Zero-based Budgeting and ZBO

Zero-based Budgeting^[1]

It's a story that plays out across industry sectors and change efforts, particularly in this age of digital transformation. Companies embark on a project intending to optimise every existing process.

A Shelter for Christmas

I spent this Christmas with the homeless & rough-sleepers in a shelter, served by various staff who were all unpaid volunteers.

Does history repeat itself?

It seems that Business Strategy for most companies have essentially become how to con their customers. Making money by hook or crook is the motto of criminals. And when this becomes the norm, somethings need to be questioned.

The essential culture is derived from the leadership at the top.

Centrism is Dead

People around the world are connecting with each other across geographies, and awakening their consciousness on how the political class bought and paid for by vested interests have been hoodwinking them through the ages.

Did Brexit start this… or Trump just after or the Tea Party just before? Perhaps it was the effects of collective winds of change blowing across the world.

Big finance is behind it

This could be an interesting look at Business Strategy, or a worrying aspect of mass control. An article caught my fancy… not for what it was supposed to say, but for parts of it referring to how society could be conned.

The Future Will Be Decentralized

I think the future of humanity would be a lot more productive with open decentralised much smaller countries, perhaps even completely independent city-states, working together and collaborating towards the growth of collective consciousness. More and more work is being automated, allowing for more and more humans having more time to think! Humanity has only ever evolved through thinkers..

Bullshit to protect their continued employment

"people in any organisation have two motivations. One is to create genuine economic value; the other is to generate a protective carapace of bullshit to protect their continued employment. When push comes to shove, people in jobs where productivity is hard to measure (i.e. most modern jobs) will always focus more on the latter." Rory Sutherland, Ogilvy Group UK

ref: http://spectator.co.uk/2017/01/how-time-saving-technology-destroys-our-productivity

Policy induced Systemic Distortions

Policy inducing systemic distortions break investor confidence!

In Praise of Idleness

In Praise of Idleness, 1932
by Betrand Russell

Cultural Lies

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." Rick Warren

The Scam Wall Street Learned From The Mafia

my brief notes, quoted verbatim from this blog post:

http://rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620
The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia
How America's biggest banks took part in a nationwide bid-rigging conspiracy - until they were caught on tape
by: Matt Taibbi

Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street, these wiseguys spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars.

The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds. And they did it so cleverly that the victims never even knew they were being cheated.

In fact, stripped of all the camouflaging financial verbiage, the crimes committed were virtually indistinguishable from the kind of thuggery practiced for decades by the Mafia, which has long made manipulation of public bids for things like garbage collection and construction contracts a cornerstone of its business. The only thing that made this trial different from a typical mob trial was the scale of the crime.

classic cartel activity: not just one corrupt bank, but many, all acting in careful concert against the public interest. we've seen numerous hints that such orchestrated corruption exists. In the bankruptcy of Jefferson County, Alabama, we learned that Goldman Sachs accepted a $3 million bribe from J.P. Morgan Chase to permit Chase to serve as the sole provider of toxic swap deals to the rubes running metropolitan Birmingham – "an open-and-shut case of anti-competitive behavior," as one former regulator described it. More recently, a major international investigation has been launched into the manipulation of Libor.

we may yet find out that the world's most powerful banks have, for years, been fixing the prices of almost every adjustable-rate vehicle on earth, from mortgages and credit cards to interest-rate swaps and even currencies.

In a post-crash era where Wall Street trials almost never make it into court, and even the harshest settlements end with the evidence buried by the government and the offending banks permitted to escape with no admission of wrongdoing, this case finally dragged the whole ugly truth of American finance out into the open – and it was a hell of a show.

1. THE SCAM

the setting reflected the bizarre alternate universe that exists on Wall Street. Like so many court cases involving big banks, the proceeding looked more like a roomful of expensive lawyers negotiating a major corporate merger than a public search for justice. the spectators were not average citizens come to witness how they had been robbed blind by America's biggest banks. Instead, there were row after row of suits – other lawyers.

One of the main lines of defense for corrupt Wall Street institutions in recent years has been the extreme complexity of the infrastructure within which these crimes are committed.

Contracting corruption has been around since the construction of the Appian Way. The difference here is the almost unimaginable scope of the crime – and the fact that it's mobsters from Wall Street who are getting in on the action. Until recently, such activity has traditionally been the almost exclusive domain of the Mafia.

"When I think of bid rigging, I think of the convergence of organized crime and the government," says Eliot Spitzer. "The urge to become a monopolist," he says, "is as old as capitalism." The Mafia moved into bid rigging, he says, because it observed over time that monopolizing public contracts offers a far more lucrative business model than legbreaking.

"Organized crime learned their lessons from John D. Rockefeller," Spitzer explains. "It's much more efficient to control a market and boost the price 10 percent than it is to run a loan-sharking business on the street, where you actually have to use a baseball bat and collect every week."

2. THE TAPES

Almost every executive involved in the trial was absurdly young; many were just out of college when the bid-rigging scam started. The extreme youth of some of the conspirators was an obvious subtext of the trial, underscoring the fact that far more senior executives from bigger banks had been permitted by the government to evade testifying.

The brokers and providers used a dizzying array of methods for rigging deals. In some cases, the broker helped the "winner" by simply excluding other bidders, who may or may not have been in on the scam.

3. THE POLITICIANS

The case offers a clear and unvarnished blueprint of the architecture of American financial and political corruption.

Defense counsel showed us how employees were routinely directed by their boss, to make political contributions to select candidates, only to be reimbursed for those contributions later on.

More interesting, though, were the stories about political payoffs.

In 2001, CDR hired a consultant named Ron White, a Philadelphia bond attorney who happened to be the chief ­fundraiser for then-mayor John Street. CDR gave White two tickets to the 2003 Super Bowl in San Diego plus a limo – a gift worth $10,000. As his "guest," White took Corey Kemp, the city treasurer for Philadelphia, who, 16 days later, awarded CDR a $150,000 contract to advise the city on swap deals. But that wasn't the end of the gravy train: CDR doled out those swap deals to selected banks, who in return kicked back $515,000 to CDR for steering city business their way.

Even more startling was the way that a notorious incident involving former New Mexico governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson resurfaced during the trial. Barack Obama had nominated Richardson to be commerce secretary – only to have the move blow up in his face when tales of Richardson accepting bribes began to make the rounds. Federal prosecutors never brought a case against Richardson

CDR paid Bill Richardson $100,000 in contributions and got $1.5 million in public money in return. And not just $1.5 million, but $1.5 million for work they didn't even do – the state still had to hire another firm to do the actual job. Nice non-work, if you can get it.

To grasp the full insanity of these revelations, one must step back and consider all this information together. It turns into a kind of unbroken Möbius strip of corruption – the banks pay middlemen to rig auctions, the middlemen bribe politicians to win business, then the politicians choose the middlemen to run the auctions, leading right back to the banks bribing the middlemen to rig the bids.

When we allow Wall Street to continually raid the public cookie jar, we're not just enriching a bunch of petty executives – we're effectively creating an alternate government, one in which money lifted from the taxpayer's pocket through mob-style schemes turns into a kind of permanent shadow tax, used to maintain the corruption and keep the thieves in place. And that cuts right to the heart of what this case is all about.

Wall Street is tired of making money by competing for business and weathering the vagaries of the market. What it wants instead is something more like the deal the government has – regularly collecting guaranteed taxes. What's crazy is that in order to justify that dream of regular, monopolistic tribute, they've begun to see themselves as a type of shadow government, watching out for the rest of us. Amazingly enough, this even became a defense at trial.


4. THE DEFENSE

The men and women who run these corrupt banks and brokerages genuinely believe that their relentless lying and cheating, and even their anti-competitive cartelstyle scheming, are all legitimate market processes that lead to legitimate price discovery.

And besides, it's not like ordinary people understand this stuff anyway. So how is it the place of some busybody federal prosecutor to waltz in here and say what's a fair price?

This incredible defense, perfectly expresses the awesome arrogance of the modern-day aristocrats who run our financial services sector. Corrupt or not, they built this financial infrastructure, and it's producing the prices they genuinely think are fair. And fair to them is the customer getting the absolute bare minimum, while they get instant millions for work they didn't do.

Moreover – and this is the most important part – they believe they should get permanent protection from the ravages of the market, i.e., from one another's competition. Imagine Jack Nicholson on the witness stand, dressed in a repairman's uniform and tool belt. Who's gonna fix those refrigerators? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? You can't handle the truth!

Capitalism is a system for determining objective value. What these Wall Street criminals have created is an opposite system of value by fiat. Prices are not objectively determined by collisions of price information from all over the market, but instead are collectively negotiated in secret, then dictated from above.

To the great credit of the jurors in the Carollo case, they didn't buy Wall Street's ludicrous defense.

---

In the end, though, the conviction of a few bit players seems like far too puny a punishment. A truly commensurate penalty would be something like televised stonings of the top 10 executives of every guilty bank, or maybe the forcible resettlement of every banker and broker in Lower Manhattan to some uninhabited Andean wasteland... anything to address the systemic nature of the crime.

Get busted for welfare fraud even once in America, and good luck getting so much as a food stamp ever again. Get caught rigging interest rates in 50 states, and the government goes right on handing you billions of dollars in public contracts.

Who ultimately loses in these deals? Well, to take just one example, the New Jersey Health Care Facilities Finance Authority, the agency that issues bonds for the state's hospitals, had their interest rates rigged by the Carollo defendants on $17 million in bonds. Since then, more than a dozen New Jersey hospitals have closed, mostly in poor neighborhoods.

this is what Wall Street learned from the Mafia: how to reach into the penny jars of dying hospitals and schools and transform their desperation and civic panic into fat year-end bonuses and the occasional "big lunch." Unlike the Mafia, though, they were smart enough to do their dirt without anyone noticing for a very long time, which is what defense counsel in this case were talking about when they argued that towns and cities "were not harmed" by the rigged bids, i.e. what taxpayers didn't know couldn't hurt them. This is logical thinking, to the sociopath – like saying it's not infidelity if your wife never finds out. But we did find out, and the scale of betrayal unveiled was epic. It was like finding out your husband didn't just cheat, but had a frequent-flier account with every brothel in North America for the past 10 years. At least now we know how bad it was. The trick is to find a way to make the cheaters pay.

brand values

notice i mentioned brand "values" not brand popularity or brand packaging or brand pricing or brand profit margins. truth lasts, while lies & deceit are not sustainable. what makes some brands seem more ethical than others? why do some brands suddenly fall out of grace? do you think you might be having a brand yourself? but, i don't wish to go into brand marketing and take discussion away from our reverend's focus on poverty.

moral virtues

I agree with Philip Booth that capitalism does reward moral virtues and punishes the lack of it. You can see that reflected in the brand values, or assets listed in the balance sheet as goodwill. Lack of it destroys capital as demonstrated by the likes of Bernie Ebbers, and lately the Murdochs & quite a few others in the recent limelight.. Hard work in itself will not always be rewarded, unless it is channelled in the right direction... As far as poverty is concerned, I am not sure that we can completely eradicate it. But personally, I think what we really need is a fair, equitable & just society across continents, rather than a rich society locally where everyone is rich! I don't think we really understand poverty, living in a country where there isn't anyone dying from famine or hunger or thirst. NHS seems to be more worried about people eating too much.

Greg Smith's resignation letter

Greg Smith - Executive Director, Goldman Sachs

Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.

When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.

My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

Cultural Alignment of Business Systems

Tim,

If you can slot your organisational culture into a rigid system, then by all means you can align or, at the very least, emulate your business sytems to reflect your culture. IMHO, from what I have seen in many organisations, culture has two aspects:

1. that which the leadership or the organisation wishes to inculcate down the heirarchy - the documented visible mission, vision, values, etc. which are formally available.

2. that which the leadership or the organisation is trying to get rid of - the invisible, undocumented, unstructured, unacknowledged behaviour exhibited by the heirarchy and emulated down the chain.

It is very easy to work with (1), and your could formulate and align architectural principles on a one-to-one basis. But, what is more important is tackling (2), and I think that is more value-add and more difficult. Particularly if you are an external entity, you might find (2) might be difficult to get a handle on.

I would suggest working with some experts on Organisational Behaviour, in order to achieve your goal. But, again IMHO, that is entirely the CEO's responsibility. You could take an architectural approach, but everything is not black and white, in this sense. :-)

In one of my discussions with our CEO, I referred him to an article (not mine, all credits to the original author), which I am happy to mention here, if it would be of any help re this context:

< snip >

Leadership as ‘Intentional Influence’, by George Ambler

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 >

Best regards,
Joseph

_______________
Joseph George
+44 (0)7951 499286 (please note change)
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg

On Aug 6, 1:57 am, Tim Leigh wrote:

> Thanks for all the useful feedback re: cultural alignment of business
> systems, this forum is one of the best EA resources I’ve found.

> To answer a question, some high level examples of cultural values which we
> are trying to align with are:

> · Client centric

> · Empowered people and teams

> I’d like to take these high level culture/objective statements and expand on
> them within a framework, as the aim of the review is to assess how our
> systems reinforce or compete with the envisioned culture.

> Thanks for the suggestion of VSM, as this appears to be a good approach
> which I wasn’t aware of and seems to be a good way for us to go.

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

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"

TOGAF and Agile Architecture

> I am talking about the changes which need to be seen as to enable short term
> competitive advantage, to be implemented based on the available resources
> I am differentiating it from the architecture needed to grow business.

Interesting... something to ponder about! Is EA better at being tactical for the short term? Or is EA more suitable at being strategic for the medium to long term? This will probably open up another debate in the forum, if I understand right.

I would ask what is the timeframe EA needs to look at. That would also define what "short" term is. It could differ from a few months to a few days depending on who you talk to. The more tactical issues you get involved with - the farther away you move from the decision makers and the decision making process. I would say leave it to the detailed designers to worry about tactical short term issues. This is not for architecture to get involved in. Don't get me wrong - you can't ignore tactical issues.

You are quite right. The current business dynamics are increasing the rate of flux. And IT can't live in history wanting many moons to deliver something. That was yesterday for yesterday's business climate. Which is history now! We need to be radical, yet prudent. If the head is moving fast forward, the tail can't remain stuck in the ground. One solution does not fit all. Some industries are extremely static. But, if you are in a fast moving industry like finance, your architecture needs to be a cultural fit too. If not, your architecture is a failure, possibly becoming a business liability. That was partly what I meant in my previous post.

Kind regards,
Joseph

On Feb 15, 5:57 pm, Mridul wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
> Thanks for the comments.
> I think we need architecture for supporting and stabilizing business. As you
> have mentioned nothing is sustainable in the long run. [with so much
> business dynamics changing every few month]. I have came across
> businesses[like insurance / finance] who have always complained for not able
> to react in time for any change in industry dynamics [environmental change
> or competitor products]. Here an architecture can really help - if it can
> handle these changes.
> I am talking about the changes which need to be seen as to enable short term
> competitive advantage, to be implemented based on the available resources
> I am differentiating it from the architecture needed to grow business.

> On 11 February 2010 22:20, Joseph George < > joseph.geo...@scottish-southern.co.uk> wrote:
> > Mridul,

> > > I had for long believed "EA is a continuous process which align IT with
> > > Business for the purpose of supporting, growing and stabilizing
> > business."

> > > But have now changed it to "EA is a continuous process which align
> > people,
> > > processes and technology with Business for the purpose of supporting,
> > > growing and stabilizing business"\

> > You don't need architecture for supporting or stabilising business. To
> > keep the lights on, just keep doing more of the same. But that might
> > not be sustainable in the long run. In fact, (dare I say) nothing is
> > sustainable to eternity.

> > I would agree with the initial part of your statement that "EA is a
> > continuous process", but would end with "to enable the business".
> > Enable for what? To become "agile"! Agile is remaining competitive, or
> > else the organisation goes stale like yesterday's milk left out in the
> > open.

> > As Adrian says, agile also refers to the business culture, and that is
> > an entirely different ball-game in itself, which architecture can't
> > change on its own. In my experience, architecture reflects the
> > organisational culture. If it's not a match, it won't fit. An agile
> > architecture or an architecture designed for an agile business is not
> > going to stand within a laid-back organisation. This is when skillful
> > leadership in the organisation becomes an asset, and lack-lustre
> > leadership becomes a liability.

> > Best regards,
> > Joseph

> > On Dec 25 2009, 11:21 am, Mridul wrote:
> > > Coming from a IT background, i would like to say. "we do the s/w
> > > developments using agile methodology in cases where the requirements were
> > > not clear[i.e creating a new product, something which the team has not
> > done
> > > before], or doing a research project."
> > > I would say Agile is way to do work. [anyone can define its own agile
> > > methodology] and Scrum is a methodology [defined by PM practitioners]
> > which
> > > is used in s/w development. Using it has its own pros and cons. according
> > to
> > > the Agile advocates [me too] it is best done by a team. where the team
> > does
> > > all the work and delivers, the same team is involved till the end of the
> > > project] the other approach is linear, where different team work in
> > > different phases. For Architecture, [point me if i am wrong] you need
> > > different skill set of people who need to identify scope, do process
> > design,
> > > organize people and functions, do technology designs. The whole TOGAF
> > > framework which is linear in nature can be easily worked out with a
> > linear
> > > approach. Also in Agile the deliverable[partial] done at the end of the
> > > sprint is usable to the client, even if client says no to further
> > > development.

> > > To Bring Agility in EA, the methodology need to be defined. These people
> > are
> > > doing something on Mapping TOGAF to Agile EA.
> >http://agileea.wikidot.com/agile-ea-to-togaf-mapping

> > > I had for long believed "EA is a continuous process which align IT with
> > > Business for the purpose of supporting, growing and stabilizing
> > business."

> > > But have now changed it to "EA is a continuous process which align
> > people,
> > > processes and technology with Business for the purpose of supporting,
> > > growing and stabilizing business"\

> > > Mridul K Singh,
> > > +919899000152
> > > Director,
> > > Thakursahib Tech Consultants.http://www.thakursahib.comhttp://
> >www.linkedin.com/in/mridulksingh
> > > Enterprise Architecture
> > > News

> > > Enterprise Architecture
> > > Jobs

> > > 2009/12/25 Rheinlander Kirk

> > > > You are missing the concept of abstraction - EA is all about
> > abstraction,
> > > > and if technology is the instantiation of the concept, then so be it.
> > If you
> > > > think EA is about technology, you are doing it wrong.

> > > > EA is NOT a design function. It is about coordinating the efforts of a
> > wide
> > > > variety of engineers, in a variety of disciplines, to execute the
> > strategy.

> > > > Damn technologists :-) (guilty as charged, but hopefully, grown beyond
> > that
> > > > narrow point of view!)

> > > > --Kirk

> > > > On Dec 24, 2009, at 12:31 PM, joshua sahala wrote:

> > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rheinlander Kirk
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > [cut]
> > > > >> For that matter, what does technology have to do with enterprise
> > > > >> architecture?

> > > > > everything...technology provides the foundation to everything that a
> > > > > business does.

> > > > >> Technology is just another of the myriad of elements of the
> > enterprise
> > > > that
> > > > >> are part and parcel of enterprise architecture, none more important
> > than
> > > > any
> > > > >> other.

> > > > > if you define technology solely as something that "those people in it
> > > > > want more money to play with", then, imho, you are ignoring the fact
> > > > > that everything you do relies upon technology (and possibly
> > > > > misunderstanding/oversimplifying what technology is).

> > > > > business cannot exist without technology. from the pen and paper
> > that
> > > > > people sometimes still use, to the phone systems that customers call,
> > > > > to the computer that you send your emails from...it is all
> > technology,
> > > > > and pretty much all of it is necessary for a business to survive
> > > > > (though i suppose that you could argue a corner case about certain
> > > > > indigenous populations).

> > > > > i agree, in part, with your viewpoint that ea has been co-opted by
> > > > > subsets (silos) of the business organisation. however, it is
> > > > > disingenous to claim that ea is somehow greater than and/or separate
> > > > > from the technology that a business relies upon (unless of course you
> > > > > are sharing your ea deliverables via an oral tradition only).

> > > > > admittedly my viewpoint is skewed by my background as a technologist,
> > > > > but, i've seen more than a few companies undermine themselves by
> > > > > trying to pretend that "business" decisions have no technological
> > > > > constraints, or by forcing "technology" decisions to be made without
> > > > > technological understanding (if the business decides to only have a
> > > > > hammer, then everything *must* be a nail...). just because an ea can
> > > > > model a business on paper doesn't mean that it is technologically
> > > > > possible to instantiate that model.

> > > > >

> > > > > back to the original question of "can togaf and agile coexist": i
> > > > > agree with the others whom have said yes; providing that the overall
> > > > > structure is in place and doesn't unnecessarily constrain the
> > group(s)
> > > > > that will be using an agile methodology. in other words, understand
> > > > > agile and build it into the overall business process framework

> > > > > with regard to the forward-looking nature (or not) of agile: it is a
> > > > > methodology, and the vision is constrained more by the people
> > involved
> > > > > than by the method itself. if there is a lack of long-term vision
> > > > > going in, then it doesn't matter what method is used, it will lack

TOGAF and Agile Architecture

Mridul,

> I had for long believed "EA is a continuous process which align IT with
> Business for the purpose of supporting, growing and stabilizing business."

> But have now changed it to "EA is a continuous process which align people,
> processes and technology with Business for the purpose of supporting,
> growing and stabilizing business"\

You don't need architecture for supporting or stabilising business. To keep the lights on, just keep doing more of the same. But that might not be sustainable in the long run. In fact, (dare I say) nothing is sustainable to eternity.

I would agree with the initial part of your statement that "EA is a continuous process", but would end with "to enable the business". Enable for what? To become "agile"! Agile is remaining competitive, or else the organisation goes stale like yesterday's milk left out in the open.

As Adrian says, agile also refers to the business culture, and that is an entirely different ball-game in itself, which architecture can't change on its own. In my experience, architecture reflects the organisational culture. If it's not a match, it won't fit. An agile architecture or an architecture designed for an agile business is not going to stand within a laid-back organisation. This is when skillful leadership in the organisation becomes an asset, and lack-lustre leadership becomes a liability.

Best regards,
Joseph

On Dec 25 2009, 11:21 am, Mridul wrote:

> Coming from a IT background, i would like to say. "we do the s/w
> developments using agile methodology in cases where the requirements were
> not clear[i.e creating a new product, something which the team has not done
> before], or doing a research project."
> I would say Agile is way to do work. [anyone can define its own agile
> methodology] and Scrum is a methodology [defined by PM practitioners] which
> is used in s/w development. Using it has its own pros and cons. according to
> the Agile advocates [me too] it is best done by a team. where the team does
> all the work and delivers, the same team is involved till the end of the
> project] the other approach is linear, where different team work in
> different phases. For Architecture, [point me if i am wrong] you need
> different skill set of people who need to identify scope, do process design,
> organize people and functions, do technology designs. The whole TOGAF
> framework which is linear in nature can be easily worked out with a linear
> approach. Also in Agile the deliverable[partial] done at the end of the
> sprint is usable to the client, even if client says no to further
> development.

> To Bring Agility in EA, the methodology need to be defined. These people are
> doing something on Mapping TOGAF to Agile EA.http://agileea.wikidot.com/agile-ea-to-togaf-mapping

> I had for long believed "EA is a continuous process which align IT with
> Business for the purpose of supporting, growing and stabilizing business."

> But have now changed it to "EA is a continuous process which align people,
> processes and technology with Business for the purpose of supporting,
> growing and stabilizing business"\

> Mridul K Singh,
> +919899000152
> Director,
> Thakursahib Tech Consultants.http://www.thakursahib.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mridulksingh
> Enterprise Architecture
> News

> Enterprise Architecture
> Jobs

> 2009/12/25 Rheinlander Kirk

> > You are missing the concept of abstraction - EA is all about abstraction,
> > and if technology is the instantiation of the concept, then so be it. If you
> > think EA is about technology, you are doing it wrong.

> > EA is NOT a design function. It is about coordinating the efforts of a wide
> > variety of engineers, in a variety of disciplines, to execute the strategy.

> > Damn technologists :-) (guilty as charged, but hopefully, grown beyond that
> > narrow point of view!)

> > --Kirk

> > On Dec 24, 2009, at 12:31 PM, joshua sahala wrote:

> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rheinlander Kirk
> > wrote:
> > > [cut]
> > >> For that matter, what does technology have to do with enterprise
> > >> architecture?

> > > everything...technology provides the foundation to everything that a
> > > business does.

> > >> Technology is just another of the myriad of elements of the enterprise
> > that
> > >> are part and parcel of enterprise architecture, none more important than
> > any
> > >> other.

> > > if you define technology solely as something that "those people in it
> > > want more money to play with", then, imho, you are ignoring the fact
> > > that everything you do relies upon technology (and possibly
> > > misunderstanding/oversimplifying what technology is).

> > > business cannot exist without technology. from the pen and paper that
> > > people sometimes still use, to the phone systems that customers call,
> > > to the computer that you send your emails from...it is all technology,
> > > and pretty much all of it is necessary for a business to survive
> > > (though i suppose that you could argue a corner case about certain
> > > indigenous populations).

> > > i agree, in part, with your viewpoint that ea has been co-opted by
> > > subsets (silos) of the business organisation. however, it is
> > > disingenous to claim that ea is somehow greater than and/or separate
> > > from the technology that a business relies upon (unless of course you
> > > are sharing your ea deliverables via an oral tradition only).

> > > admittedly my viewpoint is skewed by my background as a technologist,
> > > but, i've seen more than a few companies undermine themselves by
> > > trying to pretend that "business" decisions have no technological
> > > constraints, or by forcing "technology" decisions to be made without
> > > technological understanding (if the business decides to only have a
> > > hammer, then everything *must* be a nail...). just because an ea can
> > > model a business on paper doesn't mean that it is technologically
> > > possible to instantiate that model.

> > >

> > > back to the original question of "can togaf and agile coexist": i
> > > agree with the others whom have said yes; providing that the overall
> > > structure is in place and doesn't unnecessarily constrain the group(s)
> > > that will be using an agile methodology. in other words, understand
> > > agile and build it into the overall business process framework

> > > with regard to the forward-looking nature (or not) of agile: it is a
> > > methodology, and the vision is constrained more by the people involved
> > > than by the method itself. if there is a lack of long-term vision
> > > going in, then it doesn't matter what method is used, it will lack
> > > vision.

> > > regards,
> > > /joshua
> > > --
> > > A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
> > > completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> > > fools.
> > > - Douglas Adams -

The Worker