EA Needs to Focus on Social Mobile Apps

Social. Mobile. Apps. These three words have become an essential part of our daily lives and every enterprise daily business model. Social is not only about our personal lives but also the professional and everyday work environment (think Facebook vs. LinkedIn for example or other enterprise software that has its own chatter or collaboration tool). Mobile needs no introduction; when was it the last time you bought or was planning on buying a desktop?! Apps have become part of our daily personal and professional lives. Everything has an app! Take a ride on the NYC subway and you will see app ads from food delivery, laundry services, storage, to banking and medical services. Visit San Francisco and you will feel like Alice in Wonderland of the Apps!

EA approach to enterprise wide initiatives and projects must take this into consideration to be successful and design for the present and future. The mindset should endorse and champion this emerging pattern of trying to create social mobile apps for the business processes embodying a compilation of various components or assets that work collectively to perform a set of functionalities. This means the EA team needs to focus on components and artifacts that relate to interoperability, performance and scalability, reliability and availability, application lifecycle management, technological and security risks, and other related topics. Notice how Cloud and API relate and address all of these points almost instantaneously. This brings these two technological key components to the front and center of future implementations. It is also important to keep in mind that applications architecture is about design and managing multiple applications in the world of apps and how they are to operate together as needed for the different personas of the business and customers. EA team needs to go beyond the technology of software and hardware to include the social aspect so that the approach to architecture would be socio-technology architecture covering a design for the Person-IT and Community-IT. Finally, mobility needs to be stacked on that as a core strategic initiative with the idea that IT is designing for the mobile future of the different business processes.

References:

Mads Soegaard, Rikke Friis Dam (eds.). (2014). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. Chapter 24: Socio-Technical System Design (Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad).

EA 872 Week15: The Cost of Ineffective Foundation for Execution

For any enterprise, a good effective foundation for execution is an important aspect of a successful EA initiative. The cost of ineffective foundation for execution can not only spread incompatibility and multiply effort, but also prove to be an obstacle for business agility and growth initiatives. Ineffective foundation for execution can be observed in multiple cases ranging from running the daily business to new growth initiatives, and many cases of business silos, IT bottlenecks and more. 

For example, getting different answers or metric results from different groups within the same enterprise for the same questions implies silos, duplicate efforts, mistrust, confusion and even conflict of interest. It is absolutely a disaster for the top executive management not to trust numbers and facts presented by business and IT, and this will lead to annoyance and blame war between the two. Another case is the hindrance of business agility when companies undergo growth initiatives to develop new products or as a result of mergers/acquisitions. Hindrance in this case results from the rigid structure of the different LOBs and IT silos not being able to contribute to agility and adapt to changes in the market in respond to evolving trends. Also, anytime IT is considered as a nuisance rather an asset or strictly a cost center, the general result is multiple bottlenecks blamed on IT consistently through times of change or strategic projects implementation. Other obvious indicators of ineffective foundation for execution are cases when data is duplicated in different systems, same processes repeated in different LOBs, and information needed for running the business across the enterprise is not readily available. 

All of these bear a hefty cost to enterprises and endanger the future survival and growth of the business. In addition, effective foundation is especially important with the current need for each enterprise to digitize capabilities and internal processes, and to capitalize on the value of data leading to IT becoming a strategic asset in itself and not just a cost center.

References:

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

EA 872 Week14: Why EA Performance Management is Important

As EA872 class approaches the last few weeks bringing this long series of blogs to the final few, one recurring theme I have subconsciously reiterated multiple times is the importance of EA in these times of digital changes, and how the prospect of IT being an asset driving revenue rather than a cost center is increasingly important for the business to understand and adopt.

I was part of a customer workshop recently - predominately with the IT leaders of the enterprise. Of the many conversations we had, one statement that stuck with me was that “the executive business leadership still looks at IT as a cost center with the expectation of a CIO to mainly lower cost and increase efficiency”. The IT leaders, on the other hand, were saying “we have so much to give to the business; let us help drive value from IT, from data and benefit from the rise of digital business technology”. This made me think of the importance of EA to bridge that communication and trust in value gap between the two organizations. 

Specifically, having a performance management EA plan with a set of metrics that can be used to show the business the increased value of the EA investments would be a huge payoff to change that perception of IT. Once chosen, this set of metrics would be mapped to the strategic or vision statement of the enterprise. In other words, the metrics will measure the performance set of activities, systems and processes that are translated from the strategic or vision statement.This way, these Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) would ensure track and exposure of progress and value. At a high level, the KPIs will be addressing the progress though four basic levels of architecture: Business, Information, Technology, and Solutions. Additionally, the KPIs will need to be presented within the context of what kind of value or progress is being observed. For example, running the business KPIs are different than growing or transforming the business.

Going back to the statements I mentioned above, EA team should use EA performance management toolkits, like the one referenced below from Gartner, to show that not only EA and IT can help running the business by lowering operating costs and increasing efficiency, but also presenting opportunities for growth by maximizing business impact (ex. data insights across silos), and even transforming business by maximizing revenue and business impact through new opportunities, market area, competitive intel and possibly new products.

Reference: “Gartner for IT Leaders: Developing High-Impact EA Performance Metrics ”, (Gartner).

EA 872 Week12: An EA Initiative for a Knight Rider Prototype!

For this week, I am going to blog about some rambling thoughts I had while driving on a long road trip recently. I had rented myself a nice late model luxury sedan equipped with latest technology gadgets and bluetooth streaming. Cruising on the highway, enjoying the drive, I suddenly had a strange “Eureka” moment. Now who of us , or at least of my generation, has not seen Knight Rider, the famous tv show, and fell in love with that car and especially the computer KITT! I remember I was a kid watching that show and was totally fascinated by the idea of having a car that not only has an Artificial Intelligence (AI) but also can auto drive and do all different AI related tasks. (Ok the turbo boost and the leaping jumps might have pushed it too far mechanically wise but hold on to that critique for the end).

The reason I’m mentioning all of this is because it just occurred to me at the moment that we have all the technology out there though in discrete pieces. We have the AI, think Siri, and much more. We have the auto driving car, think Google and again much more. So all what is needed is for someone to take the initiative to bring the two together and voila, we would have a real Knight Rider KITT!

So for the sake of adding some EA context to this subject, let’s imagine a task assigned to a new EA team for an initiative to build our Knight Rider from these two discrete businesses with different processes, products, and technology. One could argue that the approach is a standard EA approach to a model that supports merging the two companies products and resembles a migration from a diversification operating model to a coordination one. Another argument would go for a unification model since an AI needs to be able to assist in the info and general access to the knowledge pool for real scenario decision making (ex. an answer to an inquiry about a geo location or weather or other). At the same time, it needs to control the dynamics of the car drivability by not only relying on the sensors data but also drawing from all archived data from other cars data and other played scenarios both historic and enriched data. 

It is definitely an interesting idea and line of thought. I will try to expand on how this can be an interesting EA exercise in future blogs but for now, I will leave you with the thought that Knight Rider is probably something you will see in the near future, and instead of “ Knight Rider, coming soon to a theater near you”, it will be “Knight Rider, coming soon to a dealer near you” !

Reference:

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

EA 872 Week11: Effect of Organizational Changes on EA

EA helps to establish the guidance and authority on changes needed to conduct and support the strategy decisions and strategic goals of the enterprise to go from current state to future desired state. Changes typically involve the business processes, information applications, data and infrastructure. In addition, EA can induce some organizational and leadership changes. These would be coordinated organizational change management efforts that are meant to introduce or initiate the EA program in the enterprise. Most articles and papers focus on this one way direction of induced changes from EA to the org. But what about the other way around? What happens when there is a forced organizational change from outside of the EA program as a result of management restructuring or new senior management?

This would be one situation when changes might be forced from outside the EA playbook and could effect the ongoing EA migration plans. For example,  if a new CIO or CDA joins the organization, it is typical for them to apply re-orgs and introduce changes both on managerial and projects levels. This will affect prioritization of projects, momentum and moral, and most importantly the EA established migration plans and established procedures. It would defintely help to have the enterprise with an EA program mature enough to overcome these unusual and less than typical situations. In enterprises of business silos and straddled technology stages of EA maturity, these changes will be most abrupt and expected since there is leeway and change authority for the new senior management to induce their own new decisions and fingerprints on desired success and achievements (in hopes for the good of the enterprise). In enterprises with optimized core and business modularity stages of EA maturity, the changes can be softened and even governed to a certain degree since the maturity of the EA program can serve as a protecting shield. This I believe is a valuable  benefit that comes with the increased stages of EA maturity, if not more, just as the likes of increased IT responsiveness, improved risk management, management satisfaction, and enhanced strategic business outcomes. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic and if you can share some real world stories from experience on how senior management changes has effected (or not) existing EA initiatives and programs.

References:

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.