CIO Matters

The Rise and Rise of BYOD

by
Amazon Kindle V Apple iPad
As the festive and gift season approaches, our favourite consumer technology vendors are gearing up to release a range of new gadgets and consumer devices such as laptops, smartphones and tablets. Apple’s iPad, iPhone and iPod for instance have dominated many a wish lists and gift lists for the past years. And Apple competitors are not far behind with Google, Samsung and lately Amazon with Kindle trying to steal the market share from Apple in this lucrative and ever-increasing consumer technology segment. This year in particular the tablet segment is abuzz with not one not two but three high-profile product launches just weeks ahead of the festive season. Apple iPad mini, Amazon’s new Kindle and the eagerly anticipated Microsoft tablet, all are slated to make blockbuster debut and coming after our share of gift season wallet. 
Apple iPhone V Samsung S3
And many of us, technology geeks or not are eagerly awaiting release and availability of such devices along with new smartphone models from Samsung’s new small S3 and Apple’s new big iPhone 5. But not everyone is happy with this onslaught of new consumer technology devices. And its not just the print media who is worried about losing yet another batch of potential traditional readers to these new breed of ebook and emagazine readers. A couple of my CIO and CTO friends who look after a large number of IT users for instance, are not particularly happy at these developments and the new flood of such devices. Why? The answer is simple….the rise and rise of the phenomenon called BYOD!
The rise of bring your own device (BYOD) programs is the single most radical shift in the economics of client computing for business since PCs invaded the workplace, according to Gartner. So really what is BYOD? Gartner defines BYOD as an alternative strategy that allows employees, business partners and other users to use personally selected and purchased client devices to execute enterprise applications and access data. For most organizations, the program is currently limited to smartphones and tablets, but the strategy may also be used for PCs and may include subsidies for equipment or service fees.
A recent survey of 578 senior-level executives commissioned by Cisco found that despite concerns from corporate officials, companies increasingly are allowing, in varying degrees, employees to use their own mobile devices – in particular, smartphones and tablets – in the workplace, and to access the corporate network and data. “Overall, the results found that although many executives are uneasy about the security of corporate information on mobile devices, the trend is largely unstoppable and proper policies must be initiated to underpin access to this sensitive information,” Chuck Robbins, Cisco’s newly promoted senior vice president of worldwide sales, wrote in an 10 October post on Cisco’s blog.
Tablets are fast becoming media consumers
The rise of smartphones and, more recently, tablets – fueled by Apple’s wildly popular iPad – have been the key drivers in the BYOD trend, where rather than accepting company-issued technology, workers have pushed to use their own devices for work. Cisco and a host of other vendors have for more than a year been rolling out solutions designed to make it easier for businesses to identify and manage employee-owned devices on the network, and to secure the companies’ information.  
According to the Cisco survey, conducted last month by Economist Intelligence Unit, most executives are uneasy about their companies’ mobile data-access policies, and while 42 percent said that C-level executives need secure and timely access to strategic data, only 28 percent said it’s appropriate to access this information from mobile devices. Forty-nine percent said that the complexity of securing so many different devices and a lack of knowledge about the security and risks involved with mobile access are top challenges for their firms.
This trend is set to grow exponentially next year – whether businesses actively manage it or not, according to a latest industry report published in IT Business Canada. Two-thirds of businesses already are seen some form of BYOD phenomenon in their office, but just one in four have actively created a policy that allows for consumer devices to be used in the workplace. The report quotes the findings of an Info-Tech Indaba survey sponsored by Telus Corp. This could cause problems raising security issues and complicating IT environments with multiple devices and operating systems. For 2013, the most popular technology for BYOD efforts is smartphones with 72 per cent of firms expressing at least some interest, according to Info-Tech. The next most popular is tablets with 64 per cent of businesses expressing interest, and then laptops with 59 per cent showing interest. 
As a recent CIO article has articulated, the best practice seems to be to centralize the purchase and deployment of tablets and smartphones. In addition to simplifying device management, this strategy gave the companies more leverage with their preferred carriers. When individual employees paid their monthly phone bills and submitted them on expense reports, the companies had no clout to negotiate with. When all the monthly bills were rolled into one, they got lower rates. As Gartner suggests IT’s best strategy to deal with the rise of BYOD is to address it with a combination of policy, software, infrastructure controls and education in the near term; and with application management and appropriate cloud services in the longer term. Policies must be built in conjunction with legal and HR departments for the tax, labor, corporate liability and employee privacy implications.

The Rise and Rise of BYOD

by
Amazon Kindle V Apple iPad
As the festive and gift season approaches, our favourite consumer technology vendors are gearing up to release a range of new gadgets and consumer devices such as laptops, smartphones and tablets. Apple’s iPad, iPhone and iPod for instance have dominated many a wish lists and gift lists for the past years. And Apple competitors are not far behind with Google, Samsung and lately Amazon with Kindle trying to steal the market share from Apple in this lucrative and ever-increasing consumer technology segment. This year in particular the tablet segment is abuzz with not one not two but three high-profile product launches just weeks ahead of the festive season. Apple iPad mini, Amazon’s new Kindle and the eagerly anticipated Microsoft tablet, all are slated to make blockbuster debut and coming after our share of gift season wallet. 
Apple iPhone V Samsung S3
And many of us, technology geeks or not are eagerly awaiting release and availability of such devices along with new smartphone models from Samsung’s new small S3 and Apple’s new big iPhone 5. But not everyone is happy with this onslaught of new consumer technology devices. And its not just the print media who is worried about losing yet another batch of potential traditional readers to these new breed of ebook and emagazine readers. A couple of my CIO and CTO friends who look after a large number of IT users for instance, are not particularly happy at these developments and the new flood of such devices. Why? The answer is simple….the rise and rise of the phenomenon called BYOD!
The rise of bring your own device (BYOD) programs is the single most radical shift in the economics of client computing for business since PCs invaded the workplace, according to Gartner. So really what is BYOD? Gartner defines BYOD as an alternative strategy that allows employees, business partners and other users to use personally selected and purchased client devices to execute enterprise applications and access data. For most organizations, the program is currently limited to smartphones and tablets, but the strategy may also be used for PCs and may include subsidies for equipment or service fees.
A recent survey of 578 senior-level executives commissioned by Cisco found that despite concerns from corporate officials, companies increasingly are allowing, in varying degrees, employees to use their own mobile devices – in particular, smartphones and tablets – in the workplace, and to access the corporate network and data. “Overall, the results found that although many executives are uneasy about the security of corporate information on mobile devices, the trend is largely unstoppable and proper policies must be initiated to underpin access to this sensitive information,” Chuck Robbins, Cisco’s newly promoted senior vice president of worldwide sales, wrote in an 10 October post on Cisco’s blog.
Tablets are fast becoming media consumers
The rise of smartphones and, more recently, tablets – fueled by Apple’s wildly popular iPad – have been the key drivers in the BYOD trend, where rather than accepting company-issued technology, workers have pushed to use their own devices for work. Cisco and a host of other vendors have for more than a year been rolling out solutions designed to make it easier for businesses to identify and manage employee-owned devices on the network, and to secure the companies’ information.  
According to the Cisco survey, conducted last month by Economist Intelligence Unit, most executives are uneasy about their companies’ mobile data-access policies, and while 42 percent said that C-level executives need secure and timely access to strategic data, only 28 percent said it’s appropriate to access this information from mobile devices. Forty-nine percent said that the complexity of securing so many different devices and a lack of knowledge about the security and risks involved with mobile access are top challenges for their firms.
This trend is set to grow exponentially next year – whether businesses actively manage it or not, according to a latest industry report published in IT Business Canada. Two-thirds of businesses already are seen some form of BYOD phenomenon in their office, but just one in four have actively created a policy that allows for consumer devices to be used in the workplace. The report quotes the findings of an Info-Tech Indaba survey sponsored by Telus Corp. This could cause problems raising security issues and complicating IT environments with multiple devices and operating systems. For 2013, the most popular technology for BYOD efforts is smartphones with 72 per cent of firms expressing at least some interest, according to Info-Tech. The next most popular is tablets with 64 per cent of businesses expressing interest, and then laptops with 59 per cent showing interest. 
As a recent CIO article has articulated, the best practice seems to be to centralize the purchase and deployment of tablets and smartphones. In addition to simplifying device management, this strategy gave the companies more leverage with their preferred carriers. When individual employees paid their monthly phone bills and submitted them on expense reports, the companies had no clout to negotiate with. When all the monthly bills were rolled into one, they got lower rates. As Gartner suggests IT’s best strategy to deal with the rise of BYOD is to address it with a combination of policy, software, infrastructure controls and education in the near term; and with application management and appropriate cloud services in the longer term. Policies must be built in conjunction with legal and HR departments for the tax, labor, corporate liability and employee privacy implications.

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:

End of "High Street Retail" As We Know It…..

by
More than 2,000 UK jobs were axed yesterday, as Game Group closed hundreds of shops after the company collapsed into administration. The beleaguered video games retailer, which had 610 UK stores, was unable to meet a £21m second-quarter rental payment due on Sunday and appointed the accountancy firm PwC as administrator. Is this the end of “High Street Retail” as we know it? Is it the beginning of the end? 

The writing was on the wall for Game for some time now. Earlier this month,the struggling video games retailer had confirmed that a number of its suppliers were refusing to do business with the company, sending its shares down 63% to 1.29p. Back then Game said that while it was trying to resolve the matter “as quickly as possible”, it was unsure if its efforts would be successful.

The Game is not the only retail business struggling for the past few years. Almost all high-street retailers have recorded reduced operating margins and profits, if at all they were there. The difficulties at Game are testament to the current squeeze on living costs coupled with a change in shopping habits and games technology. The group has also been battered by competition from cheaper rivals on the internet, such as Amazon and Play.com, and the major supermarkets. Separately, many people now download game Apps direct to tablets or smart phones, rather than buying software to be loaded in to consoles like the PlayStation, xBox on Nintendo Wii.

What the Game story tells us however is something unique where a Technology brand is being eaten by fast evolving technology business models. As Matthew Warman states in the Telegraph, “the story of Game is simply the first taste of what the web is doing to global retail – its products happen to be bought by users who migrated quickly to the web. All other specialist retailers are being challenged online: Whittards, to take just one example, is under pressure from specialist tea and coffee retailers such as Teahorse and Kopi, who will send subscribers superb selections every month, and cater to profitable, premium niches yet don’t have the overheads of high street rents and other associated costs. Many consumers simply see that they don’t have the inconvenience of shopping. Where Game led, even the most aromatic of products is set to surely follow.” 



It was not so long ago that another high-profile retail venture went bust in the UK. It was in November 2011 that, Carphone Warehouse announced that it was to close all of its 11 Best Buy stores across the UK. The first Best Buy store in the UK only opened in April of last year. But the outlets failed to make a profit. Carphone Warehouse and Best Buy initially planned to open 200 Best Buy stores across the UK and continental Europe. But clearly they had to abandon those plans well and truly before they could take-off. Is there market left for technology shopping on UK high-street? Probably there is and there will be always that small niche segment of shoppers who prefer to touch their electronic goods, CDs, Games and likes before they buy them. But that segment is shrinking all the time and internet players will certainly be calling the shots in this segment of Retail market.

End of "High Street Retail" As We Know It…..

by
More than 2,000 UK jobs were axed yesterday, as Game Group closed hundreds of shops after the company collapsed into administration. The beleaguered video games retailer, which had 610 UK stores, was unable to meet a £21m second-quarter rental payment due on Sunday and appointed the accountancy firm PwC as administrator. Is this the end of “High Street Retail” as we know it? Is it the beginning of the end? 

The writing was on the wall for Game for some time now. Earlier this month,the struggling video games retailer had confirmed that a number of its suppliers were refusing to do business with the company, sending its shares down 63% to 1.29p. Back then Game said that while it was trying to resolve the matter “as quickly as possible”, it was unsure if its efforts would be successful.

The Game is not the only retail business struggling for the past few years. Almost all high-street retailers have recorded reduced operating margins and profits, if at all they were there. The difficulties at Game are testament to the current squeeze on living costs coupled with a change in shopping habits and games technology. The group has also been battered by competition from cheaper rivals on the internet, such as Amazon and Play.com, and the major supermarkets. Separately, many people now download game Apps direct to tablets or smart phones, rather than buying software to be loaded in to consoles like the PlayStation, xBox on Nintendo Wii.

What the Game story tells us however is something unique where a Technology brand is being eaten by fast evolving technology business models. As Matthew Warman states in the Telegraph, “the story of Game is simply the first taste of what the web is doing to global retail – its products happen to be bought by users who migrated quickly to the web. All other specialist retailers are being challenged online: Whittards, to take just one example, is under pressure from specialist tea and coffee retailers such as Teahorse and Kopi, who will send subscribers superb selections every month, and cater to profitable, premium niches yet don’t have the overheads of high street rents and other associated costs. Many consumers simply see that they don’t have the inconvenience of shopping. Where Game led, even the most aromatic of products is set to surely follow.” 



It was not so long ago that another high-profile retail venture went bust in the UK. It was in November 2011 that, Carphone Warehouse announced that it was to close all of its 11 Best Buy stores across the UK. The first Best Buy store in the UK only opened in April of last year. But the outlets failed to make a profit. Carphone Warehouse and Best Buy initially planned to open 200 Best Buy stores across the UK and continental Europe. But clearly they had to abandon those plans well and truly before they could take-off. Is there market left for technology shopping on UK high-street? Probably there is and there will be always that small niche segment of shoppers who prefer to touch their electronic goods, CDs, Games and likes before they buy them. But that segment is shrinking all the time and internet players will certainly be calling the shots in this segment of Retail market.

Enterprise Frameworks: In Perfect Harmony Together…

by
If you are not a practicing Enterprise Architect, words such as COBIT, TOGAF, ITIL and ZACHMAN will either mean nothing to you or will more often than not confuse you. Most IT professionals will relate these terms with concepts such as architecture framework, technology framework, standards, modelling, analysis etc. which may or may not correct depending on referring context. However, thanks to greater awareness of Enterprise Architecture in the last decade or so, it should still be easy for keen Enterprise Architecture enthusiast to find out more about the above and other similar Enterprise Frameworks. Most of above listed frameworks are available free to download for limited-time review or even free to practice if you are undertaking non-commercial internal enterprise purposes (see useful links and references below). The real question however which seldom gets asked it how do these frameworks relate with each other, if at all? How can they interact and collaborate with each other? What are considerations of such engagement across frameworks? And more importantly is it worth it from business value and relevance perspective?  Such questions would ideally demand a decent whitepaper which analyses such interactions. Given time constraints however, I am trying to present my thoughts in this blog post as an executive summary.

Before discussing a few frameworks and their potential linkage with each other, I would like to present business and IT context of such interaction. Based on my practical experience, I would propose a simple map as presented in below figure. Business goals and objectives demand strategic IT response in terms of strategic and tactical IT programs, investments and activities. They need to be governed to ensure compliance of deliverables with the business objectives. Strategy needs planning and architecture disciplines to ensure that strategic intents are given shape of tangible constructs. This is where enterprise architects convert abstract into specific plans and architectures. This is where artefacts such as business architecture, application architecture, infrastructure architecture get conceived. Such plans and architectures need to be further developed in detailed designs, transition plans and activities. More importantly, resultant IT systems and solutions are required to be operational ready and feasible. I am aware that this presents an overly simplistic picture of often much complex and complicated technology implementation reality. But the purpose here is to give a broad and high-level overview of chain of actions which need to take place in the journey of business goals to business processes, applications, solutions to their eventual technology implementations and operations.
image
Why and Where do Framework Matter?

Going back to set of initial questions which I raised in this post earlier, let us now tray and map a few leading frameworks to the above outlined concept and journey. I have picked up three leading frameworks for this purpose; COBIT, TOGAF and ITIL. COBIT framework in this map provides the overarching Strategy and Governance mechanism. It takes business goals and governance drivers as inputs and then provides a seamless mechanism to link IT Resources with planning, implementation, delivery and monitoring of delivered systems. I would like to propose that, COBIT however needs a more thorough framework such as TOGAF to further elaborate and develop the Planning and Architecture activities in the journey. TOGAF ADM provides a very good and comprehensive process discipline to take requirements through various steps such as vision, architecture, solution definition, planning and change management. At this point however, I would like to suggest that, to take the architecture to the next level of detailed design and transition planning, a framework such as ITIL will be extremely useful. ITIL takes a service view of the world in definition of systems and not a mere technology view. ITIL practitioners will put operability ahead of technology or architecture purity, and rightfully so. ITIL sees through the design through transition and operations of the service.
image
COBIT TOGAF and ITIL in Prefect Harmony

I have to clarify that, above is simply one way of arranging these very useful frameworks to work with each other. It can be argued that, TOGAF in certain instances can provide overarching umbrella for such journey from requirements to delivery. Or indeed ITIL on it’s own can be adequate to see the system design through to implementation. There is no right or wrong with Enterprise Architecture and that is the strength and weakness of the practice I would like to argue. The purpose of this post as I stated earlier was simply to showcase benefits and effectiveness of such Enterprise Frameworks work together in perfect harmony!
Now to the real question….what is the business benefit of this? Is it worth the investment and hassle? The answer is that it depends….depends on the business context. It may be worth the more complicated, complex and distributed your business requirements and resultant technology response. It may be an overkill if your requirements and responsive systems are not so complicated. In the long run however, Enterprise Architecture is about entire business and technology estate and not just one program or project and hence often you will find that medium to large size organisations will use more than one framework. In most cases, such framework do not interact well…and this is where my draft proposal above may be useful. 

References and relevant links for further reading..

  • TOGAF – The Open Group Architecture Framework
  • ITIL – Information Technology Information Library
  • COBIT – Control Objectives for Information and related Technology
  • ZACHMAN – named after inventor John Zachman

Enterprise Frameworks: In Perfect Harmony Together…

by
If you are not a practicing Enterprise Architect, words such as COBIT, TOGAF, ITIL and ZACHMAN will either mean nothing to you or will more often than not confuse you. Most IT professionals will relate these terms with concepts such as architecture framework, technology framework, standards, modelling, analysis etc. which may or may not correct depending on referring context. However, thanks to greater awareness of Enterprise Architecture in the last decade or so, it should still be easy for keen Enterprise Architecture enthusiast to find out more about the above and other similar Enterprise Frameworks. Most of above listed frameworks are available free to download for limited-time review or even free to practice if you are undertaking non-commercial internal enterprise purposes (see useful links and references below). The real question however which seldom gets asked it how do these frameworks relate with each other, if at all? How can they interact and collaborate with each other? What are considerations of such engagement across frameworks? And more importantly is it worth it from business value and relevance perspective?  Such questions would ideally demand a decent whitepaper which analyses such interactions. Given time constraints however, I am trying to present my thoughts in this blog post as an executive summary.
Before discussing a few frameworks and their potential linkage with each other, I would like to present business and IT context of such interaction. Based on my practical experience, I would propose a simple map as presented in below figure. Business goals and objectives demand strategic IT response in terms of strategic and tactical IT programs, investments and activities. They need to be governed to ensure compliance of deliverables with the business objectives. Strategy needs planning and architecture disciplines to ensure that strategic intents are given shape of tangible constructs. This is where enterprise architects convert abstract into specific plans and architectures. This is where artefacts such as business architecture, application architecture, infrastructure architecture get conceived. Such plans and architectures need to be further developed in detailed designs, transition plans and activities. More importantly, resultant IT systems and solutions are required to be operational ready and feasible. I am aware that this presents an overly simplistic picture of often much complex and complicated technology implementation reality. But the purpose here is to give a broad and high-level overview of chain of actions which need to take place in the journey of business goals to business processes, applications, solutions to their eventual technology implementations and operations.
image
Why and Where do Framework Matter?
Going back to set of initial questions which I raised in this post earlier, let us now tray and map a few leading frameworks to the above outlined concept and journey. I have picked up three leading frameworks for this purpose; COBIT, TOGAF and ITIL. COBIT framework in this map provides the overarching Strategy and Governance mechanism. It takes business goals and governance drivers as inputs and then provides a seamless mechanism to link IT Resources with planning, implementation, delivery and monitoring of delivered systems. I would like to propose that, COBIT however needs a more thorough framework such as TOGAF to further elaborate and develop the Planning and Architecture activities in the journey. TOGAF ADM provides a very good and comprehensive process discipline to take requirements through various steps such as vision, architecture, solution definition, planning and change management. At this point however, I would like to suggest that, to take the architecture to the next level of detailed design and transition planning, a framework such as ITIL will be extremely useful. ITIL takes a service view of the world in definition of systems and not a mere technology view. ITIL practitioners will put operability ahead of technology or architecture purity, and rightfully so. ITIL sees through the design through transition and operations of the service.
image
COBIT TOGAF and ITIL in Prefect Harmony
I have to clarify that, above is simply one way of arranging these very useful frameworks to work with each other. It can be argued that, TOGAF in certain instances can provide overarching umbrella for such journey from requirements to delivery. Or indeed ITIL on it’s own can be adequate to see the system design through to implementation. There is no right or wrong with Enterprise Architecture and that is the strength and weakness of the practice I would like to argue. The purpose of this post as I stated earlier was simply to showcase benefits and effectiveness of such Enterprise Frameworks work together in perfect harmony!
Now to the real question….what is the business benefit of this? Is it worth the investment and hassle? The answer is that it depends….depends on the business context. It may be worth the more complicated, complex and distributed your business requirements and resultant technology response. It may be an overkill if your requirements and responsive systems are not so complicated. In the long run however, Enterprise Architecture is about entire business and technology estate and not just one program or project and hence often you will find that medium to large size organisations will use more than one framework. In most cases, such framework do not interact well…and this is where my draft proposal above may be useful. 

References and relevant links for further reading..

  • TOGAF – The Open Group Architecture Framework
  • ITIL – Information Technology Information Library
  • COBIT – Control Objectives for Information and related Technology
  • ZACHMAN – named after inventor John Zachman