Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Enterprise Architecture’

Waves of innovation

July 25th, 2015 Comments off
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Today I’ve been reading about McNurlin and Sprague’s “Waves of innovation” model (2009) for the changing role of IT within an organisation. It’s essentially made up of 6 waves that have been observed over time, it looks like McNurlin started with 5 and the 6th was added somewhere in 2009.

Waves of Innovation

Wave 1 – Reducing Costs – began in the ’60s with a focus on automation

Wave 2 – Leveraging Investments – began in the ’70s with a focus on reusing corporate assets with systems justified on ROI and cashflow

Wave 3 – Enhancing Products and Services – began in the ’80s with the focus on IT being a revenue source through creating a strategic advantage

Wave 4 – Enhancing Executive Decision Making – began in the late ’80s with the emergence of real-time business management systems

Wave 5 – Reaching the Consumer  – began in the ’90s with using IT to communicate directly with users, completely changing the rules of engagement

Wave 6 – Partnership Supply-Chain Management – looks at integration of partners into the supply chain.

The premise is that these are observed waves and that IT is appearing to loosing some of it’s traditional responsibilities. I think that this is because the view painted treats IT capability as a uniform blob and not as discrete functions and capabilities. It doesn’t take into account that you have a spectrum of bleeding edge capabilities through to commoditised offerings at the far end and the value that each capability or service delivers sits somewhere on the “value” spectrum too.

Delivering value with IT systems requires clear understanding of the business, the services and capabilities that make it up and how IT can then support those individual pieces. This one dimensional view of IT is what holds business back from making smart decisions.

/rant

Bits or pieces?: An introduction to Wardley (Value Chain) Mapping

February 8th, 2015 Comments off
Reading Time: 2 minutes

15817131058_5acabc4677As those reading this blog will know, I’m a fan of the work of Simon Wardley, specifically his mapping technique for business landscape understanding. His most recent blog: Bits or pieces?: An introduction to Wardley (Value Chain) Mapping is the most concise step by step explanation to date.

I’ve watched as Simon’s model has matured of the years and it only gets better. When I think I’ve got a great tweak or variation on his work, he releases another explanation that has it and more.

The most recent of these are the aggregate view, overlay of provision or consumption and gameplay.

  • Aggregate view – when you take multiple views of the same map and overlay to get a holistic view of the organisation
  • Provision vs. consumption – are you consuming a service and as such what is it’s value, are you providing the services to higher-order components and are there smarter ways to obtain them.
  • Overlaying outsource/COTS/build your own with the provision/consumption to get a clear view of what you should be doing – working with market moves toward the right (commoditisation) when and where should you get the service you need.

My favourite is the use of the Kanban technique when implementing changes. I’ve been using this myself for several years (though I didn’t know it was called that) and found Trello to be an amazing tool to help.

I suggest you take the time to check out Simon’s blog, as it is well worth it to pick up on the concepts to develop your own tactics to strategy development.

Value of Enterprise-wide Risk Management: argument against maintaining the status quo

January 26th, 2015 Comments off
Reading Time: 8 minutes

B0IuYcJCUAAox9MToday is a based off several things colliding at the same time for me – discussions with friends, colleagues and some twitter banter.

Everywhere I’ve been, risk management is broken into discreet units and managed individually ostensibly due to it’s complexity, working on the assumption that what they have is enough. Even Enterprise Architecture Frameworks skip over how Risk Management is to be engaged and offer little to no support in understanding the holistic picture.

Despite the argument of organisations that they don’t believe enterprise risk management (ERM) is necessary or that the existing static, compliance based tools or technique employed are sufficient, there is a place for ERM. By assuming that the nature of the business will stay the same, as-good-as-it-gets is an arrogant disregard for the fact that environments change. There will always be a requirement to navigate risk in business, as to avoid risk is to avoid success.

  • How do you navigate risk in your business?
  • Do you use a spreadsheet compiled from compliance questions?
  • How about a pre-canned register provided by a consulting company?
  • Is risk management handled at a project or programme level without higher level visibility within the organisation?
  • Is there a single, unified view of risk management?

To disregard risks that may destroy value, you risk destroying the business; this is what static, disaggregated risk management techniques can cause. ERM, that is looking holistically at the organisation, provides a structured and disciplined process that aligns strategy, process, people and technology in order to maximise the desired outcomes and minimise the undesirable.

A holistic ERM approach allows the identification of various types of risks, providing the necessary visibility to the business. This visibility can provide the business with the ability to apply a measured and complete approach to the remediation or mitigation of risks, through tools and techniques, as well as identifying emergent risks to the organisation. As an example, a change in one area of the business’ policy due to legislative change, may have further implications though if handled in isolation, wouldn’t allow the business to be proactive.

Focusing on a single component of risk, such as looking to insure as a loss reduction technique for operational and financial risk, neglects the other risk types (of Technical, operational, financial, commercial or project-based/time based) and has the same affect as a business silo risk management model.

Read more…

Chief Enterprise Architect as Transformational and Transactional Leader

January 17th, 2015 Comments off
Reading Time: 1

medium_3488998147I recently read the article from Dr Gerald Gray (@SmartGridJer) on “Chief Enterprise Architect as Transformational and Transactional Leader“.

What I enjoyed most is that Dr. Gray succinctly captured the duality of the the day to day of the Chief Architect. The biggest challenge I face on a day-to-day is working at the transformational level with the CxO executives then jumping into the transactional aspects of a programme deployment and dealing with both the people vs. outcome focus which is overlaid with the situational leadership model that is presented.

Some day’s I’m successful in juggling these multiple, competing goals…. others not so much.

photo credit: wallyg via photopin cc

How to build a roadmap in 7 steps

January 2nd, 2015 Comments off
Reading Time: 7 minutes

RoadMapMoving Information Technology (IT) into the sphere of “the business” is still a challenge in a lot of organisations. How to move up requires that the IT/ICT teams demonstrate value (showing how you can support the business achieve its goals) to more senior executives within the business, where to start is always a hard question. Whilst there are many ways to approach this, the roadmap is one of the simplest ways of getting started.

 

Over the years I’ve noticed that there is little consistency in the generation and development of roadmaps; Infrastructure, Application or even Business structure. This can be for various reasons including:

 

  • There isn’t visibility of the full picture, but you have to show some degree of thought
  • Enterprise Architects are now really Technology Architects so the views are skewed towards a technology, conversely there are consultants posing as Enterprise Architects who have nothing more than an MBA and no experience or exposure
  • Businesses don’t truly understand what they are doing with ICT or why they need to be planned and not reactive
  • It’s a contract deliverable and come hell or high-water you’ll deliver something.
  • Newly minted TOGAF, SABSA or other practitioners attack this discipline with too much vigour that they get quickly shutdown by the business.

 

Regardless of the reason, it is important to be able to show those needing to invest in ICT services, what they are going to invest in and why they are going to invest. I’ve found that providing clear traceability between business objectives, ICT strategies (where available) and the roadmap help you as the architect understand WHY better which helps when presenting up higher the the organisation; communicating in the business’ terms and not techno-speak.

It can also help the CIO/Director of ICT/etc. understand how their organisation is supporting the wider business and its initiatives.

Remember a roadmap is generally for inside an ICT organisation. it requires distilling into bite-sized chunks for management to absorb

So let’s get to it. Building a roadmap can be broken into 7 stages

  1. Confirm the business’ priorities
  2. Current State
  3. Define End state
  4. Identify the measures
  5. Gap analysis!
  6. Sequence the events
  7. Publish the end goal

Read more…