A Compendium for Understanding Enterprise Architecture.

11 06 2010

I hereby publish the notes I have taken during the course in Enterprise Architecture that I have attended at the IT University of Copenhagen in the spring of 2010. The compendium is published under creative commons SA, BY, NC which means that it can be used for most purposes; however the purposes have to be non-commercial.

The notes are centered on Bernard’s EA Cube and the statement “EA = Business + Strategy+ Technology” and that has been the key organizer for how the notes are presented in the compendium.

You can download the compendium here.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Compendium, Enterprise Architecture, Methods

Bushido of the Coherency Architect: The Ways of the Coherency Architect to Efficiently Apply Suitable Solutions!

17 05 2010

The Path to Improvement

The focus is to combine lean, Toyota Production System, Enterprise Architect and Coherency Management into a guide line like the Bushido: The ways of the warrior.

The main principle of Coherency Management is to implement a holistic management approach that enables the management to achieve alignment, assurance and agility.

Enterprise Architecture is the foundation of achieving Coherency Management and it is possible to combine that with efficiency to achieve an enterprise that have a lesser amount of slack and adds more value to its share holders and customers.

First of all an Enterprise Architecture program has to be established.

Second of all an economic analysis of the activities that the organization performs to get income.

Third of all communication of change needs to be performed. That means that the Chief Enterprise Architecture needs to communicate to various stakeholders. The various forms of stakeholders needs to be dealt with in different ways. The various stakeholders needs different kind of information.

Third of all the Enterprise Architect has to work with various applying a framework e.g., the EA3 Framework, TOGAF, OIO or other framework.

Forth of all the Chief Architect needs to demonstrate the value of the Enterprise Architecture. The Enterprise Architect should apply the evaluation models that give the information that the stakeholders needs to make their mind (approve or disapprove) the Enterprise Architecture program. It is necessary to apply the evaluation model for the business processes and IT processes before the EA program has been established. This is needed to compare the before and after approach.

Fifth of all the Enterprise Architect has to make use of his or her talent to deal with the persons who have to change their way of working after the Enterprise Architecture program has been established. According to Doucet et al. (Doucet et al 2009) then the organization then there are three forms of applied Enterprise Architecture. The first form is known as Foundation Architecture. The Foundation Architecture is when the organization has applied Enterprise Architecture in the IT department. The IT department has been the driver of the Enterprise Architecture and made use of it to uncover the the operational model of the Enterprise Architecture. When the organization mature the Enterprise Architecture then it should over time come to the Extended Enterprise Architecture where both the business side of the enterprise and the IT side. The IT side and the business side works uncovering the business and its processes. There are several forms of architects who have various functions and responsibilities. There will be a centralized office for Enterprise Architecture and there will be a commitment from the Executive Group1 to enhance and use Enterprise Architecture to govern the enterprise. There are business architects, process architects, technology architects information architects and the Enterprise Architects. The Enterprise Architects will be dealing with handling the overall aspects of Enterprise Architecture. The Enterprise Architects will be dealing with keeping the other architects in line with the Enterprise Architecture program.

After the Extended Enterprise Architecture level then the organization will be moving toward the Embedded Enterprise Architecture. The form of architecture is so far a kind of utopia where every employee in some way acts as an architect which leads to that there are explicit and implicit architects. Theres is a focus on a central EA department that consist of the best Enterprise Architects who works with the overall Enterprise Architecture framework and enabling the other architects with their work through empowering the framework and governance of the Enterprise Architecture.

Sixth of all the Chief Architect has to implement a Coherency Management framework so far there is only one kind of a kind. That means the CoMOF framework has to be adapted. As it is with all other frameworks then the CoMOF framework is a generic framework and it has to be modified for the particular organization. While applying the modified CoMOF framework in the organization then Coherency Architect (or Chief Architect) has to make use of the efficiency theories such as LEAN, Six Sigma or Toyota Production System. This is a necessity to improve the organization’s enterprise.

Seventh of all the Coherency Architect has to ensure that executive group continues supporting the Enterprise Architecture program and Coherency Management program. This have to be done through emphasizing the support for Enterprise Architecture by using external pressure to enable the internal pressure(groups with power) to invest resources into renewing the program. If the Enterprise Architecture program isn’t renewed then the value of the Enterprise Architecture program will lose value. The same is the case for the Coherency Management program.

Eight of all the Chief Enterprise Architect should be working for improving the channels of how the Enterprise Architecture is transforming.

The Code

The Coherency Architect should be therefore be working with being efficient, effective and use his or her experience to develop develop efficient enterprises through Enterprise Architecture.

  1. Focus has to be on efficiency and effectiveness. The ideal is that the Coherency Architect should be thinking in systems where to much slack is minimized; however enough slack to harvest the benefits of innovation.

  2. The vision of Enterprise Architecture has to be communicated to the stakeholders . The people skills and abilities to communicate fluently with people are virtues.

  3. Improving the Enterprises and their Enterprise Architectures then the Coherency Architect have to focus on influencing the organization cultures to institutionalize improvement through Enterprise Architecture.

Applying the Code

The Bushido Framework

The Bushido Framework.

The code can be applied through the model dealt with above . The path to improvement is designed around the stones n the circle. The circle represents continuity. Bernard’s EA 3 framework is located in the bottom is matured a long side the principles of the CoMOF-framework. The lines with arrows are symbolizing the maturing process and a part of the continues process.

1Top managers including CEO, CIO, CFO and COO etc.

Download the paper here.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Architecture Maturity, Bushido Code, Code of Conduct, Frameworks, Methods

Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: A comparison of EA 3, OIO and Zachman.

7 05 2010

Framework and Methodology

According to Bernard (Bernard 2004) then a Chief Enterprise Architect or what equals to an Enterprise Architecture program manager is selected then the definition of the EA framework and the EA methodology becomes a necessity.

The Definition of the EA Framework

An EA framework is dealing with what the EA program will document.

The Definition of the EA Methodology

The EA methodology deals with how the Enterprise Architecture documentation is articulated and used.

The EA Cube and its Construction

The simple edition of the EA cube that explains the various components, and layers within the framework.

The EA3 Cube.

The EA3 Cube.

The Documentation Process

There are six steps that needs to be gone through according to Bernard (Bernard 2005, p. 97):

  • The process includes a framework.

  • The process includes the components.

  • The process includes the current architectural views.

  • The process includes future architectural views.

  • The process deals with the transition plan for going from “TO BE” and the “AS IS” architecture.

  • The process deals with threads that influence the enterprise architecture on all levels.

A Comparison of EA Frameworks

Zachman’s Framework

The foundation of the EA Framework is John Zachman’s Framework. It was originally based on an approach that it could be explained and dealt with as if you had to build an airplane or a house. The blueprint analogy was used to articulate the framework.

Zachman's Framework (According to Bernard)

Zachman's Framework (According to Bernard)

In general there is one single mistake that the Enterprise Architect can do when working with the Zachman framework and that is to focus too much on documentation. This is known as the “Zachman Trap”.

OIO IT Architecture Framework

The OIO framework (based on the white book on IT architecture) was developed for the Danish Ministry of Science. Its focus is on the Danish Public sector. The intention was to implement Enterprise Architecture to give the decision makers in the Public Sector a better foundation for how the single organizational entities operates.

From a management perspective the idea was to enable the public sector to standardize and centralize processes and decision making.

The OIO framework is based on the same paradigm as the EA 3 Cube by John Zachman.

Strategy Process.

The OIO-Framwork (The Two Main Processes).

As the illustrated above then there can be defined a governance process and a documentation process.

The two circles represent activities used to deal with updating and developing the architecture. The circle located in the bottom of the third illustration deals with the process of the “AS IS” and this is connected to the process of creating a vision, a business architecture, information architecture and the technical architecture.

The OIO-framework is often criticized for being to comprehensive and often the Enterprise Architects have to invest too much of their time to identify artifacts on various levels and organizing the artifacts according to the OIO-framework. Secondly it has been some time since the last edition of the framework was revised which might be an indicator for that the Danish Public sector is either static in its development or that the state plans to release a new edition of the framework or an entirely new framework. In the other hand the OIO-framework has an entire section dealing with defining and identifying architects which in my opinion is a strength by using the OIO-framework since it enables the Chief Enterprise Architect to communicate to the stakeholders who have what abilities, responsibilities and not to mention accountability during the Enterprise Architecture process.

The EA 3 Cube

The EA 3 Cube was developed in 2004. The Framework is designed as a cube and it is build upon the idea that hierarchies are needed to avoid sub-architectures (Bernard 2004, pp. 104 – 105).

According to Bernard then the business goals are the drivers of how the Enterprise Architecture is designed.

The EA 3 Cube is based on the primary function of organize and planning IT resources and documentation of the Enterprise Architecture. (Bernard 2004, p. 105).

The framework is build upon five levels and as before mentioned these are hierarchical to avoid sub-architectures.

The Five Layers of the EA 3 Cube

  1. Goals and Initiatives is as before mentioned the driving force of the Enterprise Architecture and therefore are these located in the top of the cube (as the first and primary layer).

  2. Products and services shows how Information Technology impacts the various products and services.

  3. Data and Information is used to document how the Enterprise makes use of information “AS IS” and how the information flow should be designed for future situations “TO BE”.

  4. Systems and Applications is used to organize and group the various information systems that give the organization its IS capabilities.

  5. Networks and Infrastructure deals with the so called backbone of the Enterprise Architecture and it includes how the networks interact and how various technologies interact such as VOIP and LAN, WAN etc.

The EA3 Cube.

The EA3 Cube.

Lines of Business (LOBs) that can be considered as a specific activity within the organization and all the have all the five layers of the architecture. The LOBs are named “Vertical Mission Areas”. The LOBs can have their own administration and functions that can be considered divisions within the divisionalized organization.

Crosscutting Components are established so the LOBs don’t create redundant features e.g., e-mail hosting and IT services.

Threads are defined as security, standards and workforce. These three threads go through each level of the framework.

Conclusion

These three frameworks are all located within the same paradigm and are therefore compatible with one another; however in some situations it will be better to choose the one of the frameworks over the other e.g., if analyzing an Enterprise Architecture for a public institution in Denmark then it recommendable to make use of the OIO-framework.

The frameworks have their strengthens and their weaknesses such as the Zachman framework that focus too much on documentation instead of changing the Enterprise Architecture from the “AS IS” stage to the “TO BE” stage. Likewise does the EA3 framework and the EA 3 Cube some benefits and advantages. E.g., is the EA3 Cube a rather simple framework and is therefore easily applied to small and medium sized organizations. In the other hand it tends to be a bit simple and generic which can end up being a disadvantage.

The Coherency Architect should therefore emphasize on choosing the right framework for the right situation and the right type of organization by using a SWOT – matrix or other form of matrix that can assist him or her with making the right choice.

Sources

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


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Enterprise Architecture, Frameworks, Methods, Opinion, Up in Time

The Enterprise Architecture Framework

6 05 2010

The Steps of the EA approach

There are defined 20 steps to establish the EA program according to the EA 3 Cube framework (Bernard 2005). The 20 steps have different importance in the four different phases which needs to be taken into consideration.

The first and thereby primary step is the establishment of the EA program. If the EA program isn’t established the organization will experience difficulties with improving its Enterprise Architecture.

The second phase deals with how the organization should define an methodology and the tools that are compatible with the EA approach (framework). If that is not in order then the EA program will not aggregate a proper view “AS IS” perspective.

The third phase deals with how the execution of the EA documentation program.

The fourth phase deals with how the EA program should be linked to the management and other kinds of management processes so the organization can generate the full advantage of the investment in the program.

Phase 1: Establishment of the EA Program

  1. Establishment of the EA Program and identifying the EA Chief Architect.

  2. Establish of the EA Methodology.

  3. Establish EA Governance and links to other management processes.

  4. Develop an EA communication plan to ensure EA stakeholder buy in.

The EA Program needs a person in charge to apply the right framework and the right tools and the person needs to be hold responsible and accountable. This means that the top management and management of the organization needs to buy in (#4). If they don’t buy in then the EA program will easily be detoured.

The EA program needs to be linked to other management processes so they can be coordinated and when they are coordinated they can become a greater asset for the organization. When the coordination has been established and the coordination has been applied then it might turn into a competitive advantage.

Phase 2: EA Framework and Tool Selection

  1. Select an EA documentation framework.

  2. Identify the EA lines of business (LOB) and cross cuts and the order of the documentation.

  3. Identify the EA components to be documented framework – wide.

  4. Select documentation methods appropriate to the EA framework.

  5. Select the software applications or tools to support the automated Enterprise Architecture documentation.

  6. Select and establish an online EA repository for documentation and analysis.

The documentation framework is frame for how the various elements have to be put into to create a systemic analysis. The analysis have to be focusing on identifying symptoms and finding the cure for the right problems within the organization.

The Enterprise Architecture should be documented so an “AS IS” is produced and used as a blueprint so management and the EA program chief architect can articulate a transition plan that can enable the organization to achieve its goals and thereby create the “TO BE” situation for the enterprise architecture.

Phase 3: Documentation of the Enterprise Architecture

  1. Evaluate existing business and technology documentation for the use in the Enterprise Architecture.

  2. Document the current views (AS IS) of the existing components in all frameworks areas (levels). Organize and store the artifacts in an online repository.

  3. Develop future business / technology operating scenarios.

  4. Identify future planning assumptions for each future scenario.

  5. Use the scenarios and other program / staff input to drive the documentation of future EA components in all EA framework areas. Store artifacts in the online repository.

  6. Develop an EA management plan to sequence the planned changes in the Enterprise Architecture.

The business and technology documentation is needed to create the “AS IS” since the EA consist of Business, strategy and technology and acts as a kind of governance tool for the organization.

The scenarios needs to deal with a positive scenario where everything stays the same and a scenario where things change and a scenario where everything goes down the drain (worst case scenario).

Involve the the staff to assist in making the documentation since many of them probably act as SMEs (Subject Matters Experts).

The EA management program needs to be the blueprint for changes that needs to be implemented in the enterprise architecture. This means that the program will have to be broken down to projects that can change the various components (and other elements of the enterprise architecture).

Phase 4: Use and Maintain the Enterprise Architecture

  1. Use EA – documentation to support planning making.

  2. Regularly updates current and future views of the EA components, and link information in the EA repository to create high – level and detailed perspectives of Enterprise Activities and resources in the current and in the future operating environment.

  3. Maintain EA repository and related EA modeling and analysis capabilities.

  4. Release annual updates to the EA management plan.

When working with the EA framework then it should be used to assist in the planning making (the transition plan) and not to mention that the methodology needs to be in place for the transition plan.

The EA repository needs to be maintained so every stakeholder in the organization can relate to the objects and terminology in the same way.

The EA management plan needs to be updated so it is matches the changes in the domain.

Sources

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


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Enterprise Architecture, Methods

The IT Strategy: An Articulation of the IT Strategy from a Coherency Architect’s Point of View.

22 02 2010

Articulation of the IT Strategy

The Coherency Architect needs to be able to deal with the IT strategy otherwise he or she will not be able to drive any value from the Enterprise Architecture. There are many approaches to how an IT strategy can be articulated and what the primary focus should be.

This blog post will deal with the approach Chris Potts have proposed in his book titled “FruITion”. Chriss Potts have proposed a bit controversial approach to IT strategy e.g., he focuses on other models and claim that when the organization manages its investments then the right portfolio of technology will be selected, likewise does he propose that the role of the CIO isn’t an imperative. In the novel Chris Potts suggest the title “CIIO” for Chief Internal Investment Officer.

The Coherency Architect can make use of the approach to challenge his or her own view on the strategy and thereby be able to produce better strategy.

It is notable that the book is organized around a novel that deals with a CIO that faces a situation where he can’t pin point what kind of value the IT department brings value to the organization.
Potts then write emphasize some observations that can be made on each of the chapters in the book.

The Strategy Articulation Process

This section is based on the definitions that Potts describes in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 13):

  1. Most robust strategies emphasize high value on its environmental feedback.

  2. Make sure the strategy is meaningful to the stakeholders of the strategy.

  3. Distinguish between the strategic level and the operational level thinking.

  4. Disinterest should never be understood as trust.

The following four statements are based on Potts’s “fruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 25):

  1. A document that contains the strategy is not the strategy.

  2. The language used to articulate a strategy shows the mindset of which the person who articulated made use of (or has).

  3. If the host organization (enterprise) has an IT strategy then it is necessary to include all of the Information Technology the organization (enterprise) makes use of.

  4. It is an imperative that the IT strategy has to summarized in one meaningful sentence; otherwise the strategy needs to be reworked.

  5. If the organization (enterprise) has an IT roadmap then it is imperative that the driver of the roadmap isn’t the suppliers but the tactical goals and strategies of the organization.

  6. If the CIO runs the IT department as an external business (weak links to the enterprise) then the enterprise will threat the IT department as such.

The following four statements are based on Potts’s “fruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 54):

  1. Shape the strategy by exploring why the company isn’t already fulfilling its promise.

  2. The CIO should validate who the promise is “talking about”.

  3. Build the strategy on a model that emphasize the customer and supplier perspective and never the “Business and IT” perspective. The over all reason for this is that the organization and IT department is one and the same.

The following four statements are based on Potts’s “fruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 204):

  1. If the organization manages its investments well then it is likely that the most appropriate technology will be selected.

  2. The organization should assign an executive accountability for maximizing the total value the company creates by its internal investments in change.

This leads to the Alignment phase.

The Alignment Phase

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.34):

  1. Never under estimate the pace (of change) of the Corporate Strategy.

  2. The strategy has to be compatible that stakeholders change their minds.

  3. Build the IT strategy on a promise and not on aims.

  4. If the IT strategy is organized around solving a particular problem, then it is a necessity that the IT strategy solves the problem.

  5. Are the persons who develops and articulates the strategy (strategists) game players?

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 44):

  1. If the business side of the organization perceives the IT department as an external supplier then it is likely that the IT department and the CIO can’t influence the corporate strategy.

  2. Different kinds of strategies needs different kinds of strategists.

  3. The CIO should know his relative strengths and weaknesses when it comes to analysis and synthesis. In a strategy it is the synthesis part that is the most important thing to handle.

  4. If the IT department or organization (enterprise) have issues with identifying what value the IT brings to the organization then it is likely that the organization (enterprise) experience wider business related problems.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 61):

  1. A corporate strategy that is focused on exploiting IT is focused on value, money and organization. The corporate strategy is not focusing on technology.

  2. The directors of a company is an independent community that adds value to the company.

  3. Value is defined as a portfolio of measures and types.

  4. The “business side” of an organization will in many cases assume the money the enterprise is spending on IT is a random number.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.124):

  1. Each stakeholder in a strategy has something distinctive to offer.

  2. Language and communications are critical to a strategies success.

  3. The concept of theoretical, practical and abstraction depends on the audience. The strategy should be articulated and aligned to the audience.

  4. People in organizations develops the projects rather fine but they tend not to make the most out of the projects when the projects have been implemented.

This leads to the value adding phase.

The Value Adding Phase

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 70):

  1. Many relationships are based on perceptions and high profile characteristics.

  2. The business side of the organization expects service and therefore should service levels between the IT department as a supplier and the customers be negotiated and incorporated into the strategy.

  3. The corporate strategy is about numbers. The focus of the IT strategy should be the same.

  4. Often there is a gap between those in the enterprise who adds value and those who spends the value. Is that also the case for the IT strategy?

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p. 159):

  1. The CIO (or the Coherency Architect) should make use of color coding to distinguish the business investments from the IT investments.

  2. The CIO (or the Coherency Architect) should prove that looking and managing the IT investment as something apart from the business investment isn’t sufficient.

  3. The CIO (or the Coherency Architect) should show that the strategic projects aren’t necessary those projects that aggregate the highest ROI.

  4. Explorer the cause and effect with of IT investments and business investements.

This leads to the change management phase.

The Change Management Phase

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.72):

  1. When changes occur (as it will with the implementation of a new strategy) then the change process will also impact the employees (and managers) personal life.

  2. Numbers is a dispassionate way to analyze the strategic landscape with. It should include what the CIO and the enterprise knows and doesn’t know.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.81):

  1. The IT strategy has to be articulated in an iterative approach.

  2. Look at the numbers in the budget and evaluate if they speak for themselves.

  3. The CIO (or the Coherency Architect) has to explore how the company budgets , manages, and measures business change that comes through IT related projects.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.175):

  1. The CIO (or Coherency Architect) has to cause other people to change.

  2. The CIO should know what he would die in the ditch for.

  3. The business side of the organization often experience the IT side of the organization as being “promising a lot and never keeps the promises and it doesn’t care about the business side”.

  4. 100% alignment among strategies can be dangerous and it occurs rarely that the strategies are 100% aligned.

  5. The future role of the CIO is not assured.

  6. The CIO or Coherency Architect has to understand that there are competencies else where in the enterprise that is in duplication of the those competencies that are in the IT department.

  7. The new strategy for IT demands a new operation model.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.180):

  1. Strategists deal only in success and so should the CIO and the Coherency Architect.

  2. It can be hard for the CIO and the Coherency Architect to challenge the orthodoxies of the organization.

  3. If the CIO will not cross the bridge then let someone else take care of the investments.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.182):

  1. Leading strategy can be a lonely job.

  2. The over all focus of a strategy is about winning. If the CIO or the Coherency Architect is not committed 100% to achieving the strategy then it is not really a strategy.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.191):

  1. Set down your Promise, Principles and Tactics for the key stakeholders to explore and ratify.

  2. The stakeholders wants to see the combination of ideas in relation to the organizational system.

  3. The strategy can look like the obvious but it is important that the CIO or Coherency Architect emphasize that the strategy isn’t applied.

  4. The CIO or Coherency Architect should test the best practice of the industry.

  5. The strategy is what the CIO or Coherency Architect does (de facto strategy).

This leads to the implementation phase.

The Implementation Phase

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.96):

  1. Use the “Promise, Principles and Tactics” framework while the strategy is in the articulation process and when it is about to become executed.

  2. The “Promise and Principles are the stabile core of the strategy. Tactics are more fluent or adaptable when it comes to events.

  3. Address each of the stakeholders individually (preferable personally) before the stakeholders are addressed as a group.

  4. Lead the execution of a strategy don’t manage it.

  5. When it comes to the investigation of IT investments then start with identifying value and then work backwards. When using a spreadsheet then the focus should be on columns and not on rows. This should help create the overview that is needed (according to Potts).

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.103):

  1. The strategist (CIO) is the embodiment of the strategy.

  2. Organize the collaboration around one set of numbers and strategic themes; however each person who works with the strategy should be given the opportunity to have an influence on that part of the strategy that they work with.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.115):

  1. A relationship is owned by two people.

  2. Experimenting with the numbers (in the budget) can uncover a new understanding of the problem.

  3. The CIO (or Coherency Architect) should make use of a bottom up value portfolio.

  4. The CIO (or the Coherency Architect) should evaluate the investment strategy to sparkle a discussion on what priorities the organization (enterprise) has.

  5. The Coherency Architect should be focusing on the exposing the scenarios for what will happen if the investment strategy is changed.

This section is based on the definitions that Potts deals with in his work “FruITion” (Potts 2008, p.134):

  1. Strategy is essential about options and opportunities and it is not about being right.

  2. Take the lessons for what didn’t work as expected.

  3. The relationships that people builds are influenced of previous events and relationships.

  4. Look for the subtleties in the responses of the stakeholders.

Types of Managers

Potts presents the model (illustration 1) that serves as a compass for characterizing managers within the organization. Note it is a compass and most managers aren’t purely technical, purely operational, purely environmental or for that matter purely organizational.

Pott's View on Managers

Potts's View on Managers.

The operational manager focuses on execution and internal processes.

The environmental manager focuses on how the strategy’s external context.

The technical manager focuses on specifications, technologies and products/services etc.

The organizational manager focuses on organization models, cultures, structure, internal politics and sourcing.

That leads to the conclusion.

Conclusion

The Coherency Architect should be aware of that there are various ways to develop and articulate an IT strategy. Potts approach is rather clear and can in many ways be considered as a practical approach to articulate an IT strategy. Potts approach can be considered an alternative approach to IT strategy and it can be used to challenge the “industry orthodoxies” which in itself can create a competitive advantage.

The Coherency Architect has to understand how an IT strategy is and how the artifact can be produced if it doesn’t exist in an enterprise already and that makes the concept of the IUT strategy rather important to understand and challenge.

Sources

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

Download the paper her (articulation_of_the_IT_strateg.).


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags:
Categories : Alignment, IT Alignment, IT Strategy, Methods, Up in Time

The New Age of Management: The Focus on Coherency Management!

16 01 2010

The Development of the Organizations:

As you know that the organizations have evolved over time from once in the 19th century where the organizations (companies etc.) where small and insufficient. The organizations in the United States were of the size of 1 – 4 employees who were not selected on their ability but through their social network.

The 20th century formed organizations and created tendencies and pressures in the market that demanded that the organizations had to adapt to create the goods of a high quality for a low price so new markets could be reached. The 20th century introduced a scientific approach to management which was introduced by Frederick W. Taylor. This approach led to the creation of Taylorism and the core principle of Taylorism was to eliminate ineffective work processes.

This led to the construction of a management paradigm which has led to the foundation of the current management approach for the organizations.

Today we see organizations that are multinational or global and these have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of employees e.g., International Business Machines, Ford Motors, Microsoft, Google etc.

All of these works with a specific organizational design typically these have been hierarchical and this has led to specialization, productions increase, profit maximization etc.; however since the end of the production economy by this I mean the economy which was dominated by companies that produced physical products e.g., Cars (Ford). The Western economies evolved from focusing on physical products into providing services and later to focus on how to produce knowledge. The knowledge economy is characterized by the employees are those who are the asset. Their knowledge is the asset which is used to create products and services; however the products and the services are normally produced or provided by a different company in the third world e.g., India, China, Vietnam or Indonesia. Since the employees are the most valued asset then the goal is to make sure that the employees don’t leave the organization and enable them to create more creative and sustainable solutions of which the organization will be able to capitalize on.

This leads us to the evolution of the concept of management.

The Evolution of Management:

Management is defined as:

“Management is the art to getting things done through people” – Mary Parker Follet (Barret 2003, p. 51).

Management has evolved over time like the organizations. There have been several views on how to manage organizations; however this blog post will only deal with what a Coherency Architect should conclude to be relevant.

As mentioned before then there are the first form of structured management is the Taylorism (as mentioned under Scientific Management). This form of management insufficient in the knowledge economy since knowledge workers needs other forms of stimulation than monetary incentives and written orders to perform.

Naturally there was a reaction to the Taylorist approach. This happened when the Japanese companies introduced cheaper products and of superior qualitative which meant that the Western companies had evaluate the way they managed and motivated their employees.

Since the 1970s have the Western companies in one way or the other tried to imitate Japanese companies by developing management and quality systems like Six Sigma, LEAN and Toyota Production System. The reason for why the Western companies haven’t been successful is that they so far have simplified the systemic approach the Japanese makes use of.

The Japanese have a very different approach than Western companies when it comes to management and motivation. First of all the Japanese companies make use of a bottom up approach when it comes to how the organization articulate and implement their strategies. Second of all the Japanese companies have been known for motivating their employees by making them proud of their work and putting an honor in quality. Third of all the Japanese companies are known for lifetime employment which means that they commit themselves to keep the employees employed and as a result of this they expect a higher degree of loyalty and commitment.

The IT waves in the 90s and early 2000s led to leadership and motivation; however to many organizations (typically IT related organizations) didn’t realize how to enable more productivity or for that matter crystallize better products by applying the new forms of leadership. As a result of that many of the organizations failed to survive the IT bobble which proved that to many organizations didn’t have the appeal of the market to survive or they simply didn’t understand their Enterprise Architecture. If these organizations had understood their Enterprise Architecture then a lot of them would have been able to scale the need of their consumption of resources and as result they would have survived.

The new paradigm is that the employees are the asset of the organizations and these should be encouraged to enable them to develop their own products.

Coherency Management:

All organizations have an architecture regardless if members of the organizations are aware of it or not (Doucet et al.).

Coherency Management then deals with how the organization can gain advantages by using Enterprise Architecture. This is done by maturing the organization by diffusing the knowledge of Coherency Management and the by applying the tools from Enterprise Architecture to other parts of the organization. This diffusion needs to be build upon the idea that these have to be embedded in the business processes and continuously be applied with the maturity of the Enterprise Architecture.

In many ways the concept of Enterprise Architecture is based on the same paradigm as the management systems of the 20th century which is defined as structuralism and according to Doucet (Doucet et al., 2009) Coherency Management and the underlying tools such as Enterprise Architecture are typically defused by the IT department to the rest of the organization. This is typically done by the Chief Information Officer who anchor the paradigm in the middle and top management of the organization and gives the members of the IT department the “necessary protection” to enable change within the organization.

Therefore it is safe to assume that the Coherency Management approach will lead to a top down approach as it was the case for many other Western styled organizations. This might lead to the conclusion that Coherency Management in some way will be in a different paradigm than those tools which are suggested by Gary Hamel. However Coherency Management do also have elements which needs to be diffused via the bottom up approach and it has to be embedded into the organizational culture and employees with many different backgrounds have to apply their own views onto the concepts of Enterprise Architecture.

When this come to the consideration of Coherency Management then the drive to implement the concepts of Coherency Management and Enterprise Architecture is defining what paradigm to make use of. If Coherency Management is build upon the idea that the employees should help define the framework and tools the Coherency Management Office will apply in the various processes in the organization. In the other hand quite a few people are scared of change and change anchored in the hands of employees won’t necessary led to change or innovation like Henry Ford mentions in relation the innovation of the mass produced car: “If I had asked them then they would have asked for faster horses”. Therefore should the Coherency Architect keep in mind that the only way to enable change in an organization is to influence the organization culture. The culture can be changed in many ways by the tools of many different paradigms.

In this article I will however only deal with a few frameworks for change.

The first framework is the structuralist approach which where Kotter’s framework will fit into. John P. Kotter presents in his article “Why Change Fails” and this could be supplemented by Kurt Lewin’s unfreeze, move and freeze approach.

The second framework is the interpretive paradigm where the organization constructs some form of “internal” economy where the members of the organization can influence the projects which the organizations initiates. This is done by establishing a form of stock exchange where all the members can invest a fictional amount of company-money to found the projects.

The organizations that adapt this framework needs a strong Enterprise Architecture and move towards Coherency Management; otherwise will the entire change effort be in wane.

The third framework is based on the idea that the employees themselves should be able to choose their leaders and regulate their own production schedules etc.. This kind of coordination needs like the second framework a strong focus on their Enterprise Architecture and thereby also on Coherency Management to assist the employees and the management with keeping the organization on track.

The New Age of Management: A Focus on Coherency Management!$


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Alignment, Architecture Maturity, Enterprise Architecture, Methods

The Case study Method: From a Coherency Architect’s Point of View

28 12 2009

Why this method is Important

The Coherency Architect should consider the case study method an important tool since the Architect has to investigate the organization or organizations they work with to investigate and uncover problems that needs to be solved before the organization can continue with it plans to achieve its goals.

The Case Study Method gives the Coherency Architect tools which can assist him or her with identifying the problems and articulate the right solutions for the right problems.

Therefore will the Case Study Method be presented and dealt with in this particular blog post. Please note that you can download a compendium dealing with the case study method (The Case Study Method from a Coherency Architect’s Point of View).

The First Step

According to Robert K. Yin there are logical steps the investigator (in our case the Coherency Architect) should deal with in a particular order

The Coherency Architect should articulate a problem statement. The problem statement should primarily deal with how, what, who and why questions which need explanations. The Coherency Architect should know how to articulate an academic problem statement since it is presumed that the Coherency Architect has attended a business school an University related education.

Then the second step follows.

The Second Step

This step deals with how the Coherency Architect designs the case study. The case study can be designed various form of collecting data and different forms of analyzing them. When it comes to the Coherency Architect will work with both qualitative data and quantitative data when he or she is about to study an organization.

There several forms of case studies which the Coherency Architect can choose to work with. The first one is called explanatory case study, the explorative case study and the causal case study.

The explanatory case study used to explain a phenomena or tendency. The causal case study is used to identify what kind of decisions or processes that led to the outcome of the situation e.g., why the organization developed as it did and who were in charge of it. The third is known as the explorative case study which is used to (as the name indicates) to explorer if a hypothesis is sound.

It is important that the Coherency Architect understand the theory which he or she is about to apply to the case study otherwise the design will fail. Therefore should the Coherency Architect work with this particular issue before he or she starts the procedure at this step.

Yin are of the opinion that there are two types of case studies. The first one is known as the single case study and is the most commonly known; however the second kind of case study called the multiple case study is more rare but it is easier to generalize the findings of them.

Thereto are there two forms of case studies. The first kind of case study is known in education where the investigator (in our case the Architect) doesn’t need to stay objective to the evidence (data) which he or she has collected. The other case is the scientific case study where the investigator has to stay object and critical towards the evidence (data) he or she has collected. The Coherency Architect will most likely work with the scientific case.

When it comes to scientific case study then it is important to emphasize that the Coherency Architect has to put extra attention to:

  1. Construct Validity deals with identifying the right operational measures for the concepts that are being studied. In the case of science then case studies have been associated difficulty when it deals with operationalize the measure and the measure often are biased since the findings are based on personal judgement.

  2. Internal Validity deals with establishing casual relationships where certain conditions are believed to lead to other relationships than spurious1 relationships. Please note that this particular approach is only for explanatory and casual studies and can’t be applied for other kinds of case studies.

  3. External Validity deals with identifying how the domain (the findings of the case study) can be generalized. This means how can the findings be applied in other organizations than the case study.

  4. Reliability deals with how the findings can be replicated in other studies. The major concern is that the findings are airtight and aren’t flawed and the findings therefore are biased or non-scientific.

This leads us to the third step.

The Third Step

This step deals with the preparation of the data collection and what the Coherency Architect should do before he or she begins the data collection.

First of all should the Coherency Architect focus on developing the right contacts to those persons he or she needs to interview to get the right information on e.g., how the work systems functions. However the Coherency Architect might also make use of quantitative data such as statics or other data which can be collected this way.

The Coherency Architect should be aware of that the establishing the right contacts is more important than the theory establishing part when it comes to the data collection since if the Coherency Architect can’t collect the right data that support his or her’s hypothesis then the outcome of the case study might end up being biased and therefore not useable for any one.

The Coherency Architect should focus on establishing a case study protocol which consist of the data collection protocol which includes the questions the Coherency Architect will be asking the interviewee. The Coherency Architect should also include an outline of the report which should be the case study. The case study protocol is build upon the idea that the Coherency Architect can make use of it to stay on track.

It is notable that the Coherency Architect should create an evidence database. The database should contain the data the Coherency Architect has uncovered so a chain of evidence can be established.

The Fourth Step

This step deals with the data collection phase. It is notable that the Coherency Architect will have to work with all six data forms which Yin mention in his book (see sources).

Interviews, documentation, records from archives and physical artifacts.

It is important that the Coherency Architect has to choose the sources with a critical point of view since the collected data might lead to a biased analysis and therefore to a biased view. The Coherency Architect should therefore try to combine multiple sources to achieve something that can assist the Coherency Architect to establish an overview of the case organization and how to identify the various layers with out being in the situation that he or she will be focusing on problems that proves to have minimal impact on the various layers of the organization.

The Fifth Step

This step deals with analyzing the data (evidence) the Coherency Architect has collected. Yin is of the states that there are four general strategies:

The Theoretical Propositions Strategy

This is the most common used strategy. The strategy deals with using the techniques, tools and world view the theory the architect has made use of in design his or her questions of which were made use of while the architect collected his data

Developing a Case Description

If the architect experience problems with applying the first mentioned strategy then the development of a case description might be preferable. This strategy is an alternative to the theoretical propositions strategy and when applied it is often considered as evidence for that the initial case questions weren’t based on theory.

Applying Quantitative and Qualitative Data

This strategy can prove to become an advantage for the architect if he or she is experienced with the case study technique. Yin is of the opinion that the quantitative data if the quantitative data has to cover behavior or events that the case study is trying to explain and second the data has to cover an embedded unit that can be related to the analysis.

Examining Rival Explanations

The fourth and last strategy deals with examining other explanations or theories of how the evidence in the case is related and interlinked. When the rival explanations are examined then it can uncover flaws in the evidence or uncover new relations.

Then there are five different analytical tools that can be applied the case study evidence:

Pattern Matching

The pattern matching approach deals with identifying patterns in the evidence (data) the architect has collect through his study of a phenomenon, organization or other. Yin are pf the opinion that simple patterns can also be uncovered and applied.

Explanation Building

This form of analysis deals with creating causal links among the various forms of evidence and by that explaining what happened and why.

Time – Series Analysis

According to Yin there are there two different approaches to time series analysis. The simple time series analysis and the complex time series analysis.

The simple time share analysis is based how the case organization has developed over time. Normally the simple share analysis is like applying the pattern matching.

Logic Models

Establishing a logical model explaining how the evidence is linked (the chain of evidence). The logical model has to explain the evidence and create casual links.

Cross Case Synthesis

This form of data analysis is suitable for studies that contain more than one case organization.

Sources

Yin, R.K., 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods Fourth., SAGE Publications Inc.

1Defined as not to have a purpose.

Download:

Download this paper (The Case Study Method from a Coherency Architect’s Point of View).


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Frameworks, Methods, Organization