In response to a question on LinkedIn, I also clarified some thinking around this topic. The reason why most of the tools we have to deal with any particular dimension of the problem space are wholly inadequate is because their focus is either too granular (think Six Sigma, LEAN, SOA, ISO 27k series) or too broad (Zachman, TOGAF, Goal-oriented analyses, COBIT). There's precious little that focuses on the middle that connects those levels of granularity. And that I think is where we get into real trouble - from one side, we can't see the forest for the trees, and from another too many things fall through the cracks of incomplete analysis. I'll post an attempt at a diagram later today.
Aleks
3 levels of integrated alignment - further thoughts
Thursday, January 8, 2009 |
Posted by
AAB
3 levels of integrated alignment?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 |
Posted by
AAB
Earlier today I drew a picture of what a well-aligned enterprise would look like. That drew my attention to the fact that most of the tools we have in our alignment toolbox only focus on one aspect of one dimension. At the simplest, there are 3 aspects in 4 dimensions - is it any wonder, then, that every silver alphabet soup bullet to come out of the woodwork in the past 2 decades has not managed to live up to anything close to expectations?!
Aleks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Technology Investment Management (TIM)
John Tudor once said, "Technology enables us to gain control over everything, except over technology." Nowhere is this maxim truer than in a modern enterprise, where silos and spaghetti are quite common as descriptors of current state. This mix of redundancy and complexity leads to some very unfortunate results in project delivery, business and IT relationship, and sleeping habits of your average CIO. The aim of Technology Investment Management is to reduce complexity and gain back control over technology.
Tag Cloud
Acquisitions
(3)
Agile
(1)
Application Security
(1)
BPM
(14)
BPO
(1)
Business Ecology
(3)
Business Operating Model
(11)
Business/IT Alignment
(10)
CAEAP
(2)
Capability Portfolio
(3)
Capability-Based Approach
(15)
CIO
(8)
CIO Magazine
(3)
Cloud Computing
(2)
COBIT
(2)
competitive advantage
(1)
Complexity
(3)
Credit Crunch
(1)
Disruption
(1)
Enterprise Architecture
(16)
EPPM
(1)
Forrester
(4)
Gartner
(1)
GRC
(2)
Hype Cycle
(2)
Intangible Benefits
(5)
Integration Capability Portfolio
(4)
IT Budget
(1)
IT Effectiveness
(5)
IT Governance
(6)
Knowledge Management
(1)
Leadership
(1)
LEAN
(4)
Legacy
(1)
MDM
(3)
Mergers
(3)
Metrics
(9)
MIT
(2)
Ontology
(1)
Opportunity Cost
(3)
PMBOK
(2)
Portfolio Management
(10)
Problem of Description
(1)
Project Success
(13)
Reference Architecture
(3)
Reuse
(3)
Service Oriented Architecture
(2)
SOA
(19)
SOA Manifesto
(3)
Standish Group
(3)
Tech-Savvy
(2)
Technology Finance
(5)
Technology Investment Management
(13)
TOGAF
(4)
Value of EA
(7)
Value of IT
(8)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(48)
-
►
August
(8)
- Business IT/Alignment Anti-Patterns: Business Pro...
- As Promised: Capability-Based Analysis Transforma...
- Are M&A Results Really So Poor?
- Response to KPMG: Debunking the myth of SOA
- How Much BPMN Do You Need?
- Value of Capability-Based Approach to Projects
- Are SOA-based Assets Really Reusable?
- Integration Capability Portfolio as Means of Compe...
-
►
August
(8)
RSS Feed