
In an effort to advance this line of research aligning strategic decision-making with
operationalized business intelligence, we employ a design science perspective to address the
question of how an organization can successfully implement SEMBI. We coined and use the
term SEMBI to represent the union of SEM and BI in our work.
This piece focuses on three main topics related to SEMBI: building SEMBI, designing the
SEMBI design product and the design process. First, the design model of SEMBI is discussed.
The success of SEMBI is broken down into a general meta-requirement, which requires
achieving deeper levels of detail and success in IS research. A three-step process model is
generally agreed upon for achieving this success, which includes production, use and net
benefit. Secondly, the capability model of SEMBI is examined. Eight model design principles
are defined and explored, followed by an exploration of the method dimension. Finally, the
capability improvement method of SEMBI is addressed. This includes a discussion of
capability improvement and the method dimension.
To better understand the usefulness, quality and effectiveness of our research output, we
conducted an initial evaluation of the SEMBI model with a convenience sample. However, to
gain a deeper understanding, a longitudinal multiple-case study may be necessary.
To determine if the meta-design meets the meta-requirements, hypotheses were formulated
and tested. In addition, we conducted a pilot survey-based evaluation of two real-world
environments using the CCP framework.
We summarize our research contributions to researchers and practitioners in Table 17,
based on Hevner et al. (2004) seven guidelines for design science research. Design science is a
spiral process where building and evaluation interact. Evaluation has meaning only to the
extent that one can measure design output (Venable et al., 2016). Since acceptable objective
measures are not yet available for our research at this stage, we use the stakeholders’
 Questionnaire generated 16 useable responses of 21 requested
Design theory
SEMBI success stages of SEMBI
SEMBI capability model (16 lots in total) capability
Net
Categories Competences Practice Production Use benefit
maturity model
Part 1: If you think the practice prescribed in the SEMBI capability model has a positive effect upon the stage of
SEMBI success, please mark a√in the correspondence blank
Strategizing Define SEMBI Identify and innovate SEM
contribution process
Align SEM process with BI
Identify and innovate
operational BI process
Align operational process with
BI
Determine SEMBI Determine ETL plan
system architecture Determine Data Warehouse
architecture
Determine Data Mining
technique
Determine SEMBI application
Deploying Manage SEMBI Identify and develop SEMBI
human resources human resources
Exploit SEMBI human resource
Manage deliver and Manage service-level
support agreements
Manage third-party services
Complementing Establish SEMBI Build SEMBI competence center
management Make SEMBI capability
leadership improvement plan
Communicate SEMBI goal and
direction
Define EBM process Define EBM socialization mode
Define EBM externalization
mode
Define EBM combination mode
Define EBM internalization
mode
Establish EBM ba Establish originating ba
Establish dialoging ba
Establish systemizing ba
Establish exercising ba
Cultivate EBM culture Cultivate clan culture
Cultivate adhocracy culture
Cultivate market culture
Cultivate hierarchy culture
Adapting Adapt to change Determine the SEMBI capability
position
Analyses SEMBI paths
Take the organization learning
Reconfigure the SEMBI
resources
Part 2: If you think it is feasible to develop SEMBI capability based on the SEMBI evolution method, please Table 15.
mark a √ in the following blank Questionnaire and raw
Source(s): Table by the authors results
JEBDE Useable questionnaire rate 0.76 (16/21)
SEMBI capability model SEMBI success stages
Net
Categories Competences Practice Production Use benefit

Part 1: If you think the practice prescribed in the SEMBI capability model has a positive effect to the stage of
SEMBI success, please mark a√in the correspondence blank
Positive effect/Total
Strategizing Define SEMBI Identify and innovate SEM 0.63(510/16) 0.31 0.56
contribution process
Align SEM process with BI 0.50 0.75 0.19
Identify and innovate 0.44 0.44 0.69
operational BI process
Align operational process with 0.63 0.69 0.31
BI
Determine SEMBI Determine ETL plan 0.94 0.13 0.13
system Determine Data Warehouse 0.94 0.44 0.19
architecture architecture
Determine Data Mining 0.69 0.63 0.88
technique
Determine SEMBI application 0.44 0.69 0.63
Deploying Manage SEMBI Identify and develop SEMBI 0.94 0.94 0.19
human resources human resources
Exploit SEMBI human resource 0.69 0.94 0.69
Manage deliver Manage service-level 0.69 0.56 0.63
and support agreements
Manage third-party services 0.75 0.63 0.75
Complementing Establish SEMBI Build SEMBI competence center 0.94 0.75 0.06
management Make SEMBI capability 0.19 0.88 0.69
leadership improvement plan
Communicate SEMBI goal and 0.88 0.38 0.38
direction
Define EBM Define EBM socialization mode 0.44 0.63 0.19
process Define EBM externalization 0.81 0.38 0.06
mode
Define EBM combination mode 0.75 0.38 0.13
Define EBM internalization 0.44 0.63 0.13
mode
Establish EBM ba Establish originating ba 0.25 0.69 0.38
Establish dialoging ba 0.44 0.81 0.13
Establish systemizing ba 0.31 0.69 0.25
Establish exercising ba 0.44 0.81 0.25
Cultivate EBM Cultivate clan culture 0.31 0.75 0.75
culture Cultivate adhocracy culture 0.38 0.75 0.69
Cultivate market culture 0.31 0.69 0.75
Cultivate hierarchy culture 0.38 0.69 0.69
Adapting Adapt to change Determine the SEMBI capability 0.75 0.38 0.19
position
Analyses SEMBI paths 0.75 0.38 0.19
Take the organization learning 0.31 0.94 0.56
Reconfigure the SEMBI 0.38 0.81 0.81
resources
Part 2: If you think it is feasible to develop SEMBI capability based on the SEMBI evolution method, please
Table 16. mark a √ in the following blank
Questionnaire results Note(s): Values exceeding 50% are displayed in italics
in percentage form Source(s): Table by the authors
Design as an artifact SEMBI-CMM is designed as an abstract artifact with both a SEMBI capability
Design theory
model and a SEMBI capability evolution method of SEMBI
Problem Relevance The research provides relevance to a real business problem of achieving SEMBI capability
success
Design Evaluation The utility of the prescribed design is evaluated based on a Context, Context,
maturity model
Process (CCP) framework
Research Contributions The research provides a methodology for organizations to achieve SEMBI success
and meanwhile provides new knowledge in the form of design theory for
researchers
Research Rigor The research is conducted based on an ISDT framework and is initially tested
based on a hypothetic-deductive logic
Design as a Search The research searches for a solution for SEMBI success from many sources of
Process kernel theories and through a mid-range theory design. The build-evaluation
interaction aids a cyclical search for better solutions
Communication of The research provides rich information to management audiences on the
Table 17.
Research importance of the SEMBI-CMM and meanwhile provides consulting and
SEMBI through the
implementation practitioners a detailed model and method for their SEMBI lens of Hevner et al.
practices. It also provides other researchers with an established theory that can be (2004) seven guidelines
extended in the future for design science
Source(s): Table by the authors research

attitudes and subjective judgments as proxies (Baskerville et al., 2018). However, such
measures are criticized by some researchers, especially when the measures do not tap into the
cognitive components that reflect the direct experience and are held with confidence (Melone,
1990). Moreover, a more rigorously designed evaluation is warranted to adequately test
stakeholder attitudes. Finally, a longitudinal and cross-section multi-case study needs to be
introduced based on a real application of SEMBI-CMM. Our future work aims to attain a
deeper understanding and perhaps provide a better design for SEMBI-CMM through an
extensive spiral process of objective testing and re-building.

References
Ain, N., Vaia, G., DeLone, W. H., & Waheed, M. (2019). Two decades of research on business
intelligence system adoption, utilization and success–A systematic literature review. Decision
Support Systems, 125, 113113.
Akhmetshin, E. M., Vasilev, V. L., Mironov, D. S., Zatsarinnaya, Е. I., Romanova, M. V., & Yumashev,
A. V. (2018). Internal control system in enterprise management: Analysis and interaction
matrices. European Research Studies Journal, 21(2), 728–740.
Alavi, M., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1992), “Revisiting DSS implementation research: A meta-analysis
of the literature and suggestions for researchers”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 95-116.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(1), 33–46.
Aral, S., & Weill, P. (2007). IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm performance: How resource
allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organization Science,
18(5), 763–780.
Bach, J. (1994). The immaturity of the CMM. American Programmer, 7, 13.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1996). The resource-based theory of the firm. Organization Science, 7(5), 469.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future.
Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.
JEBDE Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., & Rossi, M. (2018). Design science research
contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 19(5), 3.
Bassellier, G., & Benbasat, I. (2004), “Business competence of information technology professionals:
Conceptual development and influence on IT-business partnerships”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 673-694.
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm
performance: An empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-196.
Biberoglu, E., & Haddad, H. (2002). A survey of industrial experiences with CMM and the teaching of
CMM practices. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(2), 143–152.
Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1994). Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to sustainable
competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 131–148.
Bowen, P. L., Cheung, M.-Y. D., & Rohde, F. H. (2007). Enhancing IT governance practices: A model
and case study of an organization’s efforts. International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems, 8(3), 191–221.
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent
definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–15.
Brignall, S., & Ballantine, J. (2004). Strategic enterprise management systems: New directions for
research. Management Accounting Research, 15(2), 225–240.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product
development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
Darmont, J., Boussaid, O., Ralaivao, J.-C., & Aouiche, K. (2005), “An architecture framework for
complex data warehouses”, in Chen, C.S., Filipe, J., Seruca, I., & Cordeiro, J. (Eds), ICEIS 2005 -
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems May 25-
28, 2005, Miami, USA, pp. 370-373.
Davenport, T. H. (2005), Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from
knowledge workers, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
Faizova, S., Ivanova, M., & Pozhuieva, T. (2018). Prospects for improving the methodology of strategic
enterprise management. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 4(5), 371–378.
Feeny, D. F., & Willcocks, L. P. (1998). Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology.
Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 9–21.
Frolick, M. N., & Ariyachandra, T. R. (2006). Business performance management: One truth.
Information Systems Management, 23(1), 41–48.
Golfarelli, M., Rizzi, S., & Cella, I. (2004). Beyond data warehousing: what’s next in business
intelligence?. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th ACM international workshop on
Data warehousing and OLAP.
Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2005). Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and
knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(2), 594–603.
Gregor, S. (2002), “Design theory in information systems”, Australasian Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 14-22.
Gregor, S. (2006), “The nature of theory in information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp.
611-642.
Hansen, B., Rose, J., & Tjørnehøj, G. (2004). Prescription, description, reflection: The shape of the software
process improvement field. International Journal of Information Management, 24(6), 457–472.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic
Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009), Design theory
Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations, John Wiley & Sons,
Malden, MA. of SEMBI
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004), “Design science in information systems
capability
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-105. maturity model
Iivari, J. (2015). Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. European
Journal of Information Systems, 24(1), 107–115.
Jackson, J. (2002). Data mining; a conceptual overview. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 8(1), 19.
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge
management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2),
351–384.
Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 8(5), 1.
Kangas, K. (1999). Competency & capabilities based competition and the role of information
technology: The case of trading by a Finland-based firm to Russia. Journal of Information
Technology Case and Application Research, 1(2), 4–22.
Karimi, J., Bhattacherjee, A., Gupta, Y. P., & Somers, T. M. (2000). The effects of MIS steering
committees on information technology management sophistication. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 17(2), 207–230.
Khudyakova, T., Zhuravlyov, V., Varkova, N., Aliukov, S., Shmidt, S., & Zhuravlyov, N. (2020).
Improving approaches to strategic enterprise management in the context of sustainable
development. Sustainability, 12(20), 8375.
Kruger, C. J. (2005), “Formulation of a strategic knowledge management maturity model”, South
African Journal of Information Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Kuechler, B., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a
research project. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 489–504.
Laaksonen, O., & Peltoniemi, M. (2018). The essence of dynamic capabilities and their measurement.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 184–205.
Lacerda, T. C., & von Wangenheim, C. G. (2018). Systematic literature review of usability capability/
maturity models. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 95–105.
Maier, A., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Developing maturity grids for assessing organisational
capabilities: Practitioner guidance. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on
Management Consulting: Academy of Management.
March, S. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2007). Integrated decision support systems: A data warehousing
perspective. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 1031–1043.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology.
Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.
Marjanovic, O., & Seethamraju, R. (2008). Understanding knowledge-intensive, practice-oriented
business processes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).
Mathrani, S. (2021). Critical business intelligence practices to create meta-knowledge. International
Journal of Business Information Systems, 36(1), 1–20.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Venkataraman, S. (1995). Defining and developing competence:
A strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), 251–275.
Melnyk, O., & Zlotnik, M. (2020). The essence and basic models of strategic enterprise management.
Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management, 7(1), 48–62.
JEBDE Melone, N. P. (1990). A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction construct in information
systems research. Management Science, 36(1), 76–91.
Meredith, R. (2008). Information technology governance and decision support systems. Paper
presented at the CDM.
Mettler, T., & Rohner, P. (2009). Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for
organizational design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th international conference
on design science research in information systems and technology.
Montealegre, R. (2002). A process model of capability development: Lessons from the electronic
commerce strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil. Organization Science, 13(5), 514–531.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1),
14–37.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation. Long Lange Planning, 33(1), 5–34.
Norton, D. (1999), SAP strategic enterprise management: Translating strategy into action: The balanced
scorecard, SAP AG, Walldorf.
Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based
views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.
Panian, Z. (2009). Just-in-time business intelligence and real-time decisioning. Recent Advances in
Applied Informatics and Communications, Proceedings of AIC (Vol. 9, pp. 106–111).
Paulk, M. C. (1996). Process improvement and organizational capability: Generalizing the CMM. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the ASQC’s 50th Annual Quality Congress and Exposition,
Chicago, IL.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity model, version 1.1.
IEEE Software, 10(4), 18–27.
Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic information systems: Towards an IS capability. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 167–194.
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. R. (2012). The past, present, and future of “IS success”. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 13(5), 2.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006), Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from
evidence-based management, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Phillips-Wren, G., Daly, M., & Burstein, F. (2021). Reconciling business intelligence, analytics and
decision support systems: More data, deeper insight. Decision Support Systems, 146,
113560.
Popovic, A., Coelho, P. S., & Jaklic, J. (2009). The impact of business intelligence system maturity on
information quality. Information Research, 14(4), 417.
Porte, L. (2018). 9 things to consider when buying CMM inspection software. Quality, 57(10), 18–19.
Prasad, A., Heales, J., & Green, P. (2009). Information technology resources, complementaries and
capabilities: Towards a deeper understanding of leveraging business value from IT. In Paper
presented at the AMCIS 2009 Proceedings.
Regent, T., Glinkina, O., Ganina, S., Markova, O., & Kozhina, V. (2019). Improvement of strategic
management of a tourism enterprise in the international market. Journal of Environmental
Management and Tourism, 10(2), 427–432.
Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Measuring the linkage between business and information
technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 55–81.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”?. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 256–269.
Santhanam, R., & Hartono, E. (2003), “Issues in linking information technology capability to firm Design theory
performance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 125-153.
of SEMBI
Schrey€ogg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards
a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9),
capability
913–933. maturity model
Schultze, U., & Boland, R. J. Jr. (2000). Knowledge management technology and the reproduction
of knowledge work practices. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3),
193–212.
Scott, W. R. (2013), Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, Sage publications,
Los Angeles, CA.
Seddon, P. B., Staples, S., Patnayakuni, R., & Bowtell, M. (1999). Dimensions of information systems
success. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(1), 20.
Sen, D., Bingol, S., & Vayvay, O. (2017). Strategic enterprise management for innovative companies:
The last decade of the balanced scorecard. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7(1),
97–109.
Sestino, A. (2016). “Business intelligence and strategic enterprise management approach”, available at:
https://ssrn.com/abstract53283640 (accessed 20 January 2023).
Srivastava, J., & Chen, P.-Y. (1999). Warehouse creation-a potential roadblock to data warehousing.
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 11(1), 118–126.
Stalk, G. (1992). Evans P. Schulman LE competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate.
Harvard Business Review, 5, 35–45.
Stockdale, R., & Standing, C. (2006). An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems:
A content, context, process framework. European Journal of Operational Research, 173(3),
1090–1102.
Stoel, M. D., & Muhanna, W. A. (2009), “IT capabilities and firm performance: A contingency
analysis of the role of industry and IT capability type”, Information & Management, Vol. 46
No. 3, pp. 181-189.
Svejvig, P. (2009). Literature review of enterprise systems research using institutional theory:
Towards a conceptual model, Working Paper 2009-1, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of
Business, Department of Management, Aarhus V, Denmark, 1 January.
Team, C. P. (2002). Capability maturity model® integration (CMMI SM), version 1.1.
Teece, D. J. (2019). A capability theory of the firm: An economics and (strategic) management
perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(1), 1–43.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Unger, C., Kemper, H.-G., & Russland, A. (2008). Business intelligence center concepts. Paper presented
at the AMCIS 2008 Proceedings.
Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2016). FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science
research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 77–89.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality,
and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004), “The resource-based view and information systems research: Review,
extension, and suggestions for future research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-142.
Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory
for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002), Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to
managing knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
JEBDE Williams, S., & Williams, N. (2003). The business value of business intelligence. Business Intelligence
Journal, 8, 30–39.
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10),
991–995.
Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5),
470–475.
Wixom, B. H., Watson, H. J., Reynolds, A. M., & Hoffer, J. A. (2008). Continental airlines continues to
soar with business intelligence. Information Systems Management, 25(2), 102–112.
ZAITSEVA, E. (2014), “The choice of the flexible strategic enterprise management methods on the
basis of their ability to self-organization”, Bulletin of KNUTD, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 206-215.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. (1990). Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corresponding author
Xin (Robert) Luo can be contacted at: xinluo@unm.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com