Tag Archives: Organization

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.

A Model for Literature on Enterprise Architecture

Posted on by
1

I have been working with several different perspectives on governance, strategy, it architecture and enterprise architecture. I have read several books on the three topics and as such I have been able to build a model for categorizing the literature.

The Model

The model is segmented into three different levels and three different categories. The first (vertical) category deals with information and how information is used. The second (vertical) category deals with strategy (you shouldn’t articulate a strategy that isn’t based on information). The third category (vertical) is about innovation since strategy is often about doing new things and do them well in order to move the enterprise.

The categories that are horizontal deals with different perspectives and as such as economy, organization and technology. There are some “blank” spaces in between the three horizontal categories and as such these should be seen as in the spectra of the three perspectives.

The various authors that I have organized in the model have been mentioned under the Harvard source notation standard e.g. Beer (1994).

The model is essentially constructed upon the same principles as Leavitt’s model for organizational and technological alignment which means that I can only recommend the reader to read books with-in all of the perspectives in order to gain a holistic understanding of what Enterprise Architecture is all about. The model is of course a simplification of the reality.

Feel free to contact me if you feel that other books should be added to the model. You can contact me by comment this blog post or using the contact form.

Bibliography

Anderson, R.J., 2008. Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems 2nd ed., Wiley.

Andrew, J.P. & Sirkin, H.L., 2007. Payback: Reaping the Rewards of Innovation 1st ed., Harvard Business School Press.

Atkinson, A.A. et al., 2007. Management Accounting 5th (2007) ed., Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Baldwin, E.C., M, 2007. Managing IT Innovation for Business Value: Practical Strategies for IT & Business Managers: Practical Strategies for IT and Business Managers, INTEL PRESS.

Beer, S., 1994a. Brain of the Firm 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons.

Beer, S., 1994b. The Heart of Enterprise New edition., John Wiley & Sons.

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

Broadbent, M. & Kitzis, E., 2004. The New CIO Leader: Setting the Agenda and Delivering Results, Harvard Business School Press.
Brynjolfsson, E. & Saunders, A., 2009. Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology Is Reshaping the Economy, MIT Press.
Ciborra, C., 2004. The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, OUP Oxford.
Dietz, J.L.G., 2006. Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology, Springer.
Doucet, G. et al., 2009. Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance, International Enterprise Architecture Institute.

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

Graves, T., 2008. Real Enterprise Architecture: Beyond IT to the Whole Enterprise, Tetradian Books.

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

Hoverstadt, P., 2008. Fractal Organization: Creating Sustainable Organizations with the Viable System Model, John Wiley & Sons.

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

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P., 2006. Alignment: How to Apply the Balanced Scorecard to Corporate Strategy illustrated edition., Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P., 2008. Execution Premium. Linking Strategy to Operations for Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R. & Atkinson, A.A., 1998. Advanced Management Accounting 3rd ed., Pearson Education.

Krafzig, D., Banke, K. & Slama, D., 2004. Enterprise SOA: Service Oriented Architecture Best Practices 1st ed., Prentice Hall.

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

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

Potts, C., 2010. RecrEAtion: Realizing the Extraordinary Contribution of Your Enterprise Architects, Technics Publications, LLC.

Prahalad, C.K. & Krishnan, M.S., 2008. The New Age of Innovation: Driving Cocreated Value Through Global Networks, McGraw-Hill Professional.
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations 5th ed., Simon & Schuster International.

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

Stamp, M., 2005. Information Security: Principles and Practice, WileyBlackwell.

Skarzynski, P. & Gibson, R., 2008. Innovation to the Core: A Blueprint for Transforming the Way Your Company Innovates illustrated edition., Harvard Business School Press.

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

Watkins, M.D., 2003. The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels First Edition., Harvard Business School Press.

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

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

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

Weick, K.E. & Sutcliffe, K.M., 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty 2nd ed., Jossey Bass.

Woods, D. & Mattern, T., 2006. Enterprise SOA: Designing IT for Business Innovation 2nd ed., Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

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

Challenges of Enterprise Architecture: A Focus on the Transformation!

Posted on by
Reply

Barriers for Enterprise Architecture

When working with adaption of concepts and technology then the enterprises will face issues with to identify the proper solutions in the proper pace and adapt the solutions to the context that the enterprise is within. Likewise will the enterprise face the challenge of adoption. The adoption of the concept or technology.

The first outwards part (identification of potential technology or concepts) has to be diffused by networks that the enterprise linked to. This can be either through so called social networks or through meta-organizations that acts on behalf of many different organizations and sent out information to the different actors within their network. In many cases is the technology or for that matter the concept in some form generic, and the enterprise needs to alter it to make it work in their context. The adoption process (Rogers 2005) as it is called will have to impact various activities, processes and structures within the enterprise, and that will take time.

Usually semi-mature enterprises will be working with an assumption that they will have to make use of project and program management to implement the new concepts or technology. However it is quite clear that the transformation itself will not happen as a result of project management, but only as a result of organizational transformation. It is rather common that the various lines of businesses don’t adapt and incorporate the various projects right away which leads to the realization of the investments isn’t crystallized right away.

It can be concluded that it is the adaption process that fails when enterprises aren’t able to incorporate the projects into their activities.

The question then becomes if the concept of project or for that matter program management will be a particular good way of adapting the enterprise to change when the real focus should be on how to adapt to the organizational transformation, and thereby working with change management instead of project management.

Change management is usually a rather difficult discipline to work with, and many enterprises underestimate the resources needed to implement the resources. When working with adaption of concepts and technology, then the enterprises will face issues with identifying the proper solutions in the proper pace and adapt the solutions to the context that the enterprise is within. Likewise will the enterprise face the challenge of adoption the concept or technology.

The part is the outwards of the organizational barrier (identification of potential technology or concepts) has to be diffused by networks the enterprise is linked with either through so called social networks or through meta-organizations that acts on behalf of many different organizations and sent information to the different enterprises within their network. In many cases it is the technology or for that matter the concept in some form generic, and the enterprise needs to alter it to make it work in context of the enterprise. The adoption process as it is called will have to impact various activities, processes and structures within the enterprise, and that will take time.

Usually semi-mature enterprises will be working with an assumption that they will have to make use of project and program management to implement the new concepts or technologies. However it is quite clear that the transformation itself will not happen as a result of project management but only as a result of organizational transformation. It is rather common that the various lines of businesses don’t adapt and incorporate the various projects right away which leads to the realization of the investments isn’t crystallized right away.

It can be concluded that it is the adaption process that fails when enterprises aren’t able to incorporate the projects into their activities.

The question then becomes if the concept of project or for that matter program management will be a particular good way of adapting the enterprise to change when the real focus should be on how to adapt to the organizational transformation, and thereby working with change management instead of project management.

Change management is usually a rather difficult discipline to work with, and many enterprises underestimate the resources needed to implement the resources.

Win Over The Opposition

In most literature that has been written about how change management works with the assumption that an enterprise can be unfreezed, moved and freezed. The initial idea was proposed shortly after the second world war by Kurt Lewin. The assumption was based on that the organization was a tightly coupled social system where the actors thought and acted alike. However this might not be the case for most enterprises if they are slightly more complex than the average entrepreneurial organization. For this Karl Weick introduced the loosely coupled social system. In the paper Weick wrote together with Orton in 1990 they state that there are eight forms of loosely coupling among the various components of the enterprise:

  1. Individuals.

  2. Subunits.

  3. Organizations.

  4. Hierarchies.

  5. Organizations and Environments.

  6. Activities.

  7. Ideas.

  8. Intentions.

This means that it isn’t as easy as Kurt Lewin proposed it was to change enterprises. It is a rather complex processes where the influences of the various connections and couplings with the components of the enterprise. It is very likely that the various components will be influenced by their contexts and thereby by their domains.

It is notable that in every organization there will be different forms of coupling among the various components and some will be more tightly integrated than other. Therefore should the eight forms of coupling be understood as a stereotyped view that needs to be customized. In his book “managing the unexpected” that burning platforms aren’t the way forward if the enterprise has to transform for the better, since it is already to late when the burning platform is present.

The Burning Platform?

Therefore should the burning platform be a last solution. The concept of the burning platform was originally published in the Kotter’s (1995) article dealing with managing change. The first part of working this particular change approach is creating the burning platform and for that the executives needs to create a crisis so it is apparent that the enterprise needs to change or extinct.

When the burning platform has been established then Kotter works with a framework that contains eight steps that needs to be followed to implement change. All of the steps are useful but the primary problem is that the approach to change is based on Lewin’s eight steps for change.

It might make the framework for change useless but the rest of eight steps might be useful if it is combined with social networks theory and defining how to approach the loosely coupled systems. Likewise does the enterprise need to institutionalize a culture that accepts when the managers and employees makes mistakes and support them when they report when the mistakes happen so the damage of the mistakes are coped with.

In conclusion it is a necessity to handle the change approach by blending it with the views of Rogers, the views of Weick and the view of Kotter. As it is with all generic frameworks it has to be adapted to the individual enterprise otherwise will the benefits not be realized by the enterprise.

Enterprise Architecture and Organizational Transformation

It is needless to say when implementing an Enterprise Architecture program then it will lead to a need for change in the organization and it handles a lot of its activities for working with documentation, communicating and not to forget how to prioritize projects and organize them into programs. The changes in tasks will impact the organization structure, the people who have been employed, and the technology that has been implemented.

If the enterprise already has implemented a functional Enterprise Architecture program then it is likely that the enterprise will have to identify that the various problems that the Enterprise Architecture program has identified and the transformation phase of the critical business processes. The Enterprise Architecture program will lead to further change through iterations and eventually the program will have matured the Enterprise Architecture. When the Enterprise Architecture has matured then a lot of other elements of the enterprise will be influenced by the concept of Enterprise Architecture program.

Projects Don’t Transform the Enterprise

Projects alone aren’t contributing to change within the enterprise. Usually projects are groups that are established with members from the Line of Business or the Lines of Businesses and when the project has been delivered the project team is usually dissolved and the project is handled over to the line of business. It is in the line of business that the change needs to occur if the business processes have to be changed. Therefore it is the Lines of Business and their ability to adopt the project deliveries that is the key to a more agile enterprise.

Sources

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

Orton & Weick, 1990, Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptulation.

Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations 5th ed., Simon & Schuster International.

Weick, K.E. & Sutcliffe, K.M., 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty 2nd ed., Jossey Bass.

Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptulation.

Download the paper here.

The Breakout Strategy: A Review by a Coherency Architect.

Posted on by
Reply

What is a Breakout Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic Thinking

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

The Business Model

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

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

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

Leadership

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

Communication

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

Four Forms of Breakout Strategy

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

Forms of Breakout Strategies

Forms of Breakout Strategies

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

Growth Opportunities

Growth Opportunities

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Competitive Advantage

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Appendix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download the paper here .

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.

How Coherency Management Impacts Knowledge Management

Posted on by
Reply

The Coherency Architect has to take knowledge into account when the architecture of the organization is to be upgraded. The reason for this is that the key to develop the architecture of any organization is the members (Managers and Employees) of the organization. Most knowledge is implicit meaning that the knowledge is embedded in the brains of the members of the organization. This means that if the members choose to leave the organization then the knowledge will follow them. Knowledge can be diffused from individual to individual, from written sources to an individual and by members who modify and enrich the written sources to others who enrich them.
To represent this point of view then it is feasible to make use of Nonaka’s framework (see illustration 1).

Nonaka's Framework

Nonaka's Framework

The SECI model deals with that all knowledge is made by individuals, the individual share his or her knowledge with other individuals (first quadrant) in order to diffuse knowledge then it has to be articulated e.g., in papers, reports, books, blogs, videos or podcasts or other media (second quadrant). When knowledge is diffused then there are individuals who can enrich it by adding to the articulated knowledge (third quadrant). Individuals then read the papers, reports, books, blogs or watch the videos or listen to the audio and then by that learns how to make use of the knowledge and by that makes the knowledge implicit (fourth quadrant).

As before mentioned then the members of the organization are key in relation to the development of the organization architecture. Which means that the members of the organization have to be enabled to share their knowledge with one another and they would need some incentives to do so.
It is notable that economic incentives for sharing knowledge almost certainly will lead to that the cost for knowledge will increase and yet it will lead to that at some point then the members will stop sharing their knowledge and eventually when they have received all the incentives the organization can provide them with then will stop sharing knowledge.
E.g., who might want four company cellphones that are exactly a like or two company cars or multiple company paid DSL connections etc.?
To avoid this situation then the Coherency Architect has to understand the organization culture and thereto the Coherency Architect has to influence the organization culture so it becomes a necessity to motivate the members of the organization to make use of the IT tools (web 2.0) and to share their knowledge with the rest of the organization.
To enable the members of the organization to share their knowledge then the Coherency Architect has to empower the members and by that focus on moving the organization typology towards the adhocracy (Primary coordination is mutual adjustment) or towards the professional bureaucracy (primary coordination form is the skills the individual member has). Thereto should the organization should give the employees the resources to form communities of practice where they can go and communicate, work with and share the knowledge. It is notable that Coherency Architect or for that matter the organization can’t go in and interfere in the process which will lead to the members of the communities will lose their interest in working in the communities.
To make knowledge management coherent with other processes in the organization then the Coherency Architect should work with how the business processes can be supported by 1) decentralization and empowerment, 2) how IT can enable the members to break down the barriers in the organization (so the knowledge can flow freely), 3) how a functional compensation system should be designed (cultural based) so it enforces the urge to share knowledge and 4) deployment of communities of practice (winning trust among the members of the organization and providing the necessary support) and continuously align the primary business processes to the knowledge sharing processes.
The Coherency Architect has to think in new terms to ensure that the organization achives its goal in a smarter way which means that the work processes have to be obliterated and designed to interact with the technology new and smarter processes; however it is notable that the Coherency Architect has to understand that if the members of the organization finds the changes undesirable then they will reject the processes and work against them and key employees will eventually grow discontent and leave the organization taking the knowledge with them.