February 17, 2009
The Skeptical Enterprise Architect
Other practitioners and researchers often quote my research to highlight enterprise architecture adoption challenges. In my practical work and research, I see EA as a toolbox that embraces, supplements, and extends other disciplines. I think that the jungle of commercial EA frameworks and methods available are often too difficult to translate into actionable business results. In the Ministry of Finance, I have championed the introduction of EA reference models. And we are working on other tools for national IT-portfolio planning, e.g. via business cases. Adoption is difficult, but if we apply EA with a natural skepticism we might succeed…
Even thought my research is descriptive in nature, I have recently defined the seven propositions for EA practitioners listed below.
1. Don’t be blinded. Public organizations are conservative creatures and administrative reform and transformation is not driven by IT or the planning of IT use with EA alone. Fundamental transformation to the tasks performed in public organizations depend on political and institutional determination.
2. Understand the politics of government. The business of government is complex, mandates are often unclear, and the struggle for political support can be tough. Understand the environment, agency programs, and potential ‘obstacles’ before launching EA programs.
3. Don’t follow, lead. Perceived ‘best practices’ are not always the right medicine in a specific context. EA programs must proactively be customized to a specific context if success is to be achieved.
4. Focus on business and leadership, not technical frameworks. EA has a tendency to get very complicated and technically focused. New EA programs must ensure management backing and focus on business process management and change management.
5. Only use EA as a toolbox. EA is a meta-discipline that embraces, supplements, and extends other disciplines like e.g. Business Process Management. EA programs must change over time and become part of a continuous business improvement agenda.
6. Create clear governance structures. Unclear distributions of power, unclear mandates, and a constant struggle for political support will hinder EA success. A clear governance structure across levels and functions of government is key for successful EA adoption.
7. Think big and start small. The need to interact with external partners is especially far-reaching in government. Develop EA programs that can embrace the need for extra-organizational horizontal and vertical linkages.
Posted by khm at 04:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
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