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.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Zero-based Budgeting and ZBO
tags
business.architecture,
change,
culture,
design,
strategy
UKgov to "root out waste" with "zero-based" Budgeting
tags
brexit,
gov,
governance,
leadership,
legislation,
policy,
principles,
strategy
The new government is saying all the right things. Only time will tell whether they make a difference. The last few governments also started with lots of hope but lost their way somewhere down the road, and now their legacy lies in tatters. Let's hope this gov lives up to their promises!
Sunk Cost Fallacy
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results each time.
Change can be hard to digest for most of us, perhaps hardest for the decision makers! And so we continue to trundle down the same road, kicking the can ever further, hoping that the next turn might wipe out our past mistakes. Meanwhile, the present becomes the past rapidly.
Dumping ever more energy, resources, money, etc. into a failing project exponentially increases… insanity/risks! And continues feeding dodgy suppliers and predators.
When is a good time to cut our losses?
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results each time.
Change can be hard to digest for most of us, perhaps hardest for the decision makers! And so we continue to trundle down the same road, kicking the can ever further, hoping that the next turn might wipe out our past mistakes. Meanwhile, the present becomes the past rapidly.
Dumping ever more energy, resources, money, etc. into a failing project exponentially increases… insanity/risks! And continues feeding dodgy suppliers and predators.
When is a good time to cut our losses?
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.
Marissa Mayer's "Laura Beckman story"
tags
knowledge,
leadership,
strategy
http://businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-biography-2013-8?op=1
When people ask Marissa, why she joined Google after getting her masters in symbolic systems at Stanford, she likes to tell them her "Laura Beckman story". It's about the daughter of her middle school piano teacher.
Marissa begins: "Laura tried out for the volleyball team her junior year at high school. At the end of the tryouts, she was given a hard choice: bench on varsity, or start on JV.
Most people, when they're faced with this choice, would choose to play - and they'll pick JV. Laura did the opposite. She chose varsity, and she benched the whole season.
But then an amazing thing happened. Senior year she tried out and she made varsity as a starter, and all the JV starters from the previous year benched their whole senior year.
I remember asking her: "How did you know to choose varsity?"
And she said, "I just knew that if I got to practice with the better players every day, I would become a much better player, even if I didn't get to play in any of the games."
The moral of Mayer's story is that it's always better to surround yourself with the best people, so that they will challenge you, and you will grow.
When people ask Marissa, why she joined Google after getting her masters in symbolic systems at Stanford, she likes to tell them her "Laura Beckman story". It's about the daughter of her middle school piano teacher.
Marissa begins: "Laura tried out for the volleyball team her junior year at high school. At the end of the tryouts, she was given a hard choice: bench on varsity, or start on JV.
Most people, when they're faced with this choice, would choose to play - and they'll pick JV. Laura did the opposite. She chose varsity, and she benched the whole season.
But then an amazing thing happened. Senior year she tried out and she made varsity as a starter, and all the JV starters from the previous year benched their whole senior year.
I remember asking her: "How did you know to choose varsity?"
And she said, "I just knew that if I got to practice with the better players every day, I would become a much better player, even if I didn't get to play in any of the games."
The moral of Mayer's story is that it's always better to surround yourself with the best people, so that they will challenge you, and you will grow.
A Flawed Foundation, But Brilliant Strategy?
http://zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-eu-flawed-foundation-brilliant-strategy
The essence of Mercantile Colonialism is to create a need for debt, then finance that debt and eventually exchange that debt for the collateral assets that are the underlying wealth producing assets.
In the Austrian School of Economics, this exchange of printed paper for real assets, is called the Indirect Exchange. It is well understood and well documented but like usury is avoided in polite conversation. Eventually the colonies worked as slaves to pay the debt to their European masters.
Gold is the Money of Kings, Silver the Money of Merchants and Debt the Money of Slaves
The European banks are slowly but surely, through a tactic of Financial Arbitrage, moving more and more sovereign debt to the ECB and EU. Someone must pay for this debt and that will eventually be the entire European taxpayer base. That is the goal.
"The way to make a lot of money is to invest in a known & predetermined outcome."
Joseph P Kennedy, (father of President JFK and one of the richest self-made prohibition bootleggers in America).
It was obviously a flawed approach where Monetary Policy would be disconnected from Fiscal Policy. It was expediently swept under the carpet as something to be avoided and left for future political operatives to craft the public response.
Question: "Why would we implement a flawed system?"
It is exactly the same question as why did US banks make liar loans?
Answer 1: Someone else would carry the liability.
.... and the tax payer has.
Answer 2: Because there was a lot of money to be made!
.... and it has been made.
"The EU is built on a FLAWED FOUNDATION but a brilliant STRATEGY ……
…. Unfortunately the People own the foundation & banks the strategy!
Like Colonial Mercantilism the real money in Europe KNEW going in what the debt strategy was.
They also had another card up their sleeve. They knew there was a structural advantage that would predetermine the eventual outcome.
Do you really believe that major banks would put themselves in a position where they lent endlessly to the kids knowing they would be left holding the bag? They knew the outcome and who was going to be left holding the bag.
It was certainly not going to be those with an army of lawyers, lobbyists, campaign contributions and most importantly, a strategy.
It must never be forgotten that the banks create their money from your money. It is only time, therefore before as in a children's monopoly game, they own the whole board.
Also it must never be forgotten that this is why banks fight so hard against Tier 1 Capital requirement changes. This is the money they have previously extracted that is now actually at risk.
Be aware that the mercantile financiers are so opposed to risk that operating as the secured bond holders of the banks they make the profit from the banks - not the shareholders. The financiers get first distribution of profits and are always kept whole. The public typically attacks the bank owners, not those who insidiously control and profit from its operations - the senior secured bond holders. It is the senior secured bond holders who must take the Greek 'haircut' but as part of the strategy they have their political mouthpieces vehemently opposing it.
Capital is already fleeing Greece as fast as it can; what's the chance of attracting it for Greek assets?
Someone is going to get real fire sale prices.
It's easy as a bookie to make money on a sure thing when the horse race is fixed!
The essence of Mercantile Colonialism is to create a need for debt, then finance that debt and eventually exchange that debt for the collateral assets that are the underlying wealth producing assets.
In the Austrian School of Economics, this exchange of printed paper for real assets, is called the Indirect Exchange. It is well understood and well documented but like usury is avoided in polite conversation. Eventually the colonies worked as slaves to pay the debt to their European masters.
Gold is the Money of Kings, Silver the Money of Merchants and Debt the Money of Slaves
The European banks are slowly but surely, through a tactic of Financial Arbitrage, moving more and more sovereign debt to the ECB and EU. Someone must pay for this debt and that will eventually be the entire European taxpayer base. That is the goal.
"The way to make a lot of money is to invest in a known & predetermined outcome."
Joseph P Kennedy, (father of President JFK and one of the richest self-made prohibition bootleggers in America).
It was obviously a flawed approach where Monetary Policy would be disconnected from Fiscal Policy. It was expediently swept under the carpet as something to be avoided and left for future political operatives to craft the public response.
Question: "Why would we implement a flawed system?"
It is exactly the same question as why did US banks make liar loans?
Answer 1: Someone else would carry the liability.
.... and the tax payer has.
Answer 2: Because there was a lot of money to be made!
.... and it has been made.
"The EU is built on a FLAWED FOUNDATION but a brilliant STRATEGY ……
…. Unfortunately the People own the foundation & banks the strategy!
Like Colonial Mercantilism the real money in Europe KNEW going in what the debt strategy was.
They also had another card up their sleeve. They knew there was a structural advantage that would predetermine the eventual outcome.
Do you really believe that major banks would put themselves in a position where they lent endlessly to the kids knowing they would be left holding the bag? They knew the outcome and who was going to be left holding the bag.
It was certainly not going to be those with an army of lawyers, lobbyists, campaign contributions and most importantly, a strategy.
It must never be forgotten that the banks create their money from your money. It is only time, therefore before as in a children's monopoly game, they own the whole board.
Also it must never be forgotten that this is why banks fight so hard against Tier 1 Capital requirement changes. This is the money they have previously extracted that is now actually at risk.
Be aware that the mercantile financiers are so opposed to risk that operating as the secured bond holders of the banks they make the profit from the banks - not the shareholders. The financiers get first distribution of profits and are always kept whole. The public typically attacks the bank owners, not those who insidiously control and profit from its operations - the senior secured bond holders. It is the senior secured bond holders who must take the Greek 'haircut' but as part of the strategy they have their political mouthpieces vehemently opposing it.
Capital is already fleeing Greece as fast as it can; what's the chance of attracting it for Greek assets?
Someone is going to get real fire sale prices.
It's easy as a bookie to make money on a sure thing when the horse race is fixed!
bad strategy?
http://mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/the_perils_of_bad_strategy
reading this article above, reminded me of a recent engagement reworking on corporate strategy and business planning.
i had a very interesting initial-discussion with the director in-charge of marketing and strategy.
q: what is the current strategy.
a: our strategy is very simple:
"get as much clients as we can. charge as much money as we can. cut as much costs as we can."
my humble opinion & response was that, we can't have such strategy.
q: why do we charge customers so much?
a: we are the oldest and the best. we have the most reputation. we have the widest reach. our employees are the best trained.
q: do we have a target customer segment?
a: we target everyone.
but we can't target everyone. a celebrity-footballer (potential client) might have very different expectations, than another man on the street.
i don't think this is bad strategy. in fact, there is no strategy. the firm has been bleeding increasingly, since the past few years. but, there is hope, and we can turn it around, within the next 2yrs.
i might chart something on this blog, if i can suitably obfuscate pertinent details…
reading this article above, reminded me of a recent engagement reworking on corporate strategy and business planning.
i had a very interesting initial-discussion with the director in-charge of marketing and strategy.
q: what is the current strategy.
a: our strategy is very simple:
"get as much clients as we can. charge as much money as we can. cut as much costs as we can."
my humble opinion & response was that, we can't have such strategy.
q: why do we charge customers so much?
a: we are the oldest and the best. we have the most reputation. we have the widest reach. our employees are the best trained.
q: do we have a target customer segment?
a: we target everyone.
but we can't target everyone. a celebrity-footballer (potential client) might have very different expectations, than another man on the street.
i don't think this is bad strategy. in fact, there is no strategy. the firm has been bleeding increasingly, since the past few years. but, there is hope, and we can turn it around, within the next 2yrs.
i might chart something on this blog, if i can suitably obfuscate pertinent details…
5-point Strategy to defeat Regulators
http://rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510
How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform
It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House.
by: Matt Taibbi
That the banks have just about succeeded in strangling [reform] is probably not news to most Americans – it's how they succeeded that's the scary part. The banks followed a five-point strategy that offers a dependable blueprint for defeating any regulation – and for guaranteeing that when it comes to the economy, might will always equal right.
STEP 1: STRANGLE IT IN THE WOMB
STEP 2: SUE, SUE, SUE
STEP 3: IF YOU CAN'T WIN, STALL
STEP 4: BULLY THE REGULATORS
STEP 5: PASS A GAZILLION LOOPHOLES
The best way to explain where those hidden taxes come from is to compare a regulated market to an unregulated one. It's the difference between buying soap and buying drugs. You go into a corner store and there's a price tag on the soap, but you can always go across the street, or on the Internet, to see what soap costs someplace else. But when you go to buy an eight ball of coke, you have to ask your dealer what the price is, and it's not like you can compare prices online. If you're tough and streetwise and you know what coke costs, you might get it for a couple hundred bucks. But if you're some quivering Ivy Leaguer idling in a Lexus, the price might be $400.
That's how the swaps market works. It operates completely in the dark. If you're some Podunk town in Texas or Alabama and you need swaps financing, you've got to ask Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley what it costs. There's no exchange where you can compare prices. And modern investment bankers are ethically a notch below your average drug dealer. They will extract from their customer – a town, an airline, a chain of retail stores – whatever they think he'll pay. And that extra cost will be passed on to you by the overcharged customer, in the form of higher taxes, bigger home-heating bills, higher sewer rates or pricier airline tickets. Wall Street will be taking a bite out of you every time you write a check.
That's particularly true because most members of Congress know that the public seldom pays any attention to the fiendish complexities of things like derivatives reform.
But money never gets tired. It never gets frustrated. The system has become too complex for flesh-and-blood people, who make the mistake of thinking that passing a new law means the end of the discussion, when it's really just the beginning of a war.
How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform
It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House.
by: Matt Taibbi
That the banks have just about succeeded in strangling [reform] is probably not news to most Americans – it's how they succeeded that's the scary part. The banks followed a five-point strategy that offers a dependable blueprint for defeating any regulation – and for guaranteeing that when it comes to the economy, might will always equal right.
STEP 1: STRANGLE IT IN THE WOMB
STEP 2: SUE, SUE, SUE
STEP 3: IF YOU CAN'T WIN, STALL
STEP 4: BULLY THE REGULATORS
STEP 5: PASS A GAZILLION LOOPHOLES
The best way to explain where those hidden taxes come from is to compare a regulated market to an unregulated one. It's the difference between buying soap and buying drugs. You go into a corner store and there's a price tag on the soap, but you can always go across the street, or on the Internet, to see what soap costs someplace else. But when you go to buy an eight ball of coke, you have to ask your dealer what the price is, and it's not like you can compare prices online. If you're tough and streetwise and you know what coke costs, you might get it for a couple hundred bucks. But if you're some quivering Ivy Leaguer idling in a Lexus, the price might be $400.
That's how the swaps market works. It operates completely in the dark. If you're some Podunk town in Texas or Alabama and you need swaps financing, you've got to ask Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley what it costs. There's no exchange where you can compare prices. And modern investment bankers are ethically a notch below your average drug dealer. They will extract from their customer – a town, an airline, a chain of retail stores – whatever they think he'll pay. And that extra cost will be passed on to you by the overcharged customer, in the form of higher taxes, bigger home-heating bills, higher sewer rates or pricier airline tickets. Wall Street will be taking a bite out of you every time you write a check.
That's particularly true because most members of Congress know that the public seldom pays any attention to the fiendish complexities of things like derivatives reform.
But money never gets tired. It never gets frustrated. The system has become too complex for flesh-and-blood people, who make the mistake of thinking that passing a new law means the end of the discussion, when it's really just the beginning of a war.
4. The Law of Navigation
tags
book,
leadership,
maxwell,
strategy
Charting the Course with a Navigation Strategy
P redetermine a Course of action
L ay out your Goals
A djust your Priorities
N otify Key Personnel
A llow Time for acceptance
H ead into Action
E xpect Problems
A lways Point to the successes
D aily Review your plan
P redetermine a Course of action
L ay out your Goals
A djust your Priorities
N otify Key Personnel
A llow Time for acceptance
H ead into Action
E xpect Problems
A lways Point to the successes
D aily Review your plan
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.
Distributing the role of Enterprise Architect across the firm
tags
collaborative,
culture,
leadership,
strategy,
tea.net
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> >> 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?
tags
business.architecture,
strategy,
tea.net
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
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> > > 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
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >> 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"
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"
Strategy by Michael Porter
tags
strategy
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."
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."
EA value measures ? who cares?
tags
principles,
strategy,
views
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)
< 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
> 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
> >> 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
> >>>> 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?
tags
principles,
strategy
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)
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
> 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
> >> 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)
Response: Exam over
tags
gov,
marchant,
policy,
principles,
strategy
Exam over, Ian Marchant blog post dt 11/02/2009
...
Feedback in response to Ian's Blog
Post Title - Exam over
Date Posted - 11/02/2009
Name: Joseph George
Department: Technical Solutions
Location: Havant
Comments:
Ian,
"My answer was that I would rather employ an extra person in Customer Service than in the Press Office."
Highly commendable, Ian! I feel this is one of the things ailing our government and consequently the country today. Too many spin doctors, and not enough constructive work!
There was a time (possibly my father's generation), when people looked to the media to form their opinion. Now, most people can see right through the media reports and analysis, which more often seem to be driving politically motivated corrupt agendas.
With the advent of the internet, peer groups are highly effective in dispersing personal feedback, and no amount of spin can kill that, other than actual constructive work to remedy the situation.
Kind regards,
Joseph
From: Ian Marchant
Date: 12/02/2009 16:25
Subject: Re: Exam over
To: Joseph George
Joseph
I couldn't agree more newspapers feel they are more important than they
really are.
Ian
Architecture Consolidation
Benjamin,
If each of your businesses and business units "are following certain Architecture framework and have implementation using the defined architecture", then I would say that you have won the war. You are only left with the small battles. It doesn't matter what framework you are using. All the frameworks do is provide you a view of the existing data.
My understanding of the answers you are looking for are:
1. Translating or transforming your data held in one framework to another should be relatively easy, as long as you have all the i's dotted and t's crossed. If you find it difficult, use a tool. We use Casewise, which provides various plug-ins for various frameworks. Use the appropriate plug-in, and you see your architecture in a familiar framework. You are not changing the data, only the view.
2. Ahh.... Now, this is the crux of Enterprise Architecture - consolidate, rationalise and standardise. If you have completed the Enterprise Architecture, it should have laid out your to-be enterprise, with an understanding of where your execs want to take the business. If you have EAs for each SBU, lay them side-by-side or in layers one-on-top, which should straight away tell you what you need.
3. Do your Gap Analysis. I prefer the top-down approach. Identify the changes needed to your Business Architecture, which should drive the changes necessary to your Information Architecture, which should drive the changes required to your Technology Architecture, and so on...
Kind regards,
Joseph
On Sep 29, 7:25 am, Benjamin wrote:
> Hi,
> I am having this thought for quite a long time, regarding Architecture
> Consolidation for a large Enterprise (Having multiple sub-
> organizations under its arm).
> I would like to have inputs on the ways and means for Architecture
> Consolidation. Let me give the scenario - An Enterprise X has multiple
> sub-division across the globe. These sub-divisions (A small
> organization in its own way) are following certain Architecture
> framework and have implementation using the defined architecture. Now
> for Enterprise X, it has multiple Architecture framework spread
> across.
> My question to all:
> 1. How can Enterprise X plan to have Architectural Consolidation so
> that all its child organization follow same Architectural framework
> 2. How can Enterprise X address the difference among Architecture?
> 3. If there is any agreement for Common Architecture, then how one
> should plan for the migration to the new Architecture
> Thanks;
> Benjamin
If each of your businesses and business units "are following certain Architecture framework and have implementation using the defined architecture", then I would say that you have won the war. You are only left with the small battles. It doesn't matter what framework you are using. All the frameworks do is provide you a view of the existing data.
My understanding of the answers you are looking for are:
1. Translating or transforming your data held in one framework to another should be relatively easy, as long as you have all the i's dotted and t's crossed. If you find it difficult, use a tool. We use Casewise, which provides various plug-ins for various frameworks. Use the appropriate plug-in, and you see your architecture in a familiar framework. You are not changing the data, only the view.
2. Ahh.... Now, this is the crux of Enterprise Architecture - consolidate, rationalise and standardise. If you have completed the Enterprise Architecture, it should have laid out your to-be enterprise, with an understanding of where your execs want to take the business. If you have EAs for each SBU, lay them side-by-side or in layers one-on-top, which should straight away tell you what you need.
3. Do your Gap Analysis. I prefer the top-down approach. Identify the changes needed to your Business Architecture, which should drive the changes necessary to your Information Architecture, which should drive the changes required to your Technology Architecture, and so on...
Kind regards,
Joseph
On Sep 29, 7:25 am, Benjamin
> Hi,
> I am having this thought for quite a long time, regarding Architecture
> Consolidation for a large Enterprise (Having multiple sub-
> organizations under its arm).
> I would like to have inputs on the ways and means for Architecture
> Consolidation. Let me give the scenario - An Enterprise X has multiple
> sub-division across the globe. These sub-divisions (A small
> organization in its own way) are following certain Architecture
> framework and have implementation using the defined architecture. Now
> for Enterprise X, it has multiple Architecture framework spread
> across.
> My question to all:
> 1. How can Enterprise X plan to have Architectural Consolidation so
> that all its child organization follow same Architectural framework
> 2. How can Enterprise X address the difference among Architecture?
> 3. If there is any agreement for Common Architecture, then how one
> should plan for the migration to the new Architecture
> Thanks;
> Benjamin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)