Evaluating and Updating 127 EAM Success Constructs

I am looking for an independent scholarly review of the constructs used in the Enterprise Architecture Management success model developed by Matthias Lange, Jan Mendling, and Jan Recker. The purpose of the task is to evaluate the relevance of the constructs in light of more recent research and determine whether some constructs may have become obsolete. This review should follow a structured and academically grounded approach.

Important clarification

I am not asking for writing, rewriting, or producing a report on my behalf. The goal is to obtain an informed second opinion based on a systematic literature review and construct evaluation. The outcome should be an assessment of the constructs themselves rather than a written paper.

Primary papers to review

Please carefully read the following two papers:

1. An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of Enterprise Architecture Management success by Matthias Lange, Jan Mendling, and Jan Recker.
2. In this paper, the authors identify 127 constructs and subconstructs that form the basis of a model for Enterprise Architecture Management success.
3. Measuring the realization of benefits from Enterprise Architecture Management by Matthias Lange, Jan Mendling, and Jan Recker.
4. This paper builds further on the evaluation and measurement of benefits in Enterprise Architecture Management.

The first paper is particularly important because it introduces the complete construct set used to develop the model.

Main task

The core task is to systematically go through all constructs and subconstructs identified in the first paper (127 in total) and evaluate their current relevance.

Specifically, you should:

Examine each construct and subconstruct individually.

Determine whether it still appears conceptually valid and relevant in current research on Enterprise Architecture Management, Information Systems governance, or related areas.

Identify constructs that may have become outdated, redundant, or conceptually obsolete according to recent literature.

Methodological framework

To perform the evaluation, please follow the methodological guidance described in the paper:

When Constructs Become Obsolete: A Systematic Approach to Evaluating and Updating Constructs for Information Systems Research by Deborah Compeau, John Correia, and Jason Bennett Thatcher.

The process described in that article should guide how constructs are assessed, challenged, and potentially retired or updated. The intention is to apply their systematic approach to the construct set developed by Lange, Mendling, and Recker.

Literature requirements

The evaluation should be grounded in high quality academic literature. When assessing whether constructs remain relevant or have become obsolete, please rely primarily on:

Top tier Information Systems journals

Highly ranked management and Information Systems journals

Leading conference proceedings

Examples include journals such as MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, and similar high quality outlets, as well as respected conferences in the Information Systems field.

If you encounter access issues with any academic article, please let me know. I am willing to provide the papers if I have access to them.

Identification of new constructs

In addition to identifying obsolete constructs, I would also like you to identify potential new constructs that could complement or update the model.

Based on your literature search, please propose approximately five to ten new constructs that appear frequently in recent Enterprise Architecture or Information Systems governance research but are not present in the original model.

These new constructs should ideally:

Be grounded in peer reviewed literature

Reflect developments in Enterprise Architecture practice, digital transformation, IT governance, or related domains

Be conceptually distinct from the existing constructs

Expected outcome

The outcome of this task should include:

1. An evaluation of the existing constructs and subconstructs with an indication of which may be obsolete or less relevant today.
2. A short explanation or reasoning supported by literature for each construct identified as potentially obsolete.
3. A list of approximately five to ten potential new constructs supported by recent literature.

Note: I attached construc list.