Category Archives: Innovation

Management Information for Managing Innovation

Management information is not particular difficult to produce, it is difficult to make use of. Management information can be produced in quite a few ways and supported by quite a few methods, but too much management information will eventually clutter the line of sight of the decision makers and as such work against holistic management. This blog post will outline some ideas; I have for particular artifacts that can enable the Enterprise Architecture function to deliver the necessary management information to decision-makers in e.g. IT Governance boards.

Enterprise Architecture is a philosophy, a methodology and a way to produce management information, and to some extent Enterprise Architecture has proved to focus too much on documenting the so-called as-is situation. In my opinion, the Enterprise Architecture should focus on identifying potential innovations that could be implemented in the organization’s enterprise architecture and create value for the stakeholders. However in order to delimit the scope of this blog post I would prefer to apply a definition by Anupinidi and Coady (2012) that essentially states that Enterprise Architecture is about guiding the information technology to the desired strategic position for the organization.


The stakeholders usually have different values and different ideas of how innovations like applications, devices and hardware can create value. In such case it becomes a necessity for the Enterprise Architecture program to deliver forecasts for what kind of technologies and concepts that could be of interest for the organization and provide road maps that can enable the implementation of them.


There are several different approaches to estimate what particular innovations (in this case technologies and concepts) would be available and when to invest in them. The Gartner “hype cycle”. The model is far from perfect and to some extent the model can only be used as an inspiration since the model doesn’t ensures feedback of any kind. Gartner Incorporated applies pretty much the same model each year and they put a lot of models on the same though with some differences in chronology (how long time has the concept been on the hype cycle) and the concepts that are mapped on the hype cycle are “strangely” also a part of the service portfolio that Gartner incorporated sells to their customers.


The Enterprise Architect would have to use caution using the “hype cycle” since to some extent the hype cycle could give potential stakeholders a wrong impression of how mature the various innovations are. However the hype cycle can be used in order to categorize information and the model can be enhanced if the proper feedback loops are added to the model and its slopes. In order to provide guidance to the stakeholders and thereby providence to the decision-makers, the Enterprise Architect should define artifacts that are relations to the hype cycle.


They way I see it there would be three types of artifacts that would support enable the kind of management information that I would like to see the Enterprise Architecture deliver. The three artifacts can in combination give the decision-makers in the IT Governance boards a sense of what kind of information technologies and concepts that they should invest in:

1) Roadmaps for technologies are key in order show the stakeholders where the technical architecture is expected to develop.

2) A roadmap for the development of the products that the organization produces.

3) Roadmaps for processes are key in order to produce the products and services that the customers or clients of the organization.

A meta-layer to the three roadmaps would have to be added e.g. how do the processes enables the production of the products and furthermore how the technology enables the people how interact with the processes to develop the technology. The meta-roadmap should give the stakeholders an impression of how the innovations could ensure capabilities that the organization could gain competitive benefits from, if the proper investments are made.

Beyond the meta-roadmap

It is possible to combine the meta-roadmap with capability maps and scenarios. Capability maps have a slightly different focus and scenarios are usually applied for several different factors for the organization if a desired change of strategy is needed. The meta-roadmap can supply information (artifacts) to the strategically oriented models.


There are several different approaches to management information and how the Enterprise Architecture program can enable the production of the right amount of it at the right time; however there are certain approaches that might turn out to be more interesting than others. Innovation is to some extent the opposite of enterprise-archeology and as such it seems right if the Enterprise Architecture function provides makes use of a model like the hype cycle (preferable a slight modified edition) in order to structure the outlook for innovations (like technologies or concepts) that the organization might benefit from if it invests its resources properly. In order to go beyond the hype cycle, then roadmaps would have to be developed and make use of the data from the hype cycle.  Such roadmaps should lay the foundation for a meta-roadmap that shows how the various technologies or concepts would enable the enterprise to deliver current and future products when or if the proper investments are made and the implementation of the technologies have been sequenced the right way. Furthermore the meta-roadmap can and should provide information to strategic scenarios and capability maps. In order to give you a more detailed insight into the artifacts that I have briefly mentioned in this blog post would have to be explored further.


  • Ph.D, Nagesh V. Anupindi, and Gerard A. Coady. Enterprise Architecture Turnaround. Trafford Publishing, 2011.

Innovation in an Enterprise Architecture Context: Innovating the Business Processes, Technological Services and Corporate Strategies.


This blog post deals with innovation in regards to the Enterprise Architecture program. I’ve been able to identify two different approaches to innovation. The first approach to innovation is what I define as incremental innovation. The second approach to innovation is radical innovation. In most cases incremental innovation is innovation in social systems where small improvements have been introduced to the social systems.

Likewise is radical innovations forms of innovations that fundamentally changes the social systems e.g. how they work or how they interact with one another.

Likewise is the concept of innovation extremely context dependable. For one social system a particular approach could be considered an innovation where the same concept could be considered old news. Innovation, could as before mentioned, be incremental saying that a new way to deal with the piece of technology or business activity. Likewise could the same situation be radical if the technology never had been used before.

When it comes to innovation and applying it in the context of the enterprise the question of adaption would have to be dealt with.


Rogers speaks of how the innovations spreads to the various organizations, parts of the organizations and people. In this process there are five stages before the people of the enterprise would be able to fully apply any given form of innovation.

Innovation defused by that people observer other people who have success by applying the particular innovation in order to solve problems or to certain things in a new way that benefits them and their social structures.

Social systems shares a culture that is shared among the individuals who interact with the social systems. The purpose of the culture is to give the members of the enterprise a sense of security against the ever changing environment that the members of the enterprise is situated in. Culture is usually against changes and thereby against innovations. However there are also cases that suggests that culture can be used to enable the enterprise with innovation if the executives and middle management gives the employes the proper amount of trust.

In other words Enterprise Architecture has to be adapted to the enterprise that is about to invest in the program and as such the Enterprise Architecture program can be seen as an incremental innovation and a radical innovation depending on how the decision makers and the stakeholders sees the implementation process.

Innovation and EA

In regards to enterprise innovation the focus of Enterprise Architecture would be to deal with the processes in the enterprise. For enterprises the idea of incremental innovation would be dealing with the processes in small steps while radical innovations would be innovations that are “game changing” for the enterprise. In this particular light it is a necessity to see Enterprise Architecture as a form of continuous innovation for the enterprise and as such a container for future innovations and as such can the Enterprise Architecture program become a barrier for the innovativeness of the enterprise.

It easily become a fine act of balancing between the rules, standards and principles and the necessity to crystalize solutions for the various unplanned situations that the enterprise experience. Ciborra named this the concept of bricolage (or organizational hacking). In order to facilitate bricolage it is a necessity for the decision takers to empower the employees of the enterprise by allocating power and accountability to the middle managers or the employees. As such this should give the enterprise the necessary platform in order to make bricolage works.

Innovation in this context could be facilitated by the various stakeholders of the enterprise and through the Enterprise Architecture program the concept of innovation could empower the alignment and the agility of the enterprise.

Enterprise Architecture

So what is Enterprise Architecture all about? I’ve chosen to define Enterprise Architecture as a program that deals with the various projects that the enterprise works with in order to change its architecture. However this can not serve as a definition since it doesn’t include some of the most important elements of Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Architecture as a concept includes an element of documentation of the current architecture of the enterprise (known as the AS – IS situation) and an element that deals with how the future architecture of the enterprise should be like (the To – Be situation). Different communities of practice within the ecosystem of Enterprise Architecture practitioners sees the concept of Enterprise Architecture differently e.g. some sees Enterprise Architecture as a set of processes that constantly ensures some alignment through the implementation of processes and others who sees Enterprise Architecture as a form of blueprinting that ensures that the enterprise develops in to a coherent entity. There are most likely different views of what Enterprise Architecture is all about in the various communities in the ecosystem, and it is almost certain that each book that have been published on Enterprise Architecture works with its own definition of the concept.

My definition of Enterprise Architecture is in this context that Enterprise Architecture (as a concept) consists of a program for documentation of the enterprise’s architecture, a program for identification, specification and development of projects that enable the enterprise to achieve its goals. Likewise does the concept of Enterprise Architecture include the development of standards and principles that are used to govern the enterprise on all levels. When this is said the last component that add to the definition of what Enterprise Architecture is all about is the concept of enterprise governance.

Enterprise governance has to ensure that the enterprise achieves its goals and the goals can only be achieved if there is some kind of innovation in the enterprise. Innovation should in this context be understood as an ability to alter the various parameters of the enterprise.

The Synthesis

I’ve with some inspiration from Leavitt (1965) and his diamond model defined my own model that shows what Enterprise Architecture is all about. Enterprise Architecture is the platform for how the organization executes the business objectives, business processes and technology services. As such the holistic approach to deal with the elements of tasks, business objectives and technology services will have an impact on what kind of employees that would be needed in order to ensure that the enterprise can produce products and services to its customers. Each of the elements impacts the other elements and as such the decision makers (executives, middle managers, team leaders or anarchies) have to deal with the problems through the Enterprise Architecture platform and program.

People are the key when it comes to the breakdown of the classical barriers in the organizational hierarchy and as such it becomes a necessity to deal with people in order to achieve a better and more mature enterprise architecture. It becomes a necessity to deal with the focus of who the enterprise have access to and how the various stakeholders of the enterprise can add to the innovativeness of the enterprise.

While the enterprise adds value through producing products and services to its customers. The various stakeholders in the enterprise do some kind of bricolage or organizational hacking. The concept of organizational hacking can’t be dealt with in any other way and as such most of this “hacking” helps the organization deal with the everyday crisis and as such the Enterprise Architecture program (principles, standards and security) has to take this into consideration and find the balance between hacking and standardization.

While implementing an Enterprise Architecture program the decision makers would have to ensure that incremental innovation isn’t neglected or for that matter locked due to the approach to standards and principles. Likewise should the decision makers work with the concept of bricolage in their assumptions of planning, and as such they should embrace that two, three or five year plans can’t lead to competitive advantages.

Week 22 Enterprise Architecture Summer Camp (Day 2)

This blog post deals with the second and final day of the summer school dealing with Enterprise Architecture. The tagline for the summer school is “Scandinavian Design and Oblique Angles”.

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.

Coherency Management and Innovation

When it comes to innovation then coherency management is an enabling tool. This means that the organization that is aware of the various processes, the various elements and various technologies enables the  apply radical innovation and evolutionary innovation.
Schumpeter was of the idea that the single most important function of the organization was to crystalize the innovation in to products that could be used on the market and therefore can innovation be viewed as specific competitive advantage.
When it comes to coherency management then innovation can both be radical innovation and it can be process innovation.
The difference between radical innovation and evolutionary innovation is that radical innovation is game changing e.g., by creating new business models or new ways to do business. Process innovation is different in the way that the issues e.g., the processes are improved over multiple steps.
Both forms of innovation have their impact on how the organization performs e.g., organizations that have a well developed culture based upon evolutionary innovation often have the ability to perform well within their industry they operate.
Organizations that are able to enable radical innovation are often good to define new products, business models and markets that all in all give them a competitive advantage and thereby they are often able to be the first movers at many markets.

Innovation and Coherency Management

To sparkle innovation there is a need for using the right people for the right positions within the project organization.
Tom Kelley is of the opinion that these profiles should be combined to create HOT teams that truly creates innovations:

  1. The Visionary is the type of person who is able to identify future possibilities (visions) and he is able to recruit the project team.
  2. The Troubleshooter is a person who in way or the other who are able to identify problems internally in the organization and is able to handle all situations that might occur in the project organization while the project is being executed.
  3. The Iconoclast is a person who is able to challenge the current believes of what is right inside the project organization and is able to see possibilities in other paradigms.
  4. The Pulse Taker is a person who is able to work like a hearth does in a human. The person has to be versatile in his or her way of thinking and is able to channelize the “life blood” of the project on to other individuals in the project organization.
  5. The Craftsman is that kind of person who is able to construct prototypes and work around with them to make innovative designs. These competences are vital for any kind of radical innovation.
  6. The Technologist is what many people would call a geek. A person who is dedicated to work with technology and is able to handle complex tasks, uncover and create deeper meaning.
  7. The Entrepreneur is a person who is able to work out with brainstorms, innovation, prototypes and communicate these to other persons.
  8. The Cross-Dresser these kinds of persons who have studied or worked with a totally different form of field then he or she works with today. These individuals make use of their skills to envision new solutions.

This leads to the concept of the maturity of the architectures and thereby the concept of Coherency Management.

The Concept of Coherency Management

Coherency Management deals with the maturing process of the architecture within the organization. The architecture consist of the various layers of the organization which are:

  1. People.
  2. Organization culture.
  3. Organization structure.
  4. Bureaucratic structure.
  5. Process structure.
  6. Information structure.
  7. Technology structure.

The more matured the architecture of the organization is the better the organization will be come to understand the processes, people, information and technology needed to create both evolutionary innovation and radical innovation.
Every organization has an architecture otherwise they wouldn’t be able to operate but there are three forms of architectures. The first architecture is called an architecture before Enterprise Architecture tools were applied and the organization is not aware of how it operates.
The more mature form of the architecture is called the foundation architecture. The foundation architecture is characterized by that the organization has applied Enterprise Architecture tools to the IT side of the organization. The first level of maturity with in this mode of architecture is where the IT structure and information structure is articulated for the enterprise wide perspective.
The second level of the architecture is when the needs of the business is articulated in a methodical way.
The third level of maturity is known by that the business side of the organization makes use of EA tools to identify, analyze and engineer the processes and structures after a methodical approach and after the change process has ended then the CIO takes over and apply the IT perspective.
The fourth and last maturity level for any organization is called the embedded architecture. This form of architecture is characterized by that all processes are aligned and by that there is a great need for design leadership. The design leadership has to create a framework for how the documentation and plans are to be designed. The other elements of the organization such as the Human Resources, annual planning, strategic planning, public reporting makes use of the structured framework and tools of the EA not to mention the that the strategic goal of the business drives the business requirements a and by that  drive the technological solutions.


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

Tom Kelley and Jonathan Littman, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, 1st ed. (Broadway Business, 2001). 

The Architectures

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

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

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

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

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

Coherency Initiation Plan

Coherency Management has its focus on how to make the organizations work smarter. By that the business processes have to be altered which will leads to changes in the Information Systems and changes in the organization hierarchy.

When such changes occur then the employees and the managers have to work together in a different way which means that the organization culture and the organization subcultures will be challenged. Thereto such projects needs support from the top and middle management and various other stakeholders to succeed.

Since Coherency Management can’t be achieved in one single project and the organization has to develop its architecture (and coherency) over time then the program has to be continuous where various projects are defined and implemented over time.

To be able to win over the guiding coalitions then a Coherency Initiation Plan has to articulated. The Coherency Initiation Plan has to consist of these elements:

  1. A Stakeholder Analysis and Plan.

  2. A Plan for coping with the political struggles within the organization (the opposing factions)

  3. A Communication Plan.

  4. Lobbying for further change e.g., to the management, stock owners or other internal as well as external stakeholders e.g., via the press.

When the “Coherency Initiation Plan” has been articulated then it is necessary to work with how the organization is designed in the way culture, technology, processes, structure and management interact and how they create value for the organization.

The Coherency Architect has to take this into account and therefore should the “owners” of the processes be won over to believe that they can and will gain by the process changes. As mentioned in Coherency and Organizations then the employees and the managers are key to success. This means that the Coherency Architect has to make sure that he or she understands how the various departments, employees and managers influence the processes in the organization. This can be achieved by the Coherency Architect map the processes in the organization and identifies which departments that handles the various subprocesses and then investigate who are in charge of the processes. The processes can be identified by using a flowchart diagram. The persons who are in charge needs to be involved in the process change e.g., by applying the Soft Systems Methodology or the Coherency Architect use extensive interviews to form a qualified opinion.

It is important that the Coherency Architect continues to communicate to the stakeholders so the funding and the support in form of goodwill towards the Coherency Program are kept intact.

To investigate how the organization can create value then it is necessary for the Coherency Architect to investigate how the architecture of the company is designed. Remember that the point of Coherency Management is to make the organization reach its goals in a smarter way and therefore should the Coherency Architect work with several different tools to investigate the processes, organization culture, organization structure, management and technology (some proposals for how to do so will be handled in a future blog post).

Governance versus Innovation

Currently the IT department has a lot of control on how to govern and administrate the computers in the organization. It is usually based on the idea that the economies of scale is the preferred perspective to make use of e.g., when it comes to discussion on how to enable the users to operate with new features.

The CIOs tends to favor ideas of that when the governance committee has decided how the group is designed and who should be consulted when it comes to input and enforcement but they tend not to understand the need for user customization that has the potential to crystalize innovation and by that strengthen the organization.

After all it is the users who usually understand how they can improve their work conditions and their way to handle various forms of tasks e.g., organizing, information handling or knowledge sharing.

In this perspective it is rather clear that the persons who have a first hand impression of the situation are those who should be able to find suitable solutions for the problems at hand.

The IT department often play a critical role of the degree of freedom and thereby degree of innovation the users can achieve. If the IT department enforces the strategies the strategy committee has articulated and enforcing its view of governance then the employees often have to live by the rules of the IT department.

From the CIOs point of view then the organization’s use of IT has to be efficient both in usage and in costs. This means that the organization has to focus on keeping costs down on maintenance and focusing on pleasing the stakeholders of the IT projects. With this in mind then the IT department will focus on limiting the possible configurations of the computers and information systems in the organization so end user support and technical support can be easily deployed.

In other words the organization is in a constant struggle between efficiency and innovation.

As mentioned before then it is of vital importance that the organization is able to innovate its processes and by that the employees of the organization actively engage in the improvement of the organization structure. The Coherency Architect has to focus on both the efficiency (costs and support) and the issues of innovation in the core of the organization.