There is some form of hierarchy among strategies that relates to the enterprise information technology strategy (IT strategy) and there might be some need to divide the strategies in order to specialize them e.g. through different persons who have the responsibility for the strategies or ensuring that the relevant information is screened to the relevant stakeholders. I hereby assume that the chief executive officer wouldn’t be that interested in particular technological products e.g. which edition of JAVA should the company’s IT-department be using or which particular server platform would be preferable in order to keep track of smartphones and tablets?

The technology strategy deals with the “hard side” of the technology. Which products, programming languages, databases, hardware, operating systems, back end platforms, ERP systems should the organization make use of.

What is the Technology Strategy?

The technology strategy deals with articulation of plans, roadmaps and principles for which information technologies that the enterprise should make use of.

The technology strategy is all about giving the decision makers some guidance on how to ensure to get rid of systems that only adds risks to how the organization does its business.

Systems that potentially will not add any kind of value to the business and instead seems like a liability own and be a part of the application portfolio.

Relations to IT-strategy

The technology strategy is delimited to deal with information technology (abbreviated IT) and as such the technology strategy can be related to the usage of IT strategy.

The difference between the technology strategy and the IT strategy; is that the IT strategy usually makes use of a long term description of goals that ensures that the IT department will enable the “business” with achieving its goals and adding bits to the a platform that could be turned into competitive advantage if used correctly.

Who formulates the Technology Strategy?

In many medium and large sized organizations have usually two types of technically related chief executives. The first one is the Chief Information Officer. The second one is the Chief Technology Officer (abbreviated CTO) who is more focused on the application portfolio, platforms and hardware.

The two of them are responsible for different perspectives of the enterprise’s usage of information technology; however it is more likely that the CTO reports to the CIO than the other way around.

The two would have to collaborate on delivering plans that can improve the organization and its usage of information technology.

How do You Formulate a Technology Strategy?

There are many ways to formulate a technology strategy and the way I see it the most important thing is to deliver results through changes investments behavior.  In this regard I assume that a technology strategy would have to be dealt with through the articulation of principles.

Greefhorst & Proper (2011) have written a rather interesting book named “Architecture Principles” and as such their approach to formulating principles can be made use of in order to formulate proper principles that can be incorporated in the technology strategy.

Conclusions

A technology strategy is usually used for ensuring the organization’s ability to gain a return of value of the investments it has committed to the applications, systems, platforms and development can be gained and turned into an advantage.

In order to do so the CTO has to collaborate with other profiles like the CIO in order to develop coherent strategies for the organization’s it-architecture. In order to make a sustainable and resilient strategy it has to be build upon principles.

The next blog post that I plan to publish will deal with principles and how a good principle is formulated.

I am aware of that Tom Graves has done something similar, though he has made a completely different model, and as such his model is fine, but the audience that I intend to communicate with would be more likely that they will understand the value proposition of enterprise architecture through a model designed upon the business model canvas compared to a model based upon Graves’ model.

As you might have guessed then I had to adjust the business model canvas in order to expose the data on how the enterprise architecture program delivers value in the best way possible.

The first seven phases have been renamed in order to adapt the model for how a department or function within an IT department delivers values.

The first phase is about key partners needed in order to produce any form of value by the enterprise architecture program.

The second phase is about how the key activities that are needed in order to produce value. The needed activities would have to be organized around on handling the resources.

The third phase is about the key resources needed to produce the services or products needed by the segments of the it department.

The fourth phase is about the value proposition. In other words its about the initiatives at hand.

The fifth phase is about team relations and they are usually essential for both implementing and producing the services. Especially if we assume that enterprise architecture is about creating value through others.

The sixth phase is about channels. How does the enterprise architecture program deliver resources

The seventh phase is about the segments of the IT department that receives the services from the Enterprise Architecture program.

The eight phase is about the Enterprise IT Investment structure. This particular section of the business model deals with the identification of how the current situation of the IT Architecture the IT organization processes.

The ninth phase is about scenario planning, that deals with planning for a better IT Investments for the IT department.

The tenth phase is about the Improved Enterprise IT Investment Structure that deals with multiple actionable plans for changing and optimizing the total architecture.

All together these phases can present the necessary data to the decision-makers in order to give them an insight on how enterprise architecture delivers value to them. Value is key in situations where organization have limited access to resources.

The Architecture Business Model.

The foundation architecture is as earlier mentioned scoped on delivering value to the IT department and through to the IT department to the rest of the enterprise. The model is published under the Creative Commons license (share alike).

In most enterprises that applies Enterprise Architecture will there be a need to measure how the enterprise is progressing from adapting the Enterprise Architecture Program and there will be some stakeholders who would like to know what value or benefits they gain by investing (and keep financing) the Enterprise Architecture Program.

Enterprise Architecture Processes

Implementing Enterprise Architecture principles, standards, systems and strategies would need some changes, processes and scoping. In this particular paper the idea of Enterprise Architecture processes deals with the concept that a chief architect sets a set of tasks in motion in order to uncover systems, social networks and business processes. The Enterprise Architecture processes differs from business processes by the architectural processes changes systems, business processes, information systems, IT, technology and social systems. Business processes deals only with optimizing the flow of production and goods.

The Enterprise Architecture Processes deals with implementing the structured approach to Enterprise Architecture and to keep maintaining and maturing it. It is quite right that the Enterprise Architecture program would have to be maintained in order to ensure its functional in the long run.

If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it
– W. Edwards Deming.

Measuring

The chief architect would have to develop some KPIs in order to measure the processes that are a part of the Enterprise Architecture Program. In order to gain an overview of the processes it becomes a necessity to measure the processes before the initiatives have been initiated in the Enterprise Architecture Program. In the ideal situation the chief architect would have to investigate how the business performed before the Enterprise Architecture Program was initiated. The measurement should be used in order to improve the decision makers abilities to make the right decisions. In order to investigate if the proposed changes that have been implemented with the Enterprise Architecture Program have improved the situation for the enterprise, the chief architect would have to measure the “as-is” situation for the processes and “to-be” would have to be like. After the processes have been implemented the ideas would have to give the decision-makers an idea of or if the enterprise has moved closer to a desired state. For this key performance indicators can be a rather good tool for measuring.
The next section of the paper deals with the concept of key performance indicators.

Key Performance Indicators

In this paper a key performance indicator is defined as a number (simple indicator) indicating how a process or segment of an enterprise works. Key performance indicator is a simple tool that gives the various stakeholders data for interpretation and as such the KPI can’t stand alone it has to be accompanied with in-depth analysis documents.

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are suitable situations when the decision-makers would have to a quick overview of how the enterprise works (processes, segments and systems).

The KPIs would have enable the chief architect and the various other profiles that are a part of the Enterprise Architecture group with the appropriate data from the various systems.

KPIs have a significant factor within the concept of the Enterprise Architecture Program due to the various elements of the enterprise’s architecture works.

The KPI is needed is used as by the decision-makers in order to find out if there are any particular problems in the day to day management. Each of the KPIs can guide the decision-makers and it would be able to misguide the decision-makers. In order to find out if the KPI is adding the right value to the the overview that the decision-makers understand the KPI and how it should be used. Likewise does it become a necessity to deal with the KPI in order to understand if the KPI can be used in order to gain the overview in the in the enterprise. KPIs are by all means simplified and it becomes a necessity for the chief architect and for that matter the enterprise architects investigates if the KPI is too simplified and if the KPI can be implemented in the enterprise at hand.

Validating the KPIs

In order to validate the KPIs the chief architect would have to go into the situation of the various groups in the enterprise e.g. do the various actors understand what is to be measured and how they are measured. It is a necessity to challenge each of the KPIs and their stakeholders in order to find the best possible way to ensure that the KPIs measures contributes with value.

Five Things to do in KPI – EA Development

As promised I will hereby present five things that the chief architect could do in order to develop usable KPIs:

1) Identify what KPIs are relevant for the enterprise from a business point of view. Associate other KPIs when the business KPIs have been identified.

2) Probe the views of the enterprise’s decision-makers and those who would make use of the KPIs. Ensure that the business-stakeholders understands why the KPIs have been chosen and what they represent.

3) Articulate a draft for the KPIs and simulate how they impact the decision-makers and if they give the right kind of indication to the decision-makers. Ensure that you incorporate business-politics in your plan for implementing the KPIs.

4) Refine the KPIs and educate the various stakeholders and decision-makers in how the make use of the KPIs and when not to make use of them.

5) Build in the KPIs for the Enterprise Architecture program and ensure that the KPIs are visible in all the various forms of governance structure that are directly related to the Enterprise Architecture program.

]]> http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/09/26/five-things-to-do-in-order-to-deal-with-kpis-for-enterprise-architecture-approaches-to-measuring-enterprise-architecture-processes/feed/ 0 coherencyarchitect http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/07/04/developing-frameworks-five-things-to-do-and-five-things-to-avoid/ http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/07/04/developing-frameworks-five-things-to-do-and-five-things-to-avoid/#comments Mon, 04 Jul 2011 08:00:36 +0000 CoherencyArchitect http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=497 Continue reading →]]> The Essentials

While working with the concept of Enterprise Architecture it usually becomes a necessity to chose and implement a framework. As such the chief architect can either implement a standard framework, and as such commence the project of documenting the AS – IS situation¹. It is an option to adapt the standard framework in order to make it suitable for the enterprise as such make it work better in the implementation process. An alternative to deal with a standard framework the chief architect could develop his or her own framework that from the start has been developed in mind to the specific enterprise. This specific paper is dealing with some pitfalls that I have identified while I have been working with developing a framework by myself.

I will first and foremost outline my definition of what a framework is, then I will deal with which five problems I have encountered and how these problems can be avoided. As such this will become a list of dos and don’ts. Finally I will summarize my findings in a conclusion.

What is a Framework

There are several reasons to apply a framework e.g. the potential of increasing the success rate of the implementation of the Enterprise Architecture program, and as such I have chosen to go in depth with a definition of what I think a framework is about.
I have defined the concept of the Enterprise Architecture framework as essentially a document that outlines which artifacts the chief architect and the Enterprise Architecture group should be identifying, describing and organizing into a repository. Thereto does the framework defines which roles that are supposed to be in the Enterprise Architecture group and how the AS-IS state should be documented. Likewise does the framework details how the scenarios deals with the process of change from the AS – IS situation to a desired TO-BE situation. In between these two it usually a good idea to have a transition plan (Bernard 2005, p. 33).

I have now defined how I understand the concept of the framework. The framework is a key element in order to implement an organized documented overview of the AS – IS situation of the enterprise.

Problems and Solutions

The chief architect should include stakeholders for its internal environment in order to gain an understanding of how they understand the enterprise’s social systems, business systems and information systems. As such the chief architect would have to gain an understanding of how each of the parts of the enterprise works and how these systems interact with one another.

The framework should reflect the organization since it would have to reflect the current conditions yet the framework would have to be used as common reference model for the Enterprise Architecture group. Eventually should the framework be adaptable to filters in order to give the various stakeholders the information that they would need in order to ensure buy-in and support for the changes needed in order to transform the enterprise to the desired state.

While developing the framework the chief architect shouldn’t make the framework too complex in order to the level of details and the language used. Likewise should the chief architect be aware of that the repositories that he choses should be dynamic due to the possible rapid changes in the architecture of the enterprise while the organizational changes are occurring. I am of the opinion that organizations changes more rapidly than the decision makers realizes since people changes habits and their ways to deal with certain tasks due to the changes in their (and thereby the enterprise’s environment). I have come this particular opinion due to an article I have read by Orton and Weick (1990) where Orton & Weick argues that there are several voices of loosely coupling, and one of these voices (the voice of typology) deals with the fragmented environment impacts the possibility to enforce change onto the social systems (Orton & Weick 1990, pp. 207-210) due to connections and impacts of the internal and external environments will in some points stop a centrally planned change.
It is a necessity to avoid rigidity and too much bureaucracy so to say the chief architect would have to avoid creating a paper tiger. It is one of the major problems with Enterprise Architecture , and Wagter et al. (2005, p. 178) discusses in their book titled “Dynamic Enterprise Architecture”. Likewise does Wagter et al. discusses the concept of implementing Enterprise Architecture in small steps and small sections due to the unnecessary usage of the enterprise’s resources in implementing a system in a world where all resources should be contributing to the enterprise’s competitive advantage.

Dos and Don’ts

In order to give the various chief architects or other individuals in the Enterprise Architecture groups in the enterprises out in the industries, I have articulated five things to do order to develop a good framework. Likewise have I articulated a list of five pitfalls that the chief architect or others in the Enterprise Architecture group should avoid in order to implement a successful framework.

Dos	Don’ts
1) Do include stakeholders in the development of the framework.	1) Don’t focus too much on the technical architecture while you develop your framework.
2) Do work with both social systems, business processes and IT.	2) Don’t assume that the framework can be used for a total codification of knowledge in the enterprise.
3) Do work with the business architecture. After all it is the enterprise’s business systems that generates value.	3) Don’t assume that the framework is perfect after you have designed it at the desk. The framework has to be improved during the implementation and after the implementation since new stuff and perspectives will occur.
4) Do work with an approach to keep the framework simple.	4) Don’t assume that people align themselves with a centrally planned strategy. Assume that the organization consists of many different entities that can be impacted by elements outside the organization’s boundary.
5) Do work with the stakeholders understanding of what the framework is and why it is important.	5) Don’t develop a “paper tiger” it makes no sense to develop at lot documents that nobody reads or acts according to.

Which leads to the conclusion of this paper.

Conclusions

A framework is a fundamental element that the chief architect and the decision makers of the enterprise have to be involved with in order to ensure that the Enterprise Architecture program can be implemented in the enterprise. As such there are five things that the chief architect should take into consideration while developing his action plan e.g. Include the stakeholders in the development of the framework, the inclusion of business and IT, the business architecture is the primary architecture, keep the framework simple and ensure that the stakeholders understand what the framework is about and why it is important. Likewise are there five pitfalls that the chief architect has to take into consideration while he develops on the framework e.g. avoid to focus too much on the technical architecture, he shouldn’t assume that the framework is a Swiss army knife in regards to knowledge sharing, he shouldn’t think that the framework is perfect, especially pre-implementation, he shouldn’t believe that people just align themselves with planes developed by a central administration and last but certainly not least. The chief architect shouldn’t develop a paper tiger.

The keyword to framework development is simplicity, prototyping and iterative change.

Bibliography

Bernard, S., A., 2005. An Introduction To Enterprise Architecture: Second Edition 2nd ed., AuthorHouse.
J. D Orton and K. E Weick, “Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization,” The Academy of Management Review 15, no. 2 (1990): 203–223.

Roel Wagter et al., Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: How to Make It Work, 1st ed. (Wiley, 2005).

The day was characterized as a setup that was dominated by companies and industry professionals who presented topics of a wide variety of topics.

A Next-Generation EA Approach to Modeling the Firm using Capability Sets

John Gotze has in cooperation with Pat Turner written a paper on how to use capability sets in order to make Enterprise Architecture to work, how to sell Enterprise Architecture and what the value of Enterprise Architecture is all about.

The primary problem that the paper is about to answer is what capabilities the enterprise can get and how it can enhance it through shared capabilities.

John Gotze emphasized that one of the problems with the model that Ross and Weill (2006) proposed for Enterprise Architecture is based on that they don’t give a clue on what is their platform for execution and what is a part of the foundation platform.

John Gotze defines a capability as “an Ability or Expertise upon which that the Enterprise relies to fulfill its core functions”. Likewise does Gotze and Turner define an enterprise capability as “A capability that pervades across the whole of the enterprise”.

According to John Gotze, one organization that applies enterprise capabilities, is the U.S. Army. An example could be the tagline “one army”. With this in mind John Gotze made a reference to David A. Clark’s book on world poverty that deals with how to ensure capabilities among other things.

John Gotze later said that a capability set is directly coupled to the execution of the various processes. The second case that John Gotze presented was the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The agency should have one of the biggest Enterprise Architecture programs that John Gotze has ever seen and as such they have articulated a five year plan and roadmaps on how to achieve a better architecture.

In order to achieve enterprise capabilities for the enterprise John Gotze and Pat Turner has developed a rather comprehensive framework in order to achieve a better enterprise.

• A big part of the value of enterprise architecture program can be traced to the capabilities that the program can aid the enterprise with.
• The paper investigates case studies on how Enterprise Architecture could generate “enterprise capabilities”.
• An academic investigation of Enterprise Architecture is all about and how “competitive advantages” can be achieved through the implementation of a Enterprise Architecture program.

Vestas Wind Systems – Windy Architectures

The keynote speaker is Troels Fleckenstein who is Vice President at Vestas Wind Systems.

According to the keynote speaker all windmills from Vestas are equipped with technology that enable the windmills to communicate through the Internet with Vestas. Each of the Windmills communicate with Vestas 512 times yearly. This has created a large quantity of data that the corporation has to deal with in order to ensure maintenance of the windmills. Vestas hasn’t an Enterprise Architecture program, or at least that is what the speaker from Vestas said.

The keynote included a video on what Vestas is all about and Ditlev Engel appeared. Apparently Vestas has a slogan that they apply internally that is known as “people before megawatt” that as such means that Vestas doesn’t have HR-department but a department for people and culture (which I presume is pretty much the same). Vestas’ strategy is based upon that they believe they should be number one in wind energy. As such Vestas claims that 1/3 of all windmills sold on a global scale is produced by Vestas.

For Vestas the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India represents the key markets due to the development of the various enterprises. Most likely are other countries in the BRIC group also of interest to Vestas Wind Systems.

Vestas has 15 locations around the world that develops on new products. Vestas produce nacelles in 15 locations, blades in 7 locations and towers in 2 locations and as such Vestas is able to deliver “Wind Power Plants” in eight regions of the world, or at least that is what the keynote speaker proclaimed.

Vestas’ current strategy is named the triple 15. The current corporate strategy goes to 2015 and they want to achieve a yearly revenue on 15% (currently it is 8.5%) and an EBIT (Earnings before interest and taxes) on 15%.

The keynote speaker presented the Vestas business model as titled it the strategy for empower the corporate strategy. With this approach in mind I am sure that Vestas applies an idea that is compatible with “Cybernetics paradigm”. Furthermore Vestas applies an approach they have titled “The Vestas’ High Five” that entails that energy should be competitive, predictable, independent, fast and clean. According to the keynote speaker the most important partners for Vestas are their customers. In other words Vestas would like to own the means of production of “wind energy” and thereby be able to set the price(s) for producing Windmills.

Vestas’ enterprise architecture team is located within the department for strategy and innovation and this is located in Vestas’ group IT. Apparently Vestas apply a model that includes four perspectives: 1) Innovation, 2) Roadmap, 3) Projects and last but not least 4) System Portfolio.

The Vestas’ Enterprise Architecture program is about “business and value adding activities”, or that is the opinion of the keynote speaker.

When working with enterprise architecture the keynote speaker presented the Vestas’ value management square, that most of all looks like a strategy map or balanced scorecard as Kaplan and Norton would define it.

“The way I see, we add value to the business is to have insight into what systems that the business would need” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

Vestas applies a framework that is known as the BSG-model in architecture. BSG stands for Business Service Group that is a sheet of paper detailing how the enterprise works. The documents details how the processes works in the enterprise. The BSGs are linked to the various enterprises processes in Vestas and as such the enterprise architects are working with modeling the architecture a long side the BSGs.

Besides the enterprise architects Vestas applies the title “domain architects” for individuals who have a specific knowledge on how the enterprise applies.

Vestas have made use of IBM, Accenture and other consultancies in order to develop their framework. In other words Vestas Wind Systems have developed a synthesis that hey apply in order to enable the systems.

According to the keynote speaker there aren’t any off-the-shelves process frameworks that Vestas was able to make use of.

“We are not such a box” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

Vestas applies Aris as a tool for modeling, but the keynote speaker has a rather controversial view on how the tool works which is represented in the quotation below:

“When speaking of Aris it is quite clear it has been developed by German engineers. It is not made for white people” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

Vestas’ IT fundamentals deals with providing fast prototyping, innovation lab, enabling agility, “show me – do it”, safeguard end-to-end transparency of business processes, partnering with the business and providing enterprise architecture to guarantee reliability.

It seems like the approach to Enterprise Architecture that Vestas makes use of, is dealing with communication on how the enterprise can deal with the problems and how the enterprise is able to deal with the problem.

When it comes to the focus on governance and advice Vestas have applied boards for processes, BPS community, Vestas Government and SteerCo where a representative from Group IT (and thereby a representative for the Enterprise Architecture group) is represented. The boards usually handles investments, strategy and innovation, program and projects. One of the many interesting things that Vestas works with in their Enterprise Architecture program is “the line of sight”.

“I’m not a particular big fan of frameworks since they tend to distract us from the communication side of EA and the value adding part of EA” – Troels Fleckenstein (Week 22, 2011).

While educating the enterprise architects Vestas applies an approach where they send their architects to Gartner summits and certification modules. However they haven’t made use of TOGAF or other approaches to Enterprise Architecture.

When Vestas works with IT forecasts they usually take in consultants from Gartner and other consultancies to give the various stakeholders in Group IT ideas on what kind of IT the enterprise should invest in.

Obviously Vestas experiences situations of when and where to break away from their own Enterprise Architecture standards. The way the keynote speaker presented the issue it seemed like that it is based on “intuition” and what the “business” defines as a necessity to cope with. The keynote speaker used an example from the implementation of the windmills and how the various committees dealt with the particular problem.

• Vestas’ is a rather complex enterprise that have developed its own framework to deal with its architecture.
• The Enterprise Architecture program is owned by the IT department, or at least it appeared that way while the VP presented the situation.
• The IT and EA agents are represented in various investment and governance boards in Vestas Wind Systems.

Qualiware Enabling Positive Change

The CEO of Qualiware, Kuno Brodersen, acted as keynote speaker on knowledge management and modeling.

The keynote speaker was of the opinion that the modeling of the change processes is a vital key to success, since the model can help the decision makers and individuals in the enterprise to focus on particular areas of attention.

The keynote speaker was of the opinion that many modern enterprises shares the same view on how the management model. In Denmark most enterprises agrees upon that the Scandinavian management model is the best way to achieve.

A fundamental part of the Scandinavian management model. According to Kuno Brodersen, social capital is what enterprises gains when the social systems solves problems.

There are several factors that impacts the concept of social capital e.g. the individual factors, job factors, group factors, company factors.

In reality these factors have to be included when you measure enterprises and their ability to deal go beyond the expected approach to achieve their individual goals.

“The point of modeling tools is that knowledge from the individual actors in the enterprise are modeling and archived in the model” – Kuno Brodersen (Week 22, 2011).

While implementing the modeling tools it becomes a necessity to involve all of the employees, understand knowledge sharing, we have to focus to create transparent management systems and the system has to facilitate distribution of decision making.

It seemed like that CEO Kuno Brodersen was a bit skeptical about the Gartner Group and their approach to information technology and Enterprise Architecture, though he chose to apply one of their models in order to define the “new way of thinking” in Enterprise IT and Enterprise Architecture.

In the future it becomes a necessity to know how the social networks and the way people interact in social networks in order to facilitate knowledge sharing.

Technology trends will have an even greater impact on how knowledge sharing can be facilitated. In the future modeling software trends like the “Like” feature or comments on the various artifacts. Likewise will the concept of rating most likely be implemented in modern modeling tools.

Features from the social networks will in time be incorporated in to the modeling tools, or this is perspective that Kuno Brodersen presented. The reason for this is that it can be used as a form for “information filtering” and “quality insurance”.

“One of the best qualities of an Enterprise Architecture program is that the various models can be viewed by various stakeholders in the enterprise, and as such this can be used to define the enterprise ontology” – Kuno Brodersen (Week 22, 2011).

The QualiWare EA Framework is an organization of artifacts, but according to Kuno Brodersen, graduate students who are about to start writing on their master thesis could or should think on how the Enterprise Architecture framework represents the “social capital”, social networks, and social knowledge.

Kuno Brodersen presented the QualiWare analytics approach to artifacts and modeling that was build like a balanced scorecard that could be used in order to define how KPIs are aligned with the various processes. As such the data that should be represented in the QualiWare models should be collected from the data warehouses and business intelligence systems, this should add value to the platform for enterprise ontology. His approach to business intelligence and knowledge sharing, Kuno Brodersen, applied a rather positivistic approach and as such this seemed slightly in contrast to his initial approach on the Scandinavian management school; however he did emphasize that the business intelligence approach should be used with caution.

Gamification is “the new black” and it will become part of the modeling tools, or at least this is the views that Kuno Brodersen presented. E.g. Qualiware as a modeling tool has a “treasure hunt” game embedded in the modeling tool in order to train or motivate people in order to make people learn about the new models, processes and activities.

• New tools are needed to document and deal with knowledge.
• Enterprise ontology is a part of knowledge management.
• In engaging the various stakeholders in learning more about the enterprise’s architecture the concept of gamification should be introduced into new products.

The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating

Olov Östberg was the keynote speaker. As such his presentation dealt with e-government and changing social and technological systems in Sweden.

In his presentation Olov Östberg showed dias that stated that only 18% of IT projects are delivered on time and that are succesfull and he put this in light of the Swedish approach to e-government.. Through time (about 300 years) the Swedish approach to government has resulted into very independent public agencies.

There have been different approaches in order to deal with the data that the Swedish government has collected over time. In the 90s and the early 2000s the focus was onto developing portals.

From his experience there are three levels of e-government that should be dealt with in the future. Government 1.0 is the classical approach, the second level is dealing with more communication and at some point slightly more openness and the third and last level deals with engaging the citizen as a co-creator.

The Swedish approach to e-government includes a rather liberal approach to how the local agencies handles its processes. As such it can become increasingly difficult to implement one approach to Enterprise Architecture. Likewise did the national authorities (the Swedish government) refused to install a national CIO, national roadmap or for that matter a national portal for data and information sharing.

Olov Östberg presented various initiatives on how the Swedish approach to e-government dealt with common problems like insufficient road maintenance, electricity etc.

“We have to realize that the foundation of Swedish society is changing.” – Olov Östberg.

]]> http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/06/01/week-22-enterprise-architecture-summer-camp-day-2/feed/ 0 coherencyarchitect http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/05/19/holistic-management-in-a-context-of-enterprise-it-management-and-organizational-leadership/ http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/05/19/holistic-management-in-a-context-of-enterprise-it-management-and-organizational-leadership/#comments Thu, 19 May 2011 00:11:34 +0000 CoherencyArchitect http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=469 Continue reading →]]> An Approach to Sense Making and Intelligent Business

There are probably many different ways to gain sense in each of the many different enterprises and organizations across the planet. This particular paper investigates one particular approach question the validity of the data and the selected approaches to articulate strategies and plans. This should give you (the reader) an idea on how to develop better plans that in turn would give the enterprise a better system.

In order to make proper decisions on how to develop the enterprise it becomes a necessity for the enterprise to deal with the question of sense making. How does the specialists and systems that have been applied in order to analyze data from the enterprise’s environment? How does the systems adapt to the trends the data indicates might be developing? How do the specialists question and tests the data they have collected and analyzed?

The three step approach to organizational learning and data collection is in its origin based on Weick’s approach, though I’ve taken some liberty in order to create a synthesis in order to specify the ideas that Weick presented in his book (Making Sense of the Organization, 2000) to an Enterprise Architecture approach in order to enable enterprises with crystallizing competitive advantages. By crystallizing competitive advantages the enterprises could avoid situations that in other cases would have forced out of business. This leads to the first part of the process that Karl Weick introduced in his book.

Scanning for Data

It is of importance of all enterprises to scan its environment in order to gain an understanding of how the stakeholders (competitors, suppliers, government etc.) will be acting in potential future scenario. This is usually a rather good component in articulating a corporate strategy and all of the subsequent strategies like the IT strategy, financial strategy, organization planning etc.

The scanning process includes the situation for the internal environment and for the external environment. The internal environment consists of an other set of stakeholders than with the external environment, but these are just as important. Likewise is the internal environment connected to the the external environment.

The data is usually based on several different sources and as such the data that the specialists and systems collects are of different qualities and as such the data and their sources have to be questioned. The questioning is in a way a process to ensure that the specialists who collects the data should question the ways they identify the data and how to be able to deal with the way the data is analyzed. This is discussed in detail in the interpretation.

Interpretation

While analyzing the data the specialists works with a validation technique that in turn tries to investigate how or if the enterprise can make use of the data. The interpretation is likewise a fundamental element in the way the data is applied in the strategy development process.

The interpretation can be used to ensure that the strategies could be easier to implement, and as such the strategies could lead to the desired state of the enterprise. As such the focus of the planning would have to avoid what Mintzberg (Mintzbegr 2009) defines as the planning school, that is characterized by applying a lot of resources to the articulation of planning but as such it usually emphasize planning too much and implementation too little.

Learning

The specialists and the systems would have to learn from the articulated strategies, otherwise will they fail in adapting to the new situations of the environment that they analyze.

The learning process is likely the most important step of the entire process since the enterprise’s specialists would have to adapt their analytical models to understand how the environment.

The result of the learning phase is in itself a form of knowledge sharing and it impacts the framework of how the enterprise operates.

Learning and knowledge sharing are two sides of the same issue and as such the specialists and decision makers have to think in how to transfer the knowledge to one another. For this a specialized repository can be applied. In order to share knowledge across the enterprise the individuals would have to a common understanding of what knowledge is about and who to interact within in order to gain access to the information and knowledge that they assume they would need in order to make better decisions and better plans for how the enterprise can gain competitive advantages.

In order to gan a further understanding of how the enterprise can create value through planning it becomes a necessity that the cycle is documented and the cycle is transparent for all of the stakeholders that interacts with top level planning.

The Cycle

The process is cyclic and that is essential that it is build upon a cyclic structure in order to the specialists to make their predictions more reliable. More reliable plans can be used by the decision makers to enable the enterprise to achieve its goals.

Furthermore can cycle be enhanced with the enterprise, if an Enterprise Architecture Program is established and that the decision makers makes use of the data that the Enterprise Architecture program has been able to produce.

The illustration below shows how the enterprises can make use of the sense making process to achieve a more coherent, better aligned and more agile enterprise. As it is illustrated the Enterprise Architecture Program is used to enable the decision makers to align the various conceptual sections of the enterprise. In the diagram below there are three conceptual sections of the enterprise. The decision makers articulate a strategy.

The experienced reader would note that the definition of what Enterprise Architecture impacts is derived form the EA3 Cube framework that Bernard (2005) proposed. The approach is based on the concept of Enterprise Engineering (Sjoelin 2011a) and as such it is the opinion of the author that the focus of the .

Assessing the Business Processes

The chief architect should evaluate the business processes, and it is a necessity to evaluate the primary business processes, business model/operating model (Ross & Weil 2009, Ross et al. 2006, Ross & Weill 2004, Finkelstein 2006) and support processes (Porter 1985).

In this particular paper the concept of primary processes is defined on what processes that are essential in order for the enterprise to deliver value to its customers. The chief architect should naturally apply a multi perspective analysis method to understand the underlying principles of the enterprise and its social systems. For this the chief architect and his associates (the enterprise architects, solution architects, business architects) should investigate the operating model and business model of the enterprise in order to gain an understanding of how the enterprise’s internal environment will change in the near future. The scanning of the internal environment should uncover the processes that aren’t fully supported by IT and the processes of which the enterprise would be able to identify a series of projects that could change the enterprise to a desired and more competitive enterprise.

The chief architect or one of his or her associates have identified which of the business processes that do support the business in achieving its goals. He or she would have to go into a process of identifying those processes that would have to be obliterated (Hammer 2000) (re-designed completely). In the process the chief architect and associates would have to re-thing the support processes in order to avoid the pitfalls of an unstructured and incoherent enterprise architecture.

The chief architect and his associates would have investigate how the various processes could be grouped and how the various projects can be implemented in order for the enterprise to harvest synergy. The primary business processes should be organized into “clusters” along side the support processes that clearly can be associated with each of the primary processes and as it has been mentioned earlier in this paper it is a necessity to organize the various business relates activities and processes in order to maximize the potential synergies. However there are some pitfalls that the chief architect and his associates might fall into for example is complexity a factor that can’t be ignored. The more complex a particular segment or domain of the enterprise is the more likely it is that the particular system in the enterprise can’t be generalized into an “Enterprise-Wide” platform, or rather the meaning of doing so is lesser relevant in the sense of information systems design.

Connect the Business Processes and the Information Systems

The chief architect and his associated would have to apply a structured methodology in order to ensure that the enterprise is able to establish and understand how the enterprise and its underlying architecture works. In this paper the author assume that this can be done through the establishment of a formal group that is in charge of investigating and defining the enterprise’s architecture. The method can be based on formal Enterprise Architecture framework and as such be a part of the structured methodology that the decision takers decides to apply.

The author’s definition of Enterprise Architecture is:

“Enterprise Architecture is a set of principles, standards and methods for achieving informed governance. The models derived from the standards and methods have an impact on how the enterprise is able to align each of the elements of the enterprise with one another. The alignment will enable enterprise governance and agility for adaption and assurance.” – Peter F. T. Sjoelin (2011a)

It is the author’s opinion that the framework is the set of standards that dictates how the various artifacts that would be documented and stored in the repository are to be defined. In other words the framework is alpha – omega in order lay the foundation for an enterprise ontology (Dietz 2006, Bernard 2005, Hoogervorst 2009).

The framework could eventually give the chief architect the advantage of winning over stakeholders that are skeptical towards the concept of Enterprise Architecture, and likewise does the author assume that the framework would have a significant impact on the value of the repository that contains the descriptions of the artifacts. The value is derived from how well the various stakeholders in the enterprise are able to connect to the repository and understand the value of these.

As earlier mentioned the author expressed his views on that business processes and IT rarely generates synergies due to the lack of obliteration of processes that were designed for the pre-computer and Internet age. It is necessity for the chief architect and his associates to investigate the enterprise’s current usage of information technology and information systems. The chief architect and his associates should be working with a methodology that documents the various information systems, platforms, applications, devices that the enterprise applies in order to provide the various stakeholders (executives, middle managers and employees) the proper information in order to make them understand how the social system works. The chief architect would have to make sure that the business processes and the information systems are evaluated before and after the change process has been initiated in order to give the decision makers the best possible overview of how the enterprise has changed after the implementation of the new approach to business processes and information systems.

It is the opinion of the author that in order to ensure that the enterprise would be able to gain an advantage in governance by focusing on the enterprise’s approach to investing in its technology, assets, people and systems (Potts 2008). The investment process is essentially the embodiment of both the corporate strategy, the IT strategy, the financial strategy etc. After the chief architect and his associates have worked with their analysis of the enterprise’s corporate strategy it is almost certain that a road map should be articulated so the focus could be shared among the members of the Enterprise Architecture group and later on among the various decision makers in the particular enterprise.

It is the author’s opinion that the investment approach would have to be connected with the the enterprise’s program management. It will become a necessity for the enterprise to deal with its approach to enterprise investments and program management since it is the decision makers who are responsible for the allocation of resources to the projects and systems that the enterprise are able to invest in the projects that will change the enterprise. According to Bernard the the enterprise would have to change by the many different projects alter and mature the architecture of the enterprise.

The author is of the opinion that the desired architecture (TO – BE) should be described in a transition plan that should be used as a document to communicate with the stakeholders and the decision makers in order to communicate and evaluate the each of the projects that would have to be allocated resources to and implementation of projects. Likewise is it the author’s opinion that the transition itself has to be guided by the principles that the chief architect and the decision makers have articulated.

As the author has mentioned earlier in this paper the complexity is a barrier that can’t be ignored if the synergies of enterprise architecture and enterprise governance should be harvested.

Group the Business Processes and the Information Systems

The social systems have to be identified and as such it becomes a necessity to group the systems into various domains of specialisms. Each of these domains would have to generate synergy among the social systems and the information systems in order to justify their existence. The domains are a necessity in order to cope with the question of complexity.

Complex organizations can very well own processes and departments that are specialized to the degree that it constitutes a silo. In those cases, the silos can’t be viewed as negative issue, as long as the employees, middle managers and executives in charge of the various processes communicate and interact with one another on regular basis.

In order to ensure that the changes by grouping the various information systems and social systems, the managers would have to allocated resources in order to facilitate communities of practices that would enable the stakeholders in the enterprise with understanding and adapting to the new situation in the enterprise. It is pivotal that the decision makers allows the various members of the enterprise to make use of their time at work and in the change process to form such social networks.

A community of practice is defined by Wenger (1999, p. 47) as “Such a concept of practice includes both the explicit and the tacit. It includes what is said and what is left unsaid; what is represented and what is assumed. It includes the language, tools, documents, images, symbols well-defined roles, specified criteria, codified procedures, regulations, and contracts that various practices make explicit for a variety of purposes”.

It is likewise a necessity to make use of the social networks to create an understanding of how the enterprise works since that would add value to the ontology of the enterprise.

The social networks are likewise pivotal in order to enable the change process that occurs within the enterprise, and as such the chief architect and the decision takers who are in charge of the enterprise have to identify change agents and motivate the various social networks to adapt to the changes and work alongside the goals that the decision takers have articulated for the enterprise. In this light the decision takers would have to trust that the members of the enterprise works for the best of the enterprise and to some extend allow the employees to self-organize and prioritize the various tasks at hand.

I would recommend a form of hybrid of a top down (Kotter 1995) and bottom up approach (Hamel 2007) to solve the problems with anchoring the changes in the enterprise. The approach is dealt with in detail in table 1: The suggested approach to change management.

Step	Description	Impact
1	Establishment of the an active network within the executive group.	The executive group and middle managers (who aspire to become executives).
2	Identification of change agents in the enterprise that would stay among middle managers and employees.	The entire enterprise and on all levels of the enterprise. There should be found agents as many places as possible.
3	Establishment of an office or department for internal communication in the enterprise. This office has to be located close to the change leader and his position so it is clear that what is sent to the employees in the organization is the words and intentions of the leading coalition.	The upper end of the middle management. Eventually it will impact the rest of the enterprise since the communication from this office should be directed to all parts of the enterprise.
4	Establishment of scope, goals and mission clearance. Stakeholder alignment is a necessity to create the proper dynamics.	The change coalition (all agents on all levels of the enterprise should be involved in this).
5	The change leader should make sure to attend meetings and conferences with the other managers on how the change effort is planned to impact the enterprise.	Executive group and middle management.
6	Plan workshops with employees that focus on identifying issues that needs to be dealt with in the particular devisions, departments, processes and projects.	All members of the enterprise.
7	Enable feedback channels where the executives, managers, and employees can report if departments or processes don’t work as intended. In this case IT / IS is a part of the concept of processes.	It will impact all levels of the enterprise in order to achieve that all members of the enterprise are able to add information to what needs to be re-configured.
9	Initiate the implementation process.	All members of the enterprise will be impacted as a result of the change program.
10	Keep on changing the architecture in order to achieve agility and adaption the changing environment of the enterprise.	In the long run it will impact all members of the enterprise on all levels. In the short run small sections of the enterprise will be changed.

Table 1: The suggested approach to change management.

The managers needs the information that they can gain access to in the social networks through their insight to the networks. When it comes to the diffusion of knowledge it is very likely that the segments of the enterprise that are too complex. If the knowledge is too complex it is evident to investigate if the particular domain can be handled by enterprise-wide systems or for that matter enterprise-wide business approaches. Nonetheless the most important thing is that the any new employees, managers or executives can be introduced to the persons who have some idea on how to deal with the problems, tasks, activities and processes in each of the domains that are likely to be too complex. What is important for the enterprise is that the executives, middle managers and not to forget the employees support a culture of knowledge and information sharing. The IT systems should be developed to support their particular processes. These information systems could eventually be connected, but there is as such no need for enterprise-wide information systems that standardize the workflows. Knowledge can be hard to standardize and as such the various stakeholders of the enterprise can’t be expected to know everything about the same topic. In other words it is very likely that the chief architect and the decision takers would have to challenge their assumption on process standardization.

Create Value Through Grouping of IS and Business Processes

The chief architect and his associates would have to investigate how the enterprise can generate value through grouping the social systems and information systems.

The approach that the chief architect and his associates should work with a projects that will enable change for the various projects that would change the enterprise.

The progress for each of the projects will be impacting the enterprise’s architecture and thereby transform the architecture from the AS – IS situation (Bernard 2005)which is the current state for the enterprise’s architecture to the desired state which Bernard names the “TO-BE” state. The transition plan is the document that communicates what kind of projects that would have to be initiated and implemented in order to mature the enterprise’s architecture and through that enable the enterprise to reach its goals. The transition plan also works as a kind of plan that can be communicated to the various stakeholders who would have to back the enterprise in the maturation of the particular situation. The maturation process has to be evaluated before the chief architect and his followers initiates the change program. It is very likely that the stakeholders will be easier won over if they can see a logical plans that includes economical estimation of how the plan impact the enterprise’s economical situation. It is needless to say that the enterprise’s decision makers would have to have an insight on how well the enterprise can process the various resources it has at hand and thereby produce the products and services that its customers want to purchase.

The evaluation process is likewise a part of how the enterprise scans its internal and external environment and as such the Enterprise Architecture program should work as the platform for the construction of a shared ontology across the enterprise. The chief architect should keep in mind that in departments or segments that can be characterized as being characterized as complex it is rather likely that their particular views can’t be generalized into an enterprise ontology if such can be formulated.

In order to get the information that the chief architect and the decision makers need in order to plan and allocate resources to the transformation the enterprise would have to go through. They would have to go into detail with how the various social networks and communities of practices and search for the information and knowledge in order to gain a firm understanding of how the enterprise works and thereby how it can be changed. In this light the chief architect and his associates would have to decide if they should apply a top-down or a bottom-up approach. The approach chosen would eventually become a part of the debate that the members of the enterprise on what has to be done. Will the decision makers tolerate increased autonomy or if they would prefer increased centralization. As earlier mentioned it seems like that the tendencies for the development organizations.

Change the Enterprise

The chief architect and the decision makers would have to go further with the change of the enterprise. The change process would have to be a part of the overall Enterprise Architecture program and it will certainly impact the enterprise and how it works. In order to do so the chief architect would have to influence the stakeholders (decision makers, the middle managers and for that matter the employees). The changes are caused by the the questioning of the how the enterprise is able to collect the data needed in order to take the decisions needed to achieve the goals that was set for the enterprise. The author is of the opinion that the grouping of information systems and social systems in order to harvest the synergies with each one of them and among each of the clusters The clusters can most likely produce synergies for each of the areas that shows the amount of gravity that produce a barrier of complexity.

Before the chief architect and the executives commit themselves to changing the enterprise they would have to understand how the enterprise and its architecture works. In order to achieve this the chief architect would have to choose an Enterprise Architecture framework, adapting the framework to the particular enterprise and implement the framework. Thereafter should the chief architect and the enterprise architects work with identifying the various artifacts, and organizing them in an Enterprise Architecture repository. While working with the identification of artifacts and organization of artifacts in the EA repository it is important that the chief architects understands that there might be barriers to create define an unified ontology and as a result of that there might be a necessity to create several different sub-units of the EA repository. The chief architect work with an assumption that each of the specialized operations of the enterprise should be mapped as a separated entity and as a separate mini architecture of the enterprise.

The author is of the opinion that it is possible to convert extremely specialized knowledge for each of the specialized processes to other parts of the enterprise without a lot of the meaning of each of the artifacts is lost. It is better that there is a platform for informed governance for each of the segments than a system that doesn’t adapt to the entire enterprise. The managers of each of these segments should in the long run participate in the community of practice that shares knowledge and know how with one another. The chief architect can at some extent work as the change manager would would have to convince the various stakeholders in the enterprise to support the changes and in the same time enable them to take the changes even further.

The change manager would have to ensure that the office of internal communication is located and positioned as a part of management and it symbolizes the foundation of management for all other segments of the enterprise. It is pivotal that the change efforts are supported by the middle managers since they act as the approvers of each of the employees time and effort to commit to the particular change system. If the middle managers ignore the call for change and disapprove of the changes that the employees suggests then it is very likely that the changes will come to a still and eventually fail. Likewise would the commitment of the employee be of great importance since it is likely that each of the employees have specialized knowledge of how the work processes interacts.

Conclusions

The author is of the opinion that the organization have to work with several different approaches to challenge their particular views on how the enterprise collects the data that are used by the decision makers. Likewise is it likely that the various decision makers of the enterprise would have to deal with identifying segments of the enterprise that are too complex to be adapted to generalized business processes. The author is of the opinion that the chief architect and his associates would have to deal with the challenges of adding value to the enterprise by applying the standardized business activities and business processes, but in the same time be able to identify where it wouldn’t make sense to apply standardized systems since that wouldn’t provide the enterprise with any kind of advantages.

The focus of the members of the Enterprise Architecture team would have to include the concept of complexity to the concept of enterprise ontology and as such should the repositories that would be able to connect the various sections of the enterprise and communicate the meaning meaning of how the enterprise works to the decision makers and other stakeholders who would have to make use of the knowledge that is represented in the repositories.

Likewise is it a necessity for the decision makers and the chief architect would have to investigate the various elements of the enterprise in order to achieve better insight into how the enterprise works and from that enable better decision making in order to achieve the objectives for the enterprise.

Bibliography

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

Dietz, J.L.G., 2006. Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology, Springer.

Hamel, G., 2007. The Future of Management, Harvard Business School Press.

Hammer, M., 1990. Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. , Harvard Business Review no. 68.

Hoogervorst, J.A.P., 2009. Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, Springer.

Kotter, J.P., 1995. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, (March – April 1995), p.9.

Wenger, E., 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity New Ed., Cambridge University Press.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, P.B. & Lampel, J.B., 2008. Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide Through the Wilds of Strategic Management 2nd ed., Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.

Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: Free Press.

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.

Weill, P. & Ross, J., 2009. IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain, 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.

Weick, K.E., 2000. Making Sense of the Organization, WileyBlackwell.

The paper can be downloaded here or read at ISSUU.

There is no real definition of what an enterprise architect is or what he or she does. There is no exact definition of what the enterprise architect does and where he can be found in the enterprise. There are many different disciplines within the sphere for the enterprise that has something to do with Enterprise Architecture.

According to Doucet et al (2009) there are both explicits and implicit roles dealing with enterprise architecture, especially if the architecture is mature. The roles all have something to do with being enterprise architects, and there are different ways how they interact with the architecture.

The Chief Architect is according to Bernard (2005) the person who is in charge of establishing an Enterprise Architecture group in the enterprise, and likewise is it the Chief Architect who choses or creates a synthesis for a framework that can be made use of in the particular enterprise. It is Chief Architect who selects who are to take part of the particular enterprise architecture group and what each individual is supposed to do.

The definition that Bernard proposes is that the enterprise architect is a kind of liaison among other forms of architects like solution architects, technology architects, business architects. The enterprise architect the person who works as liaison but also the person who translate, codify and organize the various artifacts.

At the conference on Enterprise Architecture in Copenhagen 2010 the representative for The Open Group said “that The Open Group Architecture Framework has to be adapted to the individual enterprise otherwise wouldn’t give the enterprise any value to make use of it” this particular statement from the largest provider of frameworks illustrates the importance of the Chief Architect and the synthesis process. It does also stress the importance of the highly adaptable enterprise architect who can see possibilities and act upon them.

Op’t Land et al (2009) presented in the book “Enterprise Architecture: Creating Value by Informed Governance” different roles that characterize the enterprise architect. They define the roles as follows:

1. The Change Agent. The change agent has to encourage both the management and the employees to change their views on what Enterprise Architecture is, and adapt the policies and programs that the Enterprise Architecture can generate for them.

2. The Leader as having a vision for the Enterprise Architecture program. This includes a visionary focus on the various strategies and how they influence the Enterprise Architecture program.

3. The Manager has to make sure that the Enterprise Architecture Program is dealt with and updated so it entails the proper way to do practices, projects and principles are kept alive and these are meaningful for “the business” of the enterprise.

4. The Communicator is one of the roles that the chief architect and the team of enterprise architects have to master to achieve that the various stakeholders collaborate.

5. The Modeler is a role that is necessary to master for any given enterprise architect, otherwise wouldn’t he or she not be able to create the META-models needed to show how the enterprise works and should be working.

Furthermore did Op’t Land et al (2009. p 119) argue that the Enterprise Architect has five different ways of thinking within the perspective of working and changing the enterprise. These ways of thinking are dealt with below.

1. Yellowprint – thinking that deals with brings interests together, the approach includes stimulating stakeholders, formulating opinions, creating a “win – win” situation and forming coalitions.

2. Blueprint – thinking that deals with formulation of unambiguous objectives, development of an action plan, that includes monitoring and adjusting the change process accordingly.

3. Redprint – thinking deals with ensuring people are aware of new perspectives, ensuring that they (people) are aware of their personal shortcomings. Last but not least does it deal with motivation of the people to see, learn and do things. The focus is the learning process.

4. Whiteprint – thinking deals with articulation of plans that includes people’s processes, interests and energies. The focus deals with the removal of blockades and barriers.

All of the above mentioned ways of thinking are necessary for the enterprise architects to be able to operate with the Enterprise Architecture approach. It depends on the situation and the the maturity of the enterprise’s architecture.

In conclusion it is important that the enterprise architect can see possibilities and he or she is able to act upon his justified instinct and deal with various people who work and thinks in silos or sees the world very differently from the Enterprise Architects. The Enterprise Architects would have to be able to sell the idea of Enterprise Architecture to people who resent holistic approaches and systems thinking and in the same way be able to be diplomatic.

All of the above mentioned characteristics are to be operationalized in the enterprises regardless of how mature their Enterprise Architecture programs are. Furthermore does the views that Hoogervorst et al (2009) presents and the views that I present in this blog post indicate that the enterprises would have to test the enterprise architects in order to investigate what kind of architects they need and define what roles they would have.

The Chief Architect and the Roles in the Enterprise

Doucet et al (2009) argues that in order to mature the enterprise’s architecture it is a necessity to change a few roles within the management group and for that matter within the IT group. Doucet et al. argues for the changes in the IT – organization is because the concept of Enterprise Architecture originates from the IT department and the world of Information Systems it is a necessity to force the management of the IT department (and this usually includes the management of the Enterprise Architecture group) to think in new ways.

Doucet et al argues that in the perfect world the ownership of the Enterprise Architecture program has to change from the IT department (the CIO) to a leader within the organization who works with the operations or other executive.

In my opinion the change of focus is needed as long it doesn’t mean that IT and the enablement of new and old business processes aren’t neglected. Likewise does Potts (corporate strategist, speaker and author) advocate for a new and slightly different approach to IT management and IT investment. His approach that entails that the CIO role should be abolished and replaced with the role of chief internal investments officer (CIIO).

The CIO or his successor CIIO should deal with corporate transformation through investment planning and corporate program management that would have to entail all strategically important projects. Strategy is according to Potts the implicit and it is defined by the embodiment of actions taken by the executive group. This is in its way a perfect situation for the chief architects and for that matter the enterprise architects since they would be able to identify how the enterprise has invested its resources and how they in the future would be able to invest.

The Elite Architecture

According to Doucet et al (2009) the focus of working with the Enterprise Architecture program is to go beyond the IT – centric approach that usually is applied in the IT department. In this approach it becomes a necessity to work with the maturation of the Enterprise Architecture program and by that establishing a group of elite architects who in term work withs the focus of developing and adapting the Enterprise Architecture approach to solve the problems that the enterprise experience. The focus of the elite architecture is to aid those enterprise architects that are involved in the various business units. In other words the focus is to facilitate a community of practice.

The establishment and later on the facilitation of communities of practice seems to be the greatest difficulty for the enterprise.

In my opinion it isn’t possible to establish communities of practice, they are simply a social phenomena that happens if the right people are present at the right time. However it is a possibility to facilitate the communities of practice after the enterprise has identified what they are and who participate; however this is only possible to a certain degree.

If the management or other element within the enterprise begin to interfere with the community of practice it will eventually become irrelevant and dissolve itself.

Communities of practice are too specialized in their ability to deal with their tasks, and impact of the behavior of the people who participate in them are to random to any kind of generic rule for dealing with facilitation of communities of practice can be established.

Focus has to be on the enterprise allows people from different parts of the enterprise to meet in areas suited for meetings and informal talks.

The community of practice would enable the enterprise with achieving an elite architecture team and as a result an elite architecture program.

The architects would have to interact with one another in different ways and tasks where they can take advantage on the expertise that they posses and the understanding of these expertise and the registration of knowledge abilities they posses.

In order to achieve elite architecture the enterprise would have to establish an incentives program that ensures that the enterprise architects who evolve with the Enterprise Architecture program can handle tasks that are suitable for their personal development and as such could this enable the enterprises to retain knowledge on how to innovate, develop, deploy and mature its enterprise architecture. It is needless to say that the hypothesis of this blog post is that the more mature the enterprise’s architecture is, the better the enterprise would be able to assure alignment, assurance and agility and through that would the enterprise be able to crystallize competitive potential into competitive advantages.

Bibliography

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

Land, M.O. et al., 2008. Enterprise Architecture: Creating Value by Informed Governance, Springer.

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

Most organizations operates within an environment that develops constant changes, that enforce the need for innovation and change within the enterprise. The market usually ensures that the enterprise has to re-structure, re-organize and adapt to the situation at hand.

Drifting is the industry paradigm, and there is nothing to do about it if the enterprise wants to develop and keep innovating.

The organization has to adapt, and that leads to the situation where the organization should have to be able to adjust to its enterprise architecture and its information systems in order to ensure that the problems at hand are solved. Since globalization has increased the degree of competition from easy to intense from competitors that can mobilize resources from various countries (markets) and transfer the resources to the markets that they want to gain a market share in.

Many small and medium sized enterprises would have to “hack” their enterprise in order to find processes, technology and organizational structures that can lead to synergies that in turn can lead to a competitive advantage. By acknowledging this the chief architect has to recognize that the Enterprise Architect program can’t be designed for a stabile environment or for idealistic conditions. The Enterprise Architecture program has to be designed upon an idea that the entire model and process has to be easy to change in order to achieve the crystallization of short term wins.

Competitive Advantages

In order to gain competitive advantages the enterprise has to organize and enable as many processes as possible to empower the organization to do something that it can provide better, cheaper or faster than any of its competitors.

These processes would have to be enabled through planning, skills and the ability adapt to the situation at hand. Drifting within the enterprise is in other words an imperative that the executives, the chief architect and the enterprise architects would have to deal with in their establishment of the enterprise architecture program.

The competitive advantages are realized through the members of the enterprise are able to identify solutions that can overcome the problems that they face in their own segment of the enterprise and this first hand knowledge can lead to a greater understanding of how they can optimize their ability to produce. However the ad hoc solutions that Ciborra’s idea of bricolage and hacking can lead to sub-optimization of the enterprise and eventually it would lead to silos.

In order to cope with the problems of the drifting and in the same time enabling the benefits of drifting for the enterprise.

The Enterprise Architecture Program

I define the concept of Enterprise Architecture as a process of adapting the standards, principles and objectives for the enterprise. This process is also a form of blue printing for how the enterprise’s architecture should develop and that enables a form of enterprise engineering as well.

Enterprise Architecture is both a form of enterprise engineering and a project-governance process. Enterprise Architecture is a program since EA is a continuous process that consist of a portfolio of projects that step by step alters and develops the enterprise from its current situation (AS-IS) to a future desired state. This is known as the to-be situation.

The principal idea with the program is that the change will take place over time in small steps and that would in principle ensure that the big bang changes wouldn’t allocate too many resources and it would in the same time ensure that the changes would alter too much at the same time and thereby make the changes manageable. The manageable size minimizes the risks for the enormous project will fail to realize the benefits promised before the project was initiated.

Drifting leads to a need to deal with the problem of inconsistent technologies and solutions, that in turn would make it very expensive and difficult to manage. In order to deal with the negative impact of the tendencies of bricolage and hacking, it becomes clear that the enforcement of certain principles, standards, methodologies and approaches should be enforced and that the concept of Enterprise Architecture is capable to deal with. Enterprise Architecture has to be enforced through the culture of the various segments of the enterprise. However a too tough enforcement of the principles dealt with in the Enterprise Architecture program will eventually lead to a problem with enablement of innovation (process innovation and product innovation) for the enterprise.

The chief architect has to try to deal with informing the various creative elements within the enterprise in order to make them understand how they can apply the various applications and solutions to deal with the problems that their segment faces, but they would have to deal with the standards and principles defined in the Enterprise Architecture program in order to ensure alignment, agility and assurance.

The chief architect has to deal with this delicate issue, and it can only be dealt with in a continuous process from the day that the Enterprise Architecture program is initiated until the end of the enterprise.

One of many reasons for why many enterprises experiences that organizational change projects fail and their respective leaders and managers only discovers that there are significant problems with the way the members of the enterprise activities.

The Sense Making Process

In the sense making process it is rather likely that the preferred departments of the enterprise would be the IT department since the IT department is properly that department that has a lot of contact with the rest of the enterprise, and the rest of the enterprise contacts and require that the IT department uncovers their needs to develop information systems that supports their business processes.

However in many enterprises a lot of the other departments have hostile feelings towards the IT department. This means that the IT department and its representatives will be viewed with skepticism, and the concept of sense making is therefore undermined.

In relation to the writings of Doucet et al (Doucet et al 2009) then the ideal situation would be when the enterprise when the Chief Operations Officer that is in charge of the sense making and Enterprise Architecture approach but usually it needs a maturation period where the knowledge and responsibility has been handed over from the Chief Information Officer. From this perspective then it is likely that Doucet et al argues for a paradigm shift within the enterprise. When addressing the view of the enterprise then the focus has to address the mechanistic and the organic perspective also. Is the enterprise a social system that functions like a machine that can be optimized or is a kind of organic entity that can be impacted through facilitation.

The thoughts that Doucet et al presents deals with how the enterprise will obtain a higher degree of assurance, alignment and agility when the enterprise goes through a process of uncovering and adapting the Enterprise Architecture program. When fully adapted then the enterprise will be able to reach out and re-design its enterprise. The only way to achieve this is by an enabling of sense making at all levels of the enterprise.

Karl Weick (Weick 2000, p. 244) works with a concept that deals with how the enterprise in one way or the other scans its environment and how this impacts how the enterprise creates an understanding for how the strategy process can be articulated.

In this perspective the focus of sense making is in an external context where there are three phases. 1) Scanning the environment, 2) Interpretation and 3) Learning. The learning phase is dealing with how the enterprise learns and that is done through practice. The interpretation deals with how the enterprise understands its environment and how it starts to acquire the model it needs to create an understanding of its environment and its options.

I am of the opinion that the scanning process can be used inside of the enterprise as well and especially the second step has to be investigated into detail by the chief architect and for that matter the coherency architect. If the enterprise doesn’t take reality into consideration when it articulates the corporate strategy then it is very likely that the rest of the strategies that have been articulated aren’t able to cope with the real life situations within the enterprise. When addressing this it is very important to understand that if the enterprise doesn’t base their plans on their contextual reality then it the plans will at best give hope to the members of the enterprise.

When I talk of contextual reality then it is the combination of feelings, experiences, observations and not to forget hard fact. Hard facts are usually numbers and for that matter artifacts that can be understood in a narrow way by the individuals who have to relate to it and not forget how the social system that receives the analysis sees the world e.g., it would be very likely if the receivers would reject the analysis if it contradicts their own behavioral pattern and for that matter world view.

An example could be that a chief architect delivers a plan for the enterprise that is based on the organic¹ view of the organization and the receivers have a view that is predominately mechanistic². In someways can this situation be compared to the changes that happens in science when a particular community of scientists have been challenged a different community of scientists who has another view on how a particular problem (world view or paradigm) has to be applied. It takes a lot of energy and a lot of resources in change effort of seeing validating and accepting the other point of view.

It is therefore very likely that the chief architect or for that matter the coherency architect who has to address the problems in the enterprise through a change program that would have to engage in a dialogue on what the enterprise is, how management should be working, how the various elements of the enterprise should interact and not to forget how the members of the enterprise produce value for the enterprise. When speaking of value then I address how the individual member of the enterprise contributes to the goals that have been articulated by the strategy team (usually the executives of the enterprise).

In this dialogue the coherency architect would have to think of it as a process where the various stakeholders would have to adapt to the new views of the enterprise, management, approaches and not to forget one another. The process might not be able to produce the desired results right away but it is a dialogue or struggle that the coherency architect would have to take in order to force the executives of the enterprise to facilitate change.

The Resilient Organization

The difference between the conventional approach to change and ideas, and the resilient organization is that the resilient organization is an organizational system that identifies the exceptions in the operations, and acts pro-actively to correct the changes before exceptions escalates to the extend of a burning platform.

However the members of a resilient organization by themselves understand that they have to inform the other members of the enterprise about how or what is about to happen in the various sections of the enterprise, and the members of the enterprise have been trained to act to adapt to the environment that the organizations interact with. In the same time the members of the enterprise adapts to one another by informing one another on the conditions of the enterprise’s work systems. It is the self-correcting attitude that the members of the enterprise show while they are working that enables them to make the enterprise resilient to the changes.

The members of the enterprise needs to be able to share information local, regional and for that matter on a global plan and for that the Enterprise Architecture program and repository be a great enabler.

With this in mind then the concept of holistic management will be dealt with in the next paragraph.

Holistic Management

Bernard and Doucet et al argues that the enterprise needs holistic management and through that they would be able to achieve competitive advantages when achieving holistic management. But what is holistic management? And is holistic management even achievable.

A holistic form of management is according to Hoogervorst achievable if the enterprise works with the organic way interpret and embody the actions of the enterprise.

Holistic Management deals that the enterprise can achieve some form of coherent and informed governance by applying Enterprise Architecture to uncover the entire enterprise and thereby its whole architecture.

Enterprise Architecture is a way to lay the foundation for Holistic Management. When speaking of Holistic Management the concept needs to be defined. The concept of Holistic Management is dealing with how the executives, managers, workers and other stakeholders (usually these are connected to the enterprise like banks, suppliers and increasingly advisors and consultants) gains an overview of how the various elements of the enterprise (and thereby its architecture) works. This overview can then be operationalized into a form governance where the various executives, managers and workers contribute to the decision process and by that the right actions can be taken for the right purposes.

When the foundation has been established then the focus has to be turned to trust and motivation among the various stakeholders to support and maintain the foundation for the Holistic Management. I am of the opinion that most enterprises are results of coincidence and as such the entire enterprise is somehow a product of randomly selected individuals, purposes, resources and work flow. Likewise are there many different reasons for why the enterprise has developed into what it is. By writing this I commit myself and my view on the enterprise holistic management through the eyes of the organismic approach to organizational management where the idea is that the enterprise isn’t a machine but a form of organism that can eventually be cultured and evolved into something smarter and better.

This leads to some of the reflections on what Enterprise Architecture and Holistic Management.

Reflections

When working with Enterprise Architecture is dealing with how the enterprise can achieve alignment among the various elements of the enterprise e.g., between the business units (lines of business) and the their usage of information technology. However is it possible to achieve a form of holistic management for enterprises? Is it possible to achieve a form of enterprise governance that is able to impact practices of the enterprise on all levels in order to enable the executives to tune or grow the enterprise into a desired state? In my opinion it is possible to either tune or grow the enterprise but it isn’t possible to achieve governance without friction in some form within the enterprise. But it is of great importance for the enterprise to undermine the barriers that in one way or the other limits the ability of the enterprise to adapt, innovate and align its various components in order to achieve competitive advantages.

The first step in achieving holistic management is through initiating a scanning process of the external environment as well as initiating a scanning of the internal environment. The scanning process can achieve some ideas on how the enterprise works. Given the information on how the environments that the enterprise operates with the executives can operationalize into better and more efficient decision making. In my opinion the scanning process is vital for achieving Holistic Management or something close too. Nonetheless Enterprise Architecture and for that matter Coherency Management is of great importance to enable Holistic Management and these programs needs to be taken seriously by the executives and middle management.

The resilient enterprise is in my opinion a result of an Enterprise Architecture program that goes beyond of the foundation architecture (going beyond the IT centric approach).

When Enterprise Architecture is applied in the right situation then it is possible that the enterprise can advance towards a resilient organization; however Enterprise Architecture is only one of the factors that will enable a resilient organization, but Enterprise Architecture can both become an enabler and a driver towards.

Conclusion

Sense making is a process of which the stakeholders can gain knowledge on how the enterprise is doing compared to its customers, suppliers and competitors. This has to be taken into consideration of how the enterprise works and how the system needs to be adapted to achieve competitive advantages.

Enterprise Architecture is a combination of a toolset, method and process that can give the stakeholders an overview of the enterprise works. In the same way the enterprise is able to initiate the processes needed to undermine barriers for agility, innovation and adaptability and establishing the platforms that are needed to achieve a continuous tuning or growth of the enterprise.

The resilient organization is probably the most likely candidate for achieving the ability of Holistic Management and only organizational knowledge and culture can enable the organization to achieve the change and the platforms.

Bibliography

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

Hoogervorst, J.A.P., 2009. Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, Springer.

Karl E. Weick and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, 2nd ed. (Jossey Bass, 2007).

Karl E. Weick, Making Sense of the Organization (WileyBlackwell, 2000).

I have investigated how Enterprise Architecture contribute to the enterprise with value but also how the value can be measured. The investigation took me through four different paradigms and through the triangulation of the theory for each of the paradigms. The four paradigms I ended up investigating were functionalist paradigm, the interpretive paradigm, the radical humanist paradigm and the radical structuralist paradigm (Burrell & Morgan 1979 and Hirchheim & Klein 1989).

I found out that the various philosophers that can be identified within each of the paradigms have different views on what value really is and that lead to that I chose to focus on four philosophers (one from each of the paradigms).

The focus of the paper then turned to how a Chief Architect for any given Enterprise Architecture program can apply ideas presented in each of the paradigms to investigate a systemic approach as the Enterprise Architecture program.

This lead to an idea that the Chief Architect has to see the enterprise from several different angles and each of the angles needs to be taken into consideration when the investigation of value is taken processed.

In the paper I have made some examples of how each of the paradigms can be applied in the investigation and what questions should be asked when the Chief Architect designs his or her approach to collect information and evidence that support his or her claims on how the enterprise architecture creates value.

The core concept of the paper is that systemic programs, processes or functions needs to be investigated through several perspectives before anything can be said or concluded about them and each enterprise is unique and therefore should each attempt to investigate the EA program be customized for the particular enterprise.

I am of the opinion that the paper shows how the Enterprise Architecture program adds value both through monetary issues like increased profit and competitiveness but also through that other elements in the enterprise is taken care of e.g., the work environment and the ability to improve the platform for innovation etc.

These factors have to be taken care of to ensure that the enterprise in the long run will be able to achieve a competitive advantage by using enterprise architecture and for that matter Coherency Management. If the enterprise isn’t seen as an holistic entity and the various elements of the enterprise architecture program isn’t dealt with through different perspectives that aides the Chief Architect and the other stakeholders in the enterprise with understanding why it is important that they commit their effort and resources to the Enterprise Architecture program.

To conclude the this blog post then I will make use of a quotation by Aristotle.

“The whole is more than the sum of its parts” – Aristotle

Download the paper here or read it online at issuu.com.