Lack of Enterprise View a Hindrance? Good Solution Architecture is Not Enough

We are consistently being exposed to ENTERPRISE architecture teams without an enterprise perspective in the deliverables and activities in which they are engaged.  Sometimes this is due to a cyclical shift in the priorities between defining enterprise architecture and applying enterprise architecture via solution architecture.  This is a normal, healthy shift that we see happening in maturing EA programs.  However, the occurrence I would like to touch on is when there has NEVER been an enterprise perspective, yet there is an enormous priority placed on solution architecture resources and activities.

I have to ask myself if these enterprise architecture teams understand what they are missing.  The enterprise perspective is embodied in activities and deliverables that are not only enterprise-wide in scope and objectives, but also forward-looking, strategic, holistic and business-driven.  Relative to solution architecture (SA), the goal of EA is to provide this enterprise perspective so that SA’s can guide the tactical, technical, siloed project-oriented activities to fit with the long term business and technical direction of the enterprise.  Without the enterprise perspective, the SA’s are only guiding projects to fit within the technical best practices and emerging trends from the perspective of an individual SA or SA group.  Valuable, yes, but not EA.

But there is an even greater impact to an organization of an EA without an enterprise perspective, and that impact is felt by other  planning groups relying on EA to provide that long-term, holistic, business-driven, strategic view.  Budgeting, portfolio management, change management, strategic planning, sourcing, and operations planning all tend to happen with an eye on the short-term and tactical.  Without EA fulfilling its obligation, these plans are likely to be inconsistent, abandoned quickly, lead to waste, and ultimately, diminish confidence in the IT organization, the CIO and the IT management team.

The excuse that many EA groups are using is that there is a focus on the short term because of the economy, resource shortage or lack of business strategy from the enterprise leadership.   This excuse might hold weight for organizations just getting started with EA in the last 2-3 years, but what about the EA teams that have been operating for 5 years or more and NEVER developed the EA perspective.  Simply put, it is usually a lack of leadership and understanding of what is needed to create the enterprise perspective.  We counsel organizations to do the work to create a baseline of the enterprise perspective and use that to help leadership understand what the enterprise perspective is and how they can use it.  Good leaders will make use of it, and understand that now is the time to be looking forward.

EA Tips: Anchor Models

Anchor models are context diagrams that capture the essence of the enterprise as a simple graphic. They should be equally meaningful to both business and IT personnel and should be so intuitive that they don’t require a multi-page text narrative to understand. While we see many models created by EA teams, most are lower level “IT” models of business systems or technology components. Even models that attempt to represent the entire enterprise tend to be IT-oriented. While these models can be very useful, they don’t serve the same purpose as an anchor model.

The term “anchor model” represents a concept, not a specific format.  In our experience there is no such thing as the perfect template for an anchor model. The model must resonate with the broadest audience in as natural a way as possible. Therefore, the model should be in the language of the business it is depicting and is “good” only if it is meaningful to that organization. We have seen wildly different representations from different companies, yet each turned out to be exactly the right model. It’s one of those “you know it when you see it” phenomenon. When it is right, the model just makes sense.

Anchor models are basically top-level context diagrams describing the “enterprise”. They go by various names: company on a page, enterprise value network (EVN), concept of operations, operating models, root models, etc. These diagrams serve multiple purposes:

• As a consistent view of the company – a context for common understanding, language/terminology, etc. It allows everyone to get on the same page in the simplest, most direct way possible, representing a “big picture, enterprise view”.
• As a root for other derivative models (business, information architectures, business capability portfolios, etc.)
• As a credibility building tool for the IT executives in interactions with their business counterparts
• As a base model to super-impose various information systems, exposing overlaps, duplication, etc.

Creating a “good enough” initial anchor model is more art than science. It is a people-driven, collaborative exercise. A “starting point” model created by a sponsor usually helps kick off a productive session. We consistently observe several behaviors associated with the process, both good and bad, and have several tips to help you. Here are just a few:

• Anchor models can be controversial and are challenging to create. Don’t let that stop you from trying.
• Find passionate, business-knowledgeable people to start. Ideally, an anchor model should be something created by the business, not IT. An EA group is often the instigator to its creation and should act as catalysts to the process and not owners of the model.
• Not everyone is going to be happy. Someone will always object to something in the diagram, and the tendency is to just “make it a little better”. Our advice, work in a small group and time-box the activity. We suggest a few hours initially.
• Keep it simple, simple, simple, including only the significant parts of the organization. Resist the tendency to try to include everything a business does.
• Look at value networks, internal and external to the organization. Expose internal functional blocks, flows of information and services in/out/between them. Include the full range of external stakeholders and the interactions with them in the diagram (customers, suppliers, partners, regulators/government, etc.)
• Catalog your desired “functional hierarchy” to understand the main business functions performed. Avoid organizational constructs (departments, divisions, etc.). They are fluid and will undoubtedly change. Make your models as timeless as possible.
• Relationships are at the heart of anchor models. Understand the flows of information (not data models) and how functional elements relate.
• Timing is everything. We have seen good anchor models get no traction when presented to the wrong people at the wrong time.

There are many more tips that we can suggest. If you have a successful anchor model that resonates with your business, let us know. We’d like to hear your experiences and will share any other general pointers back to the community.

A strong anchor model, once complete, appears so obvious that many wonder why it was created. But that misses much of the point. It is the process of creating it that often yields the highest value.

George Paras and Tim Westbrock featured guests on A&G Webinar Nov. 16

Join George and Tim for a webinar on November 16, hosted by A&G Magazine.  We’ll also be joined by special guest Dave Baker, a longtime friend and industry colleague from PwC.

We’ll review the findings from the A&G 2011 Year-End Survey, discuss trends we see shaping the role of enterprise architect going in to 2012, and answer listener questions.

Follow this link to the Architecture and Governance Website for more information and to register.

A Question for Practicing EAs

Why are you doing enterprise architecture?

If you don’t know the answer to this, how can you expect others to understand EA?

This is a simple question, but we are looking for comments from your readers to help others (without their answer) come up with the answer that meets their situation.  While everyone probably has a unique approach to the process, organization, and deliverables for EA; we find that the objectives of EA are similar across organizations.  You may not currently be fulfilling the reason why you are doing EA, but you have to at least know what you are TRYING to do.

Let us know by your comments, Why are you doing enterprise architecture?

Tim Westbrock to Speak at IT Leadership Forum, Dec. 13, in Atlanta

Join Tim at the IT Leadership Forum, Dec. 13, in Atlanta, sponsored by alfabet.

Tim will be presenting “Expanding Enterprise Architecture into the Business.”

The ultimate promise of Enterprise Architecture has always been the alignment of business and IT strategies, activities, assets and direction.  In order for EA to bridge the gap between the desired business future state and the work that must be done to achieve that future state, EA must evolve to include a business architecture sponsored by business leadership and developed by business professionals.

Tim will facilitate a discussion on the many facets of business-enabled EA, while also adding their experiences relating to the challenges of approaching the business, how EA and ITA work together, the goals, organization and outputs of a business enabled EA approach and how to get started.

This is an invitation-only event, so if you are going to be in the Atlanta area Dec. 13th, click here to get more information on the event and how to register your interest in attending.

Hope to see you!

Too Much Tactical Focus with Business Architecture?

As more and more organizations embrace Enterprise Architecture with a concerted effort in Business Architecture (BA),. we are beginning to see one of the common pitfalls of IT Architecture (ITA) spill over — too much focus on the tactical, project level.  Apparently, getting business representatives involved in applying EA discipline to the business architecture does not mean that the effort will remain high level, strategic and forward thinking.  Just like many ITA efforts, BA efforts result in the identification of work that needs to be done to support the enterprise’s transformation.  And also like many ITA efforts, once the resulting work is started, many of the BA participants find themselves involved in the transformation effort.  Another factor that needs to be considered is the lack of dedicated BA resources, such as a Chief Architect or Business Architect or BA team.  The BA efforts are usually staffed entirely by a virtual team, all of whom have real, demanding full-time jobs.

If you are trying to avoid an overly tactical focus for your BA efforts, here are some suggestions to consider:

• Dedicated BA Resource.  A dedicated resource, not assigned to specific BA initiatives, but also not holding a full-time non-BA position is probably not feasible in many organizations.  However, those going through significant transformation efforts could easily justify a resource to keep pushing the transformation agenda, overseeing the BA initiatives, maintaining a focus on future change, and organizing and managing the BA virtual team.  If a full-time dedicated resource is not feasible, consider finding a leader who can dedicate some time to the effort, 25-40% minimum, while not getting deeply involved in individual BA initiatives.
• Strategic Agenda Items for Regular Meetings.  Most BA groups have regularly scheduled meetings, weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, etc.  By having every third or fourth meeting focused on new strategies, new technologies, new changes, rather than ongoing initiatives; the group will still be able to push the transformation work forward, while also continuing to architect the future business.  Another alternative is to always have at least one agenda item that is of a strategic, future oriented topic at each meeting.
• Maintain a Portfolio vs. a Project Perspective.  Rather than providing oversight to individual projects and implementation initiatives, focus on providing input to the investment decision-making function(s) of the enterprise, and track the overall portfolio’s progress against expected strategic outcomes.  Leave the cost, budget, resource, and schedule issues to the project management staff.

All of these suggestions are not new.  They are the same kind of actions that successful ITA groups have been employing to maintain a strategic perspective for years.

EA Tips – Style AND Substance

For an EA practice to be effective EA leaders must pay attention to both the “style” of how their team operates and the “substance” of the work they produce. While that guidance isn’t new, in practice I often find that many leaders don’t have the balance quite right. It is worth revisiting as a general EA Tip.

First, what do I mean by “style” and by ‘substance”? (note: I chose those words because it sounded like a catchy blog title) For the sake of this article, I define “substance” to be the “work product” of the team as viewed by EA consumers wanting hard deliverables like frameworks, models, standards, roadmaps, strategy papers, and other related content. “Style” refers to “how” the team works with the rest of the organization in creating and utilizing their content: engaging business and IT leadership, fostering a collaborative environment; choosing communications vehicles, the words they use, and the “posture” of how they present themselves to the rest of the organization.

Many EA teams disproportionately direct more effort to the substance of the work than to building a sense of ownership and socializing the desired changes. In essence, they under serve the “style” elements. Granted, substance is critical. No matter how good the soft skills are or how convincing the leaders are, if the content isn’t solid then nobody will follow. But what is more surprising to many teams is that even the most elegant and perfect deliverables often don’t have impact. Why? – Because the team hasn’t positioned the larger workforce to embrace enterprise architecture content and to use it in their day to day work.

Improving the EA team’s style is often where we spend time with clients, specifically working on the “art” of practicing EA. Though many EA’s wish there was a methodological approach to these softer elements, there really isn’t one that works in all cases. People, perspectives, culture, and individual skills vary widely from organization to organization. One approach is to look to lessons learned from the organizational change management discipline, particularly as they apply to driving change across and down into an organization. There are tried and true techniques for preparing organizations for change, conducting education and awareness campaigns, gaining support and participation, and communicating effectively through a variety of different channels. After all, one of the valuable outcomes from EA is helping an organization move from an emphasis on tactical execution and silo behaviors to one that includes a larger, enterprise-wide strategic element. Substance is great, but style really does matter.