politics

75 Questionable Thoughts About Organizational Transformation

Questionable Thoughts

  1. Strategies
    • People
      • Only executives can transform organizations
      • Internal expertise have no/minimum value
      • Everyone will be eager to contribute
    • Processes
      • Internal business processes and Information Technology (IT) processes don’t matter
      • Interfacing processes with partners and vendors don’t matter
      • All processes and standard operating procedures (SOPs) have been documented and followed without deviation
    • Products
      • Our products can’t serve beyond current client industries
      • We don’t need to look for best-of-breed products
      • We don’t need product evaluation feedbacks from customers, employees, partners and vendors
    • Services
      • Employee experiences are not important
      • Customer experiences are not important
      • Partners and vendors’ experiences are not important
    • Technologies
      • IT doesn’t need to get involved
      • Shadow-IT doesn’t exist
      • IT is just an enabler
  1. Politics
    • People
      • All title-holders have the same power
      • Only leaders can be the go-to people
      • There are no biases at play
    • Processes
      • We always have fair ways of making decisions
      • We always methodically assess power and its affects
      • Power-grabs don’t happen
    • Products
      • Personal experiences don’t affect product selection
      • Personal experiences don’t affect product selling
      • Personal experiences don’t affect product development
    • Services
      • There is no correlation between employee services and customer services
      • Customer services don’t affect partners and vendors
      • Unconscious favoritism doesn’t happen during decision-making
    • Technologies
      • Technologies keep us unbiased
      • The ecosystem of technologies ends within organizational boundaries
      • IT can’t help
  1. Innovation
    • People
      • There is no correlation between organizational innovation and individuals being innovative
      • The innovation and experimentation of partners and vendors don’t affect us
      • People need to explore being innovative in their own time
    • Processes
      • Incremental and disruptive innovations follow same processes
      • Can’t learn from others failures
      • Innovation doesn’t require a methodical process
    • Products
      • A particular department/individual is responsible for innovation
      • Innovation of others doesn’t affect us
      • There is no need to have feedback loops from employees, customers, partners and vendors
    • Services
      • Only customer services can improve customer services
      • There is no need to test and improve customer service journeys
      • Wise to follow industry status quo standards
    • Technologies
      • There is no innovation left in technologies
      • Adapting technologies is the easiest thing to do
      • IT is a cost center and doesn’t require an innovation budget
  1. Culture
    • People
      • Only executives can set the cultural norms
      • External environments don’t affect culture
      • Culture is only about people
    • Processes
      • Business processes and IT processes don’t create culture
      • Culture is unquantifiable
      • Culture isn’t a learned behavior
    • Products
      • Culture doesn’t impact the products we buy
      • Culture doesn’t impact the products we sell
      • Culture has no implications on product development
    • Services
      • Culture doesn’t impact the services we buy
      • Culture doesn’t impact the services we sell
      • Culture has no implications on employee and customer journeys
    • Technologies
      • Technologies can’t augment culture
      • Technologies can’t destroy culture
      • Culture-clashes need to be normalized
  1. Execution
    • People
      • Preparing sponsors, champions and leaders isn’t necessary
      • Only a handful need to know about the overall strategy
      • Layoffs are on the table
    • Processes
      • No business processes and IT processes need to be adopted for transformation
      • No business processes and IT processes need to be adapted for transformation
      • No business processes and IT processes need to be abandoned for transformation
    • Products
      • Don’t need to learn and quantify how products succeeded
      • Don’t need to learn and quantify how products failed
      • Customer, employee, partner and vendor product usage has no relevance
    • Services
      • Customer experiences isn’t a priority to execute strategy
      • Employee experiences isn’t a priority to execute strategy
      • Don’t need to map the gaps of experiences
    • Technologies
      • Technologies can’t be used to execute strategy
      • Technologies can’t be misused to execute strategy
      • Technologies aren’t and can’t be ingrained into every aspect of executing strategy

5 Questions to Ask About Your Organization’s Politics

Politics in an organization is about influencing others by using official and unofficial power. Official power comes from management titles while unofficial power comes from peers, juniors and even outsiders. Everyday in organizations official and unofficial power is used to: (1) frame problems, (2) influence changes and (3) make/guide decisions. This power can affect organizational structures, business processes, technologies and even innovation. Thus, it becomes imperative that organizations understand this power and how this power can affect organizational cultures. However, despite the strong relationship between politics and culture, most organizations are unaware, unwilling and/or unprepared to address it. The three main reasons politics is not directly addressed is because of:

  1. The inaccurate thinking that politics is always negative
  2. The fallacy that politics only happens at an individual’s personal level
  3. The inability to understand how politics can destroy/enhance capabilities

An organization’s politics is the total complex of relationships between people inside and outside of organizational boundaries. What this means is that people play politics even if they are unaware of it. While these people might have the best of intentions but their experiences/biases may or may not be best for the entire organization. By not keeping this in mind, organizations might not be able to self-assess if the IT vs. Business tension is a myth or reality, if the most optimized and continuously improving processes are present, if the correct technology is being selected for collective efficiency, if the right people are asking the right questions and if questioning the status quo is just a checkmark. In order to understand politics, the following questions need to be asked:

Strategic Perspectives on Politics:

 

Currently

In the Future

1. Who is incentivized at the executive level to understand politics? Who should be incentivized at the executive level to understand politics?
2. What governance structures are in place to address holistic vs. specific unit/function/team strategic needs? What governance structures should be in place to address holistic vs. specific unit/function/team strategic needs?
3. Where is technology being affected by politics? Where should technology affect politics?
4. When and how often political motivations are revealed? When and how often political motivations are revealed?
5. Why political understanding is critical to achieving strategic objectives? Why should political understanding be critical to achieving strategic objectives?

Tactical Perspectives on Politics:

 

Currently

In the Future

1. Who is incentivized at the middle management level to understand politics? Who should be incentivized at the middle management level to understand politics?
2. What business units, functional areas and teams are included to bring forth political implications? What business units, functional areas and teams should be made aware of political implications?
3. Where technology hinders understanding politics? Where technology might hinder in understanding politics?
4. When is the start and end of political motivations? When should be the start and end of political motivations?
5. Why political understanding is critical to achieving tactical objectives? Why political understanding should be critical to achieving tactical objectives?

Operational Perspectives on Politics:

 

Currently

In the Future

1. Who sees politics as an obstacle? Who might see political understanding as an obstacle?
2. What business processes provide views on the organization’s power plays? What business processes should provide views on the organization’s political boundaries?
3. Where is technology part of your understanding the organization’s politics? Where should technology be a part of understanding the organization’s politics?
4. When were you informed about the political objectives? When should you have been informed about political objectives?
5. Why political understanding is critical to achieving your daily tasks? Why political understanding should be critical to achieving your daily tasks?

Politics and culture are two sides of the same coin and each lurking in the shadows or showing in broad daylight to change the direction of the organization everyday. To address this, (1) be transparent, (2) create an atmosphere of trust, (3) be genuinely helpful across business units, functional areas and teams.

Politics-Culture

SPICE for Business Transformation

Imagine an organization where people, business processes, products, services and technologies are in sync. Where an organization performs at its most optimal levels and miraculously everyone is happy and contributing for the wellbeing of the organization. No, I am not talking about a fictional scenario in a far off land. I am talking about an organization harnessing all the power of its capabilities to achieve Business Transformation. And I believe that there is a lot organizations can achieve if they view Business Transformation as a holistic and all-encompassing endeavor. So, today I am going to talk to you about how SPICE can make your organizations better.

slide02-about-me

I help organizations pursue a better version of themselves. In this pursuit, I collaborate with front-line employees, middle management and the C-suite to understand issues beyond the obvious so that individuals and organizations can achieve their objectives. Over the years, I have held many titles but the underlying theme is to always do and look for Business Transformation opportunities.

slide03-what-is-bt

Business is “the activity of making, buying, or selling goods or providing services in exchange for money” for corporations. For non-profits, business is the pursuit of social causes. For educational institutes, business is the pursuit of knowledge. For governments, business is the pursuit of citizen services and for military business is national security.

Transformation is “a process”.

Now, that you have a baseline understanding of what Business Transformation is and how it helps, the next time when you hear this term you would be aware that it is not just another buzzword and not just another business initiative that would disappear with time.

slide04-meet-john

Now, imagine a person named John who is walking through an unknown and dark tunnel with just a flashlight in his hands and he is carrying some baggage behind him. John does not know what is in the baggage. He continues to use the flashlight to look ahead to find his way out. His resources are limited. Thus, his objective is to reach the correct end of this unknown and dark tunnel as efficiently as possible.

Would John make it?

According to some experts, if this person were an organization pursuing Business Transformation then he would have failed 70% of the time. Think about this for a second, this means that only 30% of Business Transformation endeavors are able to achieve their full potential. Why is this?

slide05-business-vs-it-1

While there could be a variety of reasons for this high failure rate, I have observed that the number one reason for this is related to a typical conversation within organizations.

How many times have you said or heard someone say, “the business” wants this and “the business” wants that and that “the business” doesn’t understand that systems cannot be developed overnight. Ingrained in this sort of thinking is the idea that somehow IT is different from “the business”.

Somehow there is this “Us” vs. “Them” mentality.

If we think about it, all organizations take advantage of technological advancements. Paper, which was once considered a technology itself, is now used in every organization today in one way or another. Today, all organizations are digital in one way or another even if they don’t realize it yet and to think that they are not stems from this “Us” vs. “Them” mentality.

slide06-business-vs-it-1

Perhaps it is time to change the conversation! Perhaps it is time to think about IT as not something that is outside of “the business” but it is part of “the business”. To have this conversation, there has to be mutual understanding that neither “side” should downplay the importance of the other. This requires an understanding that all technical and non-technical aspects of the organization are there to support the end objectives of business transformation and that collaboration works much better than just mere animosity.

When I started assessing and improving organizations in 2003, I didn’t know what it was called. All I wanted to do was help organizations apply the full potential of their capabilities beyond what they perceived them to be which included but not limited to IT capabilities. Over the years, this took on new meaning for me as the conversation quickly changed from just doing my duties to fundamentally reshaping organizations inside out.

A couple of years ago Business Transformation, IT Transformation and Digital Transformation started to pick up steam and it took off. A lot more individuals and organizations started to pay attention when they saw their bread and butter business models being shattered in light of the new economy. Startups like Uber took on the Taxi Services around the world and now are expanding into other means of transportation as well. In response, Taxi Service companies pushed back hard by either through legislation and government policy or creating their own taxi mobile apps. If the taxi service companies think that they can compete with Uber with just their own taxicab apps then they are hugely mistaken. This is just one example that illustrates how one industry became complacent and within a short period of time a competitor emerged with a new business model that directly tied its operations to technology and the rest, as we know it, is history.

So, if you think about it, Business Transformation is not a standalone activity but a holistic one. Thus, if the people, business processes, products, services and technologies are ignored or not paid enough attention then Business Transformation becomes just another pipe dream.

slide07-business-transformation-5-ws

As I see it, organizations that are committed to figuring out the Business Transformation journey have to ask 5 fundamental questions from an internal perspective and an external perspective. These questions are:

  1. Who is helped by Business Transformation efforts? Is it management? Is it employees? Or maybe its customers and shareholders? Perhaps answering this entails understanding customer experiences issues and long-term value propositions to shareholders.
  2. What does Business Transformation teach us? Is it better internal communications? Is it Governance and Standardization? Or is it Branding? An organization that showcases and does actual Business Transformation has better stories to tell about improvements and thus can attract customers who see value in an organization that is trying to do better.
  3. Where does Business Transformation start? Does it start in IT? Does it start in Marketing or Operations? Or does it start with customers, vendors and partners? When a customer comes to you and requests a system to be developed, do you ignore this request since your organization does not develop these types of systems or do you explore this further and figure out how you or a partner could help your customer?
  4. When should Business Transformation be considered? How about when an employee has a conversation with a customer? How about when established competitors are eating your lunch? Or should it be considered when new innovations and methods arise?
  5. Most importantly, why do Business Transformation in the first place? Is the organization looking to become optimized and have better cohesiveness? Or is it better long-term value and creating positive societal ripples such as the creation of Corporate Social Responsibility groups that look into Green Technologies to save electricity and in turn save the plant as a consequence.

These are all important questions to ask before, during and after the Business Transformation journeys. But if there are no effective feedback loops then most Business Transformation journeys would be just a one-time initiative and not something that makes organizations become self-improvement entities.

slide08-so-what

By this time, most of you might be thinking “well ok I get it that Business Transformation is more than what meets the eye but so what?!!”

What does Business Transformation really have to do with Business Architecture?

A valid question. I want you to think about this…

Do you see Business Architecture as just a plan, as just a design or a model, maybe perhaps a guide, or a way to create documentation, or for the purposes of alignment? Or do you see Business Architecture as a way to accomplish a vision and even to improve an organization’s mentality.

The fundamental reason we do Business Architecture in the first place is to fully leverage the technical and non-technical capabilities of the organization to transform itself. You don’t create a plan or a model or a guide to just document it but you do create it so that these insights can be used to make the organization better otherwise why do it in the first place anyways!

Thus, Business Architecture and Business Transformation are highly intertwined. An effective Business Architecture would open up avenues for Business Transformation so that when it comes to responding to market demands, strategy does not get lost in translation when it comes time for execution.

slide09-spice

I have spent many years recognizing patterns in my own engagements, academic literature and case studies and have determined that there are fundamentally 5 factors that affect the journeys towards Business Transformation.

These 5 factors are Strategies, Politics, Innovation, Culture and Execution or simply called the SPICE Factors.

I represent these factors in a pentagon shape. On its edges are the 5 factors which start from Strategies on the left hand corner and going clockwise until Execution. In the middle of the pentagon shape, there is a loop in yellow indicating that Business Transformation is a continuous process and not just a single project or initiative. Besides each SPICE factors there is a performance indicator to represent that each of the factors have to be measured. This measurement can entail Key Performance Indicators and even Service Level Agreement checks.

The red pentagon indicates where the organization is today (aka the current state) while the green pentagon indicates where the organization wants to be tomorrow (aka the future state). In the middle, the yellow arrow from the red pentagon to the green pentagon indicates transition and indicates what the areas that need to be taken into consideration namely people, business processes and technologies. By extension, these areas influence the products and services provided by the organization.

I am going to go through each of these 5 factors and make you think about how each of these factors can affect Business Transformation within your organizations.

slide10-strategies-1slide11-strategies-2slide12-strategies-3

The first SPICE factor is Strategies. Strategy is a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time. Depending upon how far out your organization can think, a long period of time can be 1 year, 3 years or even 10 years. Of course as you go further out in time, your strategy gets complex as you might not be able to anticipate what is going to happen.

There are many levels of strategies within the organization such as Financial Strategy, Marketing Strategy, Operations Strategy and IT Strategy to name a few. Additionally, strategies can be top down, bottom up, cross-functional and hybrids. But fundamentally, I put strategies in three big buckets namely Organizational Strategy which affects Executives (e.g., performance compensation, M&A etc.), Team Strategy which affects Middle Management (e.g., Operational Improvement, Tool Selection etc.) & Individual Strategy which affects front-line employees (e.g., career trajectory, hiring etc.).

In addition to these strategies and the types of people that they affect, it gets more complex and the real relationships actually look more complicated. Upon further depth, we realize that all of these types of strategies have an internal perspective and an external perspective.

For example, from an internal perspective, organizational strategy looks at things like the type of organizational structures such as functional, matrixed, product-based or hybrids. Depending upon what structure your organization has or wants to evolve into, there would be repercussions. In a functional organizational structure, focus on areas of expertise is increased but what is lost is the cross collaboration which leads to silos. On the other hand, in a matrixed project-based structure, the individuals are only needed for the duration of that project and then they go back into a pool to be picked up or not. What incentive do people have in this type of structure to get the job done efficiently? Something to think about.

Depending upon what the end goal is, these strategies can

  1. Affect performance compensation for executives
  2. Create or destroy middle management fiefdoms
  3. Affect Hiring, Training and Layoff of frontline employees
  4. Create and destroy bloated expectations

The last point is interesting since a strategy with bloated expectations or no expectations at all can lead to misalignment namely between IT Strategy and other Organizational Strategies. Lets think about this…

  1. Was this misalignment always there or somehow it evolved over time?
  2. Why did this misalignment happen in the first place?

A root cause understanding from technical and non-technical views can reveal something that might have been taken for granted. For example, IT teams creating and acquiring tools that have no relationship to the Organizational Strategy or perhaps revealing the purchase of technology by non-IT teams which again has no relationship to the Organizational Strategy.

In short, there are 3 key points to consider for Business Transformation in terms of strategies:

  1. The real an unreal organizational structures matter more that you might like to believe
  2. Plan to plan and measure performance both at an organizational level as well as at individual levels
  3. Alignment is a two-way conversation that is not a top-down demand but should be a collaborative approach

Having said that, as corporate citizens of the organization, we have to realize that Strategies are not shelf-ware.

slide13-politics-1slide14-politics-2

Merriam Webster defines politics to be the complex of relations between people living in a society. For our purposes, here society would refer to your organization. No one wants to talk about politics in the organization and yet there are decisions made everyday that are political in nature. 

Politics in organizations is about power; the power to frame a problem; the power to influence decision and the power to make decisions. While we are all aware of the official power that is the power of your superior within the organization but most have also encountered unofficial power where regardless of the title an individual is able to persuade others. Some people call this leadership while other call it manipulation.

In organizations, while it may seem that all similar titles should hold the same power but that is certainly not the case. Even with VP titles, not all VPs are the same. Some have more power based on the number of people they manage, based on the revenue generated by their teams and even based on the relationships they have with others within the organization. So, the next time you look at an org chart and see all VPs at the same level you will know that an organizational chart is just a fairytale representation and not reality. Why this matters? This matter because the next time you are looking for champions to support your projects keep a vigilant eye on who has power and how much of their power is used to make decisions.

The display of power is more relevant today in the age of big data than ever before. As you know, most Big Data initiatives revolve around gathering massive amounts of data and then finding patterns. The thought behind is that once we can figure out patterns then we can make better decisions. This however is not the complete picture. Beyond the usual Vs of Big Data, I believe there are 4 Vs that are critical but missing in most conversations.

These Vs are Vitality meaning how important the data is, Versatility meaning how data could be applied to various scenarios, Vocality meaning the supporters of data-driven approaches and lastly Veto meaning the ultimate authority to accept or reject big data conclusions. As you might have noticed, Vocality and Veto are about Power.

The idea of power also applies when you are creating an ERP System. The executives who have official and unofficial powers can become champions or become obstacles. One way to remedy this is to get them involved early on; have a discussion, find out pain points and get feedback. So, when it is time to standup an ERP system, the people have been engaged from the begining and it is not a surprise. Also be prepared that business process optmization should be done first prior to any large scale systems because otherwise all you are doing is automating broken business processes and thus when it is time to optmize them it would become much harder to do so. Other examples of displaying of power would be in Cloud Computing and Shadow IT.

In short, there are 2 key points to consider for Business Transformation in terms of politics:

  1. The official and unofficial power considerations matter and can make or break a project
  2. Create a Power Map to know where a power resides, assign quantitative values to them to set a baseline and then verify with projects that those baselines are correct

Remember, politics needs to be understood especially in the case of organizations.

slide15-innovation-1slide16-innovation-2

Innovation is defined to be the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices or methods. Innovation can be a new product, a new way of hiring people, a new way of doing business processes, a new service and it can also be a new technology. If there are so many ways of being innovative, why organizations and individuals struggle in this area?

For most, innovation is something that is considered difficult since people don’t know where to start or how to continue. Innovation comes from inspiration and I believe that organizations and individuals can be inspired by things around them. The left picture represents the possible sources of organizational inspiration for innovation. These sources include:

  1. First, the organization’s internal customers. By internal customer, yes I do mean anyone who is within the boundaries of your organizations and yes that includes your employees. Employees who can see beyond the immediate needs and are able to connect the dots should have an avenue to express it. Thus, there should be some sort of innovation process that captures the wisdom of these employees.
  2. Second, the organization’s external customers. We are all aware of the external customers who are outside the boundaries of your organization but they too can provide feedback to improve your products and services.
  3. Third, within your own industry, which includes looking at what competitors, partners and/or startups are doing something that could be applied internally.
  4. Fourth, outside your industry. Think about the field of Project Management that emerged from the construction industry but now it is used in Software Development.
  5. Lastly, the integration, customization and combination of inspirations from the above four ways. Think about the evolution of writing from cave walls to stone tablets to paper and then eventually to computers.

The picture on the right represents the possible sources of individual inspiration for innovation. These sources include:

  1. First, your direct circle of influences namely your friends and family. Have you considered talking with them about problems that you might be facing and what they would recommend?
  2. Second, your indirect circle on influence namely your co-workers, educational and professional associations. Perhaps what you are having trouble with they have already solved or at least they can give you a nudge in the right direction.
  3. Third, increasing your understanding of areas that interest you which includes reading books, blogs, news articles and talking to people who have experience in that area.
  4. Fourth, increasing your awareness of areas that you are not that knowledgeable in which includes different types of readings, experiencing cultures beyond your own, conversation with diverse people, observing the plant kingdom and observing the animal kingdom.
  5. Lastly, the stitching, applicability and combination of inspiration from the above four ways. Think about the invention of Velcro by observing cockleburs in the plant kingdom.

Thus, it would be naïve for organizations to think that they cannot fully take advantage of innovation at the organizational and individual levels.

They have to remember that innovation is the lifeline.

slide17-culture-1slide18-culture-2

Culture is a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization. Often times when there is a discussion of culture within organizations we immediately think this is something fuzzy and it is only equated with people. While people definitely create a culture but there is more to this than meets the eye.

You see culture is not just one thing but a combination of things. Most organizations don’t have one culture but they have a mix of sub-cultures. The way people are treated creates a sub-culture. For example, how are people within the organizations at all levels incentivized and rewarded? The way people dress creates a sub-culture. For example, if executives dress differently vs. non-executives this visibly creates the culture of in-crowd vs. outsiders. The posters in public locations, the discussion between Mac. Vs. Windows, IT behind closed doors and even an individual can create sub-cultures within an organizations.

All of this matters because culture is not just having a foosball table or other “perk”, it is creating an environment where employees are appreciated not just by talk by the executive but by tangible actions through incentives, rewards and performance goals.

Culture is at the base of the SPICE factors for a reason.

Culture can make a strategy just another paper-exercise, culture can drastically affect politics, culture can resist organizational innovation, and culture can prevent effective execution of operations and all of this means that culture can diminish any hopes for Business Transformation.

slide19-execution-1slide20-execution-2

Execution is the act of doing or performing something. If you notice in the above-mentioned factors, all of them need to be executed; measured and performed otherwise all we are doing is just wasting our breath and paper. As I see it, execution also has an organizational level and an individual level. Both of them are highly intertwined. If there are no structures and processes to determine and quantify execution issues then how would you know where your baseline is and if you don’t know where your baseline is then how would you know if your Business Transformation efforts have been successful or not.

Note that execution is highly based on biases and perceptions of organizations and individuals as discussed earlier. They have to be considered and if needed be persuaded to be changed.

Rewards and incentives can not only change behavior but it can enhance cohesion and collaboration across the organization.

Lesson learned are useless when all they are is a paper exercise of capturing what happened wrong or right but not an input for other projects so that they can avoid similar mistakes or repeat successes.

slide21-it-all-comes-together

All the factors that have been discussed are not something that are done in isolation but they all come together to create an organization that is able to transform it self based and stay ahead of the game.

slide22-survey

As we can see from the live survey, the most important area for Business Transformation is People and the most important factor for Business Transformation is execution.

slide23-meet-john-again

Now, let’s go back to our dear friend John (aka your organization). With his understanding of the SPICE Factors and his awareness of how the SPICE Factors can affect people, business processes, products, services and technologies, don’t you think he would have used his flash light to find out what was in the baggage. Perhaps some of the baggage was dead weight that he needed to get rid of and perhaps in the baggage there were additional resources he could use such as food, liquids and even a map. But the only way John would find out would be to look behind and just check his baggage!

All I am saying is…help John find his way and help him succeed!

slide24-summary

How to select an Enterprise Architecture Framework?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This article provides in detail the elements of an Enterprise Architecture (EA) framework that would be selected and deployed at a fictional United States (US) Federal Government contractor called FedCon. FedCon is divided into 3 Business Units (BUs) that are focused on providing Management Consulting, Information Technology (IT) Consulting and Systems Integration (SI) Services in Healthcare, Environment and Finance.

This article analyzes FedCon in terms of Strategies, Politics, Innovation, Culture and Execution (SPICE) as shown below:

  Stakeholders Domains
Strategies CEO, COO and CIO Business-IT alignment
Politics BU SVPs, PMO and program/project managers Technology products and services
Innovation Employees directly interfacing with customers Technology products and services
Culture PMO, HR and Accounting/Finance Leverage the massive intellectual property
Execution All employees Organizational performance

Based on the above, it is determined that The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) would be the appropriate EA framework at FedCon since (1) it is supported by multiple vendor tools (2) it is constantly being improved upon and (3) it has an Architecture Development Methodology (ADM) which can be used as a guide.

ABOUT FEDCON:

FedCon is a fictional 30 year old large publically traded US Federal Government contractor that provides Management Consulting, IT Consulting and SI services to civilian agencies. It has over 5,000 employees nationwide and it is structured into three Business Units (BUs). Each BU has domain expertise in Healthcare, Finance or Environmental information systems. This structure allows the BUs to work directly with the civilian agencies based on their missions. Each BU has its own account/business development (BD) team that reports to the BU Senior Vice President (SVP). The Program/Project Managers report to the BU SVP and provide status updates on programs/projects to the corporate Program Management Office (PMO). The PMO conducts weekly meetings to provide guidance on corporate standards, compliance and general project templates.

Organizational Structure

Organizational Structure

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

Over the past couple of years FedCon has lost 20% of its business. The CEO has been under pressure by the shareholders to turn the company around. Thus, the CEO hired a management consulting firm to determine what were the pain points within FedCon that were preventing it from staying competitive in the marketplace. The management consulting firm’s report revealed that due to inefficient business processes and outdated technologies FedCon’s BUs were not able to collaborate efficiently to manage business and technology changes. Based on these findings in the report, the CEO mandated the Chief Operation Officer (COO) and Chief Information Officer (CIO) to work together to find areas that they can improve in the next 12 months.

ANALYSIS:

In order to address the CEO’s concerns, the COO and CIO came to the conclusion that in order to help FedCon create a disciplined approach to managing strategic intent and its execution they had to look into the field of Enterprise Architecture. Thus, the COO and CIO decided to standup an Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (EAPMO) that would report directly to the CIO. Initially, the EAPMO is tasked with determining the high level criterions to select a framework. This task includes providing elements of the framework to be used and how the framework would be applied within FedCon..

In this article, we assess the feasibility of an EA framework that can be used in FedCon by making observations about Strategies, Politics, Innovation, Culture and Execution (SPICE) factors. These factors would focus on understanding the people, processes and technologies at FedCon to create an effective EAPMO.

 

SPICE Factors

SPICE Factors

Strategies at FedCon:

At FedCon, there are multiple levels of strategies that are developed. These strategies include: (1) the corporate strategy determined by the CEO, (2) the operational strategy determined by the CFO, COO and CIO, (3) the BU strategy determined by the BU SVPs and (4) the PMO strategy determined by the PMO office. This is shown below.

Multiple Corporate Strategies

Multiple Corporate Strategies

As we can see from the above figure, each strategy layer addresses different domains for the various stakeholders. Even though these strategies are developed to increase the bottom line and decrease costs, they are created in isolation. Additionally, since each BU is somewhat autonomous it can create technology products and solutions for the civilian agencies that overlap with corporate products and solutions. This is a problem since not leveraging the corporate assets where applicable for client delivery can result in program/project delays and duplicative systems.

The primary strategic concerns in choosing an EA framework are:

  1. Stakeholders – CEO, COO and CIO are the strategic stakeholders and the executive sponsors of the EAPMO.
  2. Domain – Strategically, FedCon is interested in alignment of business and IT operations and efficient processes.

FedCon has never stood up an EA practice and thus it would be wise to select an EA framework that could guide them in what to do and that it has been proven in the industry to be useful for organizations that are just starting out their EA journey. These high level strategic criterions are fulfilled by The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) that provides an Architecture Development Methodology (ADM) as a step-by-step guide and includes how to do stakeholder management.

Politics at FedCon:

Generally, when we talk about the politics in an organization we are referring to the negative connotations attached with it. But for our purposes we will define politics to mean the formal power or informal power of an individual or group within an organization. The power exhibited by these individual and groups can turn into obstacle or support to bring about organization-wide changes. In this sense, here we refer to formal power as the reporting structures while informal power refers to the influence yielded based upon size of the BU, revenue generated by BU, headcount of BU and close relationships of BU leadership with the executives.

At FedCon, even though the BU SVPs have the same title, they don’t have the same power. Taking this into account and the emphasis by the US Federal Government Executive Branch to focus on healthcare issues, the largest and most profitable among the FedCon’s BUs is the healthcare BU. Due to this reason the healthcare BU SVP has more informal power among its peers. This means that if the healthcare BU can be convinced of the merits of the EA practice then we can come one step closer to a FedCon-wide EA practice.

The primary political concerns in choosing an EA framework are:

  1. Stakeholders – BU SVPs, PMO and program/project managers are the political stakeholders. The BU SVPs have formal power to bring change within their respective BUs. The PMO is a well-established office and it has visibility into the various kinds of projects and has informal power by pushing down changes to the project level within different BUs. Lastly, the program/project managers within BUs are stakeholders as well since they have to indoctrinate their teams on how EA can be used as leverage when developing client technology products and services.
  2. Domain – Politically, agreement, collaboration and coordination across BUs and the corporate team seems to be the area of focus to rapidly bring technology products and services.

Due to the “friendly” competition among BUs to become bigger and yield more influence in FedCon, politics has to be carefully considered. Sometimes BUs are not willing to share if there are possible overlaps with what they are developing and what is already available in a different BU or at the corporate level. Convincing BUs to work together could be hard and caution has to be taken in which players to involve in development of the EA practice. Additionally, there has to be some sort of collaboration between the EAPMO and PMO for lessons learned and organizational improvements. These high level political criterions are also fulfilled by TOGAF where it recommends how Architecture Governance and Architecture Boards should be setup.

Innovation at FedCon:

Broadly speaking, innovation in organizations is disruptive, incremental or a combination of both. Disruptive innovation as described by the world-renowned management theorist Clay M. Christensen’s institute is such that it “transforms an existing market or sector by introducing simplicity, convenience, accessibility, and affordability where complication and high costs are the status quo.” This disruption can come in the form of unique business models, products and/or services that can give rise to new industries and improve existing industries. On the other end of the innovation spectrum, incremental innovation is where small changes are made to existing business models, products and services to improve existing industries.

Being a US Federal Government contractor, innovation at FedCon is mostly incremental since it tries to improve upon its existing products and services that are provided to the civilian agencies. FedCon accomplishes incremental innovation by obtaining customer feedback and assessing the competitive landscape. However, since BUs only focus on their own expertise, there are less opportunities for collaboration across BUs, which means technology products and services, are being developed without leveraging what already exists in the organization.

The primary innovation concerns in choosing an EA framework are:

  1. Stakeholders – FedCon employees that work directly with customers are the stakeholders that need to be considered since improvement of existing technology products and services are highly dependent upon customer feedback and conveying of the feedback to FedCon.
  2. Domain – In terms of innovation, FedCon is interested in creating technology products and services that meet customer expectations and exceed what the competition can offer.

EA is a disciplined approach to accomplishing enterprise objectives through alignment between business and IT. This disciplined approach can also be leveraged to make FedCon more competitive, which can result in bringing technology products and services quicker to the marketplace. This high-level innovation criterion also point towards using TOGAF since it is constantly being improved upon based on the feedback from technology vendors and solution providers.

Culture at FedCon:

The “father of modern management” Dr. Peter Drucker once said that, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Culture can affect the ability of any organization to adopt or resist changes to the organization. While culture is typically considered a fuzzy attribute of an organization but there are tangible things that we can observe to decipher corporate culture which include (1) corporate values, (2) employee recognition and risk taking, (3) salaries, commission and hourly rates, (4) location, (5) clothes and (6) domain expertise and product/service subcultures.

At FedCon, the culture is such that change is welcomed as long everyone who is affected by it understands its purpose and there is no disruption to normal business processes. This is a two-pronged issue for the selection of an EA framework since even if the value of EA is understood by senior leadership but it is not understood at the BU, program/project and individual levels then it becomes just another information collection exercise.

The primary cultural concerns in choosing an EA framework are:

  1. Stakeholders – FedCon has a process-driven and metrics-monitoring culture. This is one of the reasons that Program Management Office (PMO) is an important part of FedCon since it provides a consistent process by which program/projects can be evaluated. In order to incentivize employees to change their behavior for the organizational transformation, human resources and accounting/finance offices are also stakeholders in EA success.
  2. Domain – Culturally, FedCon is interested in creating an atmosphere that encourages employees to take risks and leverage the massive intellectual property it has developed over the years to stay competitive.

One of the reasons for the success of the PMO within FedCon is its process-driven culture. So for the selection of an EA framework we have to consider what plays into strengths of FedCon. This high level cultural criterion leads us to TOGAF that provides a methodological approach for EA within an organization. The EAPMO would make use of lessons learned from the PMO to create a successful EA practice.

Execution at FedCon:

Intention without execution is simply thoughts without results. An organization can have great intentions but if it does not operationalize those intentions then all the strategy discussions and documentation it did just an exercise in futility.

At FedCon, execution has two views. One view is the execution based on winning a government contract to deliver technology products and services. The second view is execution of the corporate strategy that looks into entering new markets, mergers and acquisitions and creating superior technology products and services.

The primary execution concerns in choosing an EA framework are:

  1. Stakeholders – All employees of FedCon at every level are stakeholders in the successful execution of EA.
  2. Domain – In terms of execution, best practices have to be applied/created for all of FedCon and metrics developed that assess organizational performance.

STANDING UP AN EAPMO:

After assessing the business environment of FedCon to determine an appropriate EA framework, next we have to determine people, processes and technologies needed to standup the EAPMO. These needs are discussed below:

People:

In order to assess the skillsets needed to run the EAPMO, we have to look at the current skillsets available, skillsets that people need to be trained on and hiring of people with the necessary skillsets at FedCon. The hard skills needed to join the EAPMO require the knowledge of the chosen EA framework (i.e., TOGAF) and the ability to find common themes to enhance collaboration. The soft skills needed to join the EAPMO require (1) being politically aware, (2) ability to create bridges/connections and (3) high emotional intelligence. Additionally, metrics will be created to evaluate EAPMO team members based on their hard and soft skills.

Processes:

The business processes followed by EAPMO would be determined by TOGAF best practices and what has worked within FedCon. At a high level this would be the architecture governance process and at the lower lever this would the cross-functional teams processes for being advocates and collectors of information across FedCon. The various processes would be tested in the first 6 months to work out any wrinkles and get a baseline understanding of what needs to be done.

Technologies: 

Now that we have selected the FedCon’s EA framework to be TOGAF, we have to select a tool that supports this framework. This tool can be selected by looking at Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture tools.

 

CONCLUSION:

Due to FedCon’s expertise as a technology company and for all the reasons stated in the analysis section, TOGAF is the right EA framework since it provides a roadmap of what needs to be done. One thing to keep in mind is that a framework needs to be flexible enough so it can adapt with changing organizational needs rather than the organization becoming a slave to the framework.

References:

  1. Khan, Arsalan. “5 Factors for Business Transformation.” Arsalan Khan. WordPress.com, n.d. Web. https://arsalanakhan.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/5-factors-for-business-transformation/
  2. “Stakeholder Management.” ADM Guidelines and Techniques – Stakeholder Management. TOGAF, n.d. Web. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap24.html
  3. Schekkerman, Jaap. Enterprise Architecture Good Practices Guide: How to Manage the Enterprise Architecture Practice. Victoria, BC: Trafford Pub., 2008. Print.
  4. “Architecture Governance.” Architecture Governance. TOGAF, n.d. Web. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/chap26.html
  5. Christensen, Clay M. “Christensen Institute.” Christensen Institute Disruptive Innovation Comments. Christensen Institute, n.d. Web. http://www.christenseninstitute.org/key-concepts/disruptive-innovation-2/
  6. “The Business Executive’s Guide to IT Architecture.” The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) Executive Overview. TOGAF, n.d. Web. http://www.opengroup.org/public/arch/p1/oview/
  7. Caldbeck, Ryan. “Why Execution Is Everything In Business.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancaldbeck/2014/09/16/why-execution-is-everything/
  8. “Organisational Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast and Dinner.” ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE EATS STRATEGY FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH AND DINNER. Meliorate, n.d. Web. http://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/culture/organisational-culture-eats-strategy-for-breakfast-lunch-and-dinner/
  9. Lapkin and Weiss. “Ten Criteria for Selecting an Enterprise Architecture Framework”. Gartner report G00163673. Gartner http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=260&mode=2&PageID=3460702&resId=838915&ref=QuickSearch&sthkw=G00163673
  10. Brand, Saul. “Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Architecture Tools.” Gartner report G00263193 http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=260&mode=2&PageID=3460702&resId=2859721&ref=QuickSearch&sthkw=ea+tools+magic+quadrant