EA value measures ? who cares?

And on that note, I have just received the draft ISO/IEEE 1471. I quite like what it says (quoted below), and fits in nicely into this discussion.

< snip >

An architecture description includes one or more architecture views (3.9). Each architecture view (or simply, view) addresses some of the architecture-related concerns held by the stakeholders of the system.

NOTE 3 This International Standard does not use phrases such as “business architecture”, “physical architecture”, and “technical architecture”. In the terms of this International Standard, equivalents of these phrases are “business view”, “physical view”, and “technical view”, respectively.

< /snip >

There can be only ONE architecture!!!

Kind regards,
Joseph

PS: Why... :-(

On 25 June, 15:44, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:

> Kewl! I agree completely! Awesome!

> Now if everyone else would get it :-(

> On Jun 25, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Joseph George wrote:

> > Kirk,

> > Yes, EA is about strategy. And I am not talking about a separate
> > technology strategy. There is only one strategy - and that is about
> > the business! Any technology (or other disciplines of) strategies are
> > part of the core business strategy, and firmly integrated together
> > within the enterprise. Any other way of doing this creates a white
> > elephant, for the sake of itself. A few years down the line, no one
> > understands why we are spending £££s of some black boxes... So, the
> > organisation continues to waste precious resources hoping nothing
> > breaks!?! The only winners are the Vendor$$$, and it is in their best
> > interests to keep the decision-makers in the dark, hoping they will
> > keep coughing up money for whatever sh.t they keep dumping on
> > customers.

> > As per the above, I don't believe in having a separate ETA as you say
> > below. There is only one EA, and everything fits in there. Or the
> > enterprise ends up being disconnected... as we perhaps see it now.

> > Best regards,
> > Joseph

> > On 24 June, 20:00, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:
> >> I think I might suggest modifying your comment slightly.

> >> EA, as COMMONLY (not currently) practiced, does not have much input
> >> into strategy.

> >> AND I strongly disagree .......

> >> From my experience, the EA is the prime protagonist of strategy. In
> >> nearly 100% of my EA engagements, the strategic planning process was
> >> delivering a 3-5 year financial plan; nothing that I would construe
> >> to
> >> be vaguely related to strategy. In every case, we revamped the
> >> strategic planning process to produce true strategic initiatives
> >> using
> >> a seeded topic list, and going through the SWOT (internal strengths
> >> and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats) to extract a
> >> set of strategic initiatives, derive a set of supporting business
> >> initiatives, and develop a balanced scorecard set of metrics against
> >> each strategy.

> >> THIS was the marching orders for the EA effort - communicating this
> >> strategy, and coordinating the business initiatives across all
> >> functional organizations, in order to effectively deliver against
> >> strategy.

> >> EA without strategy, is the blind leading the blind.

> >> However, if you practice enterprise TECHNOLOGY architecture, then
> >> sure, ETA does not have much to do with strategy input.

> >> --Kirk

> >> On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Joseph George wrote:

> >>> Graham,

> >>>> I am not convinced that EA has much input to strategy as currently
> >>>> deployed by most companies , the savings come frequently from IT,
> >>>> such as server or applications consolidation , none of which is
> >>>> actually business strategy. Business is comprised of several
> >>>> disciplines such as Strategy, Planning , Operational execution ,
> >>>> Resource management , finance and more latterly Information
> >>>> technology . EA rarely addresses any of these , its simply an
> >>>> enabler in one or more of them.

> >>> As currently practised, EA does not have much input into strategy.
> >>> In
> >>> a ideal world, strategy would be formulated based on EA
> >>> recommendations. But, EA needs to mature and move up the food-chain
> >>> for that to happen. As I see it, EA seems to be getting dragged into
> >>> creating lower and lower level details, possibly because it is
> >>> trying
> >>> to be everything for everyone.

> >>> One of the goals of EA is to increase the Operational Efficiencies,
> >>> and for that EA needs to focus on where the bulk of the expenditure
> >>> (CAPEX, OPEX,...) is spent on. Guess where that might be? That is
> >>> probably what needs to be sorted and where massive savings could be
> >>> gained.

> >>> From what I have seen, EA would always be an enabler! If I could
> >>> *tell* my CEO to do something, then I become more than an enabler...
> >>> But, I guess, I am a long way off from there... Others might be in
> >>> much better positions?

> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Joseph

> >>> On 6 June, 20:12, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:
> >>>> As the organizations create the content of the enterprise
> >>>> architecture, by default, they agree to it.
> >>>> EA just allows communication and coordination across the
> >>>> boundaries,
> >>>> so they know the right things to do.

> >>>> Yes, I cut and pasted a relevant paragraph, rather than retyping
> >>>> the
> >>>> text again, as it had meaning in both contexts.

> >>>> On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:43 AM, C Johnson wrote:

> >>>>> I know where you are coming from, however for this context, if one
> >>>>> does not have a view (or baseline) of the organisations
> >>>>> architecture, then one cannot govern it... where the EA team owns
> >>>>> the process or references it, the business still need to
> >>>>> understand
> >>>>> and agree that the architecture follows what they have and what
> >>>>> they
> >>>>> see for the future (i.e. objectives, goals)

EA value measures ? who cares?

Kirk,

Yes, EA is about strategy. And I am not talking about a separate technology strategy. There is only one strategy - and that is about the business! Any technology (or other disciplines of) strategies are part of the core business strategy, and firmly integrated together within the enterprise. Any other way of doing this creates a white elephant, for the sake of itself. A few years down the line, no one understands why we are spending £££s of some black boxes... So, the organisation continues to waste precious resources hoping nothing breaks!?! The only winners are the Vendor$$$, and it is in their best interests to keep the decision-makers in the dark, hoping they will keep coughing up money for whatever sh.t they keep dumping on customers.

As per the above, I don't believe in having a separate ETA as you say below. There is only one EA, and everything fits in there. Or the enterprise ends up being disconnected... as we perhaps see it now.

Best regards,
Joseph

On 24 June, 20:00, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:

> I think I might suggest modifying your comment slightly.

> EA, as COMMONLY (not currently) practiced, does not have much input
> into strategy.

> AND I strongly disagree .......

> From my experience, the EA is the prime protagonist of strategy. In
> nearly 100% of my EA engagements, the strategic planning process was
> delivering a 3-5 year financial plan; nothing that I would construe to
> be vaguely related to strategy. In every case, we revamped the
> strategic planning process to produce true strategic initiatives using
> a seeded topic list, and going through the SWOT (internal strengths
> and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats) to extract a
> set of strategic initiatives, derive a set of supporting business
> initiatives, and develop a balanced scorecard set of metrics against
> each strategy.

> THIS was the marching orders for the EA effort - communicating this
> strategy, and coordinating the business initiatives across all
> functional organizations, in order to effectively deliver against
> strategy.

> EA without strategy, is the blind leading the blind.

> However, if you practice enterprise TECHNOLOGY architecture, then
> sure, ETA does not have much to do with strategy input.

> --Kirk

> On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Joseph George wrote:

> > Graham,

> >> I am not convinced that EA has much input to strategy as currently
> >> deployed by most companies , the savings come frequently from IT,
> >> such as server or applications consolidation , none of which is
> >> actually business strategy. Business is comprised of several
> >> disciplines such as Strategy, Planning , Operational execution ,
> >> Resource management , finance and more latterly Information
> >> technology . EA rarely addresses any of these , its simply an
> >> enabler in one or more of them.

> > As currently practised, EA does not have much input into strategy. In
> > a ideal world, strategy would be formulated based on EA
> > recommendations. But, EA needs to mature and move up the food-chain
> > for that to happen. As I see it, EA seems to be getting dragged into
> > creating lower and lower level details, possibly because it is trying
> > to be everything for everyone.

> > One of the goals of EA is to increase the Operational Efficiencies,
> > and for that EA needs to focus on where the bulk of the expenditure
> > (CAPEX, OPEX,...) is spent on. Guess where that might be? That is
> > probably what needs to be sorted and where massive savings could be
> > gained.

> > From what I have seen, EA would always be an enabler! If I could
> > *tell* my CEO to do something, then I become more than an enabler...
> > But, I guess, I am a long way off from there... Others might be in
> > much better positions?

> > Best regards,
> > Joseph

> > On 6 June, 20:12, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:
> >> As the organizations create the content of the enterprise
> >> architecture, by default, they agree to it.
> >> EA just allows communication and coordination across the boundaries,
> >> so they know the right things to do.

> >> Yes, I cut and pasted a relevant paragraph, rather than retyping the
> >> text again, as it had meaning in both contexts.

> >> On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:43 AM, C Johnson wrote:

> >>> I know where you are coming from, however for this context, if one
> >>> does not have a view (or baseline) of the organisations
> >>> architecture, then one cannot govern it... where the EA team owns
> >>> the process or references it, the business still need to understand
> >>> and agree that the architecture follows what they have and what they
> >>> see for the future (i.e. objectives, goals)

EA value measures ? who cares?

Graham,

> I am not convinced that EA has much input to strategy as currently
> deployed by most companies , the savings come frequently from IT,
> such as server or applications consolidation , none of which is
> actually business strategy. Business is comprised of several
> disciplines such as Strategy, Planning , Operational execution ,
> Resource management , finance and more latterly Information
> technology . EA rarely addresses any of these , its simply an
> enabler in one or more of them.

As currently practised, EA does not have much input into strategy. In a ideal world, strategy would be formulated based on EA recommendations. But, EA needs to mature and move up the food-chain for that to happen. As I see it, EA seems to be getting dragged into creating lower and lower level details, possibly because it is trying to be everything for everyone.

One of the goals of EA is to increase the Operational Efficiencies, and for that EA needs to focus on where the bulk of the expenditure (CAPEX, OPEX,...) is spent on. Guess where that might be? That is probably what needs to be sorted and where massive savings could be gained.

From what I have seen, EA would always be an enabler! If I could *tell* my CEO to do something, then I become more than an enabler... But, I guess, I am a long way off from there... Others might be in much better positions?

Best regards,
Joseph

On 6 June, 20:12, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:

> As the organizations create the content of the enterprise
> architecture, by default, they agree to it.
> EA just allows communication and coordination across the boundaries,
> so they know the right things to do.

> Yes, I cut and pasted a relevant paragraph, rather than retyping the
> text again, as it had meaning in both contexts.

> On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:43 AM, C Johnson wrote:

> > I know where you are coming from, however for this context, if one
> > does not have a view (or baseline) of the organisations
> > architecture, then one cannot govern it... where the EA team owns
> > the process or references it, the business still need to understand
> > and agree that the architecture follows what they have and what they
> > see for the future (i.e. objectives, goals)

Who is a business architect?

Eswar,

> But, what is then the role of business architect - if his role is to
> just help by creating or understanding 'business' information, does
> he/she really involved in business decision making?

I think you query is relevant to all disciplines of Architecture and not just Business Architects. Everywhere I have been and seen, the Architects are not usually the decision makers, although they get deeply involved in the decision making process. The final decision (and responsibility) lies with the domain owners. If you are talking business, the business owners *are* the decision makers. Same applies to technology and other domains. The architect might make decisions, but that would always be on behalf of the domain owners. The architect recommends, along with his justifications based on their understanding. Note that the architect's understanding might not be complete, and they might not be privy to everything.

Also, the architect is not responsible for creating (or implementing) the organisation or any of its systems, and as such is further removed from the responsibility of ownership.

Best regards,
Joseph

On 17 June, 10:44, Eswar Ganesan wrote:

> The reason I have asked this question has an direct impact on the
> 'role of business architect'. The answer seems to be that all these
> combinations of roles I have provided are kind of 'yes' for the role
> of business architect.

> But, what is then the role of business architect - if his role is to
> just help by creating or understanding 'business' information, does
> he/she really involved in business decision making?

> If one is to be involved in business decision making, then there is a
> need to appreciate the business motivation - the row 1 of Zachmann.
> How can a business architect be able to model or identify business
> strategy has he not participated in strategy formulation or corporate
> planning and be able to drive business needs?

> Is business architect, just a consultant who cannot make decisions and
> is there only to provide the information the business management and
> operating team would like to have leading them to create informed
> decision making? This question might answer who can be a good business
> architect.

> Regards,
> Eswar

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Douglas Erickson wrote:
> > Wrong! Enterprise Architecture is the discipline of defining, designing,
> > and constructing the infrastructure for an enterprise. This includes the
> > the data, business processes to be performed, the geographic and
> > organizational structure of the enterprise, etc. An Enterprise Architect is
> > a person who is knowledgeable, skilled, and has expertise indefining,
> > designing, and developing and Enterprise. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE HAS NEVER
> > BEEN ABOUT JUST THE TECHNOLOGY INFRASTUCTURE OF AN ENTERPRISE. That would
> > be, at best, an Information Technology Architect, or just a Technology
> > Architect which would only deal with Rows 3-5, of Column 3 of the Zachman
> > Enterprise Framework.

> > A Business Architect, if there is such a thing is the operating management
> > of the enterprise, the decision-makers, planners, etc.

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Steve Cohen
> > To: the-enterprise-architecture-network@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who is a business architect?
> > In my opinion a Business Architect is someone who helps structure the
> > business (operating model, organizational structure, sizing, etc) to best
> > meet the already defined corporate / SBU / BU strategy - including making
> > best use of the software tools available.

> > An Enterprise Architect structures the technology to best enable the
> > business architecture.

> > Their background can come from multiple places

> > Eswar Ganesan said the following on 6/16/2009 9:08 AM:

> > Hi,
> > I have the following questions:
> > 1) Is BA is a person who has considerable amount of experience (more
> > than 10 years) in business decision making - have been part of
> > strategy development and corporate planning and finally turned out to
> > be architect advising/consulting EA initiatives of organizations?
> > 2) Is BA is Business Analyst turned Architect (more like technical
> > analyst/system analyst turned IT Architect) over a standard amount of
> > experience (5 + years) in business analysis, requirements engineering
> > and process modeling?
> > 3) Is BA is a "management consultant" who has knowledge/capabilities
> > on helping organizations/business units decide their strategic
> > objectives; a person with considerable amount (5+ years) of experience
> > in appreciating business motivation (goal/objective/strategy/tactics),
> > business situation (market trends, economic conditions etc) and
> > business project management?
> > 4) Is he a IT project manager turned BA over a considerable amount of
> > experience (12+years) in handling multiple IT projects/application
> > releases? A person who can appreciate business needs and IT delivery?
> > 5) An EA who has performed business architecture, application
> > architecture, information architecture and technology architecture for
> > a considerable amount of time (10 + years) and currently consults for
> > BA?
> > 6) Or simply a BA is an internal resource of the organization who is
> > groomed by the EA program or participated heavily on business decision
> > making and corporate planning as well financial planning functions?
> > Who is Business Architect..........
> > Regards,
> > Eswar

Response: Culture Board paper

Culture Board paper, Ian Marchant blog post dt 09/06/2009
...



Feedback in response to Ian's Blog

Post Title - Culture Board paper
Date Posted - 09/06/2009
Name: Joseph George
Department: Technical Solutions
Location: Havant
Comments:

Ian,

"This paper seeks to update the Board... and provide some answers"

Undoubtedly, this is a step in the right direction. You say, this is what we want to project to the Board or (perhaps, more importantly) to our customers. But, I feel that would be an end result of proper implementation of what our company projects to our own employees and how we seek to ingrain the right values and culture within our company. Your statement, "This represents if you like, a view from the top...", tells me that this is probably what you are being told. I appreciate you being frank, but I have come to the sad conclusion that this view is not completely true! I hear many conflicting and very opposing views.

How do we truly find out for ourselves what our key employees (ones that are our hands and feet) feel of our company walking this talk? If you, sitting at the very top, ask someone, how would you know that you are not being fed with spin? Being surrounded with "yes" men (almost inevitable) is the beginning of the end for most great leaders.

May I refer you to a blog (not mine) post below:

<snip>

Leadership as ‘Intentional Influence’
by George Ambler on Monday, June 15, 2009

The article “Leadership: Intentional Influence” from BusinessWeek provide an interesting discussion on the topic of leadership. Research by the company VitalSmarts uncovered the following key insights that help to understand why few leaders are able to exert influence.

1. Leaders act as if it’s not their job to address entrenched habits.
“Most leaders put a great deal of time into crafting strategy, selecting winning products, and engaging with analysts, shareholders, and major customers. But few realize the success or failure of their grand schemes lies in influencing the behavior of the hundreds or thousands of people who will have to execute the big ideas — their employees.

2. Leaders lack a theory of influence.
“Very few leaders can even answer the question, "How do you change the
behavior of a large group of people?" And yet, this is what they’re
ultimately paid to do. It isn’t just about making a decision; it’s about
getting people aligned to execute the decision. And this means
influence….”

3. Leaders confuse talking with influencing.
“Many leaders think influence consists of little more than talking people into doing things… Anyone who’s ever tried to talk a smoker into quitting knows there’s a lot more to behavior change than words…”

4. Leaders believe in silver bullets.
“When leaders actually attempt to influence new behavior, it’s common for them to look for quick fixes—to fall into the trap of thinking that deeply ingrained bad habits can be changed with a single technique. The failure mode is to rely on any single approach…”

</snip>

PS: I sincerely hope that I come across as sounding positively hopeful, rather than negatively critical. We have managers at all rungs across our corporate hierarchy, and my comments are not a reflection of my perception of you. Personally, I find you to be one of the most open and receptive CEOs that I have worked with, which encourages me to continue posting my challenging thoughts to you.

Kind regards,
Joseph

Response: What's your policy idea?

What's your policy idea?, Ian Marchant blog post dt 15/06/2009
...

Feedback in response to Ian's Blog

Post Title - What's your policy idea?
Date Posted - 15/06/2009
Name: Joseph George
Department: Technical Solutions
Location: Havant
Comments:

Ian,

I would propose a tiered tariff, much like the tax bands, but more. The lowest band would have the least cost per unit, and the upper bands would have progressively higher unit costs. This would mean that someone would pay much more for the 1000th unit than what he would pay for the 1st unit.

Currently, we (the industry) penalise low users with a standing charge load.

Kind regards,
Joseph

From: Ian Marchant
To: Joseph George
Date: 25/06/2009 16:50
Subject: Re: What's your policy idea?
Sent by: Eilidh Marshall

Joseph

We have been discussing this concept - so called rising block tariff with Ofgem and Government for some time now and one day I expect we will be successful.

Ian