Category Archives: Up in Time

The Architecture Crystal Ball: Predictions for 2012

Posted on by
Reply

I have had the opportunity to read several documents containing estimations on what the chief architects and CIOs should expect of the concept of Enterprise Architecture in 2012.

As a result I have made some thoughts of my own, and my thoughts have been delimited to what could happen in Scandinavia. There are reasons for when or where the organization should develop.

Most of the articles that I have read in order to identify the potential development of Enterprise Architecture in 2012 were developed by American organizations and my assumption is that American organizations usually apply an American approach to dealing with problems at hand, and as a result my view might differ quite a bit from the trend analysis that organizations like IBM, Gartner Incorporated, The Open Group, Microsoft or other organizations might have articulated.

Below I have defined four areas that organizations will invest their resources into.

Frameworks and Models

  • CIOs, it-management and the chief architect have discovered that it is unlikely that they will gain a total overview of all systems available in the enterprise and they will focus on developing a few key models.

  • The chief architects will continue investing time and effort into deployment of frameworks, but the chief architects would still have to mix “best of breed” from the frameworks in order to implement the enterprise architecture program.

Investments Planning and Governance

  • Medium and major organizations will begin to add their IT investments to their Enterprise Architecture models, since it is presumable that this would add value to the decision platforms.

  • The investment planning will still be focused on the IT-spending and only to some degree on how information technology takes part of add value to the business.

Technology Foresight

  • The Enterprise Architecture programs will still be IT-centric; however the structured methodology for collecting data about the enterprise architecture will provide the chief architects with the opportunity to impact the IT – strategy, and as such they could have a chance to evolve the enterprise architecture program.

  • The Enterprise Architecture programs will be used in order to define strategic approaches to what sort of technologies that make sense to invest in. As such the chief architect can gain a leading role in articulating the it-strategy. In order to do so the chief architect would enable a platform where realistic scenarios for implementing technology in order to give the decision-makers a realistic insight on what they would have to deal with.

  • The debt and credit crisis will in 2012 impact the organizations in a way that increases the demand for a smarter usage of the information systems and technology platforms available. The smarter usage of information systems demands an approach to information governance and reliable information.

Principles, Standards and Methodology

  • Organizations will find out that without principles for how to deal with different perspectives of developing their IT architecture, they will not be able to enforce the desired behavior. As a result organizations will invest more time in articulating principles.

  • EA assurance for the IT architecture will be a hot topic during 2012, and the organizations will eventually initiate projects that will focus on the articulation of principles based upon criteria like when does the principle apply, when can the developers differ from the principles, when should the principle be updated and who is responsible for updating the standard?

  • Standardization will likewise become a dominant topic, and many organizations will initiate projects that supports the development of it-projects enhances customer experience (platform independent and mobile). Management of standards are vital in order to ensure the development of these projects since it it is vital to ensure the data export of data.

Conclusion

Due to the crisis most organizations tries to reduce costs and deliver a better value proposition to its customers. Most organizations can save money through standardization of the their IT-architecture; however the decision-makers would have to know how to deal with gaining information of how the IT-architecture works, how it can be simplified (enhancing speed of development) and how it can be closer aligned with the business processes.

For this, enterprise architecture is essential and that is how I see the usage of enterprise architecture in Scandinavia in year 2012.

Week 22 Enterprise Architecture Summer Camp (Day 2)

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Week 22 Enterprise Architecture Summer Camp

Posted on by
Reply

This blog post deals with first day at the summer camp for Enterprise Architecture in Week 22 that was held in Denmark at the IT University of Copenhagen. The participants were mostly students. The tagline for this event is “Scandinavian Design and Oblique Angles”. The summer school had five keynotes that mainly dealt with how Enterprise Architecture could be applied under various conditions like everything from contract negotiations to Enterprise Architecture in the arctic circle to the concept of developing models for an Enterprise Architecture program.

The Agile Standard Contract

Kasper Hoegsberg, a student at the e-business line at the IT University of Copenhagen, presented his views on how the public standard contract for IT purchases could be updated.

His reasons to start investigating with standard contracts are based on that the new project models are with in the sphere agile development which is a change from the old approach to the contracts that emphasized the old waterfall model. While conducting his project he found out that the current approach for developing a contract was to fill out 10 documents before the contract could be considered value.

According to Kasper Hoegsberg the Danish National IT and Telecom Agency tried to combine the waterfall approach and the agile approach to develop a system that doesn’t seem that particular smart. Hoegsberg referred to the British DSDM – Aterm contract framework and the Norwegian agile standard contract PS-2000 as examples that in his opinion could outmatch the current approach that the Danish National IT and Telecom Agency has applied.

According to Hoegsberg the focus of the Norwegian contract doesn’t include a particular methodology and as such only includes an agile contract.

In his opinion further studies on how to make better contracts for development and delivery can be developed.

Complexity and Enterprise Architecture

Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin presented some of observations he had made during the time he worked with his master thesis. The presentation had the tagline “Complexity in Development of Models for Enterprise Architecture”. In the presentation Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin explained the concept of complexity, Enterprise Architecture, knowledge management and the mad scientist syndrome.

The focus that Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin applied was that repositories, process models and a like are only representations of reality. The ideas presented in the presentation was based on the concept that the students and later on the future Enterprise Architects should thinking that social-constructivist paradigm might aid them with the investigation of how the various stakeholders in the enterprises thinks and acts.

  • Probe your view of the things.
  • Act upon the stakeholders suggestions.
  • Keep your models simple, you shouldn’t assume that your models or repositories can be understood by all of the stakeholders.
  • Models can’t contain reality. Models are just simplified representations of how the world works.

Value Estimation of Enterprise Architecture

Mikkel S. Holst and Tue W. Steensen works with their master thesis that deals with the value estimation of Enterprise Architecture. Their hypothesis is “How Enterprise Architecture becomes successful” and as such they base that further three hypothesis on how the Enterprise Architecture program can be aligned with the corporate strategy and corporate process.

Their theoretical approach to their master thesis has been based on Ross & Weill, Hoogervorst, Kaplan and Norton and many others.

Their master thesis includes three cases studies that the two students are conducting. Two of the case studies are within the public sector and one is the private sector.

In their approach to explore the value of Enterprise Architecture the students have made use of an article by Toomas Tamm et al. from 2011.

John Gotze advised the students to investigate how to “show the value” of the Enterprise Architecture program and how this impacts the organization. The two students plan to hand in their master thesis in August 2011.

Systems Thinking for Health – IT

The two students Linda Praestholm and Rasmus Frost have a loosely coupled approach to collaboration on the topic systems thinking in the public sector, or what is to be known as “Health – IT”.

The two students chose to work with the National Electronic Patient Journal systems and how these where implemented in the capital region of Denmark.

According to Linda Praestholm who have worked with Enterprise Architecture from a positivistic approach and she has come to conclusion that EA is a driver for making rational decisions, being more effective and effectiveness. As such these are the goals for the management and governance method for the enterprise.

Their investigation have included the Hilleroed Hospital, The Kingdom Hospital (Rigshospitalet) and Bisbebjerg Hospital. Their approach to Enterprise Architecture has mainly been based on that the various hospitals should have implemented new business processes in order to achieve some synergies with IT.

Soeren Duus advised the students to investigate what particular perspective to put onto their ideas of what Enterprise Architecture is all about and how it has been applied, or how it could be applied in order to achieve some of the goals that the regions have defined for the various hospitals.

Enterprise Architecture on Greenland (Arctic Architecture)

The three students Lars C. Meden, Soeren Tams and Fredrik Krog have visited Greenland in order to collect data on how to deal with the concept of Enterprise Architecture in a country that is significantly different from the industrialized part of the world. The focus of their thesis has been on how to improve the service the public sector provides to the population on Greenland.

The situation on Greenland includes the focus on few resources e.g., few employees and economy, a big diversity between the organizations and a big IT architecture related diversity.

According to the three students the autonomous government of Greenland should have the resources to implement a functional approach to Enterprise Architecture.

One of the challenges in governing Greenland is that it very expensive for the population to travel from one part of Greenland to the other, and likewise does it make communication among the various local authorities rather difficult. As a result of this the autonomous government of Greenland has started a process of implementing video conferencing.

The students focused on how to deal with the municipalities of Greenland and how their particular strategies could be dealt with through applying Enterprise Architecture.

Another barrier for implementation of Enterprise Architecture on Greenland is the lack of a competent local workforce. If the public sector on Greenland has to be able to identify how the various artifacts and as such it doesn’t seem like the local workforce have access to the particular education, or training in the moment. The three students questioned the suitability of implementing an Enterprise Architecture program across the various organizations in the Greenlandic public sector due to the resistance among the local organizations, that might feel that their independence is threatened by a centralized approach to Enterprise Architecture.

The IGIA-Framework

Posted on by
1

During the summer of 2010 I worked with a literature review that basically dealt with how Enterprise Architecture (through Coherency Management) could be addressing the issue of rewiring the form of leadership which exists in the enterprise.

The IGIA-Framework is a form of synthesis of various theories within the field of corporate governance, IT strategy, IT governance, Workforce planning, Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management.

The edition of the framework that is released with this blog post is advocating a big bang change approach which demands a lot of resources and a long term commitment. This will be altered with the next edition of the framework which I plan to release during 2011.

The IGIA-Framework needs to address the short turn achievements while using Enterprise Architecture and Coherency Management, and for that reason should the IGIA-Framework be evaluated and developed into a framework that can enable enterprises with gaining a better form of leadership, structure, architecture and not to forget a chance to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.

With these words I publish “Integrated Governance: A Way to Achieve Competitive Advantage” the certified edition.

Download the literature review / IGIA – Framework here

Enterprise Architecture is more than IT

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Can IT Make a Competitive Difference: From a Coherency Architect’s Point of View.

Posted on by
Reply

The Introduction

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee has written the paper “Investing in the IT That Makes a Competitive Difference” that was published in 2007 in by Harvard Business Review. The paper deals with how enterprises deals with competition in the United States. McAfee & Brynjolfsson argues that most enterprises are in state of hard competition and it will increasingly become more difficult to deal with the competition. They claim that they have found a collaboration between the investment in IT and the way enterprises are able to manage competition.

Premises of the Paper

The first premise of investing in IT that makes a competitive advantage is that the authors claims that the enterprise can gain a competitive advantage through investing in IT. The authors are of the opinion, that they can conclude that investments in IT can create competitive advantages from statistics.
McAfee & Brynjolfsson concludes that many industries experience though (almost perfect) competition. This form of competition has lead to a focus on operational efficiency where IT has become a key factor to achieve operational efficiency. This argument can be supported by Ross & Weill and their research into achieving competitive advantages through IT governance and IT strategies. McAfee & Brynjolfsson works with data that suggest that IT intensive companies can generate more value through governing their IT assets and applying IT to re-build their business processes.

“The firm with the best processes will win in most of the all markets. At the same time, competitors will be able to strike back much more quickly: Instead of simply copying the first mover, they will introduce further IT-based innovations [...]”

- McAfee & Brynjolfsson (2007), p. 6.

The authors suggest that there are six elements of the successful IT – enabled process. The first element is that it cover a wide span, the process produce results immediately, the process is precise, the process is consistent, the process makes monitoring easy and last but not least the process has embedded enforceability.
The three companies that McAfee and Brynjolfsson put their attention is on Cisco Systems, Otis (the elevator company), and CVS.
What is the common key for the three companies is that they make use of enterprise wide systems to somehow revolutionize and optimize their business processes. I believe that Harmon entitled this “obliteration of processes” which suggests that the business processes could be re-invented along side the addition of Information Technology. This would lead to that the true benefits of Enterprise Architecture can be reached.
The two authors then discuss two different approaches to enabling the IT processes. The first one is the “Top Down approach” and the second approach is the “Bottom Up approach”.
According to McAfee & Brynjolfsson then the authors makes use of the CVS as a case. They claim that while the enterprise made use of highly centralized systems then some discontent employees (they where discontent with the service the IT department provided for their Macs). The employees created a Wikipedia where they wrote articles on how to overcome the obstacles they experienced when they made use of their macs in the enterprise.
The later example was an example of a decentralized service.

Criticism

The article suggests that IT savvy enterprises do often perform better than enterprises that aren’t. This is in line with the MIT approach to IT strategy that McAfee, Brynjolfsson, Ross & Weill are working with. The role of IT needs to be addressed compared to organizational culture, the employees and their capabilities and their focus on adding value for the enterprise.
The classical anti-thesis to the MIT approach is Carr’s view of investments in Information Technology. Carr is of the impression that the investment in IT often leads to quite an opposite of what the intention was. Carr argues that when enterprises invest in IT then they often over emphasize the cost reduction.
The reductions are then re-invested into lower prices which is easily matched by a company that are in an industry that experience perfect competition.
Carr suggests that enterprises should follow other enterprises when it comes to the usage and investment in IT, likewise should the enterprises focus on risk instead of potential (innovate when the risks are low) and last should the enterprise invest less in IT.

Competitive Advantage

When it comes to competitive advantage then Porter (1998) suggests that the enterprise can’t achieve competitive advantages through focusing on operational efficiency. The enterprise has to focus on innovation to enable positioning the products the enterprise produces in a different way. Through positioning then competitive advantage should be enabled.
Likewise does Porter (1998) suggest that the enterprise has to be enable several processes to enable a sustainable competitive advantage.
Carr (2004) argues that Information Technology only leads to short term competitive advantages and is therefore not desirable to invest in. Instead should the enterprise focus its attention to work with several non-IT related competencies and eventually apply IT support them or re-invent them.
Patrick Turner (2010) suggests that IT needs a strong governance to become an enabler.

“When giving a high profile IT project to a junior project manager is like giving a teenager a rather powerful racing car, he will eventually crash it into a tree.”

- Patrick Turner

Ross & Weill (2009) suggests that Information Technology is only good for two specific things. Standardization that deals with the standardization of data and then integration which deals with information sharing through the entire process.

Reflection

McAfee & Brynjolfsson suggests that IT can make a strategic advantage (competitive advantage), if the enterprise understands to invest in the right IT and re-thinking its processes(the IT that makes a competitive advantage). However many other theoreticians suggest that operational efficiency which investments in IT can be identified as isn’t a strategy or for that matter a strategic enabler. The enterprise needs to invest in business processes and re-invent the processes when it makes sense for the enterprise to do so. McAfee & Brynjolfsson suggests that the schumpeterian competition that many enterprises have experienced in the U.S.
IT might become an enabler for most enterprises if they re-think their business processes by adding IT when it makes sense. McAfee & Brynjolfsson suggests that IT can be an innovation enabler since the enterprise IT can give technical assistance to support the employees.

Appendix

Carr, N.G., 2004. Does IT Matter?: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business School Press.
McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2007, Harvard Business Review.
Porter, M.E., On Competition, Harvard Business Review, Boston, 1998, p.40-42.
Turner, P., 2010, On IT strategies, Enterprise Architecture Summer Camp.
Weill, P. & Ross, J., 2009. IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain, Harvard Business School Press.

Download the paper here.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

The SWOT analysis

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

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

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

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

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

SWOT - analysis.

SWOT - analysis.

An Example

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

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

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

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

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

SWOT - Analysis Example

SWOT - Analysis Example

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

Conclusion and Discussion

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

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

Download the paper here.

Economic Benefits of Enterprise Architecture: The Coherency Architect’s Economic Toolset.

Posted on by
Reply

Why Economic Estimation is Necessary

When the Coherency Architect is working with implementing and maturing the Enterprise Architecture then he has to convince various stakeholders on to investing in the transition from the existing Enterprise Architecture maturity level to the new level (“TO BE”).

For this the Coherency Architect has to create a stakeholder communication plan where he or she will need to involve the stakeholders and win the over to invest in the change.

“Enterprise Architecture is about people” – Chris Potts, IT University of Copenhagen 2010.

The communication has to be based on the stakeholder analysis which means that the various stakeholders have different needs for information and they need different ways to be informed about the Enterprise Architecture program.

Likewise have the various stakeholders various ways to react on the information and they have various means to influence the decisions and the over all commitment to the Enterprise Architecture transition plan.

To identify and manage the stakeholders then the Coherency Architect should brainstorm and note all the stakeholders (individuals and organizations) who can have an influence on the project.

An example of a brainstorm is in the illustration below:

Stakeholder Brainstorm

Stakeholder Brainstorm.

Then the stakeholders have to be categorized into their influence on the EA transformation program (Transition Plan) and how likely it is that they will make use of their influence to support (and implement) the transformation program or sabotage the transformation program.

Stakeholder Matrix

Stakeholder Matrix.

When the segmentation of the stakeholders is done then the Coherency Architect can identify what kind of Key Performance Indicators that can be applied. The KPIs should be used to communicate the value of the Enterprise Architecture and the Enterprise Architecture Program.

Questions the Coherency Architect Need to Deal with Before Evaluating the Economic Perspective of the Enterprise Architecture

First of all the economic benefits of an Enterprise Architecture be measured? In many cases the measurement of value of an organization’s enterprise architecture is like measuring the value of the Human Resources Department; the primary difference is that most industries the orthodoxy is that a HR department is needed. However how do you measure the benefits of an Enterprise Architecture and an Enterprise Architecture program.

Jaap Schekkerman has written the book “The Economic Benefits of Enterprise Architecture” and as far as I understand the message of the book then focus should be to measure efficiency (before the establishment of the EA program and of course after to evaluate the effect), the impact on the strategy e.g., has the EA program enabled the organization to come closer to fulfill the mission / vision? And finally measurement should be focusing on potential cost reduction the organization can benefit from.

I am a bit unsure if this is the right approach to measure the economic benefits of Enterprise Architecture; however if you (the readers) have any ideas on how to do it better then please don’t hesitate to comment this blog post (or contacting me).

Never the less I have tried to organize the three ways main perspectives on how to measure the economic benefits of Enterprise Architecture.

Efficiency

One of the primary economic reason for working to improve (maturing) the Enterprise Architecture is to gain efficiency and secondly to lower operational costs and thirdly to gain strategic advantages.

To gain efficiency the Coherency Architect needs to use tools and methods within the Business Process Management and Business Process Improvements.

When the Coherency Architect is working with Business Process Improvements then it might become efficiently to work with two concepts. The first concept deals with an in depth investigation of the business processes. This approach might prove to become rather comprehensive and rather expensive.

The second approach deals with business processes that have a great impact on the business, the so called “core processes”.

The core processes are in many ways better to identify and better to work with from the point of view that the analysis work isn’t as comprehensive as the full analysis.

The core processes are easier and often more profitable to work with before the change process is initiated.

When the processes are altered then it is important that the Coherency Architect doesn’t focus to much on just keeping the same design of the processes and adding the technology to the processes. When the core processes are altered then it will lead to a change of strategy; otherwise the realization of benefits will not be crystallized.

Tools the Enterprise Architect can make use of to investigate the “business architecture” is the BPMN, BPML, OBASHI flowchart and the ordinary flowchart

This leads to the section of strategy section.

Strategy

Jaap Schekkerman introduces the Enterprise Architecture Value model (Schekkerman 2005, p. 66 ) that introduces the four concepts that an Enterprise Architecture can contribute with in relation ot the strategic approach the organization makes use of.

The model introduces four perspectives such as the Technology Effectiveness approach, Business effectiveness, Technology Enabling and the Business Innovation approach.

The Business effectiveness deals with improving the business processes to achieve the corporate strategy of the organization. Typically is the Enterprise Architecture program used to define how the processes (AS IS) is designed and how they should be to gain competitive advantage (TO BE).

The Business Innovation approach deals with the creation of new services and products and not to mention on how to define new business value. This particular approach is often used to identify how the “business side” of an enterprise can be aligned with the “IT side”. In my opinion it is up to discussion if you really can differ IT and Business since they are components in the Enterprise Architecture.

The Technology Efficiency approach deals with keeping the costs down e.g., the Total Cost of Ownership. The focus as before mentioned is to lower the costs of using technology within the organization. The focus of the Enterprise Architecture Program is to give the organization is view on how to organize their information architecture and their technology architecture to gain this advantages.

The Technology Enabling approach deals with how the technology can add value to the organization e.g., by obliterating business processes and then redefine them so the usage of technology can lower the cost, improve the efficiency and improve the quality of the processes. The Enterprise Architecture Program is used to give top management an idea on how to the business processes can be enabled by the usage of existing and new technology.

Enterprise Architecture Vakue Model

Enterprise Architecture Value Model (Schekkerman 2005, p.66).

This leads to the section that deals with the concept of cost reduction.

Cost Reduction

The third perspective that Jaap Schekkerman introduces in his book is what I assume is the cost reduction perspective. It is presented as the focus on Advanced Management Accounting concept and how to calculate the “Cost Benefit Analysis”.

However this is an interpretation I have done of what Jaap Schekkerman has written in his book. Which leads me to my conclusion of how to measure the economic benefits of Enterprise Architecture.

The Conclusion

As I see it the most important issue with measuring the economic benefits of the Enterprise Architecture is to identify the stakeholders and use the tools they expect to be used to identify potential and to evaluate each potential.

If the stakeholders are cost minded then the Coherency Architect should choose an approach that focuses on how to measure cost reduction or if the stakeholders are focusing on improvements and innovation then the focus should be on how to enable this in the proper approaches.

All in all the focus is stakeholder communication. As mentioned in the blog post then I am unsure on how to identify the full potential of measuring the economic benefits of the Enterprise Architecture since it is an issue that is up for interpretation. If there are any one out there who knows of better ways to interpreter Jaap Schekkerman’s book on measuring value or knows of better ways to measure value of Enterprise Architecture then please do not hesitate to reply to this blog post or to contact me.

Sources

Schekkerman, J., 2005. The Economic Benefits of Enterprise Architecture, Trafford Publishing.

Download the paper here.

The Front Lines of EA: An Insight to Innovation, Strategy and Enterprise Architecture.

Posted on by
Reply

Enterprise Architecture and Strategic Innovation

This blog post will deal with the view on Enterprise Architecture and Innovation that Chris Potts presented in his keynote at the the ITU the 24th of February 2010.

First of all did Chris Potts presents his strategic framework called the “fruITion” strategy that he builds on the tendency:

  1. The first generation strategy was focused on technology (this was the early beginning) which took place in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

  2. The second generation strategy the managers changed the scope from the technology to IT efficiency since they wanted to control the cost of strategy. This happened in the mid-90s and the end – 90s. The organizations outsourced expensive technology and operations to companies that where better keep the cost down.

  3. The third generation is characterized by the managers are focusing on how to create value by using technology and incorporate the IT strategy into their corporate strategy.

  4. The fourth generation is dealing with investing in change and not focusing on technology since it is embedded in the organization. The Investment managers and the Enterprise Architecture will be dealing with the change and the adaption of the organization and technology.

When it comes to the third and fourth generation then the managers have to focus on applying theory and concept of Enterprise Architecture to investigate the current state of the Enterprise Architecture (“AS IS”) and how the Enterprise Architecture should be transformed (transformation plan) into fulfilling the strategy.

Chris Potts focuses on the promise of a strategy (e.g., We will be the largest ICT supplier in Great Britain within two years) and the Enterprise Architect (in our case the Coherency Architect) should put his or her attention on developing a transition plan that enables the employees and management of the organization to achieve the strategy.

The Need for an Enterprise Architecture Approach

Why a company needs to innovate its Enterprise Architecture and what Innovations should an Enterprise Architect recommend. It is notable that Chris Potts made use of a case titled “SpaNets”.

The case is “an enterprise of enterprises” (or a divisionalized form of organization according to Mintzberg’s organizational compass) and from that can these three general ideas be aggregated:

  1. The Global Economy has lead to a price lead competition and the EA analysis (“AS IS”) can assist the enterprise in innovating its processes.

  2. The enterprise can use the Enterprise Architecture to give them a proper view of the subsidiaries the the organization has acquired.

  3. The enterprise can use the Enterprise Architecture to document the processes to align them or to apply standardized business processes.

You can argue that an organization has a functional enterprise architecture by judging it on its ability to generate a surplus.

Chris Potts defines the concept of Enterprise Architecture as system where the animal spirit of the founders of the organization are combined with the structure of systems within the organization.

“Enterprise is defined on a bold or courage undertaking and the animal spirits of the entrepreneur. The architecture is the science of designing structures and a style of structure.” - Chris Potts, The IT University of Copenhagen, 2010.

Never the less the concept of the Enterprise Architecture is more than just dealing with the configuration of systems within systems or architectures within architectures. First of all is Enterprise Architecture about people.

“Enterprise Architecture is about people” – Chris Potts, IT University of Copenhagen, 2010.

This makes sense since the enterprise architecture consist of labour, land and capital (resources) combined with strategy and it matches the focus of knowledge management as Nonaka dealt with it in his knowledge spiral. Knowledge is acquired (in tacit form) form the individual who either socializes or externalizes it. When the knowledge is socialized or externalized then the organization (or the enterprise can apply it or crystallize it).

Nonaka’s Framework

One imperative for the Coherency Architect is to create space for the employees of the organization so they can use their creative skills to create innovation. This focus can be supported by the theory that Gary Hamel proposes in his book titled “The New Age of Management” from 2007. Gary Hamel argues that the employees of the organization should be enabled to create their own projects within the framework of the organization and the organization should promote that the old management orthodoxies should be banished.

“When you are an enterprise architect it is all about people, space and purpose.” – Chris Potts, IT University of Copenhagen, 2010.

Processes Within an Enterprise Architecture

When the Coherency Architect is designing the “TO BE” Enterprise Architecture then he or she should focus on the customers since the dilemma often becomes if the enterprise owns (has a process) or the customer owns a process and who exist for who.

“has the company a process or is it the customer who has a process” – Chris Potts, IT University of Copenhagen, 2010.

When it comes to processes and architectures in the enterprise then Chris Potts states that most companies are aware of managing the Systems and Technologies architecture but they haven’t managed or designed the rest of the architectures.

“All but the technologies architecture are rarely defined or actively managed” – Chris Potts, IT University of Copenhagen, 2010.

However in most organizations the Coherency Architect will most certainly face a political situation when or if he or she goes to the CXOs and informs them that the organization’s Enterprise Architecture isn’t matched with the strategy and principles of the organization.

“It takes courage to go to the executive suite and tell the executives that we found out that the company is broken” – Chris Potts, IT University of Copenhagen, 2010.

The Coherency Architect should therefore focus on change management principles as well as using the corporate strategy as a key driver to convert the resistance among the CXOs to assistance in the transformation process (making them change agents).

The Enterprise Architecture and Strategic Issues

When it comes to EA approaches and methods then an Coherency Architect group might phase the issue of defining what artifacts that should be interpreted as what and how these should be organized; however in the end the Coherency Architects should focus on making something useful and that is where the strengths of knowledge management and innovation becomes useful.

“We had 15 people and we got 15 answers on what Enterprise Architecture was an should be. [...] We all see it as something different; however what matters is that we had to boil it down to something useful ” – Chris Potts.

However it is notable when the organization starts to mature its enterprise architecture then an EA program has to be imitated and the Coherency Architect needs to be hold accountable to achieve the strategy and by defining the principles of which the Enterprise Architecture strategy needs to be implemented by.

As mentioned in the blog post “The IT Strategy: An Articulation of the IT Strategy from a Coherency Architect’s Point of View.” then Chris Potts advices that the strategy needs to be embodied by the strategist (in our case the Coherency Architect) and the de facto strategy is not the one mentioned in the articulated strategy.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the keynote was that Enterprise Architecture can be used to identify problems within the Enterprise. In the same time can Enterprise Architecture applied to gain a competitive advantage for the enterprise.Thereto should Coherency Architect identify the constraints of the organization before initiating the Enterprise Architecture transformation program. Then identify how the value can be created by using the technology available if not to mention how create a combined strategy (EA strategy) for the enterprise that both focuses on keeping the animal spirit of the founders and enabling the employees of the organization to innovate. The enablement of employees to innovate is an imperative since Enterprise Architecture is about people.

The Coherency Architect has to show courage when it comes to inform the top management on misalignment in the Enterprise Architecture and in the same time be able to compromise with the rest of the Coherency Management Group in defining the proper solution for the enterprise.

When the Enterprise wants to benefit from its Enterprise Architecture then it has to initiate an EA program to mature the enterprise since only through the EA approach will the organization be able to activate the proper synergies among the various components that the organization consist of.

The Coherency Architect has to focus on the strategic promise he or she articulates (the promise is a single line that includes a statement for what the enterprise should be) and the de facto strategy the Coherency Architect implements. If there is a misalignment between the two then the strategy needs to be redefined and reimplemented. The Coherency Architect needs to challenge the orthodoxies of the enterprise and the industry of which the enterprise operates to release the true potential of Enterprise Architecture.

Chris Potts and Peter F.T. Sjoelin

Chris Potts (right) and Peter F.T. Sjoelin (left)

The Front Lines of EA (2): An insight in to Strategy and Innovation.