3 levels of integrated alignment - further thoughts

Thursday, January 8, 2009 |

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.


3 levels of integrated alignment?

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 |

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?!