Drawing a line…
Sometimes, however experienced you are as an architect and however “strategic” you are in your work, sometimes it pays to get right back to basics. The issue often is “how effective is our communication?”
Our profess…
Enterprise Architecture
The LEARN principle
The LEARN principle extends the NEA principle of the internet to the context of global knowledge: Learning is everywhere. Everyone can use it. Anyone can improve it. Responsibility drives it. No-one possesses it. The NEA acronym stands for the maxim…
Where the CIO sits makes no difference to EA?
 |
| Photo titled “sit where you want”. Pretty apt for this article! (photo credit: DorteF) |
Enterprise Architecture deals with the blueprint of enterprises, so it might make sense that the blueprint function sits close to the Chief Executive Officer in the organization chart to ensure alignment between planning and execution. Is there a correlation between where the Chief Enterprise Architect sits in the organization chart and the Enterprise Architecture maturity of that enterprise?
Figure 1 shows the data from an interview of almost 20 government agencies that included questions about their EA maturity as well as the number of layers between their CEO and Chief EA. No clear pattern can be identified from the interview data. Some might even argue that having two to four layers between the CEO and the Chief EA is the best!
Figure 1 Relationship between Chief EA’s distance to CEO and EA Maturity
In addition, my discussions with a researcher from Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests the same finding: that there has been no support in data of correlation between an organization’s Chief EA’s proximity to the CEO and its EA maturity.
Does this mean that it does not matter where the chief EA sits in organizations? In many organizations, the Chief Information Officer is the chief EA, so does that also mean that it does not matter where the CIO sits in organizations?
Through the interviews, I noticed that the organizations who reported having mature EA roughly falls into three groups. The first group is made up of organizations with very influential CIOs who reported either directly into the CEO or to a direct report of the CEO. The second group has stories of their CEO believing strongly in EA, and pushed the EA agenda top-down. The third group consists of organizations that I was not clear why they reported high maturity for their EA. It might be a lack of understanding on my part, but I also suspect some of them are still early in their EA journey and thus not yet equipped to provide an accurate assessment of their EA maturity.
Analyzing the mature organizations gives the following thought: where the chief EA sits is less important to an organization’s EA maturity than EA’s mindshare among senior managers. If the CEO believes in EA, the organization is more likely to have mature EA. If the CIO is influential and believes in EA, it is more likely that he can influence the CEO to think the same. The challenge though is that it is difficult to measure EA’s mindshare among senior managers, but this does reinforce an often-repeated EA best practice on the importance of gaining top management’s sponsorship to achieve successful EA implementation.
Where the CIO sits makes no difference to EA?
|
| Photo titled “sit where you want”. Pretty apt for this article! (photo credit: DorteF) |
Enterprise Architecture deals with the blueprint of enterprises, so it might make sense that the blueprint function sits close to the Chief Executive Officer in the organization chart to ensure alignment between planning and execution. Is there a correlation between where the Chief Enterprise Architect sits in the organization chart and the Enterprise Architecture maturity of that enterprise?
Figure 1 shows the data from an interview of almost 20 government agencies that included questions about their EA maturity as well as the number of layers between their CEO and Chief EA. No clear pattern can be identified from the interview data. Some might even argue that having two to four layers between the CEO and the Chief EA is the best!
Figure 1 Relationship between Chief EA’s distance to CEO and EA Maturity
In addition, my discussions with a researcher from Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests the same finding: that there has been no support in data of correlation between an organization’s Chief EA’s proximity to the CEO and its EA maturity.
Does this mean that it does not matter where the chief EA sits in organizations? In many organizations, the Chief Information Officer is the chief EA, so does that also mean that it does not matter where the CIO sits in organizations?
Through the interviews, I noticed that the organizations who reported having mature EA roughly falls into three groups. The first group is made up of organizations with very influential CIOs who reported either directly into the CEO or to a direct report of the CEO. The second group has stories of their CEO believing strongly in EA, and pushed the EA agenda top-down. The third group consists of organizations that I was not clear why they reported high maturity for their EA. It might be a lack of understanding on my part, but I also suspect some of them are still early in their EA journey and thus not yet equipped to provide an accurate assessment of their EA maturity.
Analyzing the mature organizations gives the following thought: where the chief EA sits is less important to an organization’s EA maturity than EA’s mindshare among senior managers. If the CEO believes in EA, the organization is more likely to have mature EA. If the CIO is influential and believes in EA, it is more likely that he can influence the CEO to think the same. The challenge though is that it is difficult to measure EA’s mindshare among senior managers, but this does reinforce an often-repeated EA best practice on the importance of gaining top management’s sponsorship to achieve successful EA implementation.
Summer in the Capitol – Looking Back at The Open Group Conference in Washington, D.C.
Jim Hietala, VP of security at The Open Group, provides a summary of The Open Group conference in Washington, D.C. (July 16-18). Continue reading →
Checklists and complexity
Re-reading Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto, to write a book-review for the current edition of the Journal of Enterprise Architecture, it struck me that the SCAN frame provides a useful means to understand and describe the relationship between checklists and…
Which EA tools? – and why?
Over on LinkedIn, on the EA People list, Frank Guerino asked about EA tools: Question about EA Tools… What tools do you use to help you with EA tasks and why? What do you perceive their Pros and Cons to…
TOGAF® 9 Certification Growth – Number of Individuals Certified Doubles in the Last 12 Months – Now Over 14,800
The number of individuals certified in the TOGAF® 9 certification program as of July 1st 2012 is 14,851. This represents a doubling of the number of individuals certified in the last 12 months with 7,640 new certifications during that period. The late…
Journal of Enterprise Architecture August 2012
Available very soon: August 2012 – Volume 8, Number 3 of CONTENT Editor’s Corner John Gøtze introduces this number. Architect in the Spotlight: Eric Stephens John Gøtze interviews Eric Stephens. Enterprise Architecture, IT Service Management and Service Oriented Architecture: relationships, approaches and operative guidelines (part 2 of 2) Carlo Randone Enterprise Architecture, IT Service Management (and Governance) …read more
Open CA and Enterprise Architecture certification, take it or leave it?
We have, obviously, the problem of regulating the EA profession. Currently, many do take EA training and certifications in the hope they’d improve their career prospects. But do they improve or guarantee the practitioners’ prowess to do the job?
The Journey from Visibility to Governance to Standardization to Reuse
Firms need to have a single picture to guide their efforts, to build a “foundation for execution” as described in Enterprise Architecture as Strategy[1]. It is not enough to have a single picture of the vision, mission and strategies of the firm. Firms will need to decide what business processes need to be standardized and what data need to be integrated. There is no right answer, but not having a common picture will mean that different parts of the firm will be building to their own visions.
However, I noticed through my interviews with CIOs that not many companies had this single picture. In fact, on probing further, some of them were not able to provide a high-level, organization-wide view of their organizations’ processes. As such, I postulated that organizations must mature through two stages before they can get to the standardization (and integration) stage.
 |
| Even star war troopers need mirrors! photo credit: Kalexanderson |
Firstly, they need to firstly establish an organization-wide, regularly updated view of the current situation in their organizations. This is akin to individuals looking into the mirror to decide what to change about their appearances. Similarly, organizations need visibility into their current state before they can decide what to standardize and what to leave alone. This is not a trivial exercise, especially in large organizations. Creating a current view from scratch can take months; keeping the view updated as the organization changes is an even bigger challenge.
 |
| Can you tell if something is out of line? photo credit: chekobero |
Second, organizations also need to have strong governance processes in place, so that changes to existing processes and data are channeled through a common approval body. How can any organization standardize unless all changes and new initiatives are checked against standardization requirements? In many of the organizations I studied that had mature EA practices, the organizations had strong governance in place. The Enterprise Architecture team was involved in approving new business initiatives, to ensure that the initiatives are not deviating from the organization’s standardization and integration vision. Without such a governance framework in place, standardization is just talk that has no teeth to be realized. It is possible for organizations to have strong governance first before having visibility. However, as mentioned above, organizations will need to establish visibility before they can move into the standardization stage.
Re-use seems to be a long way off for many organizations. Or is it? Maybe a iterative approach with fast and short iterations will work? I will be keen to hear from your experience of standardization and reuse.
[1] Enterprise Architecture as Strategy by Jeanne W. Ross, Peter Weill and David C. Robertson
The Journey from Visibility to Governance to Standardization to Reuse
Firms need to have a single picture to guide their efforts, to build a “foundation for execution” as described in Enterprise Architecture as Strategy[1]. It is not enough to have a single picture of the vision, mission and strategies of the firm. Firms will need to decide what business processes need to be standardized and what data need to be integrated. There is no right answer, but not having a common picture will mean that different parts of the firm will be building to their own visions.
However, I noticed through my interviews with CIOs that not many companies had this single picture. In fact, on probing further, some of them were not able to provide a high-level, organization-wide view of their organizations’ processes. As such, I postulated that organizations must mature through two stages before they can get to the standardization (and integration) stage.
|
| Even star war troopers need mirrors! photo credit: Kalexanderson |
Firstly, they need to firstly establish an organization-wide, regularly updated view of the current situation in their organizations. This is akin to individuals looking into the mirror to decide what to change about their appearances. Similarly, organizations need visibility into their current state before they can decide what to standardize and what to leave alone. This is not a trivial exercise, especially in large organizations. Creating a current view from scratch can take months; keeping the view updated as the organization changes is an even bigger challenge.
|
| Can you tell if something is out of line? photo credit: chekobero |
Second, organizations also need to have strong governance processes in place, so that changes to existing processes and data are channeled through a common approval body. How can any organization standardize unless all changes and new initiatives are checked against standardization requirements? In many of the organizations I studied that had mature EA practices, the organizations had strong governance in place. The Enterprise Architecture team was involved in approving new business initiatives, to ensure that the initiatives are not deviating from the organization’s standardization and integration vision. Without such a governance framework in place, standardization is just talk that has no teeth to be realized. It is possible for organizations to have strong governance first before having visibility. However, as mentioned above, organizations will need to establish visibility before they can move into the standardization stage.
Re-use seems to be a long way off for many organizations. Or is it? Maybe a iterative approach with fast and short iterations will work? I will be keen to hear from your experience of standardization and reuse.
[1] Enterprise Architecture as Strategy by Jeanne W. Ross, Peter Weill and David C. Robertson