Technology Consolidation

Hello Ramesh,

On a recent engagement, I focussed on business consolidation and rationalisation. I noticed that the technology stacks simply followed across, and the decision making became much easier. To put it plainly, it is very difficult to choose between potatoes and onions. But, once you know what the end goal is, your decision becomes much easier.

However, many organisations are driven bottom-up rather than the top-down approach used above. In that case, your technology consolidation might end up driving business consolidation. Good luck, in that case! If you don't end up with any business consolidation, I see no business benefits from technology consolidation. IT, in this case, is a white elephant needing to be sorted on its own, or thrown out!

Technology roadmaps from vendors or suppliers are very helpful to understand the cost/benefits of remaining with any particular technology. Throw out any technology which continues to increase in annual costs, without any corresponding increase in business benefits.

Evaluate from a business perspective, whether it might be worthwhile outsourcing, if your business finds it very difficult to make IT decisions. But, the key to successful outsourcing is in having a business partnership, rather than a pure technology supplier relationship. A totally different topic... :-)

Explore the potential of the cloud... another topic on its own! But, something to be considered, if you are evaluating your options. Get a cost-analysis done, and present to your business owners, rather than to IT. This option is best suitable for startups, or organisations going through a radical overhaul. Sounds like yours might be one!

Best regards,
Joseph

_______________
Joseph George
+44 (0)78250 15480
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg

On Jul 12, 11:29 pm, ramesh appat wrote:

> Hello,

> Do any of you have a process or methodology that you have used/executed in
> your company or with a client to help them arrive at technology
> consolidation? Any material pertaining to this will be helpful.

Distributing the role of Enterprise Architect across the firm

> Distributing the role so that it is shared among the firms
> knowledge workers is necessary. Not just the doing, but
> the thinking, and negotiating as independent agents.

Good point, Martin! Traditionally, the role of EA had been very distributed across the organisation and within the remit of many different roles stretching horizontally and vertically. The EA panacea that we seem to be heading towards is bringing all that within a single role or team of EAs. I don't think that is practical and/or feasible. It is good to have all decision making within a single coherent group. But the realities of a global enterprise are best understood by people owning specific functions closer to ground level.

Key words that I picked up from your posts are - "inspire and fund", "distributing the role", "shared knowledge", "independant agents", "transparency", "tools", "healthy culture", "equip each worker". Very good! Ensuring all these are outside the remit of the EA, but very much driven by the organisational leadership. Any lack of these directly impacts the results of EA, potentially leading to EA failure.

> leadership can inspire and fund rather than command and control.

Yes, that was the old model of leadership - command and control. The new model seems to be very much inspire and support (or fund, as you say). But, we need knowledgable and intelligent leaders who understand the ramifications of their decisions. That is what I currently see some corporate leaders lacking. The ownership and liability of business failure is very much the business owners'. They can not and should not try to pawn off any failure to others lower down the chain, as we see in some global companies. I see this potentially becoming an EA liability.

> EA done properly removes/eradicates many of the
> "problems" associated with a lot of other people view of EA.
> We need a big team of highly paid Enterprise Architects
> - No you don't
> We need a dedicated group of people to keep the "models"
> up to date - No you don't
> We need a big EA project to move us from the as-is to
> the to-be - No you don't
> We need to create a whole new set of processes,
> job titles and departments - No you don't
> We need Enterprise Architects to make strategic decisions
> - No you don't

Kevin, very well put! Organisations are reticient to embrace what they don't understand. EA seems to be something very difficult to grasp, and we don't help in removing this fallacy by making the EA more and more complicated. I think EA (or rather the BA portion of EA) is simply some of the old-fashioned business management consulting techniques integrated vertically with the newer models of "doing" business and supporting virtual operations.

Best regards,
Joseph

_______________
Joseph George
+44 (0)78250 15480
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg

On Jul 20, 5:14 pm, Martin Cleaver wrote:

> > If an organisation were working as a well-oiled machine, it would
> > not need an EA. Hence, an EA would be working themselves out of a
> > job. But, the market evolves, the organisation
> > evolves, the people/roles evolve. And so, the EA has a constant stream
> > of inputs necessitating realigning the to-be system (organisation) and
> > working out the impacts.

> Reminds me: Command & Control can only get us so far. CxO positions -
> and by extension, EA positions - typically take a top-down mandate.
> But top-down roles can't see everything, can't interpret and
> prioritize everything and can't orchestrate everyone.

> Distributing the role so that it is shared among the firms knowledge
> workers is necessary. Not just the doing, but the thinking, and
> negotiating as independent agents.

> Transparency and tools are necessary. Transparency to see observe
> what's going on, with a healthy culture that invigourates change and
> leadership from within. Tools to enable transparency and to equip each
> worker with the means to apply rational method to domains the worker
> is unfamiliar with.

> Together these equip workers with the inputs, the understanding, and
> the engagement to make impact.

> Then leadership can inspire and fund rather than command and control.

> In short, I'd be fascinated to see the tool EAs use made available to
> all knowledge workers in an enterprise.

> Best, Martin

> Martin Cleaver MSc MBA

> Sent from my iPhone, so it might be quicker to call me, on +1-416-786-6752

> On 2010-07-19, at 8:49 AM, Joseph George > wrote:
> > Bill,

> >> An EA is a mini CxO type that is
> >> exists to work themselves out of a job

> > I agree with you on the above. I have been saying that all along.
> > Search this group for the discussion thread ("Architects" of the
> > Enterprise?) among others.

> > The only people I see playing an EA role are the CxOs (to continue the
> > American euphemism) within their remit. Anyone else is just applying
> > the finishing touches or working out the finer details. And that
> > means, an EA becomes a CxO representative involved in aspects lacking
> > in the respective CxO. If an organisation were working as a well-oiled
> > machine, it would not need an EA. Hence, an EA would be working
> > themselves out of a job. But, the market evolves, the organisation
> > evolves, the people/roles evolve. And so, the EA has a constant stream
> > of inputs necessitating realigning the to-be system (organisation) and
> > working out the impacts.

> > I don't think EA is about Frameworks, but they do help in terms of
> > providing a structure and/or methodology.
> >>>>>> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.

> > Much of what is being touted about in this group as to-be EA is imho
> > BA. Atleast that is what I see where Kirk is aiming - pure Business
> > Architecture. I don't think you can disconnect a business (and its
> > Business Architecture) from its operations (or Information
> > Architecture and Technology Architecture).

> >>>>>> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.

> > Back to the OP, I think Gerald would struggle to get any sort of valid
> > statistics to justify any claim. I would even wonder about the
> > purpose. The world is a large place with a lot of organisations. I see
> > many who I think are operating as EAs, who do not have any such title
> > nor would want to be known as EAs. On the other hand, I meet people
> > with EA in their title, whose sponsors themselves do not understand
> > what EA is about.

> > Best regards,

> > Joseph George
> > +44 (0)78250 15480
> >http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg

> > On Jul 14, 7:42 pm, Bill wrote:
> >> Kirk,
> >> Excellent point and very valid as well. We must understand, however,
> >> that this subject is more than a personal training issues. This is a
> >> global and corporate training issue. Do a Dice, Monster, Indeed, etc.
> >> search for EA and you will get nigh 100% IT Architects that deal with
> >> something 'enterprise' (e.g. has an enterprise commitment,
> >> distribution, or effect). This is the information or mis-information
> >> that has been projected ever since the term 'architect' gained
> >> popularity.

> >> Let me explain my thoughts on an EA: An EA is a mini CxO type that is
> >> exists to work themselves out of a job by recreating, restructuring,
> >> and redefining the business. Many people think of this person as a
> >> 'super' project manager, but, there's much more to it. This person is
> >> part business-person, manager, executive, technologist, HR
> >> representative, project manager, and evangelist. At any given time
> >> there will be aspects of these positions being performed by the EA.
> >> Thus, this is where many see IT involvement of the EA. Organizations
> >> are still defining their technology and its integration with business
> >> and this is why technology finds its way, more often than not, into
> >> the EA portfolio. The EA works themselves out of a job by
> >> integrating
> >> the next phase of the vision and mission into the processes, people,
> >> and structures of the organization. They then move to the next phase
> >> and start over.
> >> The future of technology is full integration into the business of the
> >> organization. This is a transparency of technology that looks a
> >> lot> > > >> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in
> >> the world.

> >> like commoditization. I personally do not believe that it is a
> >> "Nicholas Carr" type of commoditization where technology is like a
> >> light switch and technologists need 'business smarts'. No, I think it
> >> is the other way around. The business will incorporate and utilize
> >> 'technology smarts' and what we know of IT now will be more fully
> >> automated, measurable, and structured for use/re-use (business people
> >> will need technology smarts as well as technologists needing business
> >> smarts).

> >> It is like any trend. Look at mass production. Automobile
> >> manufacturers (even fast food companies) went through similar efforts
> >> to restructure their services to accommodate mass production. Indoor
> >> plumbing, passenger airplanes, and a number of other trends in
> >> efficiency and productivity can be used to understand the EA
> >> movement.
> >> In any event, we are in the midst of a high flux period while
> >> technology grants increased capability to the EA. As such (and during
> >> such) we have a continual training process to perform in the
> >> organizations of the world. Thus, I agree with your previous
> >> statement; in the realization of each phase, everyone in an
> >> organization can be said to be doing enterprise architecture. And

How many Enterprise Architects are there in the world?

Bill,

> An EA is a mini CxO type that is
> exists to work themselves out of a job

I agree with you on the above. I have been saying that all along. Search this group for the discussion thread ("Architects" of the Enterprise?) among others.

The only people I see playing an EA role are the CxOs (to continue the American euphemism) within their remit. Anyone else is just applying the finishing touches or working out the finer details. And that means, an EA becomes a CxO representative involved in aspects lacking in the respective CxO. If an organisation were working as a well-oiled machine, it would not need an EA. Hence, an EA would be working themselves out of a job. But, the market evolves, the organisation evolves, the people/roles evolve. And so, the EA has a constant stream of inputs necessitating realigning the to-be system (organisation) and working out the impacts.

I don't think EA is about Frameworks, but they do help in terms of providing a structure and/or methodology.

Much of what is being touted about in this group as to-be EA is imho BA. Atleast that is what I see where Kirk is aiming - pure Business Architecture. I don't think you can disconnect a business (and its Business Architecture) from its operations (or Information Architecture and Technology Architecture).

> > > >> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.

Back to the OP, I think Gerald would struggle to get any sort of valid statistics to justify any claim. I would even wonder about the purpose. The world is a large place with a lot of organisations. I see many who I think are operating as EAs, who do not have any such title nor would want to be known as EAs. On the other hand, I meet people with EA in their title, whose sponsors themselves do not understand what EA is about.

Best regards,

Joseph George
+44 (0)78250 15480
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg

On Jul 14, 7:42 pm, Bill wrote:

> Kirk,
> Excellent point and very valid as well. We must understand, however,
> that this subject is more than a personal training issues. This is a
> global and corporate training issue. Do a Dice, Monster, Indeed, etc.
> search for EA and you will get nigh 100% IT Architects that deal with
> something 'enterprise' (e.g. has an enterprise commitment,
> distribution, or effect). This is the information or mis-information
> that has been projected ever since the term 'architect' gained
> popularity.

> Let me explain my thoughts on an EA: An EA is a mini CxO type that is
> exists to work themselves out of a job by recreating, restructuring,
> and redefining the business. Many people think of this person as a
> 'super' project manager, but, there's much more to it. This person is
> part business-person, manager, executive, technologist, HR
> representative, project manager, and evangelist. At any given time
> there will be aspects of these positions being performed by the EA.
> Thus, this is where many see IT involvement of the EA. Organizations
> are still defining their technology and its integration with business
> and this is why technology finds its way, more often than not, into
> the EA portfolio. The EA works themselves out of a job by integrating
> the next phase of the vision and mission into the processes, people,
> and structures of the organization. They then move to the next phase
> and start over.
> The future of technology is full integration into the business of the
> organization. This is a transparency of technology that looks a lot> > > >> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.
> like commoditization. I personally do not believe that it is a
> "Nicholas Carr" type of commoditization where technology is like a
> light switch and technologists need 'business smarts'. No, I think it
> is the other way around. The business will incorporate and utilize
> 'technology smarts' and what we know of IT now will be more fully
> automated, measurable, and structured for use/re-use (business people
> will need technology smarts as well as technologists needing business
> smarts).

> It is like any trend. Look at mass production. Automobile
> manufacturers (even fast food companies) went through similar efforts
> to restructure their services to accommodate mass production. Indoor
> plumbing, passenger airplanes, and a number of other trends in
> efficiency and productivity can be used to understand the EA movement.
> In any event, we are in the midst of a high flux period while
> technology grants increased capability to the EA. As such (and during
> such) we have a continual training process to perform in the
> organizations of the world. Thus, I agree with your previous
> statement; in the realization of each phase, everyone in an
> organization can be said to be doing enterprise architecture. And once
> you have an organization that is 'all in' on change and improvement,
> it is a correct statement. Each individual, having the vision and
> working towards it is helping to realize Enterprise Architecture. The
> difference is that this is the 'practice', or rather the effects of
> the practice, of Enterprise Architecture by the person (or people),
> the Enterprise Architect(s).

> So, after all of that... what do we do to clear up this confusion and
> fully define EA as well as define and differentiate E(IT)A and
> subsequent architects? These titles are not going away any time soon.

> On Jul 13, 5:11 pm, Rheinlander Kirk wrote:

> > You bring up a key point - IT is an enabler. In the APQC process model, IT is rightly an enabling support process activity - box 7.
> > EA deals with boxes 1-5, the core delivery of the product or service that is the revenue generation of the company. Yes, EA touches on all the other enabling processes, and IT is a very important one, but it is certainly not at the core of enterprise architecture.

> > The only time an enterprise architect is an IT architect, is when the core product or service the company produces is IT.

> > Unless you believe that the people that envisioned, designed, enabled, and practiced EA successfully for 25+ years know less about EA than you do??

> > So again, what are we counting??

> > On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:38 PM, maher dahdour wrote:

> > > How many times did we hear EA -as a role/not practice- in a non-IT organizations? Let me put it this way, where do we find an alignment of everything (People, Process.etc) in the enterprise with the strategy that has no automation and modernization (Goals) -technically using some sort of IT as an enabler-?

> > > Let us not associate discussion with reality.

> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Derek Vandivere wrote:
> > > Well, we've got a couple hundred in the large consultancy I work for
> > > (the one that no longer employs Tiger Woods...).

> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:45 PM, José Casimiro
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Gerald,
> > > > I think there must be at least 1000 enterprise architects. (world wide)
> > > > I consider an enterprise architect someone that tries to connect business
> > > > and computer processes and is a big expert in both. I guess that shouldn't
> > > > exist many more, because companies that have the "dimension" to have them,
> > > > probably do not feel the need to have them.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JC
> > > > On 13 July 2010 11:04, Gerald wrote:

> > > >> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.

> > > >> Feel free to define an "Enterprise Architect" any way you wish (just
> > > >> state what that assumption is, and please let's not get into arguments
> > > >> about what definition is right/wrong, for this exercise it doesn't
> > > >> matter).

> > > >> Obviously just looking for guestimates (unless you know of some
> > > >> research or stat's that have been collected) and interested on how you
> > > >> went about estimating this.

> > > >> Cheers, Gerald

Strategic turnaround case-study: Microsoft

Innovation challenges

Rob 83-93
- per capita ability to get effective innovations into the market is doubful
- four core points
1. PC Software Centricity: core business
2. Post-PC World: stuck in the past
3. Monopoly Economics and Culture: un-viable monopoly business
4. Leadership: culture

Kanji 02-05
Past:
Now:
- Trends are shorter
-

Visionless Leadership

- loyalty over quality - compromising excellence, slow death!
- fretful reaction to challengers
- "Can you think of any other tech firm where the CEO could bungle the company's main product and still keep his job?"

Bill Gates:
- moved on now - "saving the world is more important than saving microsoft"
- innovative vision
- negative energy - "moved mountains to crush netscape"
- "his actions weren't very admirable"
- "there was never a lot to like about Bill Gates the businessman"

Finance Director

Financial leaders discuss their level of oversight and share the most important issues from their experiences in the CFO role:

"Just make sure your skill level meets the job competency levels the company desires. Do a Dunn & Bradstreet report on their performance. Make no mistake about it — large publicly traded companies are all about meeting financial performance goals, and if not, they fire someone."

"A CFO manages the organization's strategic value and that value is enhanced with its influence on HR, IT, risk management and insurance. Such functions should always report to the CFO, as they then bring the external strategy with customers in alignment with internal set up through administration and teams."

"For the CFO transitioning from a private company to a public one, the major change is that you become a high profile spokesperson for the public company — very different than a private company environment."

"...you are connected to every area of the company; your influence is felt everywhere."

Strategy by Michael Porter

At the World Innovation Forum, Michael Porter shared his perspectives on what he knows best:

What is strategy? "It's a complete and unique value proposition for a specific set of customers that distinguishes you from your competitors. You need renewed clarity of the fundamental purpose of your company and what makes you different."

What is innovation? "Non-incremental improvements in productivity, in the value chain or the product itself. Incremental improvement is something that can be done in predictable process. Innovation is something where you see a new combination or go in a different direction. The failures of innovation are that you can do something but it is not valuable, or you can do it but it is not affordable."

Is there good innovation and bad innovation? "Corporations have to examine what they do and find out whether they're creating real value with their innovations. Are the innovations we are making practical, and can they be delivered at a reasonable cost? If an innovation fails one of these tests, it is more likely a bad innovation."