systemsthinking

Architect or Coach?

by
Is it just me, or are others finding the Enterprise Architect role shifting towards ‘Coach/Facilitator’? 
These days I find I’m most attracted to Tweets about workshop facilitation and business analysis techniques rather than anything discussing Enterprise Architecture: frameworks, methods and tools. 
Here’s a few links I’d recommend for those interested in the former.

Architect or Coach?

by
Is it just me, or are others finding the Enterprise Architect role shifting towards ‘Coach/Facilitator’? 
These days I find I’m most attracted to Tweets about workshop facilitation and business analysis techniques rather than anything discussing Enterprise Architecture: frameworks, methods and tools. 
Here’s a few links I’d recommend for those interested in the former.

Whole-Brained Business Analysis – New Metaphor Required

by
I’ve been guilty using the much debated ‘Left vs Right brain’ metaphor to explain what I believe is needed. By way of example, Alec Sharp (@alecsharp), Sally Bean  (@Cybersal), Roy Grubb  (@roygrubb) and I have been Tweeting about Concept Modeling vs Concept Mapping. Alec is keen to get Data Modelers to abstract their thinking up from physical Data Models by thinking conceptually and I have been encouraging Business Analysts to think similarly when gathering requirements. This has meant that we both find that we need to introduce a different mindset: one that encourages more creative & inclusive discussion atthe initial   discovery and play-back stage of the Requirements-Solution Design journey. I expect the Agile/XP community will declare this to be their philosophy (and nothing new) and they’re probably right. But rather than get caught-up in ‘IT-centric’ methods, I’d rather think of it as a way to better understand any requirements for change – regardless of the Software Development Life-Cycle. I’d rather see such thinking applied to all aspects of business change – people, process, practice, policy and … technology.


Tried-and-tested analytical techniques should not be abandoned, they just need to be augmented with others that, in my experience, help expand ideas and produce resilient, coherent and business-value-creating solutions.  Both side of the equation are equally important. However, I’m finding (through experiment) that the more creative techniques are more engaging – simply more fun and inclusive – and, this alone, can, in my recent experience, dramatically improve business outcomes. 

In attempts to explain the need for a more ‘whole-brained’ approach, I’ve been following the lead of the ‘Design Thinking’ community in referring to both Theory X and Theory Y from MIT Sloan and the Left-brain Right-brain metaphor. This, however, is fraught with problems due, in large part to the findings of the University of Utah who debunk such binary thinking (as I was reminded by Rob England – @theitskeptic).

So I’m in a quandary: on the one hand I find that an X-Y, Left-Right, metaphor is a simple way to convey the difference between, say, Analysis vs. Synthesis, on the other hand, however, I run the risk of aligning with outdated concepts being fundamental reconsidered by neuroscientists. 

I guess the Complexity Science community might say that I’m talking about the difference between ‘Complex Adaptive’  vs. ‘Complicated’ systems, but, again, academic debate makes coming up with a simple metaphor next to impossible.

Has anyone found an alternative metaphor for a more balanced approach to Business Analysis and Enterprise Architecture?

Importantly, I’m keen to avoid the impression that people are to be seen as fundamentally one way or another. My observation is that it is the practice of Business Analysis/Enterprise Architecture that needs to be more ‘Whole-brained’ – not the individuals per se.

To get the discussion rolling, I’d like to hear views on:
  • A good Business Analyst or Enterprise Architecture must be a balance of Left-X(Reliability – Doing-things-Right) and Right-Y (Validity – Doing-the-right-thing)
  • We’ve spent to much time of methods that attempt to industrialise EA (the TOGAF 9.0 manual runs to around 800 pages in the attempt) and BAs are too often focused on methods focus on an ‘IT solution’ rather that the Whys and Whats of the current or desired business behavior
  • We need to spend more time on developing pattern-based storytelling skills in BAs and EAs to deliver break-through changes and allow for innovation in TO-BE models.
  • Economic churn and environmental challenges warrant more Y-minded thinking (with appropriate X-controls)
  • The world can’t be fully explained or governed algorithmically (thank god!)– not while values and trust dominate the way organisations function.


 

Whole-Brained Business Analysis – New Metaphor Required

by

I’ve been guilty using the much debated ‘Left vs Right brain’ metaphor to explain what I believe is needed. By way of example, Alec Sharp (@alecsharp), Sally Bean  (@Cybersal), Roy Grubb  (@roygrubb) and I have been Tweeting about Concept Modeling vs Concept Mapping. Alec is keen to get Data Modelers to abstract their thinking up from physical Data Models by thinking conceptually and I have been encouraging Business Analysts to think similarly when gathering requirements. This has meant that we both find that we need to introduce a different mindset: one that encourages more creative & inclusive discussion atthe initial   discovery and play-back stage of the Requirements-Solution Design journey. I expect the Agile/XP community will declare this to be their philosophy (and nothing new) and they’re probably right. But rather than get caught-up in ‘IT-centric’ methods, I’d rather think of it as a way to better understand any requirements for change – regardless of the Software Development Life-Cycle. I’d rather see such thinking applied to all aspects of business change – people, process, practice, policy and … technology.


Tried-and-tested analytical techniques should not be abandoned, they just need to be augmented with others that, in my experience, help expand ideas and produce resilient, coherent and business-value-creating solutions.  Both side of the equation are equally important. However, I’m finding (through experiment) that the more creative techniques are more engaging – simply more fun and inclusive – and, this alone, can, in my recent experience, dramatically improve business outcomes. 

In attempts to explain the need for a more ‘whole-brained’ approach, I’ve been following the lead of the ‘Design Thinking’ community in referring to both Theory X and Theory Y from MIT Sloan and the Left-brain Right-brain metaphor. This, however, is fraught with problems due, in large part to the findings of the University of Utah who debunk such binary thinking (as I was reminded by Rob England – @theitskeptic).

So I’m in a quandary: on the one hand I find that an X-Y, Left-Right, metaphor is a simple way to convey the difference between, say, Analysis vs. Synthesis, on the other hand, however, I run the risk of aligning with outdated concepts being fundamental reconsidered by neuroscientists. 

I guess the Complexity Science community might say that I’m talking about the difference between ‘Complex Adaptive’  vs. ‘Complicated’ systems, but, again, academic debate makes coming up with a simple metaphor next to impossible.

Has anyone found an alternative metaphor for a more balanced approach to Business Analysis and Enterprise Architecture?

Importantly, I’m keen to avoid the impression that people are to be seen as fundamentally one way or another. My observation is that it is the practice of Business Analysis/Enterprise Architecture that needs to be more ‘Whole-brained’ – not the individuals per se.

To get the discussion rolling, I’d like to hear views on:
  • A good Business Analyst or Enterprise Architecture must be a balance of Left-X(Reliability – Doing-things-Right) and Right-Y (Validity – Doing-the-right-thing)
  • We’ve spent to much time of methods that attempt to industrialise EA (the TOGAF 9.0 manual runs to around 800 pages in the attempt) and BAs are too often focused on methods focus on an ‘IT solution’ rather that the Whys and Whats of the current or desired business behavior
  • We need to spend more time on developing pattern-based storytelling skills in BAs and EAs to deliver break-through changes and allow for innovation in TO-BE models.
  • Economic churn and environmental challenges warrant more Y-minded thinking (with appropriate X-controls)
  • The world can’t be fully explained or governed algorithmically (thank god!)– not while values and trust dominate the way organisations function.


 

Schism and doubt

by

On Friday 14th June, there was a public meeting of the EAST group, entitled Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture and Systems Thinking, kindly hosted by BT in its offices near St Paul’s. Tom Graves has posted a detailed write-up on his blog At ‘EA and Systems-Thinking’ conference.

What is the purpose of dialogue between EA and ST? Putting aside the debate about what the labels “Enterprise Architecture” and “Systems Thinking” might mean, there is certainly a thought that the two (or more) communities can learn from each other. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides – so we may be able to produce a critique of EA from an ST perspective, or a critique of ST from an EA perspective. For example, in his presentation, John Holland asserted that “EA is broken – How ST can help”. (See Tom’s blog for summary.)

This kind of material often arouses a certain kind of resistance. “He’s not talking about me, he must be talking about someone else.” Where are the EAs to whom such a criticism as John’s might apply? Surely the fact that we are going to these meetings, or reading these blogs, or participating in these Linked-In discussions, puts us into the most sophisticated and reflective quartile? 

One of the fundamental questions underlying discussion of EA and ST is imagining some kind of landscape with more or less distinct zones: EA over here, ST over there, this or that school of EA, this or that school of ST, good EA versus bad EA, authentic ST versus fake ST, mainstream versus next practice.

I have written several pieces on the relationship between Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Systems Thinking (ST), on this blog and elsewhere, but such pieces are always open to challenge by those who disagree about the correct use of the labels.

  • “That’s not what real Enterprise Architects do.”
  • “That’s not really Systems Thinking.”

So it sometimes seems that we cannot even start talking about EA and ST, and about the relationship (if any) between them, until we can agree what these terms mean. The desire to name things properly is an ancient one, and can be found in the Analects of Confucius. (See my post on the Wisdom of Confucius). But the prevailing desire to impose one’s own definitions leads to endless and mostly unproductive debate on Linked-In and elsewhere. For this meeting, we hoped for a more productive energy, and I like to think we largely succeeded.

Some of the speakers fell into a dialectic mode of presentation – on the one hand EA, on the other hand ST. This can be useful as a starting point, but if the distinction between EA and ST is taken too seriously it may drive a wedge between practitioners. As Tom commented, “there don’t seem to be any clear distinctions, any absolute boundaries that determine who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’ – all a bit blurry all round, really.” For my part, instead of trying to avoid making any distinctions whatsoever, I put up a few slides with some provocative and playful distinctions, flagged with “possibly” and “tongue-in-cheek”. But I haven’t always been consistent about this, and (as someone pointed out to me) I probably need to be more careful when making a rhetorical contrast between “mainstream” and “next practice”.

The EA/ST landscape may include Confucian and dialectic modes, but it should also include Daoist and dialogic modes. (For a brief explanation of the difference between dialectic and dialogic, see Wikipedia: Dialogic.) Robust debate between dogmatic EA and dogmatic ST may lead to schism, but even that is preferable to bland and empty speech. If we want to have a serious discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of current practice, then we must be prepared for robust critique, and we should not have to worry about over-sensitive practitioners taking everything personally.

One possible aspiration is to build a bridge between two communities, or perhaps even one single community. In their presentation, Patrick Hoverstadt and Lucy Loh presented some recent work of the EAST working group, showing how the concepts and techniques of EA and ST could be combined to address business challenges. This work is ongoing.
If we take the view that community building depend on affiliation (finding common beliefs and values), then any schism and doubt may seem to undermine this agenda. However, there is a more robust path to community building, based on alliance (accepting and overcoming difference for the sake of collaboration). For an eloquent defence of what she calls Deep Disagreement, see Margaret Heffernan’s TED Talk Dare to Disagree.

Perhaps some people will think me perverse, but I look forward to plenty more friendly disagreement between EA and ST in future.

Schism and doubt

by

On Friday 14th June, there was a public meeting of the EAST group, entitled Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture and Systems Thinking, kindly hosted by BT in its offices near St Paul’s. Tom Graves has posted a detailed write-up on his blog At ‘EA and Systems-Thinking’ conference.

What is the purpose of dialogue between EA and ST? Putting aside the debate about what the labels “Enterprise Architecture” and “Systems Thinking” might mean, there is certainly a thought that the two (or more) communities can learn from each other. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides – so we may be able to produce a critique of EA from an ST perspective, or a critique of ST from an EA perspective. For example, in his presentation, John Holland asserted that “EA is broken – How ST can help”. (See Tom’s blog for summary.)

This kind of material often arouses a certain kind of resistance. “He’s not talking about me, he must be talking about someone else.” Where are the EAs to whom such a criticism as John’s might apply? Surely the fact that we are going to these meetings, or reading these blogs, or participating in these Linked-In discussions, puts us into the most sophisticated and reflective quartile? 

One of the fundamental questions underlying discussion of EA and ST is imagining some kind of landscape with more or less distinct zones: EA over here, ST over there, this or that school of EA, this or that school of ST, good EA versus bad EA, authentic ST versus fake ST, mainstream versus next practice.

I have written several pieces on the relationship between Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Systems Thinking (ST), on this blog and elsewhere, but such pieces are always open to challenge by those who disagree about the correct use of the labels.

  • “That’s not what real Enterprise Architects do.”
  • “That’s not really Systems Thinking.”

So it sometimes seems that we cannot even start talking about EA and ST, and about the relationship (if any) between them, until we can agree what these terms mean. The desire to name things properly is an ancient one, and can be found in the Analects of Confucius. (See my post on the Wisdom of Confucius). But the prevailing desire to impose one’s own definitions leads to endless and mostly unproductive debate on Linked-In and elsewhere. For this meeting, we hoped for a more productive energy, and I like to think we largely succeeded.

Some of the speakers fell into a dialectic mode of presentation – on the one hand EA, on the other hand ST. This can be useful as a starting point, but if the distinction between EA and ST is taken too seriously it may drive a wedge between practitioners. As Tom commented, “there don’t seem to be any clear distinctions, any absolute boundaries that determine who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’ – all a bit blurry all round, really.” For my part, instead of trying to avoid making any distinctions whatsoever, I put up a few slides with some provocative and playful distinctions, flagged with “possibly” and “tongue-in-cheek”. But I haven’t always been consistent about this, and (as someone pointed out to me) I probably need to be more careful when making a rhetorical contrast between “mainstream” and “next practice”.

The EA/ST landscape may include Confucian and dialectic modes, but it should also include Daoist and dialogic modes. (For a brief explanation of the difference between dialectic and dialogic, see Wikipedia: Dialogic.) Robust debate between dogmatic EA and dogmatic ST may lead to schism, but even that is preferable to bland and empty speech. If we want to have a serious discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of current practice, then we must be prepared for robust critique, and we should not have to worry about over-sensitive practitioners taking everything personally.

One possible aspiration is to build a bridge between two communities, or perhaps even one single community. In their presentation, Patrick Hoverstadt and Lucy Loh presented some recent work of the EAST working group, showing how the concepts and techniques of EA and ST could be combined to address business challenges. This work is ongoing.
If we take the view that community building depend on affiliation (finding common beliefs and values), then any schism and doubt may seem to undermine this agenda. However, there is a more robust path to community building, based on alliance (accepting and overcoming difference for the sake of collaboration). For an eloquent defence of what she calls Deep Disagreement, see Margaret Heffernan’s TED Talk Dare to Disagree.

Perhaps some people will think me perverse, but I look forward to plenty more friendly disagreement between EA and ST in future.

6 IT Trends & 15 New Habits for CIOs & Their Teams

by

The CIO/ITD In Crisis.

Harvard Business Review blogger, Jim Stikeleather, posted recently  The CIO in Crisis: What You Told Us – a few particular points caught my attention:

“The best executives I have met have had a great understanding of how to use technology to gain competitive advantage and improve operations. They also worked with the CIO to help them to understand the business. They worked together to identify the technologies that could improve the company’s competitive advantage versus technologies that were needed to support the business. Once this was done, the executive leadership and CIO focused on implementing technologies that improve the company’s competitive advantage”.

“All the parts of the organization have to come together and build a common language to discuss their markets and their enterprise. They need to have a common appreciation of each other’s purpose. The CIO must step up and mentor the C-suite on the potentials, possibilities, threats and opportunities of information technology..”.

“If IT and the CIO come to the party talking like engineers, only offer convergent lines of thought(analytical, rational, quantitative, sequential, constraint driven, objective and detailed focus) and don’t offer a more holistic, shaded divergent thinking point of view (creative, intuitive, qualitative, subjective, possibility driven, holistic with conceptual abstractions), then they have missed the point”.

“The CEOs were actively aware, concerned, looking at alternatives such as chief digital officers, or creating “not-so-shadow” IT organizations under the CMO”.
“For existing CIOs, ask yourself a few questions. Are you generating customer value? Are you (or do you have the potential to be) the best in the world at what you are doing? Are you required to do what you are doing? Using the answers to those questions, what do you need to stop doing, start doing or do differently?..”. [see 15 ways to change the ITD’s habits table later in this post].

In a similar vein, according to a recent CIO event run by Forrester Research: “The IT department of 2020 could disappear as a separate entity and become embedded in departments throughout the entire organization“.
This article posits that the need for change is now undeniable, and that CIOs are looking for practical steps for creating new habits in their teams. These new habits, developed now, will help prove the continuing need for a central Enterprise IT Department.


History & Trends.

The demise of the IT Department is not a new  prediction, it was first suggested in 2004 by Nicolas Carr in his book ‘Does IT Matter?‘ and again in 2007 when Chris Anderson published his ‘Black Wire – White Wire’ article. This post talked about how corporate IT was being over-taken by consumer-IT. Later, in January 2008,  Nicholas Carr famously pronounced “The IT department is dead” referring to the up-take of utility computing since his 2004 prediction. 

Since then, others made further observations about emerging IT trends that appear to strengthen those predictions. Today, around six hard trends are well established. They sit within an umbrella trend we described as ‘Externalization’ back in 2007. Later, in ‘Flash Foresight‘ Daniel Burrus explains how he identified many of the established technology trends and why they are ‘Hard’ trends rather than passing fads. More recently,  in his book ‘Agile Architecture Revolution‘, Jason Bloomberg talks about understanding the enterprise as a Complex System – a System-of-Systems. His book is architectural guide to help IT Departments respond to the Externalization trend and, at the same time, it highlights the need for a change in mindset within the IT community.

In parallel, John R. Rymer of Forrester Research coined the phrase ‘Business Technology’ (BT) to describe the ever-increasing reliance on information technology by businesses of all types to handle and optimize their business processes  and the need for a more integrated & holistic approach to the use of business-embedded information technology.  Here’s what Wikipedia says about BT: 

“The increasing use of the term business technology in IT forums and publications is due to an emerging school of thought that the potential of information technology, its industries and experts, has now moved beyond the meaning of the term. Specifically information is seen by some as a descriptor not broad enough to cover the contribution that technology can make to the success of a business or organization“.

Focus on Externalization and BT.


Acceptance of the Externalization trend, and a deep appreciation of ‘Business Technology’ theme, provide the canvas, on which, we can sketch-out the ways in which the IT Department must change to survive. Probably most importantly, the CIO needs to find the time to think strategically: from ‘Whac-A-Mole-IT-Management’  to strategic, Business-Technology leadership. Thinking strategically means the CIO needs to develop a deep appreciation of  the various ‘markets’ his/her team serve, as both a supplier, and a broker of services, to those markets. Such markets exists within and outside the enterprise and are made up of customers, suppliers, intermediaries and other stakeholders. All with differing values and requiring different sensitivities to protect and enhance trust relationships.

How to prepare for the inevitable change.

At my current company, we use the ‘BT’ label help position our five-year vision & strategy. It helps frame the discussion about the many areas of change required: cultural, technological, procedural, organizational & regulatory. BT is not, however, a new name-tag for the IT department – it represents the new thinking required across the whole business. It might seem ironic, given the predictions, that it was our CIO who initiated the discussion – I suspect, however, this will often be the case: the CIO is frequently the only C-level executive who has a holistic understanding of both the breadth and depth of the business.

Back in May this year, I posted about the work we were doing to establish a BT Vision. This has since been developing gradually and is gaining acceptance across the IT senior leadership team, but more importantly, with C-Level executives.

Recently, I was invited to share, with a large multinational conglomerate, some of the more tangible changes we’re implementing  Our vision & journey towards ‘BT’, and our response to the the ‘Externalization‘ trend set the context for the discussion. Here’s the list of ‘contrasting behaviors‘ I shared: 

15 ways to change the IT Department’s habits

Old Habits
 New Habits
1.The department of ‘No’
2.Products focus
3.Internal SLAs
4.IT Strategy
5.Cyber security tooling
6.CAPEX-first mentality
7.Solution-focused technology architecture
8.Product standardized IT portfolio management
9.Governance of large IT projects
10.IT Cost Centre management
11.Internal procedures & methods
12.‘Family’ of IT vendors
13.Gadget-focused innovation
14.Periodic, internally-focused, measurement
15.Technology focus
1.The department of qualified ‘Yes’
2.Services focus
3.Services internal/external ecosystem –SLA-chains
4.Integrated BT strategy
5.Cyber security culture
6.Balanced, outcome-focused, investment
7.Adaptive, value-focused,  Enterprise Architecture
8.Principle-led architecture & standards-based integration
9.Company-wide, joined-up,  BT-governance
10.BT services broker, innovation-lead and advisory
11.Internal & external engagement
12.Consumer-driven, ecosystem of suppliers
13.Customer-story-based innovation
14.Constant, external & internal, feedback-loops
15.Focus on information value & risk

We’ve made good progress on many of the 15 points, but I’d say the most compelling for the business are: 1) The department of qualified ‘Yes’,  4) Integrated BT strategy, 5) Cyber security culture, and 13) Customer-story-based-innovation. I’m pleased to see these seem resonate with the observations made in the HBR article mentioned above.


Will the IT department will be dead by 2020?

Will the need for a central IT department go away by 2020? No, not in our case at least, but it does need to rapidly adapt and evolve and  we believe those  that don’t will become side-lined. We are seeing, however, other businesses taking a different view: there does seem to a dangerous, frustration-with-the-ITD, pattern emerging where IT departments are being split-up into LOB sub-teams, without considering the need for, holistic, enterprise-wide thinking.

Maybe the IT Department label won’t exist by 2020, but many organizations will require a team that focus on the value of the digitally enabled world that balances agility, resilience, security and cost across the whole enterprise. For these companies, dispersed and unbridled IT (use of consumer-led technologies and commoditized services) would lead to unprecedented levels business risk: operational, financial, commercial, reputational and regulatory. [post addendum: FUD alert! See my response to Nick Gall’s comment].

My hunch is that, once the hype has died down, the Externalization trend will actually strengthen the need for strategic, less operationally-focused, ‘Office of the CIO’ within organizations. I’m sure, however, such an entity will be unlike today’s ‘Operationally-focused’ IT shop, by 2020.

Addendum

Since posting, I was asked where VPEC-T fits in the context of the move towards BT. VPEC-T is a tool for the sense-making of complex systems-of-systems. It deals with the complexities of plurality (e.g.multiple value systems and multiple types of event). Moreover, it is used for sharing stories about such systems which helps: reach common understanding, ensure completeness and make trust explicit. These considerations will be increasingly important in the diverse and emergent world of BT. It’s most applicable to ‘New Habits’ 5,7 & 12-15.
Here’s an example of the preparation for a VPEC-T workshop based on a real session I ran earlier this year – it might help explain plurality need.

6 IT Trends & 15 New Habits for CIOs & Their Teams

by

The CIO/ITD In Crisis.

Harvard Business Review blogger, Jim Stikeleather, posted recently  The CIO in Crisis: What You Told Us – a few particular points caught my attention:

“The best executives I have met have had a great understanding of how to use technology to gain competitive advantage and improve operations. They also worked with the CIO to help them to understand the business. They worked together to identify the technologies that could improve the company’s competitive advantage versus technologies that were needed to support the business. Once this was done, the executive leadership and CIO focused on implementing technologies that improve the company’s competitive advantage”.

“All the parts of the organization have to come together and build a common language to discuss their markets and their enterprise. They need to have a common appreciation of each other’s purpose. The CIO must step up and mentor the C-suite on the potentials, possibilities, threats and opportunities of information technology..”.

“If IT and the CIO come to the party talking like engineers, only offer convergent lines of thought(analytical, rational, quantitative, sequential, constraint driven, objective and detailed focus) and don’t offer a more holistic, shaded divergent thinking point of view (creative, intuitive, qualitative, subjective, possibility driven, holistic with conceptual abstractions), then they have missed the point”.

“The CEOs were actively aware, concerned, looking at alternatives such as chief digital officers, or creating “not-so-shadow” IT organizations under the CMO”.

“For existing CIOs, ask yourself a few questions. Are you generating customer value? Are you (or do you have the potential to be) the best in the world at what you are doing? Are you required to do what you are doing? Using the answers to those questions, what do you need to stop doing, start doing or do differently?..”. [see 15 ways to change the ITD’s habits table later in this post].

In a similar vein, according to a recent CIO event run by Forrester Research: “The IT department of 2020 could disappear as a separate entity and become embedded in departments throughout the entire organization“.
This article posits that the need for change is now undeniable, and that CIOs are looking for practical steps for creating new habits in their teams. These new habits, developed now, will help prove the continuing need for a central Enterprise IT Department.

History & Trends.

The demise of the IT Department is not a new  prediction, it was first suggested in 2004 by Nicolas Carr in his book ‘Does IT Matter?‘ and again in 2007 when Chris Anderson published his ‘Black Wire – White Wire’ article. This post talked about how corporate IT was being over-taken by consumer-IT. Later, in January 2008,  Nicholas Carr famously pronounced “The IT department is dead” referring to the up-take of utility computing since his 2004 prediction. 

Since then, others made further observations about emerging IT trends that appear to strengthen those predictions. Today, around six hard trends are well established. They sit within an umbrella trend we described as ‘Externalization’ back in 2007. Later, in ‘Flash Foresight‘ Daniel Burrus explains how he identified many of the established technology trends and why they are ‘Hard’ trends rather than passing fads. More recently,  in his book ‘Agile Architecture Revolution‘, Jason Bloomberg talks about understanding the enterprise as a Complex System – a System-of-Systems. His book is architectural guide to help IT Departments respond to the Externalization trend and, at the same time, it highlights the need for a change in mindset within the IT community.

In parallel, John R. Rymer of Forrester Research coined the phrase ‘Business Technology’ (BT) to describe the ever-increasing reliance on information technology by businesses of all types to handle and optimize their business processes  and the need for a more integrated & holistic approach to the use of business-embedded information technology.  Here’s what Wikipedia says about BT: 

“The increasing use of the term business technology in IT forums and publications is due to an emerging school of thought that the potential of information technology, its industries and experts, has now moved beyond the meaning of the term. Specifically information is seen by some as a descriptor not broad enough to cover the contribution that technology can make to the success of a business or organization“.

Focus on Externalization and BT.


Acceptance of the Externalization trend, and a deep appreciation of ‘Business Technology’ theme, provide the canvas, on which, we can sketch-out the ways in which the IT Department must change to survive. Probably most importantly, the CIO needs to find the time to think strategically: from ‘Whac-A-Mole-IT-Management’  to strategic, Business-Technology leadership. Thinking strategically means the CIO needs to develop a deep appreciation of  the various ‘markets’ his/her team serve, as both a supplier, and a broker of services, to those markets. Such markets exists within and outside the enterprise and are made up of customers, suppliers, intermediaries and other stakeholders. All with differing values and requiring different sensitivities to protect and enhance trust relationships.

How to prepare for the inevitable change.

At my current company, we use the ‘BT’ label help position our five-year vision & strategy. It helps frame the discussion about the many areas of change required: cultural, technological, procedural, organizational & regulatory. BT is not, however, a new name-tag for the IT department – it represents the new thinking required across the whole business. It might seem ironic, given the predictions, that it was our CIO who initiated the discussion – I suspect, however, this will often be the case: the CIO is frequently the only C-level executive who has a holistic understanding of both the breadth and depth of the business.

Back in May this year, I posted about the work we were doing to establish a BT Vision. This has since been developing gradually and is gaining acceptance across the IT senior leadership team, but more importantly, with C-Level executives.

Recently, I was invited to share, with a large multinational conglomerate, some of the more tangible changes we’re implementing  Our vision & journey towards ‘BT’, and our response to the the ‘Externalization‘ trend set the context for the discussion. Here’s the list of ‘contrasting behaviors‘ I shared: 

15 ways to change the IT Department’s habits

Old Habits
 New Habits
1.The department of ‘No’
2.Products focus
3.Internal SLAs
4.IT Strategy
5.Cyber security tooling
6.CAPEX-first mentality
7.Solution-focused technology architecture
8.Product standardized IT portfolio management
9.Governance of large IT projects
10.IT Cost Centre management
11.Internal procedures & methods
12.‘Family’ of IT vendors
13.Gadget-focused innovation
14.Periodic, internally-focused, measurement
15.Technology focus
1.The department of qualified ‘Yes’
2.Services focus
3.Services internal/external ecosystem –SLA-chains
4.Integrated BT strategy
5.Cyber security culture
6.Balanced, outcome-focused, investment
7.Adaptive, value-focused,  Enterprise Architecture
8.Principle-led architecture & standards-based integration
9.Company-wide, joined-up,  BT-governance
10.BT services broker, innovation-lead and advisory
11.Internal & external engagement
12.Consumer-driven, ecosystem of suppliers
13.Customer-story-based innovation
14.Constant, external & internal, feedback-loops
15.Focus on information value & risk

We’ve made good progress on many of the 15 points, but I’d say the most compelling for the business are: 1) The department of qualified ‘Yes’,  4) Integrated BT strategy, 5) Cyber security culture, and 13) Customer-story-based-innovation. I’m pleased to see these seem resonate with the observations made in the HBR article mentioned above.


Will the IT department will be dead by 2020?

Will the need for a central IT department go away by 2020? No, not in our case at least, but it does need to rapidly adapt and evolve and  we believe those  that don’t will become side-lined. We are seeing, however, other businesses taking a different view: there does seem to a dangerous, frustration-with-the-ITD, pattern emerging where IT departments are being split-up into LOB sub-teams, without considering the need for, holistic, enterprise-wide thinking.

Maybe the IT Department label won’t exist by 2020, but many organizations will require a team that focus on the value of the digitally enabled world that balances agility, resilience, security and cost across the whole enterprise. For these companies, dispersed and unbridled IT (use of consumer-led technologies and commoditized services) would lead to unprecedented levels business risk: operational, financial, commercial, reputational and regulatory. [post addendum: FUD alert! See my response to Nick Gall’s comment].

My hunch is that, once the hype has died down, the Externalization trend will actually strengthen the need for strategic, less operationally-focused, ‘Office of the CIO’ within organizations. I’m sure, however, such an entity will be unlike today’s ‘Operationally-focused’ IT shop, by 2020.

Addendum

Since posting, I was asked where VPEC-T fits in the context of the move towards BT. VPEC-T is a tool for the sense-making of complex systems-of-systems. It deals with the complexities of plurality (e.g.multiple value systems and multiple types of event). Moreover, it is used for sharing stories about such systems which helps: reach common understanding, ensure completeness and make trust explicit. These considerations will be increasingly important in the diverse and emergent world of BT. It’s most applicable to ‘New Habits’ 5,7 & 12-15.
Here’s an example of the preparation for a VPEC-T workshop based on a real session I ran earlier this year – it might help explain plurality need.

Towards Next Practice EA

by

A few weeks ago, @Cybersal and I met with @snowded to talk about enterprise architecture. He showed us a graph of the Complex Space, whose two dimensions were Evidence and Consensus. Dave has since posted a version of this graph on his blog.Source: D…

Why information architecture needs systems thinking

by

If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves … There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.

Source: Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974

We who labor at the crossroads of structure and behavior have learned the hard way that content management is far messier than garbage collection and “the system always kicks back.”

Source: Peter Morville, Editorial: The System of Information Architecture (Journal of Information Architecture. Vol. 3, No. 2., 2012) 

Churchman’s interest in computing reaches extensively beyond the metaphor of inquiring systems. He addresses many issues with the state of MIS research of his time, including the tendency of IS researchers to focus on “safe” issues such as “structure of files, retrieval techniques, automatic abstracting, and the like” (Churchman 1968, p.111). He indicates that the majority of such research is not consistent with the systems approach as it focuses on transactions rather than the true goals or benefit of the system. Churchman is also quite visionary as he predicts the ubiquitous role of computers in everyday life. With the ability to “find facts” readily, Churchman predicted that information systems will actually work to reinforce a user’s Weltanschauung (world-view), as the user would screen information based on his Weltanschauung. In order to expand use MIS to expand the user’s view to one that is more holistic, Churchman envisioned a “deadly enemy” proposal for the design of an information system. The main role of this deadly enemy is for the system to propose information results based on assumptions that are opposite of the user’s information request, thereby revealing to the user his fundamental assumptions and at the same time questioning them (Churchman 1968, p. 122-123).

Source: Nicholas Berente, C West Churchman: Champion of the Systems Approach quoting Churchman, C.W. (1968) The Systems Approach, Dell Publishing Co.

See also Kristo Ivanov, The systems approach to design, and inquiring information systems (2001)

Why information architecture needs systems thinking

by

If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves … There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.

Source: Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974

We who labor at the crossroads of structure and behavior have learned the hard way that content management is far messier than garbage collection and “the system always kicks back.”

Source: Peter Morville, Editorial: The System of Information Architecture (Journal of Information Architecture. Vol. 3, No. 2., 2012) 

Churchman’s interest in computing reaches extensively beyond the metaphor of inquiring systems. He addresses many issues with the state of MIS research of his time, including the tendency of IS researchers to focus on “safe” issues such as “structure of files, retrieval techniques, automatic abstracting, and the like” (Churchman 1968, p.111). He indicates that the majority of such research is not consistent with the systems approach as it focuses on transactions rather than the true goals or benefit of the system. Churchman is also quite visionary as he predicts the ubiquitous role of computers in everyday life. With the ability to “find facts” readily, Churchman predicted that information systems will actually work to reinforce a user’s Weltanschauung (world-view), as the user would screen information based on his Weltanschauung. In order to expand use MIS to expand the user’s view to one that is more holistic, Churchman envisioned a “deadly enemy” proposal for the design of an information system. The main role of this deadly enemy is for the system to propose information results based on assumptions that are opposite of the user’s information request, thereby revealing to the user his fundamental assumptions and at the same time questioning them (Churchman 1968, p. 122-123).

Source: Nicholas Berente, C West Churchman: Champion of the Systems Approach quoting Churchman, C.W. (1968) The Systems Approach, Dell Publishing Co.

See also Kristo Ivanov, The systems approach to design, and inquiring information systems (2001)