Tools for Strategic Evaluation: Tools and Methods the Coherency Architect should Apply.

15 03 2010

The SWOT analysis

The Coherency Architect should be making use of a SWOT-analysis to evaluate the organization (enterprise) of which he or she is working with.

The SWOT analysis is a perfect tool to evaluate an organization’s strategical options in the current situation (AS – IS) and what the organization can do to move to a new desired steady state (TO BE). Please note that in some cases technology can also be evaluated through the usage of the SWOT analysis.

It is notable that the Coherency Architect shouldn’t rely solely on the SWOT analysis since it has a tendency to overemphasize the current situation (AS – IS). The Coherency Architect should therefore focus on using other approaches and methods to support the view of the future situation for the organization. However the SWOT analysis can be a good idea to make use of initiate a strategical analysis.

SWOT stands for Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Where strength and weaknesses are internal factors for the organization. Opportunities and Threats are external factors of the organization.

However in some cases opportunities that haven’t been created or applied for the organization (though the fundament can be found in the organization) can be considered an opportunity.

SWOT - analysis.

SWOT - analysis.

An Example

This organization (enterprise) is in a situation where its products are seen as a commodity by the customers and as such new players in the market has started to produce products that are of similar quality and can do almost exactly as the products as the organization produces; the products the competitors produce are often a bit cheaper do the fact that the competitors are able to gain economies of scale.

The organization (enterprise) has a home – made Enterprise Resource-planning System, a heterogeneous portfolio of 132 computers (both old and new computers of diverse brands and specifications and operating systems) and the organization has access to one server that runs an elderly Microsoft ® Based Operating System where the ERP software is hosted and the user administration is managed. The organization (enterprise) consist of 300 employees and about 25% of these have an education on college level or above. The COO has a PhD in field of process development. The last 75% o the organization consist of people who have been minded on practical educations and are as such not theoretically in their approach to solve the problems the organization faces.

The organization (enterprise) has access to a credit limit of €10 million which their bank has granted them access to if the organization needs access to external funds to finance their investments.

The Business Processes have a lot of tightly coupling and they are working through a so-called J-I-T system (Just in Time) where the organization produces their products just as many units as needed to the various retailers. This is based on an idea that the organization can save money on storage facilities. The organization is almost like a division organization as Mintzberg described it.

The organization (enterprise) has an internal IT department; however the IT department is overworked and they often spend most of their time with user support and maintenance of the elderly systems and the management of the organization do not value the inputs the IT manager gives to the CFO.

SWOT - Analysis Example

SWOT - Analysis Example

The Coherency Architect can then identify the weaknesses of the current strategical situation (AS IS) and then use the SWOT-analysis as a part of the documentation to create the overview which is needed to articulate a transition plan for the Enterprise Architecture.

Conclusion and Discussion

The SWOT-analysis can be made use of to give the Coherency Architect an overview of the enterprise’s situation (AS IS) and it can assist the Coherency Architect with creating an overview of the strategical and the tactical situation; however the SWOT-analysis should be supplemented by other models and approaches such as the Porter’s Five Forces model and Porter’s internal value chain including Robson’s IS value chain.

Both an organization (enterprise) and technology can be analyzed by applying the SWOT-analysis; though the Coherency Architect needs to take it in to consideration that the analysis method often emphasizes on the “AS IS” state and therefore be questionable to be used in relation to articulation of an transition plan.

Download the paper here.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Business, Business Architecture, Up in Time

Business Models: From a Coherency Architect’s Point of View.

10 02 2010

Concept for a Business Model

When an organization implements an EA program and a Coherency Management program then it will eventually lead to changes in the enterprise. The change in the enterprise will eventually lead to changes in the business model.
The Coherency Architect should know of how the concepts of Business Models since they are some of the core concepts of the corporate strategy. The corporate strategy is the basis for developing and articulating the IT strategy. The corporate strategy and the IT strategy are two components of Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Architecture is the foundation for working with Coherency Management.

Business Models in a context

Context of the Business Model

The Business Model in Context

There are many different perspectives that can be applied to the understanding of a business model and how the business model interacts with the company and the corporate strategy.
In illustration I argue that the Business Models evolves and eventually drives the Corporate Strategy (Weill & Vitale 2001) & (Seddon & Lewis 2003).
In the other hand there it can be argued that there is some overlap between the business model and the way the business strategy. The business strategy differs from the business model by taking the competition into consideration and how to enable a competitive advantage compared to the other actors at the industry.
This leads to an examination of the business model.

Elements of a Business Model

The business model includes a focus on creating value for the customers, revenue generation, cost estimation of service or product, distribution of the product. The business model has to emphasize how the specific product or service creates value.
The business model consist of four perspectives of which the above mentioned elements can be organized around:
1)    Infrastructure that deals with the core capabilities that are needed to produce the service or the product needed.
2)    Offering which is the value proposition. The value proposition is the value which the product or service gives the customers.
3)    Customers which deals with the target customers or audience the product or service. There to the distribution channel which basically is how the service or product is provided to the customers. The last element in this section is customer relationship which is the link between the customer and the company.
4)    Finances deals with the cost structure and the revenue that needs to be generated to finance the production of the service.

Sources

Weill, P. & Vitale, M., 2001. Place to Space: Migrating to Ebusiness Models 1st ed., Harvard Business Press.

You can download this paper here (Business Models: From a Coherency Architect’s Point of View.).


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Alignment, Business, Enterprise Architecture, IT Alignment, Organization

Critical Issues in IT Management

19 11 2009

IT is a fundament when it comes to Coherency Architecture and it is therefore necessity to be able to understand the critical issues in IT management.

Therefore have I chosen to publish my notes from the course “Critical Issues in IT management” which I attended at Copenhagen Business School in year 2008.

As with all other documents at this blog the license for the document is Creative Commons V3 U.S. Edition share alike (read more under the general license for this blog).

Link to document: issuu.com

 

Enjoy the notes.

 


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Alignment, Business, Up in Time

The Coherency Architect

15 11 2009

Since the start of the blog then I have mentioned the work of the Coherency Architect. In this blog post I will describe what abilities the Coherency Architect should posses to perform his or her job. This description could be considered a template for a job description for the Coherency Architect.
The Coherency Architect has to be a generalist that have to understand the basis and depth of organizational behavior and understand human psychology in how the organization works.
The organization consists of various contexts which the Coherency Architect has to be able adjust to and develop suitable solutions for.
For being agile then the Coherency Architect has to understand and work by a set of principles based on an academic study of Management Accounting, Project Management, IT strategy, Corporate Strategy, Organizational studies, knowledge Management and change Management.
Some of the above mentioned disciplines are of course logical for a Coherency Architect to understand and to make use of; however some of the courses like Management accounting has to be understood otherwise the Coherency Architect wouldn’t be able to understand the economic flow or the cost structure of producing the products or the services in the organization.
The costs have to be understood to identify the bottle heads in the organization and it enable the Coherency Architect with the the tools needed to solve major problems for the organization.
Coherency Management and Coherency Architectures derives from field of Enterprise Architecture which originally was an engineering discipline for developing technical solutions for organizations. These technical solutions were derived from the IT strategy and the IT strategy was again derived from the Corporate Strategy. In that way IT and business had to be some how aligned to achieve sufficient results. This could be called Coherency in a simple state.
For this the understanding of business models, strategies and corporate strategies is needed and therefore should the Coherency Architect develop an understanding of these disciplines to be able to add value by changing the processes and adapting coherent processes.
For this the Coherency Architect should understand people (their psychology and their organizational abilities). The Coherency Architect should not get all his or her knowledge from the academic world but also gain knowledge from experience e.g., by working with people and developing his or her people skill and the Coherency Architect should be able to lead people into the new situation meaning that he or she has to understand rhetoric and leadership to inspire the members of the organization to help change instead of fighting change.
However people are often not good to stay focused on a goal that is distant in a matter of time frame and therefore should the Coherency Architect work on his or her motivation skills and to be able to create short term goals and short term wins that are aligned with a vision.
Especially the short term wins are important to keep commitment from the stakeholders in the organization.
The Coherency Architect has to understand how to operationalize programs for changing the organization and the be able to keep stakeholder commitment which is a classic project Management discipline.
It is vital to understand that the Coherency Architect has to be able to gain knowledge from both the academia and by gaining knowledge from working in practice in the organization. In some ways the a practical approach can be the proposal to align the processes so they are coherent.

Nonaka's SECI Model

Nonaka's Framework

Therefore should the organization that is about to apply for a Coherency Architect work with several perspectives on knowledge and not just be working with the idea that a pure academic would be able to solve the problems better than a person who only have practical education; however the middle ground would in most conditions be preferable.
The Coherency Architect and the organization have to adapt to each other otherwise Coherency Management can’t be applied properly.
The Management and the stakeholders of the organization have to invest their trust into the Coherency Architect to show to the rest of the host organization that the Coherency Architect has the power, the initiative and the right to give them orders to change the way they work.
It is often the failure of the Management to show commitment to the Coherency program that blocks for coherent changes in the host organization.
Since organization consists of humans then all organizations are alike and yet they aren’t. Therefore should the Coherency Architect also adapt to the organization.

The Mind Map below deals with the primary issues of the Coherency Architecture.

The Skills of the Coherency Architect

The Coherency Architect


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Business, Up in Time

The Architectures

24 10 2009

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). 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Alignment, Business, Innovation, Organization

The Clean Security Corporation

15 10 2009

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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Alignment, Business, Organization

How to Identify Architectures?

8 10 2009

Every organization has an architecture otherwise it wouldn’t be possible for the organization to do business or transform raw materials into products or labour power into services.

However the Coherency Architect has to focus on how to identify the architecture in a methodical way so the Coherency Architect can make develop a functional approach on how to define potential coherence related problems and how to mature the architecture so the organization will make progress and work in a smarter way to reach the goals of the organization (those defined in the official strategy).

To identify the various problems then the Soft Systems Methodology or the Work System Method which can be used to collect data about the architecture in a systematic way. If the Coherency Architect doesn’t make use of a systematic approach then it is likely that he or she will miss potential flaws, errors, dangers etc. that might have a great impact on how good the coherence of the organization is.

There are two general approaches the Coherency Architect can make use of to identify the processes in the organization. The first one is the so called exhaustive approach that deals with the Coherency Architect identify all the processes in the organization and create plans for them. The second one is called the “high – impact” approach that deals with that the Coherency Architect deals with identifying the core processes in the architecture (organization). To start with then it might be preferable for the Coherency Architect to deal with the core processes and then adapt the Coherency Program to alter them.

Besides the two above mentioned methodologies then the organization can make use of various techniques such as the rich picture and flowcharts to analyze how the various elements in the organization impact the general outcome of the organization.

An example of a functional approach to analyze an architecture could be that the Coherency Architect made use of a qualitative data collection method which means that the Coherency Architect would go an observe and interview potential members of the organization. The members have to be put located various places in the organization so the Coherency Architect can create the best overview of the organization as possible. When the first round of interviews have been collected and processed then Coherency Architect should go observe the members of the organization perform their daily tasks and identify how the raw materials are transformed into products or services. The Coherency Architect should especially focus on how the various linked processes interact use this view to identify potential problems with the coherency of the processes. When these problems have been identified then it is likely that the Coherency Architect should make use of either the SSM or the WSM methodologies. These methodologies are used to create an understanding of what is happening within the system. However it is notable that the two methodologies belongs to two different paradigms which view the world very differently.

The Work System Method belongs to the “functional paradigm” where the Soft Systems Methodology belongs to the “interpretive paradigm”. The two paradigms are defined by Burrell and Morgan (1979) in their article dealing with sociological paradigms and organizational analysis.
The functionalist paradigm works with the idea that the architect will collect the needed data and then come to a conclusion based on his or her own world view. The interpreting paradigm works with the idea that the architect has to facilitate the different world views in the organization and thereby assist the members of the organization with developing a solution e.g., a new work system, information system or a third solution.

The two paradigms will lead to various kinds of conclusions and of which there might be opposing. It is therefore vital that the Coherency Architect is able to identify the limits of his or her own world view and identify how the members of the organization thinks and acts according to their world views. If the Coherency Architect makes use of the wrong approach then his or her suggested solutions might turn out to be out of touch with how the organization assume its business works and the solution will be turned down.

When the Coherency Architect has gone through this process then he or she will be able to identify one of the three different forms of architecture an organization might have. As mentioned earlier then every organization has an architecture.

Doucet et al. (2009) identifies three possible architectures. The first one is the architecture of an organization before an EA (enterprise architecture) toolkits have been applied. The architecture is called the articulated architecture.

The more mature architecture is called extended architecture where the EA toolkits has been applied for the IT side and some of the processes at the business side has been identified and is making use of EA principles.

The most mature architecture is called the embedded architecture where the EA principles are embedded into every business and IT project. Doucet et al (2009) defines this state as where the EA grid is put into practice and where all project, processes and sides of the business work with practices from EA and therefore have achieved the goal of Coherency Management.

To summarize then the Coherency Architect has to focus on:

  1. The methodology used to collect data.
  2. The paradigm the Coherency Architect make use of to identify issues with the Coherency of the processes, structure, people, tasks and technology within the organization.
  3. The world view the Coherency Architect make use of when he or she develops his or her coherent solutions for the organization.
  4. The states of the architectures in the organization and how to reach them.

Sources

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

* Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (1979).


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Business, Discipline, Organization, Up in Time

How Coherency Management Impacts Knowledge Management

1 10 2009

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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Alignment, Business, Knowledge Management, Organization

The Impact of IT

28 09 2009

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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Alignment, Business