Category Archives: Corporate Strategy

Enterprise Architecture is more than IT

Posted on
Reply

This blog post is based on the guest lecture that Chris Potts performed at the course B30 Enterprise Strategy, Business and Technology at the IT University of Copenhagen the 25th of October 2010.
It is growing sense around the world that Enterprise Architecture is dealing with more than IT; however since the concept’s origin from the world of IT has often been portrayed as an IT concept, and implemented as a rather IT centric tool.
Chris Potts asked the class at the lecture: “Can you recognize this architecture (this building – showing a picture of the insides of the Sydney opera house). This is a picture from the inside of the architecture. It proved to be the Sydney opera house but it is often hard to identify buildings (architectures) from the inside but it is rather easy to identify it from the outside”.
According to Potts is the biggest difference between an Enterprise Architect and a building’s architect, and that is “a building cannot change its own architecture” but an enterprise can, and Potts views on the definition of architects in enterprises deals mainly with that all the members in the enterprise in some way are architects. When it came to the role of Enterprise Architect is to change the world. Potts made use of the quotation below.
“According to Potts then Enterprise Architecture is about changing the world into something it probably wouldn’t otherwise have been.” – Chris Potts (2010b).
The question then becomes how to challenge the status quo, and the approach doesn’t always tells people what to do. So you may have an architecture but it doesn’t tell people what it is. According to Potts then sometimes the Enterprise Architect need to risk a lot as strategist and you would need to be ruthless.
Potts is of the opinion (an opinion he shares with Mintzberg and Ross & Weill) that strategy has to be embedded into the behavior of the actors within the enterprise. When it comes to behavior then there are two different forms that needs to be dealt with. The de facto behavior and the formalized behavior. The formalized approach to behavior deals with articulating the desired behavior in work structures through formalized descriptions of what is desired into the various artifacts.
When working with Enterprise Architecture then it might be a focus to use an argument as “Enhancing Enterprise Performance With Structural Innovations”. The hard part of this is the structural innovations part. The Enterprise Architect has to force himself to become innovative in using Enterprise Architecture and innovative in ways to improve the enterprise, and to create value for the enterprise as a whole.
“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” – Aristole
Structural performance of the enterprise architecture is a principle that needs to be dealt with. Chris Potts mentioned that many investors work with analyzing the profits and costs of the enterprise but they usually fail with understanding or investigating if the enterprise is about to collapse from within due to bad architectural design.
There are many fundamental truths according to Potts. The first one is that the structural performance of an enterprise depends on its architecture, and the second one deals with an enterprise has an architecture regardless it is formalized or not.
The third truth that any enterprise architect should adapt is that the actual shape and structure of an enterprise’s architecture is the aggregated output of all its invests in change.
The fourth principle deals with the value of the structural innovation depends on the wider architectural context and last the enterprise architecture is about scenarios not certainties.
In this context the work with the core tactics is that the chief architect should bring both the explicit and implicit enterprise architects and make them work together.
Chris Potts introduced a new framework for change called the double e, double a journey.
Establish and explorer. These two steps are private to the chief architect and the activate and apply are public to the chief architect. It simply deals with taken over the enterprise through a guiding coalition which in principle can be related to the change framework that John P. Kotter who made the famous eight steps for change program (dating back to 1995).

The Scope of Enterprise Architecture was discussed and the class reached the following conclusions:
1. Activities and Processes.
2. Boundaries.
3. People.
4. Capabilities.
5. Resources.
6. Data.
7. Information.
8. Government and governance.
9. Environment.
10. Technology.
According to Potts markets do also have architectures and this approach leads to a fundamental focus on business architecture since the business architecture can’t stand alone to the market architecture. The market architecture contains the customer experience and from this perspective the architectures needs to be aligned to the market architecture to provide what the customers want. The business architecture in the other hand deals with the virtual organization (or more or less the virtual organization) and it is directly connected to the partners and suppliers that delivers materials and services to the enterprise.
According to Potts then structural performance is the key for measuring how well the enterprise is doing Enterprise Architecture. For this a cash-flow analysis based on the annual reports from the enterprise can be applied; however it is greatly encouraged to make use of other forms of analysis to come to this particular approach e.g., activity based costing. This approach might not give a correct view of status quo of the various lines of business and therefore other key performance indicators and methods needs to be applied.
Therefore should an Enterprise Architect make use of context specific strategies for each line of business. The example that Chris Potts made use of was a bit simplified in relation to measuring the different initiatives the enterprise works with; however it is a needed technology.
Chris Potts emphasize that the politics of management and the politics of organization is of great importance when it comes to Enterprise Architecture, and if the chief architect doesn’t understand the dialectic struggle within the enterprise then it certainly will become a problem for implementing Enterprise Architecture, and according to Potts the political aspect of governance is rather often worse in the public sector than it the private sector.
The interesting part about the approach that Potts makes use of is that he actively tries to describe how a chief enterprise architect has to be able to play many roles and he has to be able to facilitate innovation and development issues within both the lines of business and enable the top management of the enterprise to govern the various lines of business. In other words he has to be able to facilitate innovation while tightening control which usually is a contradiction.

IT Strategy Paradigms: Ways to understand and develop IT strategies in a Coherency Management Context.

Posted on
Reply

What is an IT strategy

I have been able to identify two major approaches to articulate IT strategies.

The first major approach is the typical MIT Sloan School of Management approach that support the issues of a some how detached IT strategy from the corporate strategy. The strategy is build upon the assumption that IT is complex, and needed to compete with other organizations on particular issues. IT is a vital component and can’t be ignored in the ever changing competitive environment that most enterprises are in.

The notable theoreticians within the paradigm of the MIT Sloan School of Management are Erik Brynjofsson, Jeanne Ross and Peter Weill.

I title this approach the separated IT approach.

I have likewise been able to identify an opposing approach. The opposing approach deals with that IT is that dominant that the executives have to include IT in their corporate strategy. IT can’t be seen as a unique form of investment since IT is equal to many other forms of technology e.g., machines, cars, boats etc.

There are so far rather few theoreticians who commit openly to this approach to IT strategy, the most notable is properly Chris Potts and Scott Bernard (who indirectly support this approach through his views on Enterprise Architecture).

The later approach seems promising since it promotes that the various actors within the enterprise should work along side in a coherent fashion which is in the spirit of Enterprise Architecture.

The two approaches do share some common features e.g., the time frame, the focus on technology and principles needs to be addressed and that IT is a necessity to compete in the modern economy.

IT-strategy paradigms.

IT-strategy paradigms.

The Integrated Strategy Approach

The executives have to understand IT when they work with strategy and they have to understand the impact of applying Information Technology to e.g., Information Systems such as ERP systems, CRM systems or similar. McKeen & Smith (2004) that Information Technology is in nearly all aspects of an enterprise today. That means that the enterprise and the management of the enterprise needs to adjust to the new situation. McKeen & Smith argues that the IT department needs to be proactive to cope with the changes in the industry and the social conditions of the enterprise.

The IT managers don’t necessarily understand the future work with the business and it might lead that they develop assumptions that are out of touch with reality. Neither can we expect that IT persons (or for that matter other persons) knows everything or equally good at anything.

What is important in tis particular approach Potts argues that the need for governing the enterprise as a coherent entity and therefore should the enterprise avoid the detached IT department.

Chris Potts works with the assumption that any kind of modern and Western economies have to include IT in some way. Therefore should the executives (or other strategists) include IT in the articulation process of the corporate strategy. Potts argue that the IT department shouldn’t be separating from “the business” will lead to that the IT department, and the services the IT department provides the business will be seen as an external entity and therefore can’t the IT department have any influence on the corporate strategy.

This leads to the separated strategy approach that have some opposing views on how the enterprise should be dealing with IT in the strategy planning session.

The Separated Strategy Approach

The operating model is what the enterprise should be working with. This particular model maps how the enterprise works. Ross & Weill”s approach is that there are four different generic approaches that the enterprise can make use of (Ross & Weill 2009).

The operating models are then deal with through the needs of the business; but the assumption that Ross & Weill works with is that IT is complex and that executives from the business don’t understand how IT works.

Along side McKeen & Smith they claim that IT needs to become a proactive force but yet IT is that complex that it needs to be governed and dealt with by specialists or generalists who have an understanding of how IT works and how the various implementation approaches of IT works.

What The Approaches Share

Both approaches share features from one another e.g., the both approaches defines IT as a complex form of investments that needs to be governed. Likewise does both approaches suggests that the articulation of the strategy isn’t enough. The strategy needs to be embodied in the actions of the executives.

Both approaches suggests that IT is a corner stone in how the enterprises do business now a days. Both approaches argues that “the business” and the IT department needs to understand one another to make the necessary decisions to create synergy and through that make the business perform as it had more resources at hand.

Coherency Management

In a context of Coherency Management IT plays a decisive role in the foundation architecture, and the ideas presented in Ross & Weill (2006 & 2009) and FruITion both appeal to the usage of Enterprise Architecture to combine business and IT to create competitive advantages. The foundation architecture is characterized by the CIO and the IT department is the driver for enabling an Enterprise Architecture program. It is essential for any enterprise that pursues assurance, alignment and agility to establish an understanding of how the enterprise works and then apply the tools to elevate the Enterprise Architecture program to embrace more than just the IT department.

In conclusion an IT strategy should be tightly coupled to the corporate strategy to make any kind of benefit from working and governing IT.

Appendix

McKeen, J.D. & Smith, H.A., 2003. Making IT Happen: Critical Issues in Managing Information Technology, John Wiley & Sons.

Potts, C., 2008. fruITion: Creating the Ultimate Corporate Strategy for Information Technology illustrated edition., Technics Publications, LLC.

Ross, J.W., Weill, P. & Robertson, D.C., 2006. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution illustrated edition., Harvard Business School Press.

Download the paper here .

The Breakout Strategy: A Review by a Coherency Architect.

Posted on
Reply

What is a Breakout Strategy

First of all lets establish the necessary assumptions needed to understand the concept of what a strategy is. A strategy is a tool for how an enterprise (business, public institution, government institution or other form of organization) uses a strategy to realize the goals that the executive team of the enterprise has articulated.

There various ways of seeing how the enterprise and its strategy should be handled and how they interact. Mintzberg (Minztberg et al 2009) has identified 10 different schools of planning.

The Breakout Strategy can be identified as belonging to the school that is defined by Mintzberg as the entrepreneur school. This is based on that the Finkelstein et al. (Finkelstein et al. 2007) works with the assumption that the local leaders in the enterprise have to act as entrepreneurs that identifies, develop and enforce an updated business model.

As such Finkelstein et al. emphasizes that they have applied their theories on cases that have both prevailed and failed. As such the authors applies their theories to explain what happened and what didn’t happen.

One of the core messages of the book is that the enterprise, its decision makers and the acting employees needs to think as the customers.

Systemic Thinking

The concept of systemic thinking is represented by the business model and through the ideas on implementation that Finkelstein et al. (Finkelstein et al. 2007) focuses on that the leader (or leaders) needs to take charge and enable change through their actions (embodiment). Thereto is notable that the business model is build upon six different aspects of the value the enterprise as a whole deliver to its customers. As such the six aspects enforces the enterprise to view on what part it has to build up and what part it can limit in its struggle to achieve better results.

The Business Model

According to Finkelstein et al then the business model is build around six different elements that in total defines the feelings of the value and the value the enterprise adds (value added).

The six components are price, features, quality, support, availability and reputation. Within each of these six components are there five options within each of the components e.g., for the price component premium, Premium competitive, Competitive, Competitive / Leader and last the Leader.

Finkelstein et al. (Finkelstein 2007, p.184) identifies (correctly) that the vision of the future has an impact on how the enterprise’s business model should be like and the executives should as such consider the six components when they are articulating the corporate strategy.

Leadership

As such the theories presented in the breakout strategy are focused on that the leadership of the enterprise (top management or what is defined as the executive group) has to show that their intentions are and they have to win over the employees. Finkelstein et al. talks about British Airways as a case where the CEO failed to win over the employees and as such he (and the executive team) faced challenges. As the breakout strategy deals with winning over opposing fractions.

Communication

Finkelstein et al emphasizes that communication of the values, goals and vision for where the business model should develop to have to be communicated to the members of the enterprise. As such the breakout strategy embraces the holistic management approach which is also present in the theories concerning Enterprise Architecture.

Four Forms of Breakout Strategy

Finkelstein et al (Finkelstein et al 2009, p- 20) defines four different forms for the breakout strategy to be applied and the breakout strategy have four different conditions. The breakout strategy can be used in a market that is narrow and its beginning (and as such subordinate) to the established market and their industries. Typically the two forms of conditions (taking by storm, expanding horizon) are to be found in the narrow market. In the broad market then the laggard to leader and shifting shape form is to be found.

Forms of Breakout Strategies

Forms of Breakout Strategies

Thereto does Finkelstein et al defines four forms of breakout companies and as such also four forms of breakout strategies. The four different break out forms are organized on emergent markets and established markets. The emergent markets are characterized by that the enterprise that is within them is able to work with a new form of technology, service or market space that is adaptable to the product or service the enterprise sells. The established markets are characterized by that they are mature markets such as there are enterprises that competes on gaining market share. Typically will the industry go into a spiral where the products are seen as commodities and as such commodities are sold primarily based on the price of the product.

Growth Opportunities

Growth Opportunities

For the particular markets the forms of breakouts are characterized as the true originals, revolutionaries, the wave raiders and the big improvements.

The originals usually shapes and develop a new market e.g., by inventing new superior services e.g., they go from a red ocean to a blue ocean. In the same time the revolutionaries in an established market re-invent their enterprise in a way that makes the enterprise able to compete by differentiating the products or services.

The wave riders work with the assumption that they find market space and the market space over time will expand. The big improvers include enterprises that is able to define a business model and value proposition. Likewise is it able to refashion its business model.

Discussion

An Enterprise Architect and a Coherency Architect can make use of the breakout strategy since it has the approach to systemic thinking. As such it is notable that the approach can be used to either aide the enterprise architect or the coherency architect with explaining how enterprise architecture and integrated governance can aide the enterprise with optimizing its business model and avoid failure in the effort to change. In the same time does Finkelstein et al (Fineklstein et al. 2007) handle the issues of the current state (in Enterprise Architecture known as the to be state) and how the enterprise evolves into a new and better enterprise that is able to achieve the goals of the particular enterprise.

The Coherency Architect should be aware of that the business model defines several issues of how the enterprise should adapt to the market and how it operates. The operation model can in some aspect be defined as the operation model or at least there is an overlap. The operation model is discussed by Ross & Weill (Ross & Weill 2004, 2009 & Ross et al 2006) and as such it serves as a map or conceptual idea on how the enterprise operates.

Bernard (Bernard 2005) defines integrated governance as being a part of strategic planning, Enterprise Architecture, workforce planning, capital planning and security,. As such the Coherency Architect can make use of the breakout strategy to articulate a vision for how the AS – IS state of the enterprise architecture should be dealt with and how the transition from the AS – IS state to the TO – BE state can be done.

As such the Enterprise Architect and the Coherency Architect should be aware of that the enterprise shouldn’t move from the AS IS situation through a so called big bang change where everything is changed in the same time. The reason for this is that when big bang change occur then it often fails. Therefore big bang change should be considered a risk and as such the enterprise architect and the coherency architect should avoid using the approach. Instead should the focus be on how the enterprise should move gradually to achieve its approach and by such the program for change should accept this focus.

Competitive Advantage

When it comes to competitive advantage then the breakout strategy emphasizes that not a single process or single element of the business model can lead to a competitive advantage and as such that is in line with the what Porter (Porter 1998) emphasizes. Likewise is it worth to mention that the enterprise can’t achieve the competitive advantage just by focusing on operational efficiency solely in the manner than the processes should be done more efficiently and neglect innovation. The innovation processes can essentially aide an enterprise with succeeding in a market.

When speak of competitive advantage then it is a necessity to understand that a competitive advantage can only be enabled through several processes (activities within the enterprise) and the competitive advantage has to be sustainable before the enterprise will be able to achieve success.

Conclusion

The Enterprise Architect and the Coherency Architect can make use of the Breakout Strategy to make use of to communicate to the executives on how to alter the way the enterprises does business. In this way the enterprise can make use of elements of enterprise architecture e.g., the transition plan so the structure of the enterprise moves from being as it is to something in the future.

The focus of the breakout strategy can be used as a driver for applying Enterprise Architecture as a method to enlighten, develop and mature the Enterprise Architect.

Appendix

Finkelstein, S., Harvey, C. & Lawton, T., 2006. Breakout Strategy: Meeting the Challenge of Double-Digit Growth, McGraw-Hill Professional.

Porter, M.E., On Competition, Harvard Business Review, Boston, 1998, p.40-42.

Ross, J.W., Weill, P. & Robertson, D.C., 2006. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution illustrated edition., Harvard Business School Press.

Weill, P. & Ross, J.W., 2004. IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, Harvard Business School Press.

Weill, P. & Ross, J., 2009. IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain, Harvard Business School Press.  Porter, M.E., On Competition, Harvard Business Review, Boston, 1998, p.40-42.

It’s notable that the executive team covers also the leaders or owner of small enterprises that haven’t a team of executives.

Price Leader which means that the prices are the lowest within the industry.

Download the paper here .

The Foundation for Coherency Management: A Framework for Change.

Posted on
Reply

A Framework for Organization to Embrace Coherency Management

When an organization choses to pursuit the implementation of Coherency Management then it the organization have to focus on organizational change. The idea of the organizational change is when the managers, middle managers and the employees will have to work in a different way and humans and organization culture have a tendency to be conservative and react hostile against change.

For this the Coherency Architect should focus on how create the proper form of change within the organization.

A Quick Summary of Coherency Management

Coherency Management deals with how to achieve alignment, agility and assurance through maturing the enterprise’s Enterprise Architecture. According to Doucet et al (2009) then there are three stages for an Enterprise Architecture. The first one is the form that is called the Foundation Architecture which is typically led by the IT department and sponsored through the CIO. The second stage is the so called extended enterprise architecture where both the business side and the IT-organization have adopted and applied Enterprise Architecture to expose the current situation (AS IS architecture) and is used to manage the enterprise’s strategic, business and technology elements.

The third and last stage is called the Embedded Architecture. This particular form of architecture is defined by the most employees in some way or the other work with the Enterprise Architecture. However there are two forms of Enterprise Architects. The first form is the explicit of architect of which there can be defined to dominant forms. The mature and advanced form of Enterprise Architects that are working with an established architecture office that handles the various forms of strategies to create a so called coherent overview. The other form of explicit architect are working with various sub architectures such as the business architecture, technology architecture or the solution architecture.

It is worth to mention that these three stages of architectures are supported by Herzum in his 2003 paper on the topic.

The Framework

When dealing with organizational change then the Coherency Architect needs to work with developing and internal pressure for enabling change. The question can be if the organization is loosely coupled or not. In this particular framework the assumption is that the organization (enterprise) isn’t loosely coupled.

When the organization (enterprise) isn’t a public given monopoly such as the Danish postal services then it will face competition. The competition deals with that the competitors will work for gaining market share this is done through various strategies and those enterprises that sees that they can’t make money in a particular market focuses on differentiating their products or services.

The various moments the competing enterprises makes are in a way a path to more innovation (since it emphasis the development of new products or differentiating the products e.g., make products of a better quality), and this can be defined as a part of the external pressure. It is worth mentionable that not only does the competitors add to the external pressure e.g., the government, press or other external entity. The external pressure can be an enabler for an internal pressure of which is needed to create the urge for change. Change or initiatives for change can be limited through the persistence of organizational culture (as before mentioned organizational culture tends to be rather conservative) and urge is a feeling among the actors within the organization to approve the change initiatives.

It is a preferable situation for the enterprise and the Coherency Architect would be if there can be created a synergy between the external pressure and the internal pressure. This particular synergy would be the burning platform.

When the external pressure e.g., competition, law (regulation) or other element changes in the enterprise’s domino then the Coherency Architect should work with influencing the various groups within the organization that holds some form of power. For this the Coherency Architect needs to produce valid arguments for the need for change and arguments on what to do. For this an elevator pitch can be necessary. According to Bernard (Bernard 2005) then the concept of Enterprise Architecture embraces strategy, business and technology so all of them can be aligned.

The elevator pitch could therefore be something like this “Enterprise Architecture assists in creating a coherent overview of business, strategy and technology”. The elevator pitch has to be supported through an economic and strategical estimation of the benefits that Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management can add to the enterprise.

When done so then the Coherency Architect should establish an Enterprise Architecture group where he or another person should be appointed the Chief Architect and this person should be granted the resources, responsibilities and power needed to implement an Enterprise Architecture program. Before Coherency Management can be implemented then the organization needs to implement an Enterprise Architecture program and through the principles of Coherency Management evolve the Enterprise Architecture to more than just the “Foundation Architecture”. When establishing the Enterprise Architecture program a suitable Enterprise Architecture framework should be applied e.g., Bernard’s EA 3 Cube framework. The framework should as a documentation form and as a management form ensure that the enterprise’s current projects are investigated and if possible aligned with the strategy, business and technology goals for the Enterprise.

While the Enterprise Architecture program is established then the Coherency Architect should communicate with the sponsors

When the alignment has been established then the Coherency Management framework CoMOF framework should be adapted to the needs of the organization e.g., should issues like repositories be dealt with which leads to the example of the Modular (modular repositories) Coherency Management Framework (needless to say that the framework is based on Doucet et al. basic suggestions for a framework). When the maturing process for the Enterprise Architecture has been matured then it is important for the Coherency Management to verify and moderate the feedback channels that is the foundation of the renewing the Coherency Management and Enterprise Architecture programs and eventually the need for changes have to be implemented along side a new burning platform.

Key Issues

An Enterprise Architecture program should be enterprise – wide and therefore the Coherency Architect will have to deal with resistance to change and for that communication is vital for all the necessary stakeholders. Therefore a communication plan is needed and it has to focus on three particular issues. 1) The stakeholders don’t think like the Coherency Architect. 2) The various stakeholders needs different kinds of information. 3) The need for urgency needs to be enabled through communication and therefore should the Coherency Architect communicate the victories and the victories needs to be sequenced over the period of time one iteration takes and the communication needs to be done in a way that appeal to the feelings of the stakeholders.

Conclusion

When an Enterprise Architecture program and a Coherency Management program is about to be established then it is vital for the success of the program, that the Coherency Architect deals with the issues of pressure to establish a burning platform and then anchor an EA office or for that matter a coherency management office to the power bases in the organization. When done so communication about victories has to be prioritized and sequenced to so the stakeholders continue with their support for both the Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management program. Since Coherency Management is based on the foundation of Enterprise Architecture then it is a necessity that the EA program is anchored first and for that the proper approach is to apply an EA framework e.g., Bernard’s Enterprise Architecture 3 Cube Framework and use the EA program to align the business and IT projects of the organization to support new or improved business processes (TO BE architecture) that are dictated by the corporate strategy.

When the EA program has been established then the usage of a Coherency Management framework needs to be implemented and the framework needs to be modified to the needs of the particular enterprise e.g., by adding multiple repositories.

When both the EA program and Coherency Management program has been established then it is vital that the Coherency Architect ensures improvement and that can be done by established and routinized channels for verification and feedback.

The need for adaption to the domain of the organization will lead to a continued demand for the establishment of a burning platform.

Sources

Bernard, S.A., 2005. An Introduction To Enterprise Architecture: Second Edition 2nd ed., AuthorHouse.

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

Herzum, P., 2003. Applying Enterprise Architecture. Cutter Consortium Executive Report, 6(3), 36.

Kotter, J.P., 2008. A Sense of Urgency, Harvard Business School Press.

Download the paper here.

Artifacts: The Items the Enterprise Architect has to Identify.

Posted on
Reply

Enterprise Architecture Artifact

First of all we need a definition of what an EA artifacts is. Scott A. Bernard defines “an EA artifact as a documentation product, such as a text document, diagram, spreadsheet, briefing slides, or video clip” (Bernard 2004, p. 111).

Please note that the EA artifact documents the EA component. An EA component is in the Enterprise Architecture components are those elements that are owned by Lines of Business. The components can be shared (cross cuts) or the component can be shared a cross various levels (this is with in the EA3 Framework).

Various Forms of Artifacts

There are various forms of artifacts in the EA 3 framework. Combined with the Cube to illustrate what kind of artifacts than can be identified at the five levels of the cube.

The first (and highest level) is the layer titled “Goals and Initiatives” deals with documents and diagrams dealing with mission statement, overall strategy (corporate and IT strategy), purpose of the organization. E.g., SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces analysis, competitive strategy, Concept of Operations.

The second (and second highest level) is the layer titled “Products and Services” deals with the business plans, swim lane diagrams, business cases (for investment in new business and IT projects), use case diagrams and node connectivity diagrams among other stuff.

The third (and third highest level) is the layer titled “Data and Information” deals with identifying the knowledge management plan, the information exchange matrix, objects state – transition diagram, logical data model, data dictionary / object library.

The fourth (and fourth highest level) is the layer titled “Systems and Applications”that deals with identifying systems interface diagram, systems communication diagram, systems interface matrix, system data flow diagram, system or operations matrix, systems data exchange matrix, systems evolution diagram and web application diagram.

The fifth (and fifth highest level) is the layer titled “Network and Infrastructure” deals with identifying artifacts like network connectivity diagram, network inventory, capital equipment inventory, building blueprints, network center diagram, cable plant diagram and the rack elevation diagram.

The EA3 Cube.

The EA3 Cube.

Acquiring the Artifacts

When the Enterprise Architect or for that matter the Coherency Architect have to acquire information on the various layers in the EA3 Cube.

The Enterprise Architect has to go to the CIO or other members of the executive group who the Enterprise Architect assumes have access to the corporate strategy and the IT strategy. However many organizations there aren’t isn’t an IT strategy or for that matter an explicit up to date the corporate strategy. Most of that information that all in all can be combined into a functional strategy.

In such cases the Enterprise Architect has to go an interview the stakeholders. However the Enterprise Architect should expect that he or she hasn’t unlimited resources to investigate and uncover the strategies (level 1). He or she should therefore try to focus on the stakeholders that can give them the greatest amount of value through the uncovering process.

The persons or stakeholders should be set into a matrix where the axis should be aligned around importance and impact on the uncovering process.

Importance - Contribution Matrix.

Importance - Contribution Matrix.

When the various stakeholders have been identified then those actors and stakeholders who are in the upper right quadrant should be interviewed. If it is possible then those persons who are in the lower right quadrant should be engaged as well however only as second or third priority.

When interviewing the executive group the Enterprise Architect should focus on applying techniques that enables the interview victims on expressing what they mean by illustrating the strategy e.g., rich pictures, flow charts, concept of operations diagrams etc.

The interview technique could be applied on the other levels in the EA 3 Cube. Likewise can the various managers and employees be categorized in the matrix and likewise should the Enterprise Architect focus on maximizing the values of his work through interviewing those persons who have contributes the most and who are most important to the data collection.

Conclusion

The Chief Enterprise Architecture should work with identify the proper stakeholders and make use of interview techniques to collect the necessary artifacts they need to create the “AS IS” view of the Enterprise Architecture. All organizations faces the conflict of resource shortage which means that the executives needs to prioritize their actions to create maximum value and that includes the way the Chief Enterprise Architect and the Enterprise Architects should handle.

Download the paper here.

Strategic Management: From the Coherency Architect’s Point of View!

Posted on
Reply

Enterprise Architecture in Combination with Strategic Management

According to the discipline of Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management then all organizations have an Enterprise Architecture. If an organization hasn’t an Enterprise Architecture then it isn’t able to deliver any kind of products or services.

The question then is how the organization is able to understand and later adapt the concepts of Enterprise Architecture to achieve better results and gain competitive advantage.

It is essential for the organization to gain the competitive advantage to lea the market and to survive in the long run.

According to Doucet et al. (2009) then Strategic Management and the concept of Coherency Management is from a strategic stand point a combination of Enterprise Architecture and Strategic Management. The combination of the two concepts have to result in better “alignment”, “Assurance” and “Agility”.

Alignment

Alignment is dealing with how various elements of an organization can be configured so they offer the optimal potential so value can be generated for the organization. The concept of alignment can together with the concept assurance and the concept of accuracy deliver “synergy” to the enterprise. The concept of “synergy” will be dealt with later in this blog post.

Alignment can be achieved by applying a framework (EA Approach) to understand the Enterprise Architecture.

Assurance

Assurance is dealing with the issue of control and openness. The control element deals with knowledge of that the amount of resources are committed to execute the processes and the products and services that the enterprise produces

Agility

Deals with the ability to adapt to change in the organization’s domain. E.g., new competitors, new technology, new substituting products and services. That also have implications for the internal situation for the organization e.g., what sort of technology that should be applied .

Synergy

Synergy deals with creating an effect that enables the organization to perform better by using the same amounts of components that are configured in a different way. Mintzberg quotes Ansoff for saying “He referred to it as the ’2 + 2 = 5′ effect to denote the fact the firm seeks as a product – market posture with a combined performance that is greater than the sum of its parts”. (Mintzberg 2000, p. 45).

The overall idea is to use enterprise architecture to create the foundation for synergy. If the enterprise hasn’t an established EA program then it an idea to emphasize organizational change where Kotter’s Eight Phased approach can be applied.

The reason for this is that the members of the organization might be orthodox and therefore return to the original processes and work forms.

Conclusion

Synergy can be created and enhanced by using Enterprise Architecture. The more mature an enterprise architecture becomes the better the organization will be to cope with agility, alignment and assurance. To establish this organizational change management has to be applied to ensure that the change from the old ways of doing things to the new ones for this the Kotter’s approach to organizational change.

Sources

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

Mintzberg, H., 2000. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.

Download the paper here.