Search Results for: business model

Business Architects: What’s at the “core”?

by

I made an interesting mistake, today… one that comes up from time to time.  I used a business term in one way, and some members of my audience understood what I meant, while others did not.  In this case, the word was “core”.  The word has two different definitions.  Unfortunately, the definitions are quite different, at least in an Enterprise Architecture context.

The dictionary definition of “core” reflects the problem.  Bing dictionary defines “core” as the “central” or “most important” part of something.  Notice the word “or.”  Either meaning can be intended.

This goes to an old idea of putting the most important part of something in the middle.  In ancient kingdoms, the capital city was often very centrally located, usually near a convenient transportation route (like a river) that offered quick access to all parts of the kingdom (within reason).  So, the word core can mean “most important” or it can mean “in the middle.”  In the past, those two meanings were synonymous.

But in business, the thing “in the center” is not the most important thing.  Porter illustrates this with his (now famous) value chain model:

Porter’s Value Chain.  Image source.

What is the most important part of that model?  It’s the bottom-half, illustrated as the “primary activities” or value chain.  Porter is smart enough to avoid the word “core” because it has the connotation of “in the center” when he wanted to illustrate that value chains are not “in the center.” They traverse “end-to-end”. 

Porter seems to be somewhat alone in avoiding the term “core.”  Many business books and resources use the term “core” when referring to the primary activities.  There are countless illustrations, if you bing for images with the search phrase “business core”, where you are looking either at a set of service offerings or a value chain.  The following diagram is a business architecture reference model for the hospitality industry.  The name of this model: Core Business Domains and Processes. 

Core Business Domains and Processes – Hospitality Technology Next Generation Reference Architecture

On the other hand, there are also illustrations of business where “shared” items are at the center, and non-shared items are “at the edge”.  Illustrations like this one are also quite easy to find:

Source: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

In business architecture, do we illustrate “core” things to be “shared things at the center of a circle” or do we mean “core” to be “the most important things?”

In Enterprise Architecture, the distinction becomes more problematic.  Shared things are often the LEAST important thing from the perspective of the business, not the MOST important thing.  For example, the HR department is often a shared function, and unless the company is an HR service provider, that business function is not part of the value stream.  On the other hand, from the perspective of information architecture, the shared things are the most important and the non-shared things are the least important.  For example, a single understanding of “customer” is critical, especially when that understanding is shared across marketing, sales, and customer service.  It is shared, common, and very important.   

Now, add a specific use of the word “core” that is used in EA:  the notion of a “core diagram” as described in the book “Enterprise Architecture As Strategy” from Ross and Weill.  In that sense, the diagram itself may vary depending on which one of the operating models is being used, but the model itself is a shared, common understanding of the key items that are shared (whether that is process, information, or both).  In that case, the thing that is important is the thing that is shared.  That is called “core.”

Two years ago, I made a presentation to the Open Group conference about creating core diagrams using a method I created called “Minimum Sufficient Business Integration.”  In that method, I use the word “core” many times to refer to “shared” items that are central to an organizations’ Enterprise Architecture. 

So, what definition should I use for “core” when having a discussion about business and enterprise architecture?  Should the word “core” refer to “the most important” thing, or “the most shared” thing?

I don’t have a good answer.  Perhaps the best answer is to avoid the word “core” altogether. 

Categories Uncategorized

Four Business Architecture Value Propositions

by

Last week I attended the Business Architecture Innovation Summit sponsored by the Business Architecture Guild. One of the most common hallway topics was how to demonstrate value. I had a number of interesting conversations that led me to the following four business architecture value propositions:   Return on investment. An ROI approach may be necessary […]

From EA to Business Architecture

by

Last week I discussed the importance of effective communication for EA.This week I will talk about how important Enterprise Architecture and Business Architecture are to being successful at executing a Business Transformation in your organization.
What…

Categories Uncategorized

What‘chu Talkin’ ‘Bout, Business?

by

I’ve been around a few organisations now where I still see Enterprise Architecture being nothing more than a thing that IT people do.  There is a terrible lack of trust between the Business and IT […]

The post What‘chu Talkin’ ‘Bout, Business? appeared first on Enterprise Architects.

A Systems View of Business Architecture

by

A couple of weeks ago, Accelare collaborated with Penn State and Gartner Research to produce a 3 ½ day executive education workshop entitled “Enterprise Transformation and Integration: Beyond IT/Business Alignment”. I taught one of the sections but I also learned a lot from the other faculty members. Last week I posted a piece entitled Four […]

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.


 

The Business Architect as Change Agent

by

Today’s business architects play a variety of roles. Some are already delivering on the vision of business architecture. Others are on their way, rapidly working their way up the value contribution ladder. Still others have a smaller vision for business architecture and are happy working at a lower level of value contribution. One of the […]