Strategy on a Page: An ArchiMate ‐ based tool for visualizing and designing strategy

Summary Nowadays, organizations need to be able to adjust more rapidly to the circumstances of their environment, at a strategic, tactical, and operational level. However, most software tools are designed to support the tactical and operational levels, while at a strategic level there are not many options available. In this paper, we propose a software tool which supports modelling of strategic information, covering several well ‐ known strategy techniques, and also facilitates the design of highly customizable management dashboards. To validate our proposed software tools, we perform two case studies, with two inherently different organizations, namely a public university and an investment fund.

enterprise engineering software tools; for example, business process management (Dunie, Schulte, Cantara, & Kerremans, 2015) and enterprise resource planning (Guay, Pang, Hestermann, & Montgomery, 2015). Similarly, at a tactical level, business intelligence (Parenteau et al., 2016), enterprise architecture (EA) (Searle & Kerremans, 2017), and other domains have been supported by software tools, some based on academic research and on best practices. However, when looking at a strategic level, fewer software tools are currently available (Iervolino & Decker, 2016). Of these, most software tools include support for individual strategy techniques, such as the Business Model Canvas (BMC), the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, the balanced scorecard (BSC), and so on without considering how they can be integrated with each other and with existing tactical and operational tools which are used within the strategy process.
The importance of providing integrated solutions, which can cover many aspects of the strategy process, has become more apparent in recent years, with many software vendors moving away from providing isolated tools. One such example is the case of EA tools, which over the past few years have moved away from only supporting EA methodologies, frameworks, and modelling languages, to providing an integrated offering which includes aspects of project and portfolio management, governance, risk and compliance, and so on (Searle & Kerremans, 2017).
This trend is also apparent when looking at how the new role of an enterprise architect is defined as a bimodal function (Walker, Burton, & Bolsch, 2016). This implies that an enterprise architect would no longer only focus on optimizing and maintaining the current business model, but they would also actively participate in identifying key trends and helping drive the new business models and strategies of their organization (Walker et al., 2016). Thus, in such an extended role, an enterprise architect would benefit from being able to use a software tool that integrates both the strategic and tactical aspects of their role. Therefore, the main goal of this paper is twofold. First, we propose our artefact, which integrates knowledge from the strategic and tactical levels, in a way that would facilitate the bimodal role of an enterprise architect. This artefact takes the form of a software tool which can assist with designing, analysing, and visualizing strategies with the help of well-known strategy techniques and ArchiMate-based dashboards. Furthermore, while the main emphasis is not on designing EA models, our software tool (Strategy on a Page) should facilitate the usage and visualization of relevant information from EA models in a way that can be used to discuss with a variety of stakeholders.
This artefact is based on previous research in which several methodologies, frameworks, techniques, and standards are integrated, in the form of a method (Aldea, 2017;Aldea et al., 2015;Aldea, Iacob, Quartel, & Franken, 2013). We use this prior justificatory knowledge (detailed in Section 2) to guide the scope of our artefact, its constructs, and form (detailed in this section and in Sections 2 and 3). Furthermore, throughout this paper, we also provide indications regarding the applicability of the artefact, which is not limited to specific types of organizations, scopes, or types of users, as can be seen in the case study (detailed in Section 4). Moreover, we discuss the mutability of our artefact by highlighting some shortcomings and providing several suggestions for future improvement of the artefact (detailed in Section 5).
Thus, we follow the perspective of Gregor and Jones (2007), who argue that a design theory can be comprised of material artefacts (e.g. software tool), abstract artefacts (e.g. methods, models), and human understanding of artefacts. While within the aforementioned previous research the focus has been on designing the abstract artefact, in the form of a method, we argue that within this paper the focus lies on designing the material artefact that makes the method executable.
Second, we validate Strategy on a Page with the help of two organizations. During these case studies, we were able to use both Strategy on a Page and its accompanying canvases for a series of different purposes. The results of the case studies have provided a multifaceted view on how our artefact can be used by different types of practitioners, not only limited to enterprise architects. Please note that the term 'canvas' is used to denote the implementation of several strategy techniques in our artefact. Essentially, the canvas represents the area in which a user can interact with the strategy techniques.
We argue that our proposed artefact has multiple theoretical and practical contributions. First, as a theoretical contribution, it facilitates the integration of knowledge, theories, and ideas from multiple fields of research, such as strategic management (SM), capability-based planning, and EA. Second, it is a novel way to use ArchiMate concepts to support the creation of management dashboards by providing building blocks, a mapping between strategic concepts and ArchiMate concepts, and several canvases based on well-known strategy techniques.
Third, we propose a software tool which can help organizations integrate strategic and tactical information with the help of a design that can be generalized and is conceptually new.
From a practical standpoint, our proposed artefact provides clear guidelines, flexible functionality, and canvases for practitioners to use when designing strategy. By providing a way to visualize strategic information with the help of ArchiMate, we enable practitioners (with an emphasis on enterprise architects) to create interactive management dashboards, which can stress the strategic value of EA. Also, by facilitating the collection of strategic information in a structured manner, with clear mappings to ArchiMate concepts, we can simplify the process of transferring strategic information into EA models. Finally, our artefact can also help organizations with bottom-up decision-making by improving communication between top management and EA practitioners with the help of interactive dashboards.
The research methodology we used is design science by Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, and Chatterjee (2007), which has also helped shape the structure of this paper. In this introduction, we have briefly discussed the current issues with software tool support for the strategic level, including the lack of integration with other tools for the strategy process. Section 2 is devoted to the literature review, which is used as a basis for the design of the proposed solution. In Section 3 we introduce Strategy on a Page with all its components and features. Subsequently, we demonstrate the tool through its application in two case studies (Section 4). Finally, in Section 5 we conclude by discussing our proposed solution, and its application to the case study organizations, and give some pointers to future research.

| BACKGROUND
In this section we present relevant literature that is used as a basis for understanding and designing our artefact. We start by briefly looking at which strategy techniques are currently being used by organizations.
This information is used to determine which of these techniques should be implemented as first in our artefact. Second, we introduce EA as a discipline and focus on shortly introducing the ArchiMate modelling language. Third, we discuss the benefits of software support for strategy techniques. Finally, we present and discuss the prior work on this topic, from both scholars and practitioners.

| Strategy Techniques
Strategy techniques are recognized as helpful and even necessary in streamlining strategy development and execution (Nohria, Joyce, & Roberson, 2003). Organizations nowadays have absorbed standard and iconic strategy techniques which they are using for multiple purposes (Hughes, O'Regan, & Wornham, 2009 (Rigby & Bilodeau, 2015). Another interesting finding of this study is that in 2002 the usage of strategy techniques reached its peak, followed by a steady decline over the next few years, until 2014, when signs point to strategy techniques increasing in popularity once more. Providing software support for strategy techniques could prove vital to increasing their usage due to the added value a software tool can provide (Fritscher & Pigneur, 2014).
A more recent study, performed with members of the Open Group, the Nederlands Architectuur Forum (NAF), and the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA), has shown that the SWOT analysis, the BSC, the strategy map, and the BMC are in the top five most used strategy techniques (Roelfsema, Aldea, Lankhorst, & Franken, 2016). An important aspect of this study is that these results are based on opinions of participants closely affiliated with EA. Thus, we can conclude that these four techniques can be considered as a good starting point for our artefact.

| Enterprise Architecture
EA management is a discipline which focuses on the holistic management of the enterprise, based on elements of an organization's architecture, such as business processes, applications, information, hardware, as well as the relationships between them (Buckl, Matthes, Schneider, & Schweda, 2013). As a discipline, EA needs to help organizations deal with emerging business information technology (IT) capabilities and align them to the existing organizational elements (Alwadain, Fielt, Korthaus, & Rosemann, 2014). One of the most popular EA frameworks is TOGAF®, which provides an approach for designing, planning, implementing, and managing EAs (Ferrugento & Rocha, 2015). It is an open standard which provides a practical, industry-managed way of designing EAs (Schekkerman, 2004).
However, while TOGAF offers viewpoints, techniques, and reference models, it does not contain a modelling language. Therefore, it has been used in combination with the ArchiMate standard. ArchiMate is a language that is used to model and describe EAs over time, as well as their motivation and rationale (The Open Group, 2016).
The ArchiMate language can be used to model the structure of an organization, which is represented in three layers (following TOGAF): a business layer (products and services offered to customers, the business processes that helped create the offering, and the actors that played a part in the business processes), an application layer (application services which support the business layer), and a technology layer (infrastructure services that support the applications). Over time, the ArchiMate standard has added several new concepts in the form of motivation elements (focus on the motivation behind enterprise change), implementation and migration elements (focus on the programs, portfolios, project management, and plateaus that can be used in gap analysis), strategy elements (focus on the strategy in the form of courses of action, capabilities, and resources), and physical elements (focus on facilities, equipment, distribution networks, and materials). Each of the concepts in the language is part of a layer, has a specific notation, and can have several relations with other concepts between and within layers.
As mentioned before, one recent trend in EA research and practice is characterized by the extended role of an enterprise architect, which should be able to balance optimizing and maintaining the current business model of their organization with identifying key trends and helping drive the new business models and strategies. One example of this is the continuous extension of the ArchiMate language with new strategic and motivational concepts that can be used by enterprise architects to model the strategic intent of their organizations (The Open Group, 2016). These developments in the language are preceded by both proposals from scholars (Aldea et al., 2015;Iacob, Quartel, & Jonkers, 2012) and practitioners within the Open Group.

| Benefits of Software Support for Strategic Techniques
The lack of support for design and analysis aspects pertaining to SM is also recognized by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2013), who argue that information systems research could provide beneficial guidance on this topic in three areas. First, such an approach can help provide a common language, conceptual frameworks, and visual schemas that can help with understanding and designing strategy techniques. Current SM research is mostly focused on observing, classifying, and describing strategy techniques (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2013).
Second, it can help transform the strategy process into a design activity, in which prototyping, exploring alternative solutions, and validating ideas play a central role. Currently, the strategy process is mostly focused on decision-making and does not consider a trialand-error-based learning process for using strategy techniques (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2013).
Third, computer-aided design (CAD), which has played an important role in transforming the EA discipline, can also be used at a strategic level to assist managers and executives with designing and selecting strategic options. Currently, SM research does not provide enough knowledge on how CAD can be used to support strategy techniques. According to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2013), SM could benefit greatly from cross-domain research in this area. Teece (2010) argues, when looking at business modelling, that there is little support for designing and analysing business models, which can lead to poor understanding of an organization and, ultimately, to commercial failure. Business modelling and strategy are two aspects of SM that are strongly related within the strategy process. The business model has a strong contribution to the kinds of strategies an organization can formulate; and vice versa, the strategy of an organization can limit the kinds of business models that are designed (Aldea et al., 2013).

| Previous Work
Over the years, both scholars and practitioners have contributed, to varying degrees, on this topic. One of the first serious scholarly attempts to bring strategy techniques beyond just a paper-based tool comes from Iacob et al. (2014), who proposed a way to link the BMC to EA in order to facilitate (quantitative) analyses of business models and of cross-model information. Furthermore, this direct relationship between the strategic and tactical level, as argued by the authors, can help improve the traceability of strategic decisions and goals into EA models. This traceability can be used to determine the impact of strategic decisions on the EA of organizations and with making cross-model analysis. Nonetheless, the authors did not design and develop software support for their proposed approach.
One of the most notable CAD implementations, based on a strategy technique, is the web-based version of the BMC. This implementation of the BMC supports users in a multitude of ways that could not be provided by a paper-based version, such as unlimited space for prototyping, built-in help function, and the possibility to export the canvas to other applications such as PowerPoint and Excel, just to name a few (Fritscher & Pigneur, 2010). However, while the authors are able to conclude that using CAD to support a paper-based technique such as the BMC is promising, the results of their study also show that users need more incentives to use such a tool.
When looking at available commercial and non-commercial tools, there are several categories which can be identified. First, there is an abundance of free web-based 1 and template-based 2 (for Excel, Word, PowerPoint) alternatives for many of the most well-known strategy techniques. These are designed to mimic as closely as possible the original design of the techniques they are based on. However, they offer little in the form of additional features, besides some basic ability to drag-and-drop elements and use of colour coding. This also is the case for many commercial tools, which only offer isolated support for these techniques. 3,4 Furthermore, in most cases these tools are not supported by a metamodel or any kind of additional logic which could be used to relate to an EA model.
However, there are also some commercial software tools which integrate these techniques in a way that would help users traverse through multiple steps of the strategy process. One such example is StrategyBlocks, 5 which guides users through a multistep process in which they use techniques, such as the PESTEL analysis, stakeholder analysis, and Porter's five forces, in a predefined sequence, to generate a multifaceted result regarding the external environment of an organization. However, while this tool does integrate multiple strategy techniques, it also forces the user to apply them in a predetermined order, which suggests a low level of flexibility that might not be suitable for all situations and organizations. Additionally, this tool does not offer support for relating to EA models.
There are also several commercial software tools, such as the ones provided by provided by Sparx, 6 Software AG, 7 and Avolution, 8 that offer both support for strategy techniques and EA modelling. While these tools offer support for relating strategy techniques to ArchiMate concepts, they do not offer a way to present this information in an integrated manner. Thus, while these types of commercial software tools offer a good basis, they are still lacking functionality similar to Strategy on a Page, which can be used to facilitate the communication between management and EA practitioners.
The importance of this kind of artefact is also recognized by advisory firm Gartner, which considers the idea of a one-page strategy as a useful tool for connecting the business strategy to the IT strategy (Colella, 2017). Thus, they advise chief information officers and other IT professionals to use this kind of approach for supporting their business-related storytelling, which would represent a more effective way to communicate with non-technical stakeholders (Colella, 2017). Therefore, we consider that while there are different levels of software support for strategy techniques, one key aspect is still missing from the current software tools, namely support for combining strategic and tactic information and presenting it in a way which is also relatable to non-technical stakeholders. Thus, while some aspects of our artefact can be found in other software tools (the canvases based on strategy techniques), we argue that our novel contribution is Strategy on a Page.

| MANAGEMENT DASHBOARD TOOL: STRATEGY ON A PAGE
The management dashboard tool Strategy on a Page can assist organizations with designing, analysing, and visualizing strategies with the help of well-known strategy techniques and ArchiMate-based dashboards.
Strategy on a Page's main application is to visualize the most important aspects of this information in a compact manner, similar to a dashboard. Furthermore, Strategy on a Page relies on concepts and relationships modelled in ArchiMate models. The main reason for this is that Strategy on a Page is envisioned as a tool that can be used by ArchiMate users (such as enterprise architects) to present the information from EA models in a manner that is more familiar and relatable to managers and other decision-makers.
To guide the design of our artefact, we use the task-technology fit (TTF) models of Goodhue and Thompson (1995) and Zigurs and Buckland (1998), which focus on describing the fit between generic types of tasks and technology characteristics, in the context of performance. The two models are fairly similar in their explanation of the TTF, by both focusing on the task and technology characteristics, which need to be aligned. The main difference is related to the perspective they focus on, which in the case of Goodhue and Thompson (1995) is the individual, and in the case of Zigurs and Buckland (1998) is a group of individuals. We argue that, in the case of organizations, both types of users can be found; therefore, we choose to focus on both, while making a distinction between the types of tasks and technology that are most common in each situation (detailed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2).
Additionally, we use the knowledge detailed in Table 1, of the mappings between strategy techniques and ArchiMate concepts, some of which have already been proposed by Aldea et al. (2013Aldea et al. ( , 2015 In the following sections, we present in more detail the prototype for Strategy on a Page (Section 3.1), and its accompanying canvases based on well-known strategy techniques (Section 3.2). Furthermore, in Section 4, we present how Strategy on a Page was applied in two case studies.

| Prototype
The initial design of Strategy on a Page was done as a PowerPoint mock-up in which different elements of the tool were simulated.
The result is a 40-slide presentation that behaves like an interactive dashboard that allows the user to highlight relationships between concepts. The objective of this mock-up was twofold.  To design the look of Strategy on a Page, we adapted the concept of a building block introduced by the BMC of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010). The very popular strategy technique has been appreciated by both scholars and practitioners for its simple design, which can help focus the user on several important topics. We keep the purpose of the building blocks as a container for concepts of the same type (e.g., key resources, key activities), but generalize it to be applicable to any type of concept.
Second, we create two types of building blocks; namely, one that displays information in a textual format, and one that displays the information in a graphical format. We allow for this distinction to be made to facilitate users to create whatever types of custom views they consider appropriate. Similarly, we allow for the size and position of each building block to be adjusted according to preference. Additionally, to display several of the analyses supported, such as heat mapping and gap analysis, colour coding is necessary. In this case, the graphical building block can be used for displaying both the information and the corresponding colour.
Third, since one of the main features of Strategy on a Page is to emphasize the underlying relationships between concepts, some form of highlighting needs to be supported. Furthermore, users should be able to toggle this highlighting feature on and off in an easy and intuitive manner. Therefore, the feature is assigned to the concept that the user is highlighting, and is toggled by clicking on the concept.
The prototype can support more advanced features, such as customizing how many related elements will be highlighted, if only direct relationships or also indirect ones will be highlighted, and the colours that will be used for highlighting. Additionally, concepts can be added to building blocks from existing EA models, with a dragand-drop function. In this case, the highlighting is based on the underlying relationships from the EA models that contain the concepts used in Strategy on a Page.
Fourth, to design Strategy on a Page, we considered what kind of information should be included in each building block. Essentially, any type of concept can be included in the building blocks, with no restrictions to a specific layout or type of concept that can be displayed.
However, users are recommended to include only the most relevant information in these building blocks to fit on just one page, either landscape or portrait.
Finally, the prototype supports relationships with the native enterprise portfolio management (EPM) module of the software tool with the help of cross-model relations. Once a relationship is established between two elements, one from each type of model (EA and EPM), the highlighting function can also be used to make explicit which program, project, application, and so on from a portfolio is related to a goal, initiative, outcome, and so on. Since portfolios of  and can support any type of task goal owing to its customizable building blocks, which can be used to structure information in many different ways. According to Zigurs and Buckland (1998), tool support for fuzzy tasks requires a high communication support and information processing, combined with a medium structuring of the process. Strategy on a Page supports the gathering, aggregation, evaluation, and structuring of information (information processing), which can be done by any person that has access to the tool, in an individual or collaborative manner via the team platform (communication support), and can be used to structure the process of discussion and decision-making with the help of the building blocks and highlighting (process structuring). We have used Strategy on a Page in two case studies, integrating information from multiple strategy techniques (see Section 4).

| Canvases
To support the modelling of strategic information directly in our arte- Similar to Strategy on a Page, for these canvases we have also used the mapping to ArchiMate concepts as a basis for designing them.
In this way, we can ensure that any information that is filled in these canvases can also be used for creating dashboards with Strategy on a Page, and for enriching existing ArchiMate models with strategic information.  . This table is automatically filled in with the objectives filled in the Strategy map.
To model these objectives, the ArchiMate Goal concept is used.
Similarly, the whole BSC is also mapped to ArchiMate concepts as follows: the metric is used for measures, the values for the metric are used to fill in the target and outcome columns, while the initiative is mapped to either a course of action or a work package. This mapping can also be seen in Figure 2, by looking at the header of the columns and at the names of the elements filled in the

| Example Integration of Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Information
In this example we illustrate how some of the canvases we introduced in Section 3.2 can be related to EA models supported by the ArchiMate language. The main purpose of this example is to show the benefits of using strategy techniques that have a strong relation to EA models, through a predefined ArchiMate mapping.
For this purpose, we use the ArchiPharma example case, as detailed by Aldea (2017). ArchiPharma is a large international pharmaceutical organization (which has been anonymized for confidentiality reasons) that has many geographically spread locations, such as New York, London, and Amsterdam, as a result of several mergers and acquisitions. The organization is aware of the necessity to continuously change and improve to reach their vision of becoming the leading pharmaceutical provider in the world. However, to be able to fulfil this vision, the organization needs to identify several key areas that need to be improved and plan their transformation.
To start this transformation process, ArchiPharma performs an environmental analysis with the help of SWOT analysis, which helps the organization identify key influencing factors from their internal environment (strengths and weaknesses) and their external environment (opportunities and threats). Figure 3 illustrates the result of the ArchiPharma's SWOT analysis. Based on this, the organization decides

| Context
As mentioned before, we have performed several case studies during our research. We have selected two of these, namely a public university (PU) and an investment fund (IF), to present in this paper.
However, owing to the confidentiality agreements with the case study organizations, the information that is presented in this section is anonymized and generalized. Furthermore, the more sensitive information that could not be generalized and anonymized has not been included in this paper.

| Public University Case Study
The main scope of the PU case study was to help them improve the alignment between their high-level strategic plans and their information strategy (called i-Strategy), their application landscape, and their project portfolio. Therefore, the case study has two related focuses: (i) using aspects of capability-based planning to translate the strategic intent into more actionable information, such as projects, and (ii) modelling the strategic and capability-related information with the help of the ArchiMate standard. During this case study, we collaborated with an information manager from the university.

| Investment Fund Case Study
Our role in the IF case study was to help the members of the IF to design their strategy, since it had not been done until that point. To analysis. Strategy elaboration refers to stating and detailing the strategy of the IF, both long term (mission, vision) and short term (objectives, initiatives, measures). The new business idea relates to assisting the organization with specifying, in more detail, one of their ideas for organizing events to attract and interact with potential customers. Lastly, the impact analysis instance refers to analysing the impact of a particular challenging decision that the IF was facing at that time; namely, reducing the loan threshold in order to attract more potential customers.
During this case study, we collaborated with all the members of the IF, but had a strong cooperation with the president of the IF.

| Data Collection Methods
To gather the necessary information, we used multiple data collection methods, as suggested by Yin (2009). We used semi-structured interviews to gather relevant information regarding the context of the organizations and their requirements regarding the case study. The semistructured interview was mostly used in the first meeting with the representatives from the two case study organizations.
Furthermore, we used the documentation provided by the PU representative to gain a better understanding of their organizational context. We used the information gathered from these documents as input for demonstrating how strategic and capability-related information can be modelled with the help of the ArchiMate language. In the case of the IF, since the organization was still in the start-up stage, no documentation had been created until that time. Nevertheless, we had access to the knowledge possessed by the president of the IF, who was able to provide a complete picture of the organization.
Moreover, with the help of several workshops, we discussed our results with the PU representative to receive relevant feedback regarding our progress. Also, during these workshops, the PU representative presented how they had made use of our intermediate case study results since the previous meeting. However, in the case of the IF, we organized several workshops in which we applied multiple strategy techniques together with the IF representatives.
Finally, we used direct observations to study the response and general behaviour of the PU and IF representatives throughout the workshops. We have used this information to assess which aspects of our collaboration were considered satisfactory or required more attention.

| Case Study Results: Canvases
In both case studies, we were able to use the canvases included in the software tool to get an overview of the current or desired situation of the two organizations. To get a better understanding of the context of the PU, we were provided with several documents containing information about their strategic intent, which we used to fill in several canvases, such as the BMC, SWOT analysis, BSC, and so on. As an example, for the PU we were able to identify several strengths (e.g. strong entrepreneurial identity, modern research facilities), weaknesses (e.g. weak international appeal, diminishing brand), opportunities (e.g. emphasis on societal and environmental contributions through research, new regulations that urge universities to have a more distinct profile), and threats (e.g. new regulations that reduce governmental funding, strong competition from other universities in the country) that could be plotted in a SWOT analysis ( Figure 6).
The SWOT canvas represents one of the most simplistic canvases available in the software tool, in which all elements are essentially modelled with the assessment concept of ArchiMate. The main distinction is that the elements modelled in each quadrant have a different profile, representing the four types of assessment possible with the SWOT analysis.
Even though we did not participate in the design of the PU's strategy, with the help of these canvases we were able to get a clear overview of what the PU was planning to achieve. When creating these canvases, we could take advantage of reusing elements defined in previous canvases, which helped highlight the underlying relationships between canvases.

| Investment Fund Case Study
In the case of the IF, we used several strategy techniques. One example is the BSC and the strategy map, which were used to elaborate the strategy of the IF into more actionable initiatives, as part of the IF's strategy elaboration goal. Figure 7 illustrates these two techniques, as defined in the canvas available in the software tool.
The strategy map and BSC of the IF were initially defined by using Microsoft Excel, and were later translated in the canvases of the software tool. The canvas in the software tool helped identify that not all objectives, measures, and initiatives were defined in the same manner, and therefore needed some adjustment to ensure that decisions could be made based on a clear overview. Furthermore, we could use this information, at a later time, to create a management dashboard that gives an overview of the strategy elaboration pursuit of the IF.

| Case Study Results: Dashboards
In both case studies, we were able to use the Strategy on a Page dashboards, but for fairly different purposes. In the case of the PU we created one dashboard, while for the IF we created three dashboards, each addressing a distinct goal of the organization.

| Public University Case Study
In the case of the PU, we used Strategy on a Page to link information from three different domains in a logical manner, namely information about their i-Strategy, capabilities, and projects. The i-Strategy is created by the management board, while the capabilities were developed with the information manager, and the projects were managed by a program manager. This dashboard was used to provide an overview that can be used for discussions, and further strategy design ( Figure 8).  The dashboards that were created for each of these goals were fairly similar. The main difference lies in the types and number of blocks that were used to visualize the information. Thus, we choose to focus on the last dashboard created in this case study (impact analysis), which can be seen in Figure 9, since it presents the most variety in blocks used and it also presents differences to the dashboard of the PU.
One difference which can be seen is that many building blocks  Page; namely, the addition of charts. These charts are created in a different module of the software tool that deals with EPM, which is also defined with the help of ArchiMate concepts. Therefore, we can copy these charts from the EPM module, and paste them in the management dashboard, without any effort. Similarly, we can copy and paste any other type of information that is defined in the software tool, and which uses the ArchiMate language as a basis. Thus, ArchiMate  Additionally, Strategy on a Page supports the highlighting of relationships between the different elements included in the dashboard, to provide more information about the motivation of certain choices.
This highlighting is supported by relationships defined in the ArchiMate models which contain the information that is eventually displayed in the dashboard. Additionally, Strategy on a Page is very flexible, which makes it very suitable for creating custom dashboards for any type of purpose or stakeholder.
Our artefact also contains several canvases for several popular strategy techniques available, such as SWOT analysis, BMC, and BSC.
The main purpose of these canvases is to help practitioners that are not familiar with the ArchiMate language to provide strategic information in a way that can be directly reused within Strategy on a Page and ArchiMate models. Also, these canvases can be used by EA practitioners to engage in strategic conversations, as part of their extended role.
Furthermore, the canvases included in our artefacts are very similar in visualization to their paper-based counterparts, which makes them very recognizable. They also use very simplistic features to support the creation of information that can be used for decisionmaking or just for getting a better overview of a situation. Additionally, the information that is filled in one canvas can be reused in another canvas, provided that the two canvases are compatible with each other. One such example is in political, economic, social, and technological analysis, which provides information regarding the external environment of an organization, which can be reused in the context of SWOT analysis, where this information is categorized into opportunities and threats.
The two case studies in which we were able to apply both Strategy on a Page and the canvases helped provide us with valuable insights into how our artefact can be used. However, there are also a few aspects that were not addressed, which we consider as limitations to our study. First, within the case studies, we did not fully validate the usage of the canvases from the point of view of decision-making. We mostly used them to document strategic information and to provide an overview of decisions that have been made. For future research, we intend to explore the suitability of the canvases for decisionmaking.
Second, we could apply Strategy on a Page in two fairly distinct case studies and in collaboration with two different roles within the organizations. However, we could not evaluate how the representatives would design such dashboard themselves. Nonetheless, we can argue that this limitation only applies in the case of the PU representative, which in his role as an information manager could be tasked to create such a dashboard. In the case of the IF representative, we do not expect that such a role, namely president, would have to design a Strategy on a Page, but rather that he would use it to have discussions and make decisions. Nevertheless, future research should focus on investigating how roles such as EA practitioners, information managers, and others, may use Strategy on a Page to create a dashboard.
Third, the current version of our proposed artefact does not contain advanced analytical features. Although this is not a limitation, we do consider that it would enhance the usage of advanced dashboards for decision-making. Furthermore, such analytical features should not only be localized in one model or technique, but should be used to generate insights based on the underlying cross-model relationships, as also proposed by Iacob et al. (2014). Therefore, for future research, we intend to explore how advanced analytical features can be added to our tool, to facilitate cross-model analysis and traceability, based on the linked information from strategy techniques, EA models, and EPM charts.