July 24, 2008

The Lazy Enterprise Architect – Vision or Reality?

I recently attended a Gartner EA seminar in London. Hosted by the EA gurus Philip Allegra and Brian Burke, the seminar outlined the ”ideal” planning and implementation of an enterprise architecture program (great seminar – try to attend if you can some time).

During the seminar Phil introduced the idea about the ”lazy architect”. The role of the enterprise architect is to ensure that the business and IT are in alignment. And ”ideally”, when an EA program has been well established, the enterprise architect can sit back and just make sure that this alignment is happening.

However, as noted previously on this blog, my practical and academic expertise is that EA is often performed very different in different organizational settings. As Phil and Brian also noted, EA is not a clear-cut movement that can be adopted by any organization with similar results.

EA implementation is context dependent and typically comes with as much frustrations and desperation as accomplishments and joy. Working with many different stakeholders, both leadership and subject matter experts, to build a holistic view of the organization's strategy, processes, information, and information technology assets is not just a walk in the park in most organizations.

EA is still a fairly new discipline, and many organizations have just recently created the role of the architect. Maturity is probably a key word when we want find what Weber would call the ideal type ”lazy architect” – however, in my world the ”lazy architect” is still more vision than reality...

Please let me know how you experience your role as enterprise architect. In my research I try to understand how EA is adopted and your feedback is therefore very valuable to me. Post a note here or drop me an e-mail.

Posted by khm at 03:33 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 21, 2006

Enterprise Architecture As Strategy

I have just started read a new book by Ross, Weill and Roberts called Enterprise Architecture As Strategy. I think the book will give EA a lot of momentum - like IT-Governance gained momentum after Ross and Weill’s book IT-Governance. But, the managerial presentation of EA in the book also echoes in form and substance the traditional definitions of Management Information Systems (MIS) – and the early work of Zachman and Spewak. This kind of research and consulting activity associated with strategic IT alignment does not deal with two fundamental questions:

- IT planning has been around for many years. But alignment is still a problem – why is it so difficult?

- Successful Strategic Information Systems seem to show that tinkering, not conscious alignment, was behind successfully aligned IT-applications – can we really find one right medicine?

Sceptically open-minded, I will read the rest of the book and get back with my evaluation. I recommend thinking about the two questions above if you read the book. And please do not jump the buzz wagon tomorrow – EA has a lot of potential, but it is no silver bullet!

Posted by khm at 07:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 07, 2006

Four misunderstandings about Enterprise Architecture

Modernizing government institutions with Enterprise Architecture (EA) has proven much more difficult than the evangelists have claimed. EA is not a clear-cut movement that can be adopted by any organization with similar results. EA implementation is context dependent and typically comes with as much frustrations and desperation as accomplishments and joy. Against the background of cultural theory – and the writings of Hood – four misunderstandings about EA can be identified:

1) EA is a clear-cut movement
2) EA is unavoidable and irreversible
3) EA will lead to convergence, with the same ’methods’ appearing everywhere
4) EA is beneficent and welcomed by all

My practical and academic expertises with EA have told me that people often want to be deceived. We worship new things that we can associate with progress and/or innovation. But, powerful forces of path-dependency and self-disequilibration – that is the, the capacity of management reform initiatives to produce the opposite of their intended results – often come in our way. If we can clear up the four misunderstandings I outlined above we might achieve more accomplishments and joy than frustrations and desperation in our EA endeavours. Lets give it a try!

Posted by khm at 05:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 04, 2006

Public Reforms and Enterprise Architecture

Public management reforms consists of deliberate changes to the structures and processes of public sector organizations with the objective of getting them (in some sense) to run better. (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004)

Having studied and practiced enterprise architecture (EA) in government for some time now, I would characterize myself as ‘sceptically open-minded’ when it comes to transforming the information systems planning agenda in public organizations with EA. Public management reforms are not always rational; it is not only about IT-savings, better service, higher efficiency or effectiveness. Some of the intermediate ends are increased political control over the bureaucracy and better accountability. But, EA adoption also has symbolic and legitimacy benefits for politicians and bureaucrats. Adopting EA is ‘doing something’ and it can attract favourable attention to the politicians and bureaucrats who espouse it.

Generic EA management programs tend to be fairly functional/instrumental in orientation. EA programs in government must also include ‘public sector values’ such as democracy, accountability, equality, and probity. Hence, EA adoption is not linear; EA adoption is a political process of Muddling through. Public (and private) management is not a neutral, technical process, and implementing information systems in government is a social process that involves politics, law and the wider civil society. As noted by Pollitt and Bouckaert structures and processes must be changed in public management reforms; EA in government should not simply be about announcing, discussion, and beginning to implement – EAs need to be actionable and not just political show-off!

Posted by khm at 08:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack