EA's need to understand money and be prepared to change

I do not know what to make of some central Enterprise Architecture functions who do not seem to appreciate the need for transformation or have a grasp of economics. Transformation is about changing how we do things. Economics must ultimately drive all EA activities i.e. a strive for business value, and understanding of cost alternatives etc. Or more accurately they have academic understanding they advocate for others but are relucant to apply to themselves.

These functions will happily create a central repository of information about the enterprise that is critical to executive decision-making and optimal excecution of initatives. Yet they persist seeking to create artefacts from this repository e.g. documents, PDFs rather than just let others in the enterprise directly access the information and keep it up to date themselves.

When asked why they don't provide access they cite cost of providing access and that people are used to getting documents and don't want to change.

I recently examined the cost issue. I calculated that the cost of providing direct access to accurate online information that can be drilled down in to, and dynamically visualised. I then equated that cost to the cost of the people's time. It showed the cost for access or visibility is less than the cost of 1 minute of the person's time. The cost to provide people the ability to interactively update the data (and then do what if) would cost perhaps 2-3 minutes of the person's time.

So clearly any rational analysis would suggest cost is not the issue, which leaves us just with the business change issue i.e. changing people's behaviour.

So frequently we have people earning 6 figure salaries who either don't seem able to work out that for the cost of 1-2% of their cost they could do a substantially better job; or don't really care about how good a job they do.

Some recent thoughts on EA

Comments on 5 useful recent thoughts from others on EA (and some others)

My conclusion.

I think we can see a broad consensus on the need for more focus on business issues; collaboration and communication (speaking in language business understand not technical terms/languages) etc. Most importantly the need for vision and leadership.

1. The Quantum of Integration: http://advice.cio.com/brian_hopkins/10949/the_quantum_of_integration.
.. The act of thinking about something from different perspective actually influences the architecture. The focus on the business issues (e.g. capabilities) is often what one finds lacking.

2. Trends in Enterprise Architecture:http://advice.cio.com/brian_hopkins/11157/trends_in_enteprise_architecture
I agree there will be
- ... more business focused, delivering measurable value through strategy, governance and focus on critical interface between key enterprise components.
- ... more emphasis on strategy, process and governance and less on frameworks
- ... important skills for EAs are shifting toward the Business and Information layers in the Architecture domain stack
- ... EA activities that provide immediate value to the business are better first steps towards maturity. Focus on providing easily consumed, strategic deliverables that executives can use to make decisions
- ... Less "boil the ocean" analytic exercises with dubious short term value will be tolerated.
- ... define repeatable processes for producing EA deliverables then measure progress against these with a set of metrics.

3. Collaboration in EA is the key to Success -http://beyondea.com/2010/04/collaboration-in-ea-is-the-key-to-success/ is an excellent item by Denis Suto

4. The state of enterprise architecture: Vast promise or lost opportunity?
http://www.it-analysis.com/business/change/content.php?cid=12213
Fehskens:
... the discipline of EA and compare it to mature professions ... we’re back 200–300 years ago.
... you have to be able to do it [make the argument] in the language of the audience that you're speaking to. This is probably one of the biggest problems that architects coming from a technical background have.
Ross:
... reluctance to think that the way we get more value from IT is basically by taming it, by establishing a vision and building to standards and understanding how that relates back to new ways of doing business, and actually developing standards around business processes and around data.
... The architect’s role is to make sure that there is a vision....
... "... we need to begin generating value from more disciplined processes."
Hornford:
... underpinning all of that is what is the business trying to achieve? What is their vision and what is their goal?
... have to be very clear on what is the end state, what is the goal, what is the business transformation, and how will the digital assets of the corporation—the IT asset—actually enable where they’re going...
... fundamental with leadership in EA is that architects don’t own things. They are not responsible for the business processes. .. They are responsible for leading a group of people to that transformation...
... If you don't have good leadership skills, the rest of the fundamentally doesn’t matter
... If you do not lead and do not take the risk to lead, the transformation won’t occur. One of the barriers for the profession today is that many architects are not prepared to take the risk of leadership.

5. Chris Curran's EA blog - his comments in blue, my views bold:

- An exhaustive enterprise level blueprint is virtually impossible to build

Wrong and based on the wrong premise, it is like saying and exhaustive view of our finance (accounting) or customers (CRM) is impossible to build. Obviously it isn't if it built using an enterprise by the enterprise.

- The best strategy blends a direction-setting enterprise blueprint and business unit and domain blueprints

Perhaps, not if the strategy is to abandon or outsource the unit/domain.

- Centralized accountability for the EA function is a predictor of success - A centralized team of architects is critical in driving EA standards and approaches

Partly correct, a centralised team of people anyway (architects may focus on the wrong things) and a these in fact to be engage a distributed set of SMEs, the project teams how consume.
- Architects must be assigned to projects as core team members - perhaps. Are town planners assigned to building design projects.

Maybe. Governance shouldn't be done by pursuasion or covertly (the town laws, or electrical wiring code doesn't pursuade adoption - it is mandated)
- EA should be measured in 2 ways: business capabilities delivered and costs of core services

Wrong - I would say their are other ways e.g. risk reduction
- Measure EA as an asset

Perhaps, but it is hard do measure the value of a better strategy? It is easy to see Steve's Job's strategy was right now. If it was obvious before hand why didn't others do it.
- Architecture leadership requires strong management, business operations and technology skills, most likely in 3 different types of people; don’t expect your chief architect to run the EA function

Yes.
- Methods and governance must be integrated into existing work processes rather than an overlay

They be both (see town planning - methods are integrated into delivery and their is an overlay checking compliance).
Enterprise Architecture is not always the best name for communicating; maybe Strategy & Planning or Enterprise Transformation is better

Yes.
- The best large companies have “business architecture” teams reporting to the business (or dual reporting to business and IT)

Probably - I have not seen the facts
- Leading companies have reference architectures in place for 90% of the technical domains - Maybe - I have not seen the facts
- Senior enterprise architects must have the right cultural skills and awareness to integrate well with upstream business partners and downstream technical users

Yes.
- High performance groups maintain consistent, formalized EA involvement in the SDLC to translate blueprints into sufficiently detailed starting architectures for each project as well as accurate cost and resource estimates

Yes.
- Mature organizations target 40% EA resource time for strategic planning and 60% on SDLC tasks, and typically err on spending more time on SDLC tasks

Maybe.
- Strong credibility and trust amongst Business and IT partners is a predictor of EA success. Credibility has typically been gained via joint strategic planning efforts, one project at a time - Yes.

Some others:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/service-oriented/four-ways-to-boost-enterprise-architectures-business-value/5240
http://www.infoq.com/news/2010/07/ArchitectureStrategies

Capability maps for Business Alignment

Don't Just Build Business-IT Alignment, Map It: http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-07-26/don-t-just-build-business-it-alignment-map-it.html. This is a really useful item. My precise below.

CIOs need to be able describe IT functions in business terms. Alignment occurs when people have a common understanding of what's important to the business, how this relates to the business model and the supporting technology, and where to prioritize investments for measurable improvements.

Business capability maps provide a framework to capture, assess, and communicate these needs. These maps put technology strategies in the context of the business process, functions, and capabilities they affect, and help enterprise architects design application and information architecture.

There are no industry standard models or frameworks to guide architects in their development. Forrester developed a six-step process that provides the foundation to successfully build and apply capability maps.

Step 1: Identify the Business-IT Alignment Issues - interview stakeholders to get differnt perspectives. Start with IT and use the results of those interviews to refine the process before moving to the business. Analyze the interview data to find common problem areas. Validate the identified problems with stakeholders to ensure that the accurately reflect their concerns.

Step 2: Define Your Approach - Create a current-state view that includes the issues and a future-state view. Use the current and future-state views to map alignment Issues to solution options. Focus on tractable issues. Define the roles and resources needed to make the initiative successful.

Step 3: Develop the Business Case - Develop a resources project plan (showing ramp up). Identify risks and mitigation approaches. Determine tools and technologies. Develop a cost estimate. Sell the business case.

Step 4: Build the Capability Map - Determine your organising principle e.g. value streams, business functions, services to clients and define the capability framework. Validate the structure by focusing a single element and identify capabilities for that element and add details (narrative description, people, process, technology, information, business goals, metrics, and gaps). Repeat across all of the organizing elements.

Step 5: Apply the Capability Map to Identified Problems - Create a capability map view to that focus on the decisions to be made. For exmaple for investment decisions analyse performance of core capabilities that provide significant market differentiation and competitive advantage to see where investment need to be made.

Step 6: Assess Progress and Refine the Approach - Examine the work to date. Re-examine interim deliverables. Identify unforeseen issues that affected progress, and plan forward and adjust the framework based on knowledge gained.

ESTO success sealed with a KISSS?

Once again I feel compelled to suggest that we learn about how to implement Enterprise Strategic Transformation and Optimisations (Enterprise Strategy and Architecture, Strategic IT planning etc.) from another domain focused on the enterprise use of knowledge and collaboration based on that knowledge i.e. CRM.

See: CRM Success Sealed with a KISSS - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9177484/CRM_Success_Sealed_with_a_KISSS?taxonomyName=Applications&taxonomyId=18

Most people with experience in trying to change patterns of behavior know that incremental change is easier for people to accommodate. Most people with experience in trying to implement systems know that big-bang approaches are high risk. Implementing new systems for knowledge management and collaboration involves both i.e. changing behaviour and implementing systems.

ESTO solution projects also "need to be much more flexible and adaptive than general IT applications. All too often, the users don't really know what they need, and the smart ones will admit it. Even if they did know, the business rules and your company's competitive environment will change before an 18-month "big bang" project ever gets deployed. ESTO projects are not only less expensive when delivered incrementally, they are a better fit with the business needs. So it's important to get your project staff -- and the ESTO system's executive champions -- comfortable with Agile.

Personally I have issues with methods that are focused on, or derive from, SW development being applied at different levels. And I think that SW developers per se are too keen to see each problem as one that requires development i.e. to get 100% fit might require development; but using an OOTB solution that reflects best practice might get you 80% of the way there - in 10% of the time.

I think the comments on vendor roadmaps interesting - and what we really need in ESTO is an aspirational roadmap with features defined near release drops.

See other ideas from comparisions with CRM:
- http://enterprisesto.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-price-sitp-data-quality.html
- http://enterprisesto.blogspot.com/2009/07/8-dirty-little-secrets-of-enterprise.html

Virtuous circles of strategy, architecture and delivery

If we don't support a virtuous circle of use - we won't achieve much (and certainly not cost effectively).

The majority of people who need to consume an Enterprise Architecture and Strategies are business teams (owners, analysts etc.) and solution architects, designers etc. i.e. down-stream project teams wanting to do something (buy, build, change etc.). NOT other EAs and Strategists. You can see the same thing with a town plan i.e. the majority of people who consume the town plan are property owners, architects etc. wishing to do things.

Governance functions also have a need (e.g. project office, contract/vendor management, business case analysts).

Until EA can effectively understand its place in the lifecycle of think, plan, excute, operate - it will struggle.

Enterprises wish to make changes (transform, optimize) and EA is intended to guide these changes (it is not an end in itself). The changes will usually be implemented in initiatives, programmes, and projects. Those involving IT will usually have requirements, solution architectures, etc. These projects are where the rubber hits the road.

So EA needs to be consumed by down-stream projects - which will indicate their use of existing assets (applications, services, interfaces, hardware etc.), standards (products, technologies, patterns), capabilities (skills, resources) - and indicate where they will produce new assets or require new/different standards to be adopted or capabilities established etc.

Most of what one sees in a tradional EA once came from some project that drove the need for it. This is true on the business and technology side - but is usually more obvious with technology.

An EA needs to be produced and consumed both bottom up and top down.

EVP - Powerpoint fails to deal with complexity well - who would have thought

I have heartened to see this "U.S. Army discovers PowerPoint makes you stupid" (http://blogs.computerworld.com/16006/powerpoint_makes_you_stupid?source=CTWNLE_nlt_entsoft_2010-05-03).

For many years I have been presented with powerpoints that claim to communicate complex things e.g. strategies, roadmaps, architectures, transition plans etc.

I have been perplexed when on examination the PPTs turned out not to contain the information necessary to describe the complex situation being dealt with. I am then asked how do we model these - or why can't you produce a model, visualisation or report that communicates like these do. The reason is that the powerpoints are often specious - being favoured by executives, sales people and other trying the illusion that analysis has been done and sound conclusion reached based on facts - when in the facts, analysis and conclusions are at best usually disconnected. If one points out the limitation of the powerpoint source documents - one hear "Oh so you don't know how to represent this". Well the answer is that if the data is rubbish expressing in a semantically precise way will just highlight that it is rubbish. This doesn't to fly well with the executives.

I like these quotes:

"Have you fallen in love with your bulletized slides, nifty transitions, and pretty charts in PowerPoint? If so, you're likely getting more stupid ..."
"... We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint... When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war."
"It's dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable."
"... it leads to bad decision-making, with serious consequences ..."
"... that tremendous amounts of time are spent in the military on putting together presentations, and that this takes away from true productivity."
"... [PPT] does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters." [or executives]
"hypnotizing chickens."

Artifacts vs Business Results

I am often involved in looking at how people can improve their IT processes e.g. in areas of strategy, architect, governance and service delivery.

Firstly let me say I am fairly familiar with principles underlying OO analysis and design techniques having started using them in the mid 1990s (before UML, and before Java). Naturally when UML emerged as a defacto standard we moved to it; and to RUP which followed soon after. Having overseen many large projects using OO analysis and design techniques I think I have some understanding of what needs to achieved.

Now an apparent digression - Almost 30 years ago when I specialised in CAD and Mapping systems I used to have to explain to Architects, some of whom had been my tutors, the benefits of CAD. They pulled out beautiful water colours and asked if the CAD system could produce them. They had mastered the skills of producing these works of art over lifetime and were justifiably proud of them. At the time the answer was "no". Of course the CAD system could convey the essential information but the way in which conveyed it was different. And of course the cost to produce any ad-hoc view (plans, elevations, details etc.) or deal with changes using the CAD system was far lower. Also the CAD system could be interactively inspected, do counts etc. What these artisans failed to grasp was that what the client wanted as business not a water colour i.e. the business result was the building, the water colour artifacts were incidental.

I now encounter the same issue with people looking at various artifacts related to manual methods of solution design - the classic being the large SAD (seldom if ever read by anyone but the author) or in strategic area some large attractive diagrams manually created with many pretty colours. People seem to think the artifacts (e.g. SAD, Roadmaps etc.) are important per se. In my view they fail to focus on the business results to be achieved e.g. a transformation to be made, or a project delivered and really examine what information is required by whom, when, where and why.

I had a lot of sympathy for those being asked to move from water colours. While they required an experienced practioner and some time produce a result was aesthetically pleasing and communicated very well to many audiences i.e. technical and non-technical (if limited to a specific point of view e.g. plan, perspective, detail, elevation etc.) I have a lot less sympathy with IT people today wasting energy trying to replicate some arcane symbols (e.g. associated with modelling logic, processes, objects or data). These also require experienced practioner and some time produce. The result are neither pleasing nor particularly communicative to average person.