RSS Feed
Friday, February 18, 2011 | 
Several interesting points that deserve their own blog posts, so this is just a conversation starter:
- EA should not be inside of IT, and it's usual placement hampers both IT and its effectiveness.
- EA maturity is directly related to organizational performance, and can be built in discrete stages.
- Overall IT Budget increases by a factor of 50% in organizations that are in Stage 4 (Business Modularity) and business leaders love that because they get more per use and time to market increases that give them competitive advantage.
- One of the determining factors of EA-lead transformation success is stability in the executive ranks (yes, my presentation on this coming in a month, so stay tuned)
- Strategic Agility has a dependency on evidence-based management culture. This culture cannot be built overnight, nor can it come from natural evolution. It has to be enabled from both top and middle.
- There are three (3) key requirements to work smarter: Operational Intelligence Backbone (Competing on Analytics), Business Rules Management (BRM), and Organizational Development.
- Align business activities with IT - not IT with the business activities. Otherwise you're trying to align the most static strategies with to the most dynamic. Create a core - and then align things to that core.
Please discuss!
AAB
14 hours ago
3 comments:
Hi, looking forward to reading details on each of these thought starters--very interesting and timely perspective of EA!
@redblue36
Could it that "Enterprise Architecture" is Misnamed? Looking back on efforts initiated under the umbrella of enterprise architecture (driven by TOGAF or other EA development frameworks) my work products are often in-distinguishable from strategy development (and implementation). Will EA commoditize into Strategy Development? Business management knows why a strategy is needed. Is the essential work within EA (the kind of work that business tends to understand, appreciate and consume) plain, old fashioned strategy development?
Johan -
Interesting thought, but looking at the granularity of knowledge management, I think EA falls more in the Planning bucket. All of the strategy development frameworks (value chains, goals/objectives, strategy narratives, etc.) have one thing in common - they assume that their results can be easily translated into action. So they suffer from either the forest or the trees - either stop at a level of granularity that is decoupled from reality (to produce something quickly) or get so bogged down in detail that result is hopelessly outdated by the time it's produced.
Problem is, while action without planning is furtive and ultimately futile, action with bad planning can actually be counterproductive. To be fair, executive management has to presume that their strategies should succeed. So capabilities driven planning methods like ours are trying to address the gap between expectations and reality.
Regards,
AAB
Post a Comment