Architecture Competency

Business Architecture & Enterprise Architecture – Match Made in Heaven

by
I recently spoke at the European BPM and EA Conference in London on this topic. This blog post is a summary version of my session.

Often Business Process Management and associated discipline such as Business Architecture is seen or managed in isolation of the overarching Enterprise Architecture construct. However the Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture complement each other well to get the best value from each other. I think that the Business Architecture is one of the key enablers of the Enterprise Architecture and makes it real. While the Enterprise Architecture offers much needed context for the Business Architecture.

It might be useful to briefly review the definitions of both Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture before understanding issues in their relationship. 

As I have been writing on this blog, Enterprise Architecture should not be limited to the IT or Technology concerns of an organisation. Rather it should be focused on addressing much broader scope covering the business, functional, operational, financial and people aspects of the enterprise. 

There are a number of Enterprise Architecture definitions out there. A couple of my favorite ones are as follows:


Enterprise Architecture provides a strategic planning framework that relates and aligns information technology with the business functions that it supports.


Or


Practice of enterprise architecture involves developing a framework to describe a series of “current”, “intermediate” and “target” reference architectures and applying them to align change within the enterprise. Another set of terms for these are “as-is”, “to-be” and the “migration plan”.



The Business Architecture Special Interest Group of Object Management Group (OMG) defines Business Architecture as follows:

“A Blueprint of the Enterprise That Provides A Common Understanding Of The Organization And Is Used To Align Strategic Objectives And Tactical Demands.”


“Business Architecture describes the product and/or service strategy, and the organizational, functional, process, information, and geographic aspects of the business environment”

I think that though the practice of both Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture has matured over the past few years, there certainly are some issues when it comes to these two working well together. I have summarised them in four broad arguments;

  1. Business Architecture not done at all. Enterprise Architecture teams only perform Enterprise Technical Architecture only.
  2. Business Architecture done in isolation of Enterprise Technical Architecture and then (if lucky) artificially superimposed
  3. Business Architecture and Business Context Confusion: confusion between why, what and how
  4. Technology focused governance: only conversations about technical standards, business governance disconnected from IT investment and decisions leading to critical gaps
I have tried to capture this pictorially below:

BA & EA in Isolation
This issue is getting wider acknowledgment given its strategic importance. I particularly like Randy Heffner’s work in this space. He states in one of his blogs;

“Simply positioning business architecture as a layer on top of existing EA domains is a mistake. Traditionally many organisations have pursued EA as Enterprise Technical Architecture (ETA). ETA is technology-centred.  Business architecture is business-centred. Simply layering it on top of ETA will result in tech-centred silo implementation.”


As Business Architecture Special Interest Group of Object Management Group(OMG) states, the Business Architecture defines the structure of the enterprise in terms of its governance structure, business processes, and business information. In defining the structure of the enterprise, business architecture considers customers, finances, and the market to align strategic goals and objectives with decisions regarding products and services; partners and suppliers; organization; capabilities; and key initiatives. Business Architecture primarily should focus on the business motivations, business operations and business analysis frameworks and related networks that link these aspects of the enterprise together and it should be seamlessly integrated with Enterprise Architecture efforts within the organisation. 

In my experience to tackle above listed issues, following measures can be taken by the Architecture team;

  1. Business Architecture as part of Enterprise Architecture
  2. Business Architecture drives Enterprise Architecture domains
  3. Business Architecture and Business Context clarified and integrate
  4. Business aligned Technology governance


My pictorial representation from earlier changes as below now:


BA & EA in Collaboration

Modern Enterprise Architecture teams and Enterprise Architects can not longer afford to ignore the implications of Business Architecture. Likewise, modern business architects can no longer afford to work in isolation of organisation’s enterprise architecture. 

In conclusion of this article I would like to summarize my thoughts as follows:

  1. Enterprise Architecture in isolation of Business Architecture is simply Enterprise Technical Architecture
  2. Business Architecture should guide the development of Enterprise Architecture domains
  3. Business Architecture combined with Enterprise Architecture is a powerful tool for business-IT alignment
  4. Strategic Frameworks and Models help in achieving this alignment

And as Chris Potts would argue, the Chief Executive of an Organisation should be ultimately accountable for ensuring the two come together as we would expect him or her to be the Chief Enterprise Architect of the Enterprise!

For related articles:

Business Architecture & Enterprise Architecture – Match Made in Heaven

by
I recently spoke at the European BPM and EA Conference in London on this topic. This blog post is a summary version of my session.

Often Business Process Management and associated discipline such as Business Architecture is seen or managed in isolation of the overarching Enterprise Architecture construct. However the Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture complement each other well to get the best value from each other. I think that the Business Architecture is one of the key enablers of the Enterprise Architecture and makes it real. While the Enterprise Architecture offers much needed context for the Business Architecture.

It might be useful to briefly review the definitions of both Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture before understanding issues in their relationship. 

As I have been writing on this blog, Enterprise Architecture should not be limited to the IT or Technology concerns of an organisation. Rather it should be focused on addressing much broader scope covering the business, functional, operational, financial and people aspects of the enterprise. 

There are a number of Enterprise Architecture definitions out there. A couple of my favorite ones are as follows:


Enterprise Architecture provides a strategic planning framework that relates and aligns information technology with the business functions that it supports.


Or


Practice of enterprise architecture involves developing a framework to describe a series of “current”, “intermediate” and “target” reference architectures and applying them to align change within the enterprise. Another set of terms for these are “as-is”, “to-be” and the “migration plan”.



The Business Architecture Special Interest Group of Object Management Group (OMG) defines Business Architecture as follows:

“A Blueprint of the Enterprise That Provides A Common Understanding Of The Organization And Is Used To Align Strategic Objectives And Tactical Demands.”


“Business Architecture describes the product and/or service strategy, and the organizational, functional, process, information, and geographic aspects of the business environment”

I think that though the practice of both Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture has matured over the past few years, there certainly are some issues when it comes to these two working well together. I have summarised them in four broad arguments;

  1. Business Architecture not done at all. Enterprise Architecture teams only perform Enterprise Technical Architecture only.
  2. Business Architecture done in isolation of Enterprise Technical Architecture and then (if lucky) artificially superimposed
  3. Business Architecture and Business Context Confusion: confusion between why, what and how
  4. Technology focused governance: only conversations about technical standards, business governance disconnected from IT investment and decisions leading to critical gaps
I have tried to capture this pictorially below:
BA & EA in Isolation
This issue is getting wider acknowledgment given its strategic importance. I particularly like Randy Heffner’s work in this space. He states in one of his blogs;

“Simply positioning business architecture as a layer on top of existing EA domains is a mistake. Traditionally many organisations have pursued EA as Enterprise Technical Architecture (ETA). ETA is technology-centred.  Business architecture is business-centred. Simply layering it on top of ETA will result in tech-centred silo implementation.”


As Business Architecture Special Interest Group of Object Management Group(OMG) states, the Business Architecture defines the structure of the enterprise in terms of its governance structure, business processes, and business information. In defining the structure of the enterprise, business architecture considers customers, finances, and the market to align strategic goals and objectives with decisions regarding products and services; partners and suppliers; organization; capabilities; and key initiatives. Business Architecture primarily should focus on the business motivations, business operations and business analysis frameworks and related networks that link these aspects of the enterprise together and it should be seamlessly integrated with Enterprise Architecture efforts within the organisation. 

In my experience to tackle above listed issues, following measures can be taken by the Architecture team;

  1. Business Architecture as part of Enterprise Architecture
  2. Business Architecture drives Enterprise Architecture domains
  3. Business Architecture and Business Context clarified and integrate
  4. Business aligned Technology governance


My pictorial representation from earlier changes as below now:

BA & EA in Collaboration

Modern Enterprise Architecture teams and Enterprise Architects can not longer afford to ignore the implications of Business Architecture. Likewise, modern business architects can no longer afford to work in isolation of organisation’s enterprise architecture. 

In conclusion of this article I would like to summarize my thoughts as follows:

  1. Enterprise Architecture in isolation of Business Architecture is simply Enterprise Technical Architecture
  2. Business Architecture should guide the development of Enterprise Architecture domains
  3. Business Architecture combined with Enterprise Architecture is a powerful tool for business-IT alignment
  4. Strategic Frameworks and Models help in achieving this alignment

And as Chris Potts would argue, the Chief Executive of an Organisation should be ultimately accountable for ensuring the two come together as we would expect him or her to be the Chief Enterprise Architect of the Enterprise!
For related articles:

Building Blocks of Your Enterprise Mobile Strategy

by
Given my current focus on Multi-Channel architecture & technology programs for Retail and Logistics customer in UK&I, I am often on a look out for new ideas, trends and business case studies. This interest took me to the IBM Enterprise Mobile Summit earlier this week in London Southbank. It was a compact but impressive gathering of Mobile industry experts, suppliers and consumers. It did help me crystallize my thoughts around Enterprise Mobile Strategy which I am trying to summarize in this blog post.   
When an Enterprise (commercial organisation) makes an investment decision to develop a Mobile Strategy (e.g. Mobile Applications or Apps) and related products or services, it should do so based on strategic enterprise intent (or in certain instances tactical response). This investment should take into account a number of stakeholder perspectives such as Functional, Development, Delivery, Operations, End-User Consumer and the Market.


IBM MobileFirst

The Strategic Intent and drivers behind Enterprise Mobile Investment – 
Before committing funds on Mobile strategy a valid question to ask is, what is your Enterprise attempting to achieve by mobile investment? For instance do you see mobile evolving as one of your primary channel to market? Are you attempting to gather insights from mobile data which may provide new opportunities for product and services expansion? 

Or are you simply trying to increase your business transactions though Mobile media. In some instances it may be seen as a media for extending the brand experience for more personal shopping or browsing experience.


The Enterprise Functional Perspective – If the purpose of Mobile strategy is to address internal organisation efficiency then the functional objectives need to focus on employee and organisation productivity enhancement. For instance how can a Mobile App transform, optimise internal work flow and may be also enhance the customer interactions. KPIs here could be reduction of complexity, reduction in wastage, improving quality, faster time to market etc. As I observed in IBM session, some of IBM customers are using the Mobile strategy to extend Enterprise business network in new ways. For instance an Italian organisation leveraged Mobile Apps to find promotions in their network and connected people to these promotions. Michael Gilfix of IBM in this session also cited IBM’s own example of how Mobile strategy is driving next level of productivity by acknowledging its global workforce segmentation.

The Development Lifecycle Perspective – During the session both Michael Gilfix of IBM and Jessica Figueras, a Mobile Industry Analysthighlighted a point that there is a difference between creating conventional Apps and Mobile Apps. Mobile development and developers need to understand the Mobile App consumption patterns, workflows and user interaction in different ways. IBM briefly shared their Mobile Development Lifecycle process which comprises of iterative phases such as; Design & Develop, Instrument, Integrate, Test, Scale & Certify, Deploy, Manage, Obtain Insight and back to Design & Develop. Jessica made a good point that Mobile Apps are becoming more and more complex and they need Enterprise Architecture underpinning them to be successful.


The IT Delivery and Operations Perspective – The above point about Enterprise Architecture requirements extends into the Operational and Delivery aspects of IT too. Challenge of Fragmentation is particularly important; how best to serve different fragmented devices to serve multi-channel experience which is a different challenge that Web Apps where one size often fits all consumers. Michael was also keen to point our Security and Access control aspects such as Loss of control over distribution, impact of BYOD, Control of data and access as code often would run in environment outside of Enterprise control. From the customer satisfaction perspective, the end-user of Mobile Apps will look out for and increasingly expect consistent multi-channel experience. e.g. Airline – phone, kiosk, in-flight, travel experience.

The consumer perspective: Creating compelling mobile user experience – Ali Al-Shakarchi, the UX Architect and Strategist from IBM had some very interesting themes on this perspective which can be argued as the most important factor to make Mobile strategy successful. He highlighted the fact that, user expectations are high and user tolerance is low when it comes to Apps as the competition is fierce, an alternative App is a tap away. Some of the tips which Ali shared were; Stay Relevant, Keep it simple, Build richer experience, Think innovation, Optimise for mobile, Create end to end experience, Be more social and evolve on an ongoing basis in a smart way.

Some of the demos / case studies during the session further underlined some of above points. The Barclays Pingit case study and how it is driving the C2C is a prime example of how Apps can bring success and create new Operating Models for large Enterprises. While the Tealeaf demo effectively showcased the power of analytics behind smart Mobile strategy. 


One of the key takeaway for me was, “Why limit Mobile conversations to IT? Focus must be on exploring business opportunities & enhancing business capabilities”. Iwould like to congratulate IBM for putting together a smart, effective and useful summit. I certainly hope to apply some of the above lessons learnt for my customers in Retail and Logistics in near future. 

For more on IBM Mobilefirst read here

Building Blocks of Your Enterprise Mobile Strategy

by
Given my current focus on Multi-Channel architecture & technology programs for Retail and Logistics customer in UK&I, I am often on a look out for new ideas, trends and business case studies. This interest took me to the IBM Enterprise Mobile Summit earlier this week in London Southbank. It was a compact but impressive gathering of Mobile industry experts, suppliers and consumers. It did help me crystallize my thoughts around Enterprise Mobile Strategy which I am trying to summarize in this blog post.   
When an Enterprise (commercial organisation) makes an investment decision to develop a Mobile Strategy (e.g. Mobile Applications or Apps) and related products or services, it should do so based on strategic enterprise intent (or in certain instances tactical response). This investment should take into account a number of stakeholder perspectives such as Functional, Development, Delivery, Operations, End-User Consumer and the Market.


IBM MobileFirst

The Strategic Intent and drivers behind Enterprise Mobile Investment – 
Before committing funds on Mobile strategy a valid question to ask is, what is your Enterprise attempting to achieve by mobile investment? For instance do you see mobile evolving as one of your primary channel to market? Are you attempting to gather insights from mobile data which may provide new opportunities for product and services expansion? 

Or are you simply trying to increase your business transactions though Mobile media. In some instances it may be seen as a media for extending the brand experience for more personal shopping or browsing experience.


The Enterprise Functional Perspective – If the purpose of Mobile strategy is to address internal organisation efficiency then the functional objectives need to focus on employee and organisation productivity enhancement. For instance how can a Mobile App transform, optimise internal work flow and may be also enhance the customer interactions. KPIs here could be reduction of complexity, reduction in wastage, improving quality, faster time to market etc. As I observed in IBM session, some of IBM customers are using the Mobile strategy to extend Enterprise business network in new ways. For instance an Italian organisation leveraged Mobile Apps to find promotions in their network and connected people to these promotions. Michael Gilfix of IBM in this session also cited IBM’s own example of how Mobile strategy is driving next level of productivity by acknowledging its global workforce segmentation.

The Development Lifecycle Perspective – During the session both Michael Gilfix of IBM and Jessica Figueras, a Mobile Industry Analysthighlighted a point that there is a difference between creating conventional Apps and Mobile Apps. Mobile development and developers need to understand the Mobile App consumption patterns, workflows and user interaction in different ways. IBM briefly shared their Mobile Development Lifecycle process which comprises of iterative phases such as; Design & Develop, Instrument, Integrate, Test, Scale & Certify, Deploy, Manage, Obtain Insight and back to Design & Develop. Jessica made a good point that Mobile Apps are becoming more and more complex and they need Enterprise Architecture underpinning them to be successful.


The IT Delivery and Operations Perspective – The above point about Enterprise Architecture requirements extends into the Operational and Delivery aspects of IT too. Challenge of Fragmentation is particularly important; how best to serve different fragmented devices to serve multi-channel experience which is a different challenge that Web Apps where one size often fits all consumers. Michael was also keen to point our Security and Access control aspects such as Loss of control over distribution, impact of BYOD, Control of data and access as code often would run in environment outside of Enterprise control. From the customer satisfaction perspective, the end-user of Mobile Apps will look out for and increasingly expect consistent multi-channel experience. e.g. Airline – phone, kiosk, in-flight, travel experience.

The consumer perspective: Creating compelling mobile user experience – Ali Al-Shakarchi, the UX Architect and Strategist from IBM had some very interesting themes on this perspective which can be argued as the most important factor to make Mobile strategy successful. He highlighted the fact that, user expectations are high and user tolerance is low when it comes to Apps as the competition is fierce, an alternative App is a tap away. Some of the tips which Ali shared were; Stay Relevant, Keep it simple, Build richer experience, Think innovation, Optimise for mobile, Create end to end experience, Be more social and evolve on an ongoing basis in a smart way.

Some of the demos / case studies during the session further underlined some of above points. The Barclays Pingit case study and how it is driving the C2C is a prime example of how Apps can bring success and create new Operating Models for large Enterprises. While the Tealeaf demo effectively showcased the power of analytics behind smart Mobile strategy. 


One of the key takeaway for me was, “Why limit Mobile conversations to IT? Focus must be on exploring business opportunities & enhancing business capabilities”. Iwould like to congratulate IBM for putting together a smart, effective and useful summit. I certainly hope to apply some of the above lessons learnt for my customers in Retail and Logistics in near future. 

For more on IBM Mobilefirst read here

Enterprise Architecture – A Perfect Tool for Operating Model Management

by
On this blog I have covered the discipline of Enterprise Architecture from a number of perspectives. Enterprise Architecture (EA) can be effectively leveraged as a foundation for Industry Reference Architectures e.g. The Retail Reference Architecture. Equally effectively EA can also be leveraged as the mechanism for Business and Technology Governance as well as Technology Performance Monitoring. In this article I would like to propose that Enterprise Architecture is also an effective tool for the Operating Model management, both for the definition as well as the ongoing lifecycle management. 

It may be worthwhile visiting some industry definitions for Operating Model before we explore how Enterprise Architecture can be effective here. The definition of Operating Model varies based on the Organisational and Operational context in which it is applied and hence probably one definition may not fit all Operating Model scenarios. However if I had to choose one definition, I would like to refer to the IBM’s definition of the Operating Model (see the picture below)
IBM Target Operating Model (TOM)

IBM proposes that a Target Operating Model (TOM) helps determine the best design and deployment of resources to achieve an organization’s business goals. It provides current operational maturity assessment and roadmap to defining and/or improving organisation’s Operations Strategy. Key deliverable include business review, current operating model assessment, desired future state and change management plan roadmap.
The TOM essentially is seen here as the mechanism to link the business goals and strategy of the organisation with the roadmap for change to achieve those goals. TOM then holds together various organisation concerns such as processes, technology, capabilities, customer view, governance and partners in a single cohesive fashion.
 
Now that we have briefly summarised an illustrative Operating Model definition, let us explore how Enterprise Architecture as a discipline or practice can be leveraged as a tool for its management. There are a number of good Enterprise Architecture Frameworks available for this purpose and recent revisions of certain frameworks have further established them as leading candidates for this purpose. I do not advocate or support a specific Enterprise Architecture Framework on this blog however for illustration purposes I am going to be using the TOGAF 9 as the tool for Operating Model Management. I would like to also mention the Zachman EA framework as the other leading framework which may be equally effective or in some application scenarios it may be a better fit. 


The purpose of this article is not to explain or define the TOGAF 9 and I would highly recommend visiting the OpenGroup website for relevant documentation. However for the ease of reference, I am going to share the TOGAF ADM which is the process for Enterprise Architecture Management in TOGAF. 
The process links the Vision and Strategy of the Organisation and its business / functions with a portfolio of change programs which realises this Strategy. TOGAF uses various architecture disciplines such as Business Architecture, Information Architecture (Data and Application) and Technology Architecture as mechanism for linking the Strategy with Implementation and Governance of Change programs to deliver on the Strategy. 
The central argument which I am now going to make is that such a process of Enterprise Architecture can be seamlessly deployed and leveraged to manage the Organisation Operating Model. A number of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks and especially Zachman categorically state that the application of Enterprise Architecture should not be restricted or limited to the Information Technology systems. It is a true framework for organisation and business management. For instance applying the TOGAF to manage the IBM TOM will result in following steps / mapping. The key here is to use tools, processes, approach, templates and constructs from each of the TOGAF ADM stage to define and develop the TOM stages as seen in figure – 1. 
  1. The business goals and strategy can be defined by the Preliminary phase while the vision underpinning this is defined in Phase A. Architecture Vision
  2. The Assets and the Locations of the TOM along with key processes can be captured and defined during the Phase B. Business Architecture
  3. Certain aspects of skills, capabilities, culture and processes too can be captured in Phase B
  4. The Technology, Processes, Performance Metrics can be captured through phases C and D while defining the Information and the Technology Architecture.
  5. The sourcing options and alliances can be identified and shortlisted in phase E. Opportunities and Solutions
  6. The phase F of migration planning can be used to identify the roadmap for change through what TOGAF calls as transition architectures
  7. Finally culture which is central to TOM needs to be constantly be a driving force as well as the recipient for the requirements for change
I would like to again highlight that this is simply an illustration of managing a view of Operating Model with a particular EA approach. However a number of other variations can be equally effectively managed by similar approach. It will probably make sense to present an illustration and mapping using other EA framework such as Zachman…may be a topic for next post on this blog!

References:

Strategy and transformation for a complex world, IBM Global Services, Mar 2011

The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)

The Zachman Framework

Enterprise Architecture – A Perfect Tool for Operating Model Management

by
On this blog I have covered the discipline of Enterprise Architecture from a number of perspectives. Enterprise Architecture (EA) can be effectively leveraged as a foundation for Industry Reference Architectures e.g. The Retail Reference Architecture. Equally effectively EA can also be leveraged as the mechanism for Business and Technology Governance as well as Technology Performance Monitoring. In this article I would like to propose that Enterprise Architecture is also an effective tool for the Operating Model management, both for the definition as well as the ongoing lifecycle management. 
It may be worthwhile visiting some industry definitions for Operating Model before we explore how Enterprise Architecture can be effective here. The definition of Operating Model varies based on the Organisational and Operational context in which it is applied and hence probably one definition may not fit all Operating Model scenarios. However if I had to choose one definition, I would like to refer to the IBM’s definition of the Operating Model (see the picture below)
IBM Target Operating Model (TOM)

IBM proposes that a Target Operating Model (TOM) helps determine the best design and deployment of resources to achieve an organization’s business goals. It provides current operational maturity assessment and roadmap to defining and/or improving organisation’s Operations Strategy. Key deliverable include business review, current operating model assessment, desired future state and change management plan roadmap.
The TOM essentially is seen here as the mechanism to link the business goals and strategy of the organisation with the roadmap for change to achieve those goals. TOM then holds together various organisation concerns such as processes, technology, capabilities, customer view, governance and partners in a single cohesive fashion.
 
Now that we have briefly summarised an illustrative Operating Model definition, let us explore how Enterprise Architecture as a discipline or practice can be leveraged as a tool for its management. There are a number of good Enterprise Architecture Frameworks available for this purpose and recent revisions of certain frameworks have further established them as leading candidates for this purpose. I do not advocate or support a specific Enterprise Architecture Framework on this blog however for illustration purposes I am going to be using the TOGAF 9 as the tool for Operating Model Management. I would like to also mention the Zachman EA framework as the other leading framework which may be equally effective or in some application scenarios it may be a better fit. 
The purpose of this article is not to explain or define the TOGAF 9 and I would highly recommend visiting the OpenGroup website for relevant documentation. However for the ease of reference, I am going to share the TOGAF ADM which is the process for Enterprise Architecture Management in TOGAF. 
The process links the Vision and Strategy of the Organisation and its business / functions with a portfolio of change programs which realises this Strategy. TOGAF uses various architecture disciplines such as Business Architecture, Information Architecture (Data and Application) and Technology Architecture as mechanism for linking the Strategy with Implementation and Governance of Change programs to deliver on the Strategy. 
The central argument which I am now going to make is that such a process of Enterprise Architecture can be seamlessly deployed and leveraged to manage the Organisation Operating Model. A number of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks and especially Zachman categorically state that the application of Enterprise Architecture should not be restricted or limited to the Information Technology systems. It is a true framework for organisation and business management. For instance applying the TOGAF to manage the IBM TOM will result in following steps / mapping. The key here is to use tools, processes, approach, templates and constructs from each of the TOGAF ADM stage to define and develop the TOM stages as seen in figure – 1. 
  1. The business goals and strategy can be defined by the Preliminary phase while the vision underpinning this is defined in Phase A. Architecture Vision
  2. The Assets and the Locations of the TOM along with key processes can be captured and defined during the Phase B. Business Architecture
  3. Certain aspects of skills, capabilities, culture and processes too can be captured in Phase B
  4. The Technology, Processes, Performance Metrics can be captured through phases C and D while defining the Information and the Technology Architecture.
  5. The sourcing options and alliances can be identified and shortlisted in phase E. Opportunities and Solutions
  6. The phase F of migration planning can be used to identify the roadmap for change through what TOGAF calls as transition architectures
  7. Finally culture which is central to TOM needs to be constantly be a driving force as well as the recipient for the requirements for change
I would like to again highlight that this is simply an illustration of managing a view of Operating Model with a particular EA approach. However a number of other variations can be equally effectively managed by similar approach. It will probably make sense to present an illustration and mapping using other EA framework such as Zachman…may be a topic for next post on this blog!

References:

Strategy and transformation for a complex world, IBM Global Services, Mar 2011

The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)

The Zachman Framework

Move to Cloud Need Not Be Sensational

by

As the cloud computing adaption and maturity accelerates, a number of case studies of early cloud migration are emerging. Ironically most of such case studies often talk about success of such migration and dynamic business and technology benefits it de…

Move to Cloud Need Not Be Sensational

by

As the cloud computing adaption and maturity accelerates, a number of case studies of early cloud migration are emerging. Ironically most of such case studies often talk about success of such migration and dynamic business and technology benefits it de…

Contrasting Tale of Two Retailers – ASOS and Marks & Spencer

by
I have been regularly tracking the developments for both these retailers over the past few years on my blogs. But the growing contrast between their performance couldn’t be more obvious than comparison of latest financial performance numbers. To be fair, M&S and ASOS is not a like for like comparison. M&S is your traditional, conventional, respected high street retailer. Probably in league of its own along with only a few other retailers such as John Lewis. While ASOS is the new kid on the block, fresh, young, vibrant and bold online retailer who has challenged every conventional retail wisdom and won almost on all occasions. Both are highly successful and set benchmark in a way for their respective retail segments. Hence the comparison is far more interesting because, in reality this is not so much a comparison between two retailers rather between two different retail business models. 
Photo Credit: Reuters/Paul Hackett
As for the actual financial performance, Marks and Spencer have posted the worst trading results in three years, with clothing and homeware down 6.8 per cent. The company said that clothing sales had been affected by stock issues, as well as the wet weather. In the first half of the year, M&S said it had run out of some of the best selling womenswear. These are the weakest set of quarterly figures the retailer has published since spring of 2005. Food sales in the UK rose 2.9pc but this was not enough to offset the slump in general merchandise, dragging total group sales down 0.7pc
Photo Credit: ASOS
In contract ASOS has had an impressive year, posting results ahead of expectations. Profits jumped 43% to £40.9 million. Revenues also showed strong growth, with the company taking £495 million compared with £340 million the previous year. The company’s international business lead the growth, with sales up 103% over the period, while UK sales only grew 7%. Australia, Russia, Singapore and China were highlighted as sales-boosting countries, while new websites were launched in Italy, Spain and Australia.
Above financial highlights drop enough hints about the reasons behind this contrasting performance:
  • Focus on international growth strategy and its successful execution
  • Successful adoption of new and evolving retail technologies
  • Product and portfolio innovation
  • Identification and strategy for growth customer segments
  • Better Supply-Chain integration with new technology distribution models
  • and i am sure there are a few more core retail seasonal trends, weather impact etc.
Let me also qualify my thinking on this blog by stating that though these are contrasting results, I have no doubt that M&S is and will remain one of the strongest retailers of the conventional high street model. And even M&S is implementing a few new technology led multi-channel strategies successfully. However, the new and evolved Retail Reference Architecture continues to differentiate ASOS from its conventional competitors. And to an extent, retailer like ASOS is creating new market places where traditional retailers are struggling to reach and expand. The company’s website attracts 16.6 million unique visitors a month and had 8.7 million registered users at the end of June. Technology is a key enabler for ASOS and this is proven by the fact that, ASOS sells more than 50,000 branded and own-label product lines, with around 1,500 new lines being introduced each week. This is agility in action and this is yet again a classic case study of how technology can truly provide a competitive advantage to business and operations of an enterprise.

References:
ASOS 

Contrasting Tale of Two Retailers – ASOS and Marks & Spencer

by
I have been regularly tracking the developments for both these retailers over the past few years on my blogs. But the growing contrast between their performance couldn’t be more obvious than comparison of latest financial performance numbers. To be fair, M&S and ASOS is not a like for like comparison. M&S is your traditional, conventional, respected high street retailer. Probably in league of its own along with only a few other retailers such as John Lewis. While ASOS is the new kid on the block, fresh, young, vibrant and bold online retailer who has challenged every conventional retail wisdom and won almost on all occasions. Both are highly successful and set benchmark in a way for their respective retail segments. Hence the comparison is far more interesting because, in reality this is not so much a comparison between two retailers rather between two different retail business models. 
Photo Credit: Reuters/Paul Hackett
As for the actual financial performance, Marks and Spencer have posted the worst trading results in three years, with clothing and homeware down 6.8 per cent. The company said that clothing sales had been affected by stock issues, as well as the wet weather. In the first half of the year, M&S said it had run out of some of the best selling womenswear. These are the weakest set of quarterly figures the retailer has published since spring of 2005. Food sales in the UK rose 2.9pc but this was not enough to offset the slump in general merchandise, dragging total group sales down 0.7pc
Photo Credit: ASOS
In contract ASOS has had an impressive year, posting results ahead of expectations. Profits jumped 43% to £40.9 million. Revenues also showed strong growth, with the company taking £495 million compared with £340 million the previous year. The company’s international business lead the growth, with sales up 103% over the period, while UK sales only grew 7%. Australia, Russia, Singapore and China were highlighted as sales-boosting countries, while new websites were launched in Italy, Spain and Australia.
Above financial highlights drop enough hints about the reasons behind this contrasting performance:
  • Focus on international growth strategy and its successful execution
  • Successful adoption of new and evolving retail technologies
  • Product and portfolio innovation
  • Identification and strategy for growth customer segments
  • Better Supply-Chain integration with new technology distribution models
  • and i am sure there are a few more core retail seasonal trends, weather impact etc.
Let me also qualify my thinking on this blog by stating that though these are contrasting results, I have no doubt that M&S is and will remain one of the strongest retailers of the conventional high street model. And even M&S is implementing a few new technology led multi-channel strategies successfully. However, the new and evolved Retail Reference Architecture continues to differentiate ASOS from its conventional competitors. And to an extent, retailer like ASOS is creating new market places where traditional retailers are struggling to reach and expand. The company’s website attracts 16.6 million unique visitors a month and had 8.7 million registered users at the end of June. Technology is a key enabler for ASOS and this is proven by the fact that, ASOS sells more than 50,000 branded and own-label product lines, with around 1,500 new lines being introduced each week. This is agility in action and this is yet again a classic case study of how technology can truly provide a competitive advantage to business and operations of an enterprise.

References: