Прикладная информатика, 2015, том 10, № 6 (60)

Журнал включен в Перечень ведущих периодических изданий, рекомендованных ВАК для публикации 
результатов диссертационных исследований.

Том 10.№6 (60).2015 
Ноябрь–декабрь

Московский финансово-промышленный университет «Синергия»

Главный редактор

Емельянов А. А., докт. экон. н., проф., Национальный 
исследовательский университет «МЭИ»; Национальное общество имитационного моделирования, СанктПетербург

Сопредседатели редакционного совета

Рубин Ю. Б., докт. экон. н., проф., чл.-корр. РАО, ректор 
МФПУ «Синергия», зав. кафедрой Теории и практики 
конкуренции

Мешалкин В. П., докт. техн. н., проф., чл.-корр. РАН, 
директор Института логистики ресурсосбережения и технологической инноватики, РХТУ им. Д. И. Менделеева

Члены редакционного совета

Брекис Эдгарс, докт. экон. н., oec., ассоциированный 
проф., зав. кафедрой Эконометрики и бизнес-информатики, Латвийский Университет, Рига, Латвия

Волкова В. Н., докт. экон. н., проф., кафедра Системного 
анализа и управления Института информационных технологий и управления, СПбГПУ

Дик В. В., докт. экон. н., проф., зав. кафедрой Информационного менеджмента и электронной коммерции 
МФПУ «Синергия»

Дли М. И., докт. техн. н., проф., зав. кафедрой МИТЭ, 
зам. директора Филиала НИУ «МЭИ» в Смоленске

Козлов В. Н., докт. техн. н., проф., зав. кафедрой Системного анализа и управления Института информационных технологий и управления, СПбГПУ

Сухомлин В. А., докт. техн. н., проф., зав. лабораторией 
Открытых информационных технологий, факультет ВМК, 
МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова

Халин В. Г., докт. экон. н., проф., зав. кафедрой 
Информационных систем в экономике, Экономический 
факультет СПбГУ

Шориков А. Ф., докт. физ.-мат.н., проф., кафедра Прикладной математики УралЭНИН, Уральский Федеральный Университет им. Первого Президента России 
Б. Н. Ельцина

Штельцер Дирк, докт. техн. н., rer. pol., проф., Глава Департамента информации и управления знаниями, Технологический Университет Ильменау, Тюрингия, Германия

Заместители главного редактора

Власова Е. А., научная редакция МФПУ «Синергия»

Прокимнов Н. Н., канд. техн. н., доцент, кафедра 
Информационных систем, МФПУ «Синергия»

Редакционный совет

Журнал выходит с 2006 г. Периодичность издания — 6 раз в год. 

Журнал индексируется в российских и зарубежных базах научной периодики 
eLIBRARY (РИНЦ), Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) на платформе Web of Science,  
ВИНИТИ, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

Учредитель и издатель: Московский финансово-промышленный университет «синергия»

Адрес редакции и издателя:
129090, Москва, ул. Мещанская, д. 9/14, стр.1 (юрид.)
125190, Москва, Ленинградский просп., д. 80, корп. Г, офис 612 (4)
Тел.: (495) 663-93-88 (доб.3304)

e-mail: edit@s-university.ru; www.appliedinformatics.ru

© Московский финансово-промышленный университет «Синергия»

Editor-in-Chief

А. Emelyanov, Dr of Economics, Professor, National Research University MPEI; Executive board member of NC 
«National Society for Simulation Modelling», St. Petersburg

Co-Chairs of the Editorial Board

Yu. Rubin, Dr of Economics, Professor, Corresponding 
Member of the Russian Education Academy, Head of the 
Theory and Practice of Competition Chair, Rector of the Moscow University for Industry and Finance «Synergy»

V. Meshalkin, Dr of Technique, Professor, Corresponding 
Member of Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Director 
of the Institute of Logistics and Resource Technology Innovation, D. Mendeleyev University of Chemical Technology 
of Russia, Moscow

Members of the Editorial Board

Edgars Brēķis, Dr. oec., Assoc. professor, Head of The 
Econometrics and Business Informatics Chair, Faculty of 
Economics and Management, Rīga, University of Latvia

V. Dick, Dr of Economics, Professor, Head of The Information Management and Electronic Commerce Chair, Moscow 
University for Industry and Finance «Synergy»

M. Dli, Dr of Technique, Professor, Head of The MITE Chair, 
Deputy Director of the National Research University MPEI 
Branch in Smolensk

V. Hulin, Dr of Economics, Professor, Head of The Economic Information Systems Department, St. Petersburg 
State University

V. Kozlov, Dr of Technique, Professor, Head of System analysis and management Chair, Institute of Information technologies and management, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University

A. Shorikov, Dr. of Physics & Mathematics, Professor 
of The Applied Mathematics Chair, Ural Power Institute 
of El’cin Ural Federal University (Ekaterinburg)

V. Sukhomlin, Dr of Technique, Professor, Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics, Lomonosov Moscow State University

Dirk Stelzer, Dr., rer. pol., Professor, Head of The Information and Knowledge Management Department of Ilmenau 
University of Technology (TU Ilmenau), Germany

V. Volkova, Dr of Economics, Professor, System analysis and 
management Chair, Institute of Information technologies and 
management, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University

Deputy Chief Editors

E. Vlasova, Scientific Edition Department, Moscow University for Industry and Finance «Synergy»

N. Prokimnov, PhD in Technique, Associate Professor, the 
Information Systems Chair, Moscow University for Industry 
and Finance «Synergy»

Peer-reviewed scientific journal 

Vol.10.No.6 (60).2015 
November–December

Moscow University for Industry and Finance «Synergy»

EDITORIAL BOARD

Published since 2006. Periodicity: six times a year.

The journal is included into the Russian and international scientific databases:  
eLIBRARY (Russian Science Citation Index), Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) on the Web of Science platform,  
VINITI (Russian Academy of Sciences), Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

Publisher: Moscow University for Industry and Finance «Synergy»

Publisher address: 9/14 s.1, Meshchanskaya str., Moscow, 129090, Russia

Editorial Office address: 80G, Leningradskiy Avenue, Moscow, 125190, Russia

Tel: +7 (495) 663-93-88 (ext. 3304) 

e-mail: edit@s-university.ru; www.appliedinformatics.ru

© Moscow University for Industry and Finance «Synergy»

[ 3]

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

 Читайте в номере

Том 10. № 6(60). 2015

* Спонсор рубрики — компания «Доктор Веб», российский производитель антивирусных средств 
защиты информации под маркой Dr.Web.      

IT-менеджмент

Управление ресурсами

В. Ниссен, А. фон Ренненкампф
ИТ-маневренность как стратегический  
ресурс — измерение и управление в контексте
прикладных ИТ-систем. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

IT и образование

Подготовка IT-специалистов

Д. Штельцер
Бизнес-информатика: немецкий взгляд
на характеристики, проблемные области
и возможности. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

инструментальные средства*

Защита информации

А. В. Еременко, А. Е. Сулавко
Двухфакторная аутентификация пользователей
компьютерных систем на удаленном сервере
по клавиатурному почерку. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Эффективные алгоритмы

Д. А. Рощин
Модернизация программно-математического
обеспечения эталонного комплекса частоты  
и времени . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Технологии разработки  
программного обеспечения

В. Ю. Пирогов
Операционные системы  
на базе набора команд x86–64 в контексте
низкоуровневого программирования. . . . . . . . . . . 70

Simulation

Теория и практика

Е. Б. Грибанова
Процессно-ориентированное моделирование  
систем массового обслуживания в Excel . . . . . . . . 83

С. И. Маторин, А. Г. Жихарев,  
Н. О. Зайцева
Имитационное моделирование  
с использованием системно-объектного  
подхода. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

лаборатория

Моделирование процессов и систем

М. И. Дли, О. В. Стоянова, А. Ю. Белозерский
Модель оценки траекторий  
для управления проектами в сфере  
наукоемкой промышленной продукции. . . . . . . . 105

точка зрения

Методология науки

А. А. Майоров, В. П. Седякин
Общая, теоретическая  
и «метафорическая» информатики. . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Искусственный интеллект

Памяти Л. С. Болотовой . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Л. С. Болотова, А. Н. Данчул,  
А. П. Новиков, М. А. Сурхаев,  
А. А. Никишина
Первичная идентификация 
в технологии информационного поиска  
(Часть 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

[ 4]
Contents

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

Vol.10. No.6(60). 2015

* Sponsor of the section Doctor Web Ltd, the Russian developer of Dr.Web anti-virus software

it management

Resource management

V. Nissen, A. von Rennenkampff
Measuring and managing IT agility as a strategic
resource — examining the IT application systems
landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

it and education

Training IT specialists

D. Stelzer
Business Informatics: characteristics,  
challenges and opportunities from a German  
perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

toolS*

Information security

A. Eremenko, A. Sulavko
Two-factor authentication of users  
of computer systems on remote server  
using the keyboard handwriting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Algorithmic efficiency

D. Roschin
Software modernization of the standards complex  
of time and frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Software development technologies

V. Pirogov
Operating systems supporting x86–64 instruction  
set, with a low-level programming point of view . . . 70

Simulation

Theory and practice

E. Gribanova
Process-oriented simulation  
of queues with Excel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

S. Matorin, A. Zhiharev, N. Zaitseva
Simulation modeling of using  
system-object approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

laboratory

Researching of processes and systems

M. Dli, O. Stoyanova, A. Belozersky
The trajectory estimation model  
for project management in creation  
and organization of high-technology  
industrial products production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Point of view

Methodology of science

A. Majorov, V. Sedyakin
The common, theoretical  
and «metaphorical» informatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Artificial intellect

In Memoriam of L.S.Bolotova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

L. Bolotova, A. Danchul,  
A. Novikov, M. Surkhaev, A. Nikishina
Initial identification in technology  
of informational search (part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

[ 5]

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

IT-менеджмент 
 Управление ресурсами

Том 10. № 6(60). 2015

1. Introduction and Motivation
T

he business of companies and thus their 
business processes and products are 
changing over time. These changes almost 
always have an impact on the company’s IT in 
the sense that IT systems need to be adapted. 
Frequently, two problems occur:
1. The change of IT systems can be realized 
only with great delays; in extreme cases some 
requirements are infeasible.
2. The planning and implementation of changes in the IT systems cause major financial and 
human efforts.
The consequence of these circumstances is 
that
•• the business must absorb with a lot of manual work the period until the IT side has implemented the change,
•• revenues are lost, for example in sales required changes are implemented too late,
•• corporate IT lacks behind the business 
changes and thereby often a change backlog 
forms so that the problems described above amplify (snowball effect).

At the same time, IT penetration of the core 
business processes in companies in recent decades has increased continuously. There is hardly a company which can survive long without IT. 
Thus, the change ability of enterprises increasingly depends on the ability to change the IT [8].
Surveys in recent years among IT managers 
show that a key requirement for the IT organization is the ability to adapt to the needs of the 
professional business. In 2012 Capgemini questioned 156 CIOs of large and medium-sized enterprises about the most important issues for the 
coming year [15]. In nine of the fourteen most 
frequently mentioned aspects change and the 
ability to change the IT plays a key role, such as 
in the topics «Business Process Improvement» 
and «Supporting Business Change». The importance of IT agility is also underlined by statements of leading market research companies, for 
example, Gartner [23] or Forrester [50]. Despite 
this high practical relevance Gronau states, from 
a scientific perspective, that the adaptability 
of the IT architecture is treated in business informatics only to a small degree. Moreover, as 
far as mutability of IT is concerned, the focus lies 

V. Nissen, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany, volker.nissen@tu-ilmenau.de

A. von Rennenkampff, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany, mail.alexx@gmail.com

Measuring and managing IT agility as a strategic
resource — examining the IT application
systems landscape

A company’s ability to change increasingly depends on the ability to change its IT, something 
referred to as «IT agility» here. High IT agility can contribute to increased business agility and 
thus create a competitive advantage. In this paper we look at which factors influence IT agility 
and how the IT agility can be increased. The main body of the paper, however, is devoted to the 
research question how IT agility can be measured and actively managed. Here, the focus is on 
the IT application systems landscape, a resource of significant importance for the IT agility and 
competitiveness of a company.

Keywords: IT agility, IS architecture metrics, enterprise architecture management, IT value contribution, design 
science research.

IT-менеджмент Управление ресурсами
IT management   Resource management

[ 6]
IT management
Resource management

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

Vol.10. No.6(60). 2015

mainly on the IT organization and not on the IT 
architecture [25, p. 217]. Thus, both IT agility 
as well as the management of the IT application 
systems landscape represent current and relevant 
topics of business informatics.

2. Research Question and Objective

As one of the main causes of the lack of IT 
agility in companies the complex, over many 
years uncontrolled grown IT application systems 
landscapes can be identified [51, pp. 5 – 6; 57, 
pp. 140 – 142; 20, pp. 65 – 67; 33, pp. 9 – 11]. The 
(nonexistent) IT architectures of obsolete application landscapes prevent easy maintenance and 
lead to low IT agility. However, the agility of the 
IT application systems landscape is «absolutely 
essential» for the future of the business [20, p. 68].
Both in science and practice IT agility receives more and more attention. However, IT 
agility is still not clearly defined [46, p. 59]. 
Also, no method is known to measure the IT 
agility and especially the agility of the IT architecture based on objectively observable factors. 
From the problems described the following research question is derived:
How can the agility of the IT application systems landscape as an important part of the IT 
agility of a company be measured and actively 

managed, based on objectively observable characteristics?
The aim of this study is thus the development 
of a key figure system for measuring the agility 
of the IT application systems landscapes. A key 
figure system is a set of indicators that can be 
structured to statement areas by order and aggregation [27, pp. 351 – 353].

3. Subject Area IT Application Systems
Landscape (Application Landscape)

In order to structure the enterprise architecture at a higher abstract level layer models have 
established themselves in business informatics. Based on a layer model, inspired by Winter 
and Fischer [72, p. 3], the object of observation 
of this work, the architecture of the IT application systems landscape, is defined (see Fig. 1).
This layer model differentiates five layers:
•• On the corporate strategy layer artifacts 
are assigned that describe the company’s strategic objectives, the market segmentation, the 
services provided and relations with suppliers 
and customers.
•• The organizational and process layer contains artifacts that describe the organizational 
structures, business processes, roles, responsibilities and information flows.

Corporate Strategy Layer 

Organizational and Process Layer 

Integration Layer 

Sostware Layer 

Infrastructure Layer 

Architecture  of IT Application  
Systems Landscape 
 
Applications 
Interfaces 
Domains 
Functions 
Information Objects  

Fig. 1. Layer model of the enterprise architecture (adapted from [72, p. 9]) and location  
of the architecture of the IT application systems landscape

[ 7]

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

IT-менеджмент 
 Управление ресурсами

Том 10. № 6(60). 2015

•• The integration layer includes artifacts that 
describe the elements of the IT application systems landscape, their grouping and their relationships.
•• The software layer contains the artifacts to 
describe individual application systems and data 
structures in the company.
•• The infrastructure layer includes the artifacts 
to describe hardware and network components. 
Between the organizational and the software 
layer the integration layer is situated. At this level and at the interfaces to the layers above and 
below artifacts are located that describe the elements of the IT application systems landscape 
and their relationships. The elements of the IT 
application systems landscape are the application 
systems (applications and associated data), their 
interfaces as well as the domains and functions 
of a company. The architecture of the IT application systems landscape therefore describes the 
application systems, their relationships and their 
structure based on business-related criteria (domains and functions).

4. Methodology: Design Science Research

The design science research approach as 
a methodological framework seems very well 
suited to answer the research question described. 
On the one hand the lack of measurability of IT 
agility and thus the agility of IT application systems landscapes is a relevant issue that comes 
from the business practice. On the other hand, 
the development of a key figure system for mea
suring the agility of application landscapes is 
a design activity. Peffers et al. define design as 
«the act of creating an explicitly applicable solution to a problem» [47, p. 47]. Hevner describes 
design as a process as well as a product (artifact) [28, p. 78].
The specific sequence of the research activities in our investigation is shown in Figure 2. It 
is based on the popular Design Science Research 
Methodology Process Model of Peffers et al 
[47, p. 54].
The motivation of our research and the problem to be solved is the lack of ways to measure 
and actively manage the IT agility (not only) in 
the field of the IT application systems landscape. 
This problem is of considerable practical importance across industries and regions, since the 
IT agility can be seen as an integral part of the 
value contribution of IT in the enterprise [62]. 
Therefore, a management instrument for this area should be created. This we want to develop 
based on a hierarchy of objectives, in the form 
of a key figure system for measuring the agility 
of application landscapes. A key figure system is 
an artifact in the sense of Hevner [28].
From a scientific point of view, our contribution is the developed hierarchy of goals (and 
associated key figures) as the first comprehensive model to explain the relationships between 
architecture principles and the agility of IT application systems landscapes. The corresponding key figure system is the tool for measuring 
and actively managing the IT agility in this area 
of the company. This paper describes the essen
Fig. 2. Research process in this investigation (following Peffers et al [47])

Identify  
problem 
& Motivate  
 
Define problem  
 
Show 
importance 

Design & 
Development 
 
 
Artifact 

Demonstration 
 
Find suitable 
context 
 
Use artifact to 
solve problem 

Evaluation 
 
Observe how 
effective, 
efficient  
 
Iterate back to 
design 

Define 
Objectives of 
a Solution 
 
What would a  
better artifact  
accomplish? 

Communication 
 
Scholarly 
publications 
 
Professional 
publications 

Inference 

Theory 

How to Knowledge 

Metrics, Analysis 
Knowledge 

Disciplinary 
Knowledge 

Process Iteration

[ 8]
IT management
Resource management

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

Vol.10. No.6(60). 2015

tial components and results of the corresponding design process.
The applicability and usefulness of the key 
figure system was tested in several case studies 
in practice. For the case studies, the approach followed recommendations ofYin [73, pp. 114 – 122] 
and Benbasat et al. [7, pp. 369 – 386]. In selecting the companies studied emphasis was placed 
on finding relatively different companies in order to examine a wide range of possible scenarios for the key figure system.
In order to ensure the validity and reliability 
of the case studies, several different data sources 
were used in the company, such as architecture 
data bases, architecture graphs, architecture concepts and interviews with enterprise architects. 
In addition, a database has been set up for each 
case study that includes, separated from the raw 
data, a comprehensible analysis and calculation 
of key figures.
It turned out that through the developed indicators the agility of the IT application systems 
landscape can be measured and controlled over 
time. In addition, the key figure system and the 
goal hierarchy provide scientists with a new basis for the continuing development of the concept of IT agility in the IT architecture of organizations.
After the construction and demonstration 
of an artifact the next step in the design process is 
the evaluation [35, p. 726]. The evaluation should 
prove the usefulness, quality and effectiveness 
of the artifact [28, p. 85]. To take account of the 
rigor of the evaluation, a multi-perspective approach is chosen. Here, several different methods for evaluation are used in parallel.
In this paper two qualitative methods, expert 
interviews and case studies, are combined to 
evaluate the performance measurement system. 
This combination of evaluation methods is frequently used in application-oriented work when 
no similar model exists, which can be compared 
with the model developed in a kind of «benchmark» [36, p. 798].
Frank recommends the use of expert interviews on the evaluation of hypotheses derived 

beforehand from literature studies and for which 
a «substantial theory» is missing [22, p. 42], as 
is the case in this study. Expert interviews have 
two major advantages. First, the experts can be 
used as «auditors». Their «operating knowledge» 
is used to validate the developed hierarchy of objectives and related indicators or falsify them 
[39, pp. 75 – 77]. Second, by the interviews one 
has access to «exclusive, detailed and comprehensive» knowledge of the area of interest [49, 
p. 113]. Based on feedback of the experts, final 
adjustments to the goal hierarchy and associated 
indicators can result, which is in line with the iterative process of design science research.
Semi-structured interviews were chosen to 
communicate with the experts. They are composed of open and closed questions and follow 
an interview guide. They will not, however, as in 
the standardized interview, proceed question for 
question. This method has the ability to respond 
to certain answers in more detail, ask more questions to gain a deeper understanding and, thus, 
generate more valuable information. Through the 
interview guide it could be ensured (standardization) that important aspects of the research topic are covered [37, p. 66]. The findings of the 
previous literature review formed the basis for 
a first version of the guide. This was subjected 
to a pre-test in order to optimize the comprehensibility of the questions. The interviews were recorded on the basis of notes and tape recording. 
The analysis of the data from the interviews was 
carried out by transcription of the key messages, 
summary, comparison and generalization of data following Meuser and Nagel [39, pp. 83 – 91]. 
More details on the schedule of the expert interviews are included in [52, pp. 220 – 234].
Hevner et al. emphasize the iterative nature 
of the evaluation step in the discipline of Design 
Science. This means that findings from the evaluation flow back into the design and the artifact is incrementally modified [28, p. 85]. In this 
work the expert interviews and case studies were 
carried out at different times. Therefore, after 
the round of interviews, it was possible to incorporate the feedback received in the key figures 

[ 9]

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

IT-менеджмент 
 Управление ресурсами

Том 10. № 6(60). 2015

before they were used in the case studies. The 
feedback from the case studies was also eventually incorporated in the performance measurement system, so that the indicators described 
represent the final version after the evaluation 
rounds. However, a comprehensive evaluation 
of the proposed performance measurement system must be reserved for future research.
This contribution finally is our attempt to 
make the core results of our research available 
to a wider audience in science and practice. We 
now provide some necessary background information and define basic concepts in order to prepare for the design of our key figure system (the 
artifact).

5. Background and Basic Concepts

5.1. What is IT-Agility?
Agility was identified already in 1967 by 
Ackoff [1] as an important company property, 
but neglected by the scientific community for 
a long time. In the nineties, the term was especially popular in the context of production research and process management. Consequently, 
Nagel and Dove mean by «manufacturing agility» a production system with the ability to quickly recognize and fulfil market needs [41]. Sharifi 
and Zhang [60] complete the definition with the 
strategic aspect. For them «agile manufacturing» is a strategic approach to production, able 
to respond to expected and unexpected changes and take advantage of them. Warnecke [68] 
formulated the concept of «agile management» 
in response to the rise in market requirements. 
Necessary were «structural flexibility» and «operational flexibility» of companies. The claim 
thus formulated of a highly dynamic company was further sharpened later with the concept 
of the «real-time enterprise» [31]. This focusses 
on business process management «in real time».
In German «Wirtschaftsinformatik» (business informatics) the term agility is in use only 
in the last 5 – 10 years, mainly through «Agile 
Software Development». In American information system (IS) research publications can be 

identified from the past 20 years that use of the 
term in different contexts, for example «IT agility», «IS-agility» or «organizational agility». 
To date, however, there is no generally accepted definition of IT flexibility and IT agility [67]. 
One can, however, find frequently used elements 
of the definitions that enable a basic characterization of the terms. Frequently mentioned elements in definitions of flexibility are:
•• speed, rapid response to change
•• scope, high number of options to respond 
to change
•• efficiency, low implementation costs for 
changes
Definitions of agility often include the following elements:
•• large, massive, significant change
•• unforeseen, uncertain, unknown change
•• use of new, emerging opportunities for 
business
•• strategic approach
•• proactive activities in order to be able to 
better respond to future changes
In this paper IT agility is defined as the ability of a company’s information processing function to respond very quickly (preferably in real 
time) to changing capacity demands and changing functional requirements, and be able to use 
the potential of information technology in such 
a way that the business scope of action of the 
company is extended or even redesigned.
IT flexibility is considered here as part of IT 
agility. IT agility is a broad term and can first be 
further differentiated in capacitive and functional components. The capacitive IT agility can be 
assigned properties such as scalability, i.e. the 
ability of IT to respond to growing business volumes, or performance, i.e. provide a constant response time even with changing demand volumes. When it comes to a functional change (features, products, processes), we speak of functional IT agility.
When dealing with potential changes two archetypal forms can be distinguished: reactive 
and proactive. Many contributions in the IS literature define a passive coping with change 

[ 10]
IT management
Resource management

ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ИНФОРМАТИКА / JOURNAL OF APPLIED INFORMATICS

Vol.10. No.6(60). 2015

as reactive, whereas an active, internally driven 
change intention is defined as proactive. Some 
authors consider the adaptation to unexpected 
changes as proactive (e.g. [57]). Capacitive and 
reactive IT agility address mainly the operational handling of existing IT systems within the 
IT organization. These necessary skills are only the foundation for proactive IT agility which 
additionally requires strategic skills to anticipate changes and to actively shape them in the 
business through changing or newly developing IT systems.

5.2. What is the Strategic Value of IT  
and IT-Agility?

The resource-based (RBV) [6; 48; 70] of strategic management places the heterogeneous 
equipment of companies with internal resources as a source of competitive advantage in the 
center. It is argued that not the sole possession 
of these resources is the cause of the success 
of a company, but additionally appropriate employee skills and management skills are needed who know to take advantage of the potential 
of resources [29, pp. 998 – 999], which can be 
understood as a refinement process.
Following Schneider [58, p. 60] strategic resources within the meaning of RBV can be defined as: production factors purchased in markets, altered or enhanced by able management, 
employees or external specialists to create company-specific characteristics of competitiveness. 
While production factors can be bought by all 
competitors in markets, resources embody specific tangible and especially intangible assets 
of a firm. Their main characteristic is a more difficult acquisition by competitors.
For characterization of (strategically relevant) resources, various properties were defined 
in the course of academic discourse. According 
to the VRIS-framework of Barney, a resource is 
valuable, rare (or even unique), inimitable and 
non-substitutable, i.e. cannot be replaced by other equivalents [6, p. 105]. Other authors have 
varied these properties and added in particular 
the usability and immobility aspects [66].

Applying the principles of RBV on the subject field of IT, so it can be stated that the mere 
possession of IT does not lead to competitive advantage, but this can be achieved only through 
its effective and efficient use. Therefore, a systematic planning and designing of the IT function within the responsibility of strategic IT management is required.
Looking at the information infrastructure 
of enterprises, it can be said that not all of its 
components are equally sources of competitive 
advantage. In particular, hardware and standard 
software, which are available on the market, 
are no strategically relevant resources. Carr has 
described this situation very striking, in which 
he referred to the IT as a «commodity» without strategic relevance [16]. This can be explained with his narrow viewing angle to pure 
technique. However, if the entire IT application 
systems landscape on the one hand and the individually developed or configured IT application systems of the company on the other hand 
are considered, the criteria of the resource-based 
approach can be met:
•• Valuable: The individual application systems and the application landscape support 
a company’s business processes and have thus 
a positive impact on efficiency and effectiveness. If the IT architecture is designed to be flexible, additional value is created by the ability to 
quickly implement changes [34, pp. 935 – 937; 
54, pp. 237 – 239].
•• Rare: Individual elements of an application 
landscape, in particular standard software and 
hardware are not scarce. However, their specific 
connection and usage in enterprises and the resulting IT architecture are unique. Thus, the set 
of all application systems in a company forms 
a unique resource [9, p. 172; 11, p. 158].
•• Usable: Only the actual use of the IT application systems landscape and thus the exploitation of its capabilities enable competitive advantages. Because the application landscape is 
geared to the business processes, it is well usable 
by the staff. A prerequisite is that the application 
landscape is designed with foresight in order to