Unifying Motivation

It’s pretty standard to consider Mission, Goals and Objectives when doing a business architecture. Some use functional decomposition to increase the rigour of ensuring that these are aligned. Maybe we draft a Vision - a shared and inspiring description of a desirable future state. But what of the other reasons we do things? From traditional SWOT analysis come the Strengths we want to capitalise on, the Weaknesses we want to eliminate, the Opportunities we want to exploit and the Threats that we should minimise.

Once we start to bring in outside factors, such as threats and opportunities, we may as well get more comprehensive and look at STEEPLED analysis: Social, Technology, Economic, Environmental, Political, Legislative, Ethical and Demographic factors that may influence plans and actions. Social change may involve nuclear versus extended families; urbanisation, unemployment, etc. Environment factors may mean dwindling resources, avoiding pollution, or creating circular business models. Political factors may dictate which products are viable in a given market. Legislation may require compliance, restrict services we can offer, or dictate hiring policies. Ethics may dictate that we change business practices. Demographic changes, such as an ageing and better educated population, may affect product design.

We can add the concept of Drivers (which overlaps with the preceding), looking for factors that require us to change. Examples include: Competition, Cost or other ratios, Technologies important in our industry, Values and Ethos of the business, etc.

If we analyse capabilities (possibly within value chains / networks / streams), and have a clear vision / mission / goals, then we can also do a Gap Analysis of what is missing to get there. Addressing capability gaps generates clear goals and potentially, initiatives to address them.

Another dimension is our Product and Services portfolio. Which ones are profitable? Which ones are where in their lifecycle? Which ones are sustainable? Which fit best with the contextual analysis we have done? What becomes possible with new technologies, design thinking or innovative business models?

Finally, we can also do a Business Health check (a multi-dimensional review taking in many strategic dimensions including: strategy, management, architecture, human resources, assets and liabilities, profitability, cash flow, return on investment, geographic coverage, shareholding, partnerships, channels, information use, risk management, agility, etc. ) or at least a Balanced Scorecard.

All of the above can be integrated into a coherent Motivation Model. This should be constructed to be compliant with our Business and Architecture Principles which guide what we will and will not do and how we will go about achieving it.

Why do we need to change? What does a desirable future look like? What needs to change? How can we go about it?

#Strategy #Motivation #BusinessArchitecture #EnterpriseArchitecture

Positioning Business Architecture

Popular Enterprise Architecture methods position Enterprise Architecture, including Business Architecture, within I.T. and reporting to the CIO or CTO. This reflects the history of how EA methods have arisen: initially addressing Technology, then Applications and Data. As I.T. became more strategic and vital to business and businesses realised they needed alignment with I.T., management of costs and risks, the Business Architecture domain was added or expanded.

For most current EA methods, this is very much I.T. looking at the business to understand the organisation structure, processes and (maybe) value chains and capabilities which I.T. should enable and support. This may be OK for Enterprise I.T. Architecture, but is not true Business Architecture. The latter should be architecting the business and its future within the context where it operates. Given this perspective, Business Architecture should be outside of I.T., possibly in a Strategy or Business Change area. It should report to the Chief Strategy/Change/Executive/Operations Officer. Some advanced organisations now have a Chief Architect at ExCo level, responsible for all aspects of change and future planning.

The danger if Business Architecture reports to I.T. is that the agenda and priorities will be driven from this perspective. We watched this happen in a client organisation. They had a fairly new but competent Business Architecture function which was working well and initiating and guiding strategic change. The I.T. function was not performing as well and they hired a new high powered CIO to take that over. He lobbied hard and was successful in bringing the Business Architecture function under his control. Within two years it had lost all effectiveness as an agent of strategic business change.

By contrast we assisted another client to establish an EA function, and a Business Architecture competency from scratch. The Business Architecture function reported directly to the Office of the CEO, who was also its sponsor. A PMO was set up to drive the change projects, and the triumvirate of Business Architecture, PMO and IT (Including Enterprise I.T. Architecture) proved highly effective in driving a major strategic transformation programme including many non-I.T. aspects over a period of three years (and ongoing).

The diagram indicates how pivotal a good Business Architecture function can be. It informs the other architectures below it to ensure alignment. It drives business initiatives, which deliver competencies to operate the business.

The picture, of a lookout post in Israel, is a bit more tongue in cheek. It illustrates the current position of many Business Architecture functions - high up, but precarious!

#BusinessArchitecture #Strategy #EnterpriseArchitecture #StrategicAlignment

Satisfied Stakeholders

A stakeholder is someone (person, entity) that has an interest in the outcome of something. An investor in a business is a stakeholder, as are its CEO and its suppliers and its staff members. A sponsor in a project is a stakeholder, as are the people who will use the resulting system and maintain it. Stakeholders have different perspectives, motivations and expectations. Often, we will rely upon stakeholders for things that we want: investment, information, participation, approval, support, resources… So, it is really important to identify stakeholders, keep them engaged and to meet their expectations (within reason and without compromising our own goals).

Another reason to really keep an eye on stakeholders is this: If we are a business, we prosper to the extent that we continue to deliver value to our stakeholders; delivering that value requires capabilities, which in turn rely upon people, processes, systems, data, technology etc. So this guides where we put our focus and what we need to optimise in our business and enterprise architecture.

From a project perspective, our stakeholders are providing inputs (money, information, resources etc.) with the expectation of some desirable change or result (e.g. a new process, product, system etc. ). To produce the outputs that they require, we will need to carry out various tasks, apply skills, resources and effort to produce various artefacts. If we pay attention to what stakeholders need, we can translate that to product models (configurations of deliverables if you like), the tasks required to produce them, and the people, skills, resources and tools needed to perform the tasks. So, stakeholders can lead us directly into good project plans.

A technique we have evolved to rapidly analyse stakeholder interaction is the Stakeholder Net Value Exchange. This puts an enterprise or project in a central “black box”, surrounded by Stakeholder Types (e.g. Customer) & some important independent Stakeholders (e.g. Industry Regulator). We connect the stakeholders to the entity via edges in the direction of Value flow. You can think of these relationships as Stakeholder provides Value to Entity (inbound) or Stakeholder expects Value from Entity (outbound). For a compact diagram, the value can be recorded as text on the arrow. For a richer diagram (where we can start to see commonality etc. and define values more deeply) we put a Value symbol on the flow.

It is really illuminating to see an Enterprise or a Project from this perspective. It is also possible to model more than one collaborating entity this way, e.g. ourselves and a strategic business partner.
More detailed analysis easily ensues: We need to include all the Stakeholder types as concepts in our Domain Model; We can contemplate what Business Events occur with each Stakeholder, what Business Communication results and which Processes support them.

#Stakeholder #projectmanagement #enterprisearchitecture #businessarchitecture

Data Models in Business Architecture? Sure!

Many argue that data considerations are too technical for the business and should be the preserve of data and information architects or data scientists. However, current wisdom says that data is a business asset from which we should gain value and strategic advantage. Data ownership and responsibility should vest in the business, with IT being custodians and curators.

How do we resolve this paradox? Simple: its a T-shaped problem. Business Architecture is at a high level of abstraction, broad in coverage, but not detailed in depth. It is the horizontal bar of the T. Information Architecture is like the stem of the T. It has a number of layers of abstraction, including subject areas, conceptual models, logical models and physical models. Alongside those is meta data to map between the layers, cross reference usage, communities, implementations, security, ownership and myriad other concerns.

The overlap between the vertical and horizontal is where data should be in business architecture, as a Domain Model. This is at a conceptual level and includes the concepts of importance to the business. The Domain is the “subject of discourse”, in practical terms, the industry, such as Telecommunications, Retail, Manufacturing, Education or Health Care. The Domain Model should cover all relevant business concepts, but not include any technology specific details, or detailed requirements. It’s the 3000 metre view of data.
It should include: Concept Names, Definitions, Sample Instances, Identifying Properties, Relationships (Type/SubType, Containment, Association, Role). It may contain cardinalities/ratios, but these are not essential. Concepts can be grouped into useful subject areas, such as Finance, Product, Customer, etc. There should be a graphical view and a business glossary. It might be derived from or aligned to an industry reference model.

So what do we do with it? Lots! It is a Rosetta Stone to facilitate accurate communication between business communities and from there to technical communities. It gives us the nouns for our discussions around ownership, sharing, privacy, security, archival, requirements, business rules and more. It allows us to track progress w.r.t. data automation, migration, sharing, security, privacy management and metrics and quality. It facilitates consensus and integration. It helps to prevent duplication and integrity problems. It helps us leverage data as an asset and provides the platform for digital transformation.

#businessarchitecture #dataarchitecture #enterprisearchitecture #conceptualmodel

A Contrary View on Capability

Capabilities are fashionable. Everyone is modelling them, but not always well… And just what is a capability?

Popular business and EA methods use it more or less interchangeably with a “Business Function”, i.e. something we do. I differ.

Capabilities are often listed below a value chain/network to support the delivery of the value adding steps. This is all well and good. Often stated in simple phrases such as “Attract Talent”, “Create Desirable Products”. In this form they are equal to business functions. Less usefully, they will sometimes be stated as nouns, e.g. “Human Resources” or “Accounting”. These are vague at best and equate more to organisational units or departments.

Other methods include goal, process and service modelling. How do we make sense of all these? Are they competing or complementary?

One technique useful for all of them is decomposition - breaking down higher level goals / concepts / requirements to more detail or more concrete ones.

We can decompose Mission into Goals and Objectives; Mission into Functions; Processes into sub-processes and activities; Services into service components, etc. Can they be integrated? Fortunately, yes! Mission, Goals and Objectives are about what we want to achieve, independent of what needs to be done or how. They can provide a starting point for our decomposition. One mission breaks down into goals (broad directions) which break down into objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time bounded). Mission (or objectives) can also be decomposed into functions: what must we do to achieve the goals? Functions should have a verb (doing something), an object (to what?) and qualifying clauses (how, with what constraints).

Functions can be sequenced on dependencies to form end to end business processes. Functions and processes can be packaged as services, with providers (who does it?), consumers (who uses it?), inputs (what is necessary to do it?), outputs (what is expected as a result?) and service levels. We need a catalogue of available services, and a designated way to invoke them.

Ah, but what of capabilities? Well, functions, processes, services can all deliver capabilities. A capability implies the ability to do something (function) for someone/thing (consumer) producing a desired result (service/product) at a particular location, with a certain service level (e.g. volume, efficiency, accuracy, etc. ) and potentially other requirements (e.g. in a particular language). To deliver a capability will typically require resources, such as skill, information, application support, infrastructure and physical presence.

There is nothing wrong with defining business functions (proto-capabilities) at a high level below the value chain. We should ensure, however, that they are expanded into full capabilities during later design to deliver all the dimensions required.

#Capability #EnterpriseModelling #BusinessModelling #EnterpriseArchitecture

Role of the Repository

As architects we use many models and produce/share a lot of artefacts (models, documents, presentations, plans, posters). We collect a lot of references and create many “working files” (such as notes, spreadsheets, outlines, templates). We share with other parties in business, I.T., vendors and advisors.

It is a daunting task to keep all of this stuff straight, to find it when we want it, to ensure that we have the right version. Difficult to make a consistent change across the various mentions of a particular thing, for example: a Business Unit has been renamed - how can we reflect that across all references in all the various models and documents?

We can of course build a library of documents, often a network drive or Sharepoint portal. This may start out well, but often quickly devolves into a large bucket. A better solution is to have electronic document management, where artefacts are stored, indexed, versioned, searchable and sharable with appropriate permissions. This can work well with appropriate discipline. It still suffers from the maintenance problem we mentioned. E.g. Updating things mentioned _inside_ models, presentations and other artefacts consistently.

This is where we need a proper repository. This may do document management too: the key difference is that a repository will manage _objects_. These can be course grained, such as the documents and models mentioned. They can also be fine grained, such as the things of interest inside the documents, models etc. A repository allows having the same object reflected in multiple models, documents, reports, matrices etc. This greatly facilitates impact analysis and maintenance to ensure consistency. It also allows integration of different domains or perspectives. For example, I can mention Business Objects (which derive from a Conceptual Data Model) in a Business Process Model, or a Requirement Specification for a Business Intelligence Dashboard.

To provide this sort of flexibility, the repository should allow customisation of meta models. I.e. we should be able to define: the concepts we are interested in, the relationships that they can have to other concepts, the properties that are important to a concept. Also, how we want to represent the information in various ways including: forms, reports, models, documents, matrices, etc. The repository solution should provides easy import from standard formats as well as APIs for easy integration to other tooling. Global search facilities and a strong security system are valuable too.

Our EVA toolset provides such a repository. The philosophy is that it's easy to capture information from a variety of sources: CSV, XML, Web Forms, Graphical Modelling; store it all semantically regardless of source; use it for analysis; and output in many forms: Query, Lists, Matrices, Visualisations, Graphical Models, etc.

Read more about EVA here.

#enterprisearchitecture #enterprisemodelling #repository #tools

Enterprise as Social Entity

An enterprise is also a social entity, a mini-society, if you will. It has its own culture, politics, strata of status, winners and losers, factions and support groups. It has the upwardly mobile and those nearing retirement. It has immigrants finding their feet. Like a city, province/state or country, it has neighbours and others that it interacts with from afar. It has a government in the board and executive, and local government in the lines of business and departments. It has a geography (physical or logical).

This is pretty fundamental when we consider change, as we do in Business Architecture. We need to think of the greater good of the various constituencies. We have to think about our trading partners (customers, suppliers, channels).

Like other social entities, we can make plans and devise strategies, but their success will depend upon convincing independent minds to follow the plan and adhere to the rules. This requires that the plan be to the advantage of most participants, defensible in terms of logic and evidence, and achievable in terms of resources available.

We will also have to present our plans in ways that are familiar (in terms of vocabulary, format, medium, world view) to the “government” of the day, i.e. those who take the decisions to proceed, provide the resources and funding and take accountability for delivery.

From an architect’s perspective, this means we need to gather reliable data, do sound analysis, recommend good strategies, leverage all the soft skills of interaction, persuasion, reaching consensus and present our deliverables in accessible and convincing ways to the relevant stakeholders.

A lot of my recent research has been focused on the design of relevant meta models to integrate all the various dimensions in an holistic way; to build useful models that allow us to rapidly gather, analyse, design and share pertinent insights; and the design of compelling visual language(s) to convey these efficiently and effectively. Additionally, we need to support these activities in competent tools that allow rapid progress and collaboration while improving rigour and reuse.

Change is scary for people. We need to identify and ameliorate risks. We need to provide effective programme and project management, change management, mentoring and coaching. We may not be experts in all these dimensions, but we can certainly work on enhancing our soft skills and engaging those whose focus/profession it is.

Enterprise as Organism/Social Entity (4)

At Inspired we use the phrase “Desirable Futures”. When we are doing enterprise architecture, especially business architecture, we are effectively proposing a future. We contend that it should be a desirable one. Let’s define “desirable”:

• The enterprise should survive

• The enterprise should add value to all stakeholders (customers, suppliers, staff, partners, shareholders, unions, society at large)

• The enterprise should do no harm. It should not exploit any group to their disadvantage, pollute, deplete irreplaceable resources or otherwise cause harm

• Ideally:

  • It should provide utility, value, good service and delight in its products and services

  • It should be a great place to work where staff can grow and realise potential while contributing to the value delivered

  • It should be a valued and trusted partner to other enterprises

  • The enterprise should operate legally, ethically and sensitively to the norms and customs of the communities it engages with

  • It should leverage knowledge, skill, technology and industry for these purposes
    Achieving the above demands that we consider the business issues (e.g. financial health, partner relationships, products and services, growth etc.), human issues (e.g. customer journey, staff roles, organisation structure, motivation etc.) and technology opportunities holistically.

Enterprise as Organism (3)

A functioning organism is comprised of systems. In a biological organism these include: respiration, nutrition, circulation, sensory, locomotive, nervous, reproduction, waste elimination, skeletal and so on. In a social entity they include collaboration, competition, regulation, suppression, promotion, etc. In a business they include: financial (capital, revenue, expenses, investment, cash flow), product and service delivery, customer management, skills and capabilities, compliance and risk management, sensing and planning, An enterprise thrives when the systems are working properly and in balance. Like an organism or society, it will become ill if any system is not working properly, or if they are out of balance.

As business architects it is useful to do a “health check” which should include the following aspects: financial, human resources, geographic coverage, products and services, shareholding, partnerships, channels, technology, legal, information, risk management, agility, strategy, architecture. These dimensions can be determined in facilitated workshops (or distributed information gathering from stakeholders) using templates and maturity models. They can be usefully plotted to show a current, competitor benchmark and target for a given time horizon. Big gaps between target or benchmark and current health are obvious candidates for more intensive work.

Enterprise as Organism (2)

An enterprise is not a machine. It cannot be designed and set in motion to perform like a clock. The parts were not engineered to fit the design. The design (architecture) has to be devised to leverage the capabilities of the parts. Since many of these parts are human (or other enterprises), they have their own agendas, goals, capabilities, needs and foibles. The results of their interaction are emergent, i.e. they will emerge from the many interactions of the parts and are very hard to predict ahead of time.

As enterprise architects (especially business architects) we therefore have to accept that we cannot just design what we want. What we can do is to understand the environment and constraints, influence conditions, educate participants, bring knowledge, examples and logic to bear, persuade, influence, coach and guide. We can alert to possibilities. We can warn of risks and show how they can be avoided or ameliorated. We can remove myths and assumed constraints. We can show consequences through scenarios, models and simulations.

In a very real sense our job is to enlighten, to educate, to inform and to communicate persuasively.