This week, the readings focused largely on reviewing concepts from EA871, and identifying where your organization currently fits in the EA-building model. The text states some common problems among polled organizations with regard to EA infrastructure; answers such as "different parts of our company give different answers to the same customer questions," and "our business lacks agility..." all signify poor foundational architecture (Ross 5).
So what?
Well, the bottom line is that companies with defined architectures perform better (Ross 2-3). IT costs become lower, processes become more efficient, and the company moves from a reactive to a proactive environment. Once your EA goals are in alignment with the goals of the parent company, this shift starts to occur. This all must include the enterprise context, which can be achieved by collaborating with business and IT leaders, identifying trends and business strategies of the parent company, developing anchor models, and evolving the enterprise context over time. (Burton, 2-3).
Personally, the companies I've worked at weren't big on process - this implies a poorly developed architecture (or, in some areas a complete lack thereof). This isn't just indicative of IT, but can be said of the company on a much larger-scale basis. Asset integration and upkeep was messy - project managers developed their own ways of accomplishing their goals. This was an issue in a highly regulated industry (oil & natural gas), where legislation dictates that the company must have a set of guideline which project follow. The framework for enterprise architecture is there, but I don't see it implemented very often.
Compare this with some of the examples of the textbook, such as UPS, and I can easily see the merit in an organized, developed EA. UPS has processes for nearly everything - they even tell their drivers which foot to put in the vehicle first (Ross 14). Their process-oriented structure has allowed for the penultimate shift to a proactive company, whereby they can start developing tools to improve customer satisfaction (package tracking, etc.) to gain an upper hand on the competition. It's really impressive how much EA can truly benefit an organization with total buy-in from senior management.
What does it say about your process when your user base actively tries to subvert or work outside it in the name of efficiency? Either there is a lack of communication about why the process as-is is required or maybe the process has outgrown the needs of the business.
ReplyDeleteThe UPS "lead foot in the van" story made me chuckle, but I have been in many LEAN/Six Sigma workouts where we come up with a new process, but it fails because the folks actually doing the work don't see the value in the change. And that's on us for now communicating the "why" along with the "what."
I agree - I've seen a lot of avoidance based on not seeing value. Either that, or people just don't liker change in general.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case, you're right that it's up to us to not only design and implement the change, but also to explain the benefit.
Great points. Do the regulations in your industry change in such a fast timeframe that developing the EA would be worthwhile at all?
ReplyDeleteGreat points. Do the regulations in your industry change in such a fast timeframe that developing the EA would be worthwhile at all?
ReplyDeleteGood points. I work in PCI regulated company. I can relate some of the points you posted here.
ReplyDelete