Category Archives: Alignment

The Architectures

Posted on by
Reply

All organizations have an architecture otherwise they wouldn’t exist or be able to do their business. When Enterprise Architecture tools are applied to an organization then the organization can experience three levels of maturity in their organization. The first level is called the articulated architecture. In this particular level of maturity then the organization has discovered that the tools can be used to enable a greater level of IT and business alignment. If the organization progresses with the coherency projects it has initiated then the organization will eventually reach the extended architecture.
The organization has to articulate their architecture so they can become aware of how the organization is constructed (processes, knowledge, information, technology and people). This will lead to that management is able to take better decisions so the company can progress:

The foundation architecture is characterized by that Enterprise Architecture tools have been applied which has uncovered processes both within IT and the business which can be managed by using an EA framework. The foundation architecture is usually under control of the CIO in the organization. This means that the project is largely IT related. The foundation architecture is superior to the un- articulated architecture since it can assist the management in the organization realize that the enterprise architecture can be used strategically.

The extended architecture is defined by that the architecture is build upon the idea that the organization has realized that Enterprise Architecture tools can be used to understand processes and alter improve the outcome of the processes by using Enterprise Architecture tools. The primary difference between the extended architecture and the before mentioned foundation architecture is that the business side of the organization has discovered that the tools can be used to obtain superior results. Doucet et al (2009) describes this as a situation which means that:
The management of the business side of the organization make use of EA to rethink the processes (obliteration).
The Human Resources department makes use of EA tools to describe what particular needs the organization needs and what courses the current members of the organization needs to be qualified to use the tools.
The business line managers conceptualize ideas by using the EA tools.
The IT department make use of EA tools to identify and support the core processes of the organization.
But as before mentioned the primary reason between the foundation architecture and the extended architecture is that the business side has adopted the tools and the EA paradigm to develop the organization.

The embedded architecture is the evaluation of the extended architecture which means that the organization has adapted processes which adds to the architecture and in that way aid the architecture. Never the less when a lot of changes are implemented over time then there is a need for a framework which evaluates and implement the various changes to the architecture.
This means that the embedded architecture becomes ubiquitous in the way that the strategy and the processes enforces the strategy.
It is worth to mention that the organization is beyond the agenda setting, matching, redefining / restructuring and clarifying phases. The organization has or is close to be through the routinization phase which means that all employees in the organization understands the innovation is relates to it when they work.

* Gary Doucet et al., Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance (International Enterprise Architecture Institute, 2009). 

The Clean Security Corporation

Posted on by
Reply

This case is build upon a case example. The name of case organization has altered to avoid legal problems. The case will focus on how to identify various architectures and how Enterprise Architecture toolkits influenced the Coherency Management Maturity (CMM).
The case organization is build upon a service company that mainly provides other companies with cleaning services and security e.g., night guards and alarms to keep burglars out.
The service organization has had many forms since it was founded in the end of the 19th century. The organization has had various forms of services and divisions which have been sold or in other ways shutdown when the organization has discovered that they no longer profitable for the company operate. A few years ago the organization understood that it might be better to spin off divisions to become independent instead of selling them. This decision was backed by the stockholders and the top management.
This lead to that the organization had to go through the basic steps of articulating how their processes worked and how IT assisted the processes. For this the company hired an external consultancy which used an Enterprise Architecture toolkit.
For this the consultants understood became aware of that a lot of the processes in the organization weren’t build on assumptions which worked well while the organization was in the early phases in its life cycle and within the early phases of the marked maturity cycle.

The Outcome of the Report
The consultants articulated their findings in the final report to the management in the organization. The report came to the conclusion that it would be most efficient if the company went through a Business Process Re-Engineering effort. That meant that each of the high impact processes had to be identified and all subprocesses had to be aligned to them. Each of the processes had to be enabled by IT so as many of the processes could be automated and the employees could use their time and energy to work with more profitable (π) processes or projects. That meant that the structure of the organization had to be altered as well and eventually also the tasks the people of the organization had to take care of.
The first EA project was commissioned to the Chief Information Officer who was in charge of IT maintenance and IT development in the organization. Besides that then the CIO had the overall responsibility for the IT Organization.
The IT organization started with a consolidation of the fragmented systems that supported the cleaning division and the security division. The IT department came to the obvious conclusion that the security division and the cleaning division had  very different processes and vary different ways to handle various was of 1) administration, 2) deployment and 3) Contract negotiation. Besides that the organization had a lot of different ways to communicate. The cleaning division had regional and local offices where the employees gathered and where coordinated where the security department had two offices located in the business areas and most of the information was communicated by telephone to the teams who handled the various clients.
The CIO and the IT department came to conclusion that the organization needed to be reformed and yet the IT systems had to be designed on the same platform (ERP system) but the processes of each of the divisions had to be configured for the particular usage.
The CIO presented his proposal to the board directors and the Chief Executive Officer. The CEO supported the idea and the project was officially initiated by the CEO and the top management. The top management wanted quick victories to show the stockholders that they did their duty to the organization and performed above expectations.

The Transformation
The processes started with the various IT systems where analyzed and all data was backed up and moved to a prototype area which would be used to convert the data so the data could be inserted into the new information systems. The prototype systems proved to be sufficient for the first tests of the ERP systems. The first tests proved to be satisfying. However the users who where invited to take place while the systems had to be designed where of many different user levels and none of them could easily picture the deployment of the new processes and how to interact with the new information system.
Thereto it proved that the language used in the user interface was too complex and often it didn’t cover what the users thought they should insert into the interface. This lead to that the final time plan for the project had to be postponed until the prototype proved to be successful. The issues with the user interface lead to a redesign so the interface was designed to be different with a different language for the two major divisions (cleaning and security).
The second prototype proved to be more understandable for the users and the processes was in some way represented as the employees and middle managers understood them. However the employees and the managers were of the opinion that the system could be better if the workflow of the ERP system worked with the various under accounts and the workflow of the subprocesses and task descriptions could be defined better.
The prototype period became a fundamental architecture for the organization since the members of the organization and the IT department made use of tools to articulate the processes, structure and IT used in the organization.

The Deployment of IT and Processes
After the modifications of the standard ‘off the shelves’ system so it supported the underlying architecture the system was rapidly deployed in the organization. This meant that the organization had to apply training for the employees and managers of the organization. This meant that the new systems had to go through an education period and extensive testing. The knowledge about the system was originally implicit in the persons. These persons spread the knowledge to other persons  by showing, talking and train them. The persons who started to test and work the system articulate then it was articulated into books, reports and manuals which was read and professionalized by other testers and persons who worked with the system in practice out in the two primary divisions. The persons who worked was about to work with the system read the manuals and reports etc. which gained knowledge from the reports and manuals and diffused the knowledge  to other persons to the organization.
Besides the knowledge process in the organization then the company had to organize its processes in a new way so the processes all in all where designed smarter and resulted in better agility and more resources to gain competitive advantage. The organization of processes led to a slightly decrease in productivity in the first two quarters after day zero. This led to some criticism from the press which influenced the stock price and by that the equity of the company. The top management chose to stand firm on the project since they realized that the organization had invested heavily in the project and therefore there would be “no going back” especially after the processes had been aligned with the new information systems. Some other organizations had tried similar projects but they had not realized the great potential of recycle the components of the system to enhance the spin off organizations.

The Outcome
The first EA / business IT – alignment project led to that the organization had their first approach to how improve the processes and how to work smarter it also led to that the organization became aware of their architecture. The project led to the organization reached its foundation architecture (the basic step of maturity). The project led to the management and stockholders understood the need to become more mature to go for the extended architecture where the business managers make use of EA tools to redesign their business.

How Coherency Management Impacts Knowledge Management

Posted on by
Reply

The Coherency Architect has to take knowledge into account when the architecture of the organization is to be upgraded. The reason for this is that the key to develop the architecture of any organization is the members (Managers and Employees) of the organization. Most knowledge is implicit meaning that the knowledge is embedded in the brains of the members of the organization. This means that if the members choose to leave the organization then the knowledge will follow them. Knowledge can be diffused from individual to individual, from written sources to an individual and by members who modify and enrich the written sources to others who enrich them.
To represent this point of view then it is feasible to make use of Nonaka’s framework (see illustration 1).

Nonaka's Framework

Nonaka's Framework

The SECI model deals with that all knowledge is made by individuals, the individual share his or her knowledge with other individuals (first quadrant) in order to diffuse knowledge then it has to be articulated e.g., in papers, reports, books, blogs, videos or podcasts or other media (second quadrant). When knowledge is diffused then there are individuals who can enrich it by adding to the articulated knowledge (third quadrant). Individuals then read the papers, reports, books, blogs or watch the videos or listen to the audio and then by that learns how to make use of the knowledge and by that makes the knowledge implicit (fourth quadrant).

As before mentioned then the members of the organization are key in relation to the development of the organization architecture. Which means that the members of the organization have to be enabled to share their knowledge with one another and they would need some incentives to do so.
It is notable that economic incentives for sharing knowledge almost certainly will lead to that the cost for knowledge will increase and yet it will lead to that at some point then the members will stop sharing their knowledge and eventually when they have received all the incentives the organization can provide them with then will stop sharing knowledge.
E.g., who might want four company cellphones that are exactly a like or two company cars or multiple company paid DSL connections etc.?
To avoid this situation then the Coherency Architect has to understand the organization culture and thereto the Coherency Architect has to influence the organization culture so it becomes a necessity to motivate the members of the organization to make use of the IT tools (web 2.0) and to share their knowledge with the rest of the organization.
To enable the members of the organization to share their knowledge then the Coherency Architect has to empower the members and by that focus on moving the organization typology towards the adhocracy (Primary coordination is mutual adjustment) or towards the professional bureaucracy (primary coordination form is the skills the individual member has). Thereto should the organization should give the employees the resources to form communities of practice where they can go and communicate, work with and share the knowledge. It is notable that Coherency Architect or for that matter the organization can’t go in and interfere in the process which will lead to the members of the communities will lose their interest in working in the communities.
To make knowledge management coherent with other processes in the organization then the Coherency Architect should work with how the business processes can be supported by 1) decentralization and empowerment, 2) how IT can enable the members to break down the barriers in the organization (so the knowledge can flow freely), 3) how a functional compensation system should be designed (cultural based) so it enforces the urge to share knowledge and 4) deployment of communities of practice (winning trust among the members of the organization and providing the necessary support) and continuously align the primary business processes to the knowledge sharing processes.
The Coherency Architect has to think in new terms to ensure that the organization achives its goal in a smarter way which means that the work processes have to be obliterated and designed to interact with the technology new and smarter processes; however it is notable that the Coherency Architect has to understand that if the members of the organization finds the changes undesirable then they will reject the processes and work against them and key employees will eventually grow discontent and leave the organization taking the knowledge with them.

The Impact of IT

Posted on by
Reply

When an organization implements new IT based solutions e.g., Information Systems then it is likely that the organization has to adapt the technology before the system can be made use of.
The adaption process of the innovation includes how the people in the organization relates to the innovation (in this case the information system or IT based solution). This means that the organization has to alter its business processes so they align with technology to gain an advantage by using the technology.
Leavitt’s diamond is a model which can identify how the organizational systems will be influenced by the implementation.
The model make use of four different perspectives:

  1. People: These are the employees of the organization. They are usually organized in teams/groups, departments or divisions.
  2. Tasks: These are the problems or situations of which the processes are designed to handle.
  3. Technology: This deals with IT (hardware, software, network) and machinery.
  4. Structure: This deals with the organization structure.

The above mentioned perspectives are interlinked (see the illustration) which means when e.g., a new software based information system is implemented then it will effect the structure, the employees (people) and the tasks (processes).
If we assume that an information system is implemented then it is possible it was implemented to cope with a problem the organization has encountered.

Business/Technology

Business/Technology

This problem might be that the organization wants to become more flexible when it comes to cost reduction or production. We can therefore assume that the Coherency Architect has collaborated with the CIO (and in mature organizations also a governance committee) and has articulated a business case which support the “purchase” of the software or the hardware and the Coherency Architect should therefore be able to articulate a strategy for how the organization structure (and which is supposed to aid the architecture) is supposed to be implemented. This would include the process design to support the new and smarter way the organization will work.
Likewise is it assumable that the organization wants to achieve its goal in a smarter way and that leads to the change in organization. As mentioned in “Coherency Management and Organizations” then the managers and the employees have a great impact on if they adapt the information system (the change) or if they choose to fight it. A key method to avoid the management and employee confrontations is to involve both parties in the development process which needs to be a part of the Systems Development Life Cycle and System Life Cycle.
When the structure of the organization is changed, then the constellation of the employees will change, then the tasks would change as well.  The changes will lead to a need to change the technology in the organization it supports the new processes if not obliterate them and forces the managers and employees to work smarter.
As you might have noted then the processes have to be altered significantly to make the organization gain any advantages. This can be done by automizing of highly manual processes and thereby free the managers and the employees to work on more profitable tasks and thereby make them use their skills to achieve the goals of the organization in a smarter way. This will in the long run enable a competitive advantage.
It is therefore a necessity to take care of the processes, structure and tasks when technology is about to be implemented in the organization.