Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
A while back, I wrote in the blog post ArchiMate is overrated (and underrated) that using ArchiMate doesn’t really have that much added value for communicating simple, high-level views to stakeholders (users, management), but its structure does bring advantages that enables us to … Continue reading →
In this post we continue to describe examples for ArchiMate modeling using a top-down modeling strategy. In the previous posting we presented some examples from the business architecture domain, in this posting we will cover three example…
The Enterprise Partner Supplier Customer (EPSC) Model sits as a core concept of Enterprise Architecture. It is so much at the core of everything we do that we seldom question it. Is that healthy? This post will discuss the core idea behind the EPSC model (differentiation by control) and alternative ways to think about enterprise boundaries.
First off, we only name things when we want to differentiate them. As the old expression goes, “the fish discovers water last.” In EA, we tend not to discuss the fact that we assume a particular model of enterprise identification and enumeration on a regular basis. That’s because the model is built in to the things we say and do. It’s built in to our business models and our service models. It’s built in to the way enterprises create policies and budgets and govern efforts. It’s so deeply ingrained that we rarely question it. Well, it’s time for this fish to discuss the nature of water. And to do that, we have to name it. I’m naming it the EPSC model, which is an acronym for “”Enterprise Partner Supplier Customer”. It looks like this:
The view that an enterprise is a bounded thing, with suppliers feeding in, customers getting the benefits, and partners in a peer-to-peer relationship… that’s the EPSC model.
The underlying assumption of EPSC is control. In this model, there is typically OWNERSHIP CONTROL over the enterprise. “Ownership control” means the same people OWN an influential number of shares in each of the organizations inside the box. That is not necessarily controlling interest. It is sufficient interest to ensure that the all the businesses inside the box get along well with each other. It works because employees do what their bosses tell them to do. Take that fundamental notion and expand it to the enterprise level and you get the assumption of ownership control.
Another form of control is ECONOMIC CONTROL which is typically the case when there is a huge size disparity between the suppliers and the enterprise itself with respect to the end customers. This happens in retail a great deal. Walmart is a textbook example of “economic control” since their supply chain requirements can drive massive costs into their suppliers without any substantial backlash. The fundamental model above is the same so I’m not going to redraw it. It’s still EPSC. Just with a really big “E”.
The Internet has introduced some things we expected, and some things we didn’t. We expected the introduction of easy communication and easy transmission of data. What we didn’t expect: the creation of the commercial ecosystem as a differentiating factor in strategy. In other words, the creation of a product by one company that is combined with another product to be consumed by a customer dependent upon both to solve the needs of a customer that is totally unaware of either one. This is common now in the mobile applications space. A mobile app may be created from unique capabilities of four or more companies that are not just peers, they are collaborating peers, all focused on producing the mobile application. Yet the customer is unaware of the grouping.
The EPSC model is completely broken for understanding this space. It simply fails. Because there is no boss telling you what to do. There are only customer opportunities. It is organic and bottom up in its very nature.
And the moment we examine the “more than one” condition, we have to open the door to the possibility that there are more than two or three or ten. How many alternative models are there? I do not know. No one has enumerated them and drawn distinctions (hey, doctoral candidates… want a dissertation idea? Enumerate these).
I will brainstorm a couple of alternatives. This is not a thoughtful investigation of models. It’s a brainstorm. Take it with a grain of salt. But I encourage you to use the ideas to expand your own thinking.
The dynamic collaboration model involves a series of companies that have no common ownership but who collaborate on a very frequent basis to create positive value for customers that is achievable through the combinations of their products.
The key to success in this model is to focus on that dynamic collaboration and to build excellent feedback mechanisms with the customer. This kind of model can fall apart of the customer loses confidence in the collection of companies to meet their needs, and it is vulnerable to attack from alternative collaborative groupings that build better feedback mechanisms.
My knowledge is not wide enough to suggest that I understand other possible models. Perhaps recognizing more than collaborative self interest is necessary to even perceive them. I know that there are more than one, and I’m guessing that there’s more than two. These are the two that I can see. Please post your own ideas and we can collaborate.
What does this matter?
Well, I’d suggest that the strategy of Microsoft under Bill Gates reflected the dynamic collaboration model, but that the strategy under Steve Ballmer reflects the EPSC model. We can see the gradual deterioration of value and innovation during this period. Microsoft under Satya Nadella has shown signs of moving back towards the dynamic collaboration model. Time will tell. He inherited a very weird beast.
But just as important as understanding Microsoft, what does this say about Google, Amazon, Force.com, IBM, Oracle, and the hundreds of other competitors (and open source initiatives) that fill the technology space?
This kind of differentiation is useful for making these kinds of observations.
Your thoughts?
The Enterprise Partner Supplier Customer (EPSC) Model sits as a core concept of Enterprise Architecture. It is so much at the core of everything we do that we seldom question it. Is that healthy? This post will discuss the core idea behind the EPSC model (differentiation by control) and alternative ways to think about enterprise…
In enterprise-architecture, how should you describe or model ‘self-service’ – in which the customer, rather than the organisation’s employee, uses the organisation’s systems to place an order, or search for information? The classic way of looking at this is from…
I wrote a post on Chess and the Art of Enterprise Architecture about ways to look at self-service from an architectural perspective: “I, Robot” – there is no such thing as ‘Customer Self-Service’. In it, I argue that saying that … Continue reading →
Last month I was in Barcelona at the HP Discover conference and I followed the coverage of DockerCon a bit as well. Two conferences, the first from one of the largest tech companies on the planet, a company which inception was one of the triggers of the start of what we now call Silicon Valley. The second conference organized by a relatively new company that you could consider a far offspring.
The post The rise of Rapid Application Delivery through Model-Driven PaaS appeared first on The Enterprise Architect.
Back on the toolsets theme, what’s the Why behind all this focus on a new type of toolset? Why won’t the existing toolsets do the job? In practice, the core concern is as per the previous post ‘Toolsets, pinball and un-dotting…
Strategy execution remains a challenging task for many organizations. The ‘Digital Enterprise’ requires major business transformations, delivered at speed. Most organizations are in a constant state of change. The ‘unfreeze-change-freeze’ model, reasoning from the current to a desired future state, no longer applies; the current state is always in flux and the future state is a moving target.
In the process of evolving a business the question of scope arises in my mind often. If I don’t have a boundary to work within, I can get distracted and the project can go sideways. With business design projects that leverage enterprise architecture (EA) the frameworks often supply a metamodel. I believe it is a […]
This post is about two related things: modelling actual detailed architectures of large homogenous landscapes and the class versus instance issue in ArchiMate. Both are closely related. But before I start out, for those unacquainted with Object-Orientation, or Classes and … Continue reading →
Troux’s CTO, Bill Cason, hosted a webinar that looked at capability-based investment planning. The 20-minute session reviewed how decision makers use capability modeling to better integrate business and strategic IT planning for improved operations, competitiveness and value.
The webinar and its takeaway, 6 Capability Maps Your Business Will Love, garnered a great deal of interest, so we thought we’d begin to discuss the topic on the Troux blog.
What is capability-based investment planning?
Today, business leaders are stuck in a spin cycle of change driven by market, technology and regulatory shifts, which demand continuous planning. Capability planning supports this by delivering business leaders the enterprise intelligence they need to see the big picture and better understand where to invest in their business. Think of it as a resource management exercise – one that lets you anticipate opportunities, ensure balanced budgets and invest dollars in the right places on an ongoing basis. That might come in handy, right?
Getting Started
Use Business Capabilities to Synchronize IT with the Rest of the Business
Business capabilities can be the best starting point for your business architecture program. In the report “Business Capabilities provide the Rosetta Stone of Business-IT Alignment”, Forrester dubs business capabilities as the map to business and IT translation. Getting business and IT on the same page by adopting a common business capabilities nomenclature enables fact-based conversations about the portfolios and their alignment to the business roadmap.
Use Business Capabilities to Understand Your Critical Business Issues:
The adoption of a common language supports the use of business capability maps across the enterprise. These tools facilitate transformational technology change and business change, empowering decision-making related to how the IT portfolio is deployed for the business. This means that the IT pros in the room aren’t the only ones who understand the implications of technology decisions on the business. This helps everyone see the impact and alignment of proposed IT investments or divestments on business capabilities.
Taking it to the next level
A capability-based view of the business offers valuable insights to inform the strategic planning process. This level of enterprise intelligence assists decision-makers and strategic planners in answering critical investment planning questions such as:
1. Where is the business over-invested?
2. Where is the business under-invested?
3. Where is the business at-risk?
4. What business capabilities support corporate goals and strategies?
5. What applications, technology and information support critical business capabilities?
A clear understanding of these questions enables the IT team to be proactive and focus their efforts on providing support for the applications and technology that have the most impact on the business.
Are you ready to assess your place in the capability planning continuum? Download 6 Capability Maps Your Business Will Love to review six typical strategic planning questions and how Troux answers them.
