Governance

Positioning an Enterprise Architect for Success

by

As I found in our Enterprise Architecture team in Microsoft, each time an Enterprise Architect is assigned to a specific area of the business, each one has a unique “engagement” with their stakeholders.  In very large organizations (like mine), there may be many different IT units as well as many different business units, all involved in a particular strategy.   Each situation is different.   This leads to a common problem that can framed with two questions:

  1. So how do you know if your Enterprise Architect is doing a good job?
  2. How do you set the right expectations to position that Enterprise Architect for success?

A Model for Positioning an Architect

We developed a simple grid that helps to position the EA with respect to a specific area of the business.  The two axes of the grid are: Architectural Maturity of the “segment” and Maturity of the Architectural Engagement itself.  Within each cell, we put a description of “what we want the EA to do” if they find themselves in that position.

Note that maturity of the engagement is a measurement of a relationship: specifically the relationship between the “business customer” and the Enterprise Architect.  Architectural maturity of the segment is measured against both the business area and the IT groups that they use (see below).  You need to measure the maturity of BOTH variables in order to understand what an Enterprise Architect will need to do to be effective.

image

Note that the Architectural Maturity axis has four levels, cryptically described as “Level I” through “Level IV”.  This is a reference to our internal maturity model, which I’m not at liberty to share in detail. 

The broad strokes are:

  • Level  I – architecture is not a trusted and well-understood role in business change or IT programs.  (This includes business, information, solution, and technology architecture).
     
  • Level II – architecture is used and their processes are defined, but not consistently and not well. 
     
  • Level III – architecture is performed consistently and is part of governance as well as some portfolio planning activities.  The business stakeholder does not take ownership of driving the funding and execution of the roadmaps developed by the Enterprise Architect.
     
  • Level IV – architecture is performed consistently and is involved in planning and governance.  The business stakeholders involved in funding and overseeing the business changes themselves are engaged with enterprise architecture, have been key in developing the roadmaps, and follow through with regular updates to the future state models and the roadmaps.  In addition, they decide on which initiatives to use BASED ON the content of the roadmaps. 

 

Using this model

I’ll provide two scenarios to illustrate how this simple grid is used. 

In Fabrikam, we are Enterprise Architects.  Fabrikam manufactures and distributes consumer electronics.  There are six divisions that manufacture different kinds of products (kitchen appliances, television and radio, automotive, etc). Let’s say that we have 18 Enterprise Architects in our EA team.  Fabrikam’s EA has divided into three working groups, each with six architects.  Maria manages one of these teams, and has six enterprise architects working for her.  Her team focuses on addressing business issues related to supply chain management. 

Maria is performing an annual review for two of her architects.  They are Tomas and Jai. 

Case 1: Tomas

Tomas is working with the kitchen appliance team.  This is the oldest division in Fabrikam, and they have their own IT group that has been stable for many years.  That team has established processes for IT architecture but no business architecture.  Their architectural maturity is Level III.   Tomas just moved over to the kitchen appliance division from the television and radio division.  He is a well established architect with years of experience, but the kitchen appliance team is just beginning to get to know him.  As a result, the maturity of the engagement is “Useful.”  

The intersection of these axes has the following text:

  • Engage in existing review and governance processes
  • Engage stakeholders in cross business decisions
  • Collect current state data

Maria can set expectations with Tomas and with the Kitchen Appliance division.  Tomas will be expected to engage in existing governance and review processes.  He will be expected to work with business stakeholders in the kitchen appliance team as well as other divisions to address shared opportunities, capability overlaps, and strategic prioritization.  He will be expected to collect current state information models, system models, technology models, and business strategies for the EA repository.  He will be measured on his ability to deliver on these expectations.

Case 2: Jai

Jai is working with the automotive division.  This is the newest division in Fabrikam, and they are just beginning to roll out their first set of after-market automotive radios and CD players in the North American market.  Their IT division is small and rather chaotic.  Their architectural maturity is Level I.  Jai has been working with the automotive division for about two years, and has repeatedly earned recognition from their business leaders for his skill and depth of knowledge.  The maturity of the engagement is “Influential”.

The intersection of these axes has the following text:

  • Demonstrate EA specific methods and deliverables
  • Drive the scoping, approval, and oversight of an enterprise-relevant project

Maria can set expectations with Jai and with the automotive division.  Jai is expected to demonstrate EA specific methods and deliverables.  The teams know him and trust him.  He can demonstrate how EA can be valuable by simply doing the work and showing how valuable the results are.  Due to his level of influence, he can work with the business to invest in an area of improvement that will benefit the entire enterprise (for example, a project to improve the distribution of finished goods to retailers), and then work with the IT teams and business stakeholders involved to get the project launched and oversee its development.  Jai can be measured on his ability to deliver on these expectations.

Conclusion

In small organizations, Enterprise Architects can be “heros” and just “do what works,” but if you are trying to develop a mature EA program, each architect needs to have specific goals and specific deliverables that they will be expected to deliver.  This kind of model, we found, is useful for helping each architect to position themselves and their role in the organization.

An Actionable Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture

by

The recent “Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture” (US Executive Office of the President, May 2 2012) is extremely timely and well-organized guidance for the Federal IT investment and deployment community, as useful for Federal Departments and Agencies as it is for their stakeholders and integration partners. The guidance not only helps IT Program Planners and Managers, but also informs and prepares constituents who may be the beneficiaries or otherwise impacted by the investment. The FEA Common Approach extends from and builds on the rapidly-maturing Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) and its associated artifacts and standards, already included to a large degree in the annual Federal Portfolio and Investment Management processes – for example the OMB’s Exhibit 300 (i.e. Business Case justification for IT investments).

A very interesting element of this Approach includes the very necessary guidance for actually using an Enterprise Architecture (EA) and/or its collateral – good guidance for any organization charged with maintaining a broad portfolio of IT investments. The associated FEA Reference Models (i.e. the BRM, DRM, TRM, etc.) are very helpful frameworks for organizing, understanding, communicating and standardizing across agencies with respect to vocabularies, architecture patterns and technology standards. Determining when, how and to what level of detail to include these reference models in the typically long-running Federal IT acquisition cycles wasn’t always clear, however, particularly during the first interactions of a Program’s technical and functional leadership with the Mission owners and investment planners. This typically occurs as an agency begins the process of describing its strategy and business case for allocation of new Federal funding, reacting to things like new legislation or policy, real or anticipated mission challenges, or straightforward ROI opportunities (for example the introduction of new technologies that deliver significant cost-savings).

The early artifacts (i.e. Resource Allocation Plans, Acquisition Plans, Exhibit 300’s or other Business Case materials, etc.) of the intersection between Mission owners, IT and Program Managers are far easier to understand and discuss, when the overlay of an evolved, actionable Enterprise Architecture (such as the FEA) is applied.  “Actionable” is the key word – too many Public Service entity EA’s (including the FEA) have for too long been used simply as a very highly-abstracted standards reference, duly maintained and nominally-enforced by an Enterprise or System Architect’s office.

Refreshing elements of this recent FEA Common Approach include one of the first Federally-documented acknowledgements of the “Solution Architect” (the “Problem-Solving” role). This role collaborates with the Enterprise, System and Business Architecture communities primarily on completing actual “EA Roadmap” documents. These are roadmaps grounded in real cost, technical and functional details that are fully aligned with both contextual expectations (for example the new “Digital Government Strategy” and its required roadmap deliverables – and the rapidly increasing complexities of today’s more portable and transparent IT solutions.  We also expect some very critical synergies to develop in early IT investment cycles between this new breed of “Federal Enterprise Solution Architect” and the first waves of the newly-formal “Federal IT Program Manager” roles operating under more standardized “critical competency” expectations (including EA), likely already to be seriously influencing the quality annual CPIC (Capital Planning and Investment Control) processes. 

Our Oracle Enterprise Strategy Team (EST) and associated Oracle Enterprise Architecture (OEA) practices are already engaged in promoting and leveraging the visibility of Enterprise Architecture as a key contributor to early IT investment validation, and we look forward in particular to seeing the real, citizen-centric benefits of this FEA Common Approach in particular surface across the entire Public Service CPIC domain – Federal, State, Local, Tribal and otherwise. Read more Enterprise Architecture blog posts for additional EA insight!

AGILE & CMM : The Marilyn Monroe Connection (Part 3) : Some Like it Hot!

by

Here we are at the final part in our hot discussion – will Agile and CMM get hitched, become a potent combination? If you have followed the earlier parts of this story, you would share my excitement – for the … Continue reading →

AGILE & CMM : The Marilyn Monroe Connection (Part 2) : Something’s Got To Give

by

In the first part of the discussion, drawing upon the genesis of Agile and CMM, we were left wondering if the two are “The Misfits”, and most likely to disappoint  the pacifists, or can they become soul-mates after all. The … Continue reading →

AGILE & CMM : The Marilyn Monroe Connection (Part 1) : The Misfits

by

If you have begun reading this, you probably have drawn two correct conclusions already. One, that I am a fan of Norma Jeane Mortensen Baker, professionally recognized as Marilyn Monroe. And two, having worked with both, Agile and CMM, I … Continue reading →

Should We Kill The Architecture Review Board?

by

OK… I’ll say it.  The whole idea of an Architecture Review Board may be wrong-headed.  That officially puts me at odds with industry standards like CobiT, ongoing practices in IT architecture, and a litany of senior leaders that I respect and admire.  So, why say it?  I have my reasons, which I will share here.

CobiT recommends an ARB?  Really?

The  CobiT governance framework requires that an IT team should create an IT Architecture board.  (PO3.5).  In addition, CobiT suggests that an IT division should create an IT Strategy Committee at the board level (PO4.2) and an IT Steering committee (PO4.3).  So what, you ask?

The first thing to note about these recommendations is that CobiT doesn’t normally answer the question “How.”  CobiT is a measurement and controls framework.  It sets a framework for defining and measuring performance.  Most of the advice is focused on “what” to look for, and not “how” to do it.  (There are a couple of other directive suggestions as well, but I’m focusing on these).

Yet, CobiT recommends three boards to exist in a governance model for IT.  Specifically, these three boards. 

But what is wrong with an ARB?

I have been a supporter of ARBs for years.  I led the charge to set up the IT ARB in MSIT and successfully got it up and running.  I’m involved in helping to set up a governance framework right now as we reorganize our IT division.  So why would I suggest that the ARB should be killed?

Because it is an Architecture board.  Architecture is not special.  Architecture is ONE of the many constraints that a project has to be aligned with.  Projects and Services have to deliver their value in a timely, secure, compliant, and cost effective manner.  Architecture has a voice in making that promise real.  But if we put architecture into an architecture board, and separate it from the “IT Steering Committee” which prioritizes the investments across IT, sets scope, approves budgets, and oversees delivery, then we are setting architecture up for failure.

Power follows the golden rule: the guy with the gold makes the rules.  If the IT Steering committee (to use the CobiT term) has the purse strings, then architecture, by definition, has no power.  If the ARB says “change your scope to address this architectural requirement,” they have to add the phrase “pretty please” at the end of the request.

So what should we do instead of an ARB?

The replacement: The IT Governance Board

I’m suggesting a different kind of model, based on the idea of an IT Governance Board.  The IT Governance Board is chaired by the CIO, like the IT Steering committee, but is a balanced board containing one person who represents each of the core areas of governance: Strategic Alignment, Value Delivery, Resource Management, Risk Management, and Performance Measurement.  Under the IT Governance Board are two, or three, or four, “working committees” that review program concerns from any of a number of perspectives.  Those perspectives are aligned to IT Goals, so the number of working committees will vary from one organization to the next.

The key here is that escalation to the “IT Governance Board” means a simultaneous review of the project by any number of working committees, but the decisions are ALL made at the IT Governance Board level.  The ARB decides nothing.  It recommends.  (that’s normal).  But the IT Steering committee goes away as well, to be replaced by a IT Steering committee that also decides nothing.  It recommends.  Both of these former boards become working committees.  You can also have a Security and Risk committee, and even a Customer Experience committee.  You can have as many as you need, because Escalation to One is Escalation to All.

The IT Governance board is not the same as the CIO and his or her direct reports.  Typically IT functions can be organized into many different structures.  Some are functional (a development leader, an operations leader, an engagement leader, a support leader, etc.).  Others are business relationship focused (with a leader supporting one area of the business and another leader supporting a different area of the business, etc.).  In MSIT, it is process focused (with each leader supporting a section of the value chain).  Regardless, it would be a rare CIO who could afford to set up his leadership team to follow the exact same structure as needed to create a balanced governance model.

In fact, the CIO doesn’t have to actually sit on the IT Governance board.  It is quite possible for this board to be a series of delegates, one for each of the core governance areas, that are trusted by the CIO and his or her leadership team. 

Decisions by the IT Governance board can, of course, be escalated for review (and override) by a steering committee that is business-led.  CobiT calls this the IT Strategy Committee and that board is chaired by the CEO with the CIO responsible.  That effectively SKIPS the CIO’s own leadership team when making governance decisions.

And that is valuable because, honestly, business benefits from architecture.  IT often doesn’t.

So let’s consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, the whole idea of an ARB is flawed.  Architecture is a cross-cutting concern.  It exists in all areas.  But when the final decision is made, it should be made by a balanced board that cares about each of the areas that architecture impacts… not in a fight between the guys with the vision and the guys with the money.  Money will win, every time.