Peter Drucker, one of the most influential management consultants in the world, is often attributed to coining the phrase “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Organizations that can harness the power of culture can create environments where everyone can contribute towards the attainment of strategic objectives. However, most organizations are unable to create such environments and hence their pursuit of strategic objectives never fully comes to fruition. The three main reasons for this failure are:
The fallacy that culture is considered something fuzzy thus unquantifiable
The lack of a holistic approach to forming/enhancing positive attributes of the inherent cultures
The half-baked idea that culture equates to only people
An organization’s culture is a way of thinking, behaving and working within the physical, virtual, legal and mental organizational boundaries. What an organization thinks about its place in the world is shown by its vision, mission statement and (un)displayed values that directly influence internal and external stakeholders. How an organization behaves is shown by leadership examples, levels of (un)trustworthiness, encouragement and discouragement of cross-collaboration and camaraderie. How an organization works is shown by its (un)biased business processes, (non)adoption of technological advancements, (un)approved frameworks/methodologies/approaches, employee (non)recognitions, (un)real career ladders, risk averseness, salaries, (non)physical locations, clothing, and subcultures.
Culture is not just one thing but it is a collection/combination of different things/subcultures that can be observed and also measured. Thus, how organizations measure, incentivize and reward from the selection of the right people to optimized processes and efficient use of technology becomes crucial towards achieving organizational objectives. In order to understand and effectively bring cultural change, the following questions need to be asked:
Strategic Perspectives on Culture:
Today
Tomorrow
1.
Who is incentivized at the executive level to transform culture?
Who should be incentivized at the executive level to transform culture?
2.
What governance structures are in place for strategic cultural transformation?
What governance structures should be in place for strategic cultural transformation?
3.
Where is technology integrated into transforming culture?
Where should technology be integrated into transforming culture?
4.
When and how often cultural transformation objectives are communicated?
When and how often cultural transformation objectives should be communicated?
5.
Why cultural transformation is critical to achieving strategic objectives?
Why transformation should be critical to achieving strategic objectives?
Tactical Perspectives on Culture:
Today
Tomorrow
1.
Who is incentivized at the middle management level to be champions of transforming culture?
Who should be incentivized at the middle management level to be champions of transforming culture?
2.
What business units, functional areas, and teams are included to bring about transformation?
What business units, functional areas, and teams should be included to bring about transformation?
3.
Where technology hinders in cultural transformation?
Where technology might hinder in cultural transformation?
4.
When is the start and end of cultural transformation communicated?
When should the start and end of cultural transformation communicate?
5.
Why cultural transformation is critical to achieving tactical objectives?
Why cultural transformation should be critical to achieving tactical objectives?
Operational Perspectives on Culture:
Today
Tomorrow
1.
Who sees cultural transformation as an obstacle?
Who might see cultural transformation as an obstacle?
2.
What business processes provide views on the organization’s culture?
What business processes should provide views on the organization’s culture?
3.
Where is technology part of your understanding of the organization’s culture?
Where should technology be a part of the understanding of the organization’s culture?
4.
When were you informed about the cultural transformation objectives?
When should you have been informed about the cultural transformation objectives?
5.
Why cultural transformation is critical to achieving your daily tasks?
Why transformation should be critical to achieving your daily tasks?
Culture transcends most of our thoughts and how we function within organizations and outside of it. This overarching effect of culture can create biases in terms of what people we hire, what processes we put in place, what technologies we choose to use, who we talk to and what we care to observe. By asking the right questions and putting the right measurements in place, we can have a quantifiable understanding of the baseline cultures and enhance it for the better. In doing so we have to be cognizant of our own biases, biases of others and any prevailing biases that result in cultural stagnation.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
In the video below on CxO Talk, I asked Anne Dwane, former Chief Business Officer of Chegg about what skillsets current and future employees consider getting.
In my view, there are three waves of job reduction that we need to look at:
First wave of job reductions would happen when simple tasks become automated
Second wave of job reduction would happen when connected tasks become automated
Third wave of job reduction would happen when holistic tasks become automated
In order to tackle these job reduction waves, humans have to constantly evolve by not only education and training but gaining diverse experience which can be used to solve holistic problems. At the same time humans can also create expert systems that replicate those experiences while humans can be busy in pursuing other experiences.
This article proposes the establishment of a Center for Operations, Research, and Education (CORE) at your university. CORE would be a team of people that proactively and holistically help achieve the university’s business outcomes. Its mission would be to provide comprehensive educational programs in Enterprise Architecture, conduct research and use this research to help transform the university.
For this article, the strategic direction and cultural factors in relation to operations, research and education in Enterprise Architecture are considered. We assume the status quo in regards to your university’s culture for this assessment, specifically the perception of Information Technology. The following table shows what we considered:
Operations
Research
Education
Current State (Observations)
No one is responsible for Enterprise Architecture
No research is being conducted in this field
No comprehensive program in Enterprise Architecture
Future State (Recommendations)
CORE would be independent of your university’s President
Rotating leadership where every school, department and division has the opportunity to lead CORE
Conduct research by partnering with other elite institutions
Begin by providing a graduate certification program
Aim for providing Bachelor’s, Master’s and executive programs in the future
This assessment reveals that currently where Enterprise Architecture is placed in the organization, it will not be able to provide the organizational transformational value that aspires to provide. Additionally, your university should start providing comprehensive programs in this field otherwise they would be left behind other educational institutions that are already moving in this direction.
1. ANALYSIS
This section provides an analysis of standing up CORE from an operational, research and educational perspective.
Assumptions
Your university’s executive management would support this effort
All university communities would help transform it to achieve operational excellence
Perception of IT would not change instantly
1.1 What is the Center of Excellence?
According to Tarek M. Khalil et al. (2001), within an organization, a Center of Excellence may refer to a group of people, a department or a shared facility. It may also be known as a Competency Center or a Capability Center. The term may also refer to a network of institutions collaborating with each other to pursue excellence in a particular area.
1.2 What is Enterprise Architecture?
Due to the evolving nature of this field, there are many academic and practitioner definitions of what is Enterprise Architecture. For our purposes, we will use the one definition from the glossary on Gartner’s website that states Enterprise Architecture as a discipline for proactively and holistically leading enterprise responses to disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing the execution of change toward desired business vision and outcomes. Enterprise Architecture delivers value by presenting business and Information Technology (IT) leaders with signature-ready recommendations for adjusting policies and projects to achieve target business outcomes that capitalize on relevant business disruptions. Enterprise Architecture is used to steer decision-making toward the evolution of future state architecture.
In a nutshell, “Enterprise Architecture bridges the Business and Information Technology via enterprise integration/standardization resulting in people becoming more efficient and effective in achieving their objectives.” Kevin Smith (2010)
It should be noted that Enterprise Architecture is not an Information Technology endeavor but in fact, it sits in between Business and IT and works across organizational silos.
1.3 What is CORE?
If we combine the two definitions above then a definition for the center of excellence in enterprise architecture emerges which is a team of people that proactively and holistically help achieve business outcomes. For your university and breadth of this center’s agenda, it would be called Center for Operations, Research, and Education (CORE).
1.4 What are the Operational Perspectives?
1.4.1 Why should Your University Pay Attention to Enterprise Architecture?
One of the biggest proponents and users of Enterprise Architecture is the most powerful office in the world – The White House. The United States Federal Government has been using Enterprise Architecture for more than a decade and continues to see it as a way to look across organizational silos.
What this means for your university is that huge organizations are trying to improve their operations and they are turning towards Enterprise Architecture to help them do that. Your university can tap into this, apply Enterprise Architecture effectively and perhaps get involved in Enterprise Architecture discussions for organizational improvements. This involvement could also translate into future research grants and job opportunities for students.
1.4.2 Why putting Enterprise Architecture under Information Technology is Not a Good Idea?
All organizations are a composition of many cultures and subcultures. Some of these cultures develop over time and then become part of the routine mentality of an organization. Your university is not immune to this. In order to understand the perception of Information Technology at your university, look at how the university’s strategic plans were developed. Was Information Technology involved/invited to help in the development of your university’s strategic plan?
If not, then this is a cultural issue and often the cause of misalignments within organizations. Whenever Information Technology is not involved in strategic planning, it gives the perception that Information Technology is not important, it is just a commodity and it is just back-office activities. This lack of involvement is the reason that according to the 2013 Chief Information Officer ‘State of the CIO’ survey, “63% [of the respondents] say the majority of their time and focus is spent on aligning Information Technology initiatives with business goals.” This shows there are gaps in aligning Business and Information Technology. This alignment can be achieved through Enterprise Architecture. According to a Gartner study (G00146809), Business-Information Technology alignment is the primary driver for Enterprise Architecture as shown below:
Taking into consideration the current culture at your university, placing Enterprise Architecture under Information Technology would not make sense. If Enterprise Architecture continues to be placed under Information Technology then at your university Enterprise Architecture would be perceived as an “Information Technology thing”. This perception would defeat the overarching purpose of Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Architecture needs to have a holistic understanding of your university going beyond Information Technology. A Gartner study (G00245986) supports this thought of Enterprise Architecture going beyond Information Technology as shown below:
From the above figure, we can learn that while technology is a consideration in Enterprise Architecture but it is certainly not the only aspect that needs to be considered. A well-run CORE at your university would consistently produce qualitative and quantitative for both Business and IT. Some of the examples of these are:
Qualitative Benefits
Improved Communications Across Organizational Silos
Increased Productivity
Efficient Portfolio Management
Effective Business Intelligence
Quantitative Benefits
Reduced Costs
Revenue Generation
1.4.3 What are the Maturity Levels for Enterprise Architecture?
According to a Gartner study (G00252206), it outlines the five levels of Enterprise Architecture maturity shown below:
What this means is that a lot of work needs to be done in this area and your entire university has to be involved in it so that it can be used effectively across organizational boundaries.
1.4.4 How will CORE Measure its Success?
From an operational perspective, a Gartner study (G00247593) indicates the following ways to align Enterprise Architecture to strategic business initiatives:
At your university, the success of Enterprise Architecture would depend upon how it can help your university transform itself to achieve its strategic visions.
1.5 What are the Educational and Research Perspectives?
1.5.1 Is Enterprise Architecture Taught at Your University?
Are Enterprise Architecture courses taught at your university in various schools (e.g., business school, engineering school, professional studies school, etc.)? If yes, do you know if these schools at your university are talking to each other about Enterprise Architecture? If not, then there is no comprehensive Enterprise Architecture program at your university. From this observation, we can decipher that although Enterprise Architecture might be part of certain programs but overall it is fragmented at your university.
1.5.2 Why Should Your University Teach or Do Research in Enterprise Architecture?
In order to be an elite institution, your university needs to look at what other elite institutions are doing, assess what programs they offer and what kinds of research they are pursuing. Your university should then look at how these programs can be stood up.
For the purpose of this article, we will only focus on the institutions that teach, conduct research and/or have comprehensive programs in Enterprise Architecture. These include:
Institutions Name
Country
1
Harvard University
USA
2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
USA
3
Dartmouth College
USA
4
Carnegie Mellon
USA
5
Pennsylvania State University
USA
2. Recommendations
Due to the importance of Enterprise Architecture as a catalyst in organizational transformation, in the current culture at your university, CORE should not be under IT. CORE’s mission is to help your university continuously evolve, conduct/use research and provide comprehensive educational programs. It should be an interdisciplinary entity whose members include all schools, divisions, and departments of your university. Thus, it should be placed where it has the most influence as shown below:
CORE should start as a chartered center initially led by the School of Business and in collaboration with Engineering School, Professional Studies School and IT. Within the first year, this would develop relationships across all the universities.
CORE’s leadership should be on a rotating basis where each school, department, and division of your university has the opportunity to lead CORE for at least 1 year. This will create an atmosphere of collaboration and help break down organizational silos. This governance structure would also encourage participants to be actively involved in CORE’s advancement and they can use it to also enhance their own schools, divisions, and departments.
In regards to education and research, CORE should develop a graduate certificate program with the goal of creating a Bachelor’s, Masters and executive programs in the future.
References:
Tarek M. Khalil; L.A. Lefebvre; Robert McSpadden Mason (2001). Management of Technology: The Key to Prosperity in the Third millennium: Selected Papers from Ninth International Conference on Management of Technology, Emerald Group Publishing, pp.164
Welcome to Khan's Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.