Posted by TomRose on November 12, 2006 under EA | 
The elusive Business/IT alignment everyone wants and knows they need to achieve. One approach is placing IT in a completely separate organization (as it usually is), trying to run IT as an external company to the business, the business is your customer. I think this has value and does drive cost down as it optimizes the IT organization. However, what it can’t accomplish very well is drive revenue. Although most companies are focused on just getting IT to optimize operations to minimize cost that is really only part of what IT should be trying to accomplish.
Alignment, how to achieve it, well, I’m not sure it can be achieved with IT organizations as they are typically structured. I typically see the CEO, CIO, CTO line of management, then IT spread out underneath. Also some companies distribute IT and make them part of the line of business, however, that approach typically throws out most of the enterprise direction needed for IT optimization.
The solution, just like my previous post about technical and non-technical aspects of Enterprise Architecture, a company has to do both. Start with combining some of the CIO roles with the COO, then a CTO (seasoned technical leader) reports to the COO. Shared goals across business operations and IT are coming from a lower level than the CEO, and have a better chance for technology and business units to work towards the same shared objectives. Then ensure there is technology subject matter experts focused on key business areas that report into their assigned business unit, as well as enterprise IT.
As business and IT start to collaborate, IT will not only be optimizing cost through enterprise focus, but most importantly joining the business in directly driving revenues. Don’t be fooled, this is not a rant or some grandiose vision, it is happening. Start listening to the corporate investor calls, there are companies that are doing it. Regardless of the numbers, you will hear a confident CEO, COO/CIO all able to articulate business strategy, the technology that is going to make it happen, and how it’s happening today. As analyst beat them up over the spend, they will take a staunch stance to the strategy. Not that they will ride a bad strategy into the ground, but more importantly can stand the pressure to continue to duke it out with competitors with the current operating model, instead of jumping the curve to the next level. When a company is moving from OK, good, to great, this is the indicator the move is underway.
I see companies starting to make this move, so we will see how this plays out over the next couple of years.
Tom
Posted by TomRose on November 10, 2006 under EA, SOA |
There are a few posts about the Enterprise Architecture Conference (EAC), and the lack of discussion about SOA. I did not attend so I’m only getting the information second hand, and most of what I read seems consistent. Either the session was about SOA or EA, and the two were never really blended or a relationship clearly articulated. I have some thoughts on why that occurred.
Enterprise Architecture, well everyone has their own definition and no need to go there for the moment. Perhaps we can agree that SOA is part of a corporate EA practice. I think it’s also safe to say that Integration and Business Architecture are part of EA as well. SOA is an architectural approach that blends Business & Integration Architecture providing an agile integration and pallet of business services to enable business operations.
EA also contains application, infrastructure, and information architecture. Regardless of the definition and what name the architecture type is given, how many you have, etc, these are all in a category of Technical Architecture. Many times I think we stop here and just equate the two (EA = TA), instead of understanding TA is just a subset of an EA practice. From my experience it’s the easiest component of EA, and if all I had to do is define and create the enterprise technology portfolio to run the business, life would be grand!
Unfortunately, a successful EA practice also consists of strategy/planning, governance, portfolio management, program management, and education. Then strong ties with business strategy, strategic sourcing/vendor management/procurement, and an EA process to tie it all together.
This is where EA gets hard, focus on the non-technical critical success factors and nothing ever gets pushed out into the daily operations (ivory tower syndrome). Focus on the TA, and the effort is siloed where it began and never gets full enterprise reach. Only because of tactical cost reduction and functional needs of the enterprise such as, new ERP functionality, system/datacenter consolidation, identity management, federal and state regulation/legislation, web portal, etc, do enterprise initiatives get completed. Both have to be done, and the companies that can, will be the ones that move from good to great.
When looking at the scope of an EA practice, SOA is a very critical and small piece of the complete picture. The same can be said for the EA frameworks and models.
Cheers!
Tom