Category Archives: Integration Competency Centers
One of THE biggest challenges in companies today is complexity. To be more specific, unnecessary complexity resulting from silo behaviors and piece-meal point solutions. Businesses today are already extremely complex with the challenges of multiple products, multiple channels, global scale, higher customer expectations, and rapid and constant change, so we certainly don’t want to make the IT solutions more complex than they need to be. That said, I’m on the side of NO we don’t need a CSO as this blog recently surveyed its readers. We just need a business architecture practice that does what it’s supposed to. (more…)
In my previous blog, I talked about how a business-led approach can displace technology-led projects. Historically IT-led projects have invested significant capital while returning minimal business value. It further talks about how transformation roadmap execution is sustainable because the business is driving the effort where initiative investments are directly traceable to priority business goals.
For example, an insurance company wants to improve the overall customer experience. Mature business architecture will perform an assessment to highlight all customer touch points. It requires a detailed capability map, fully formed, customer-triggered value streams, value stream/ capability cross-mappings and stakeholder/ value stream cross-mappings. These business blueprints allow architects and analysts to pinpoint customer trigger points, customer interaction points and participating stakeholders engaged in value delivery.
One must understand that value streams and capabilities are not tied to business unit or other structural boundaries. This means that while the analysis performed in our customer experience example may have been initiated by a given business unit, the analysis may be universally applied to all business units, product lines and customer segments. Using the business architecture to provide a representative cross-business perspective requires incorporating organization mapping into the mix.
Incorporating the application architecture into the analysis and proposed solution is simply an extension of business architecture mapping that incorporates the IT architecture. Robust business architecture is readily mapped to the application architecture, highlighting enterprise software solutions that automate various capabilities, which in turn enable value delivery. Bear in mind, however, that many of the issues highlighted through a business architecture assessment may not have corresponding software deployments since significant interactions across the business tend to be manual or desktop-enabled. This opens the door to new automation opportunities and new ways to think about business design solutions.
Building and prioritizing the transformation strategy and roadmap is dramatically simplified once all business perspectives needed to enhance customer experience are fully exposed. For example, if customer service is a top priority, then that value stream becomes the number one target, with each stage prioritized based on business value and return on investment. Stakeholder mapping further refines design approaches for optimizing stakeholder engagement, particularly where work is sub-optimized and lacks automation.
Capability mapping to underlying application systems and services provides the basis for establishing a corresponding IT deployment program, where the creation and reuse of standardized services becomes a focal point. In certain cases, a comprehensive application and data architecture transformation becomes a consideration, but in all cases, any action taken will be business and not technology driven.
Once this occurs, everyone will focus on achieving the same goals, tied to the same business perspectives, regardless of the technology involved.
Transformation roadmaps in many businesses tend to have a heavy technology focus, to the point where organizations invest millions of dollars in initiatives with no clear business value. In addition, numerous tactical projects funded each year have little understanding of how or even if, they align from a business perspective. Management often fall victim to the latest technology buzzwords, while stakeholder value, business issues, and strategic considerations take a backseat. When this happens, executives who should be focused on business scenarios to improve stakeholder value fall victim to technology’s promise of the next big thing.
I recently participated in the writing and reviewing a series of whitepapers on Business-led transformation at Informatica’s Strategic Services Group. These whitepapers discusses how executives can leverage business architecture to reclaim their ability to drive a comprehensive transformation strategy and roadmap. I will try to summarize them into this blog.
Consider the nature of most initiatives found within a corporate program office. They generally focus on enhancing one system or another, or in more extreme cases a complete rebuild. The scope of work is bounded by a given system, not by the business focal point, whether that is a particular business capability, stakeholder, or value delivery perspective. These initiatives generally originate within the IT organization, not the business, and launched in response to a specific business need quickly translated into a software enhancement, rewrite, or database project. Too often, however, these projects have myopia and lack an understanding of cross-impacts to other projects, business units, stakeholders, or products. Their scope is constrained, not by a given customer or business focus, but by technology.
Business led transformation delivers a value centric perspective and provides the underlying framework for envisioning and crafting a more comprehensive solution. In some cases, this may begin with a quick fix if that is essential, but this must be accompanied by a roadmap for a more transformative solution. It provides a more comprehensive issue analysis and planning perspective because it offers business specific, business first viewpoints that enable issue analysis and resolution through business transparency.
On November 13, 2014, Informatica acquired the assets of Proact, whose Enterprise Architecture tools and delivery capability link architecture to business strategy. The BOST framework is now the Informatica Business Transformation Toolkit which received high marks in a recent research paper:
“(BOST) is a framework that provides four architectural views of the enterprise (Business, Operational, Systems, and Technology). This EA methodology plans and organizes capabilities and requirements at each view, based on evolving business and opportunities. It is one of the most finalized of the methodologies, in use by several large enterprises.”  (more…)
ERP systems were a true competitive advantage 20+ years ago, but not so today. ERP systems are a tool that gave people the best view into their business, but that is when there really were only ERP systems and Databases, but today that critical data resides in so many other areas. There are several reasons why ERP systems act as a data trap: technical factors, out of date management theory, and big data trends. First, let’s talk about management theory.
There are two fundamental concepts that have been driving much of the strategic planning in modern organizations in recent decades. The idea of economies of scale is deeply embedded in our thinking. The concept was first introduced by Adam Smith in the 18th century and reinforced throughout the 20th century by contemporaries such as Bruce Henderson. In 1968 Henderson wrote “”Costs characteristically decline by 20-30% in real terms each time accumulated experience doubles.” The basic idea is that bigger is better. (more…)
The title of this article may seem counterintuitive, but the reality is that the business doesn’t care about data. They care about their business processes and outcomes that generate real value for the organization. All IT professionals know there is huge value in quality data and in having it integrated and consistent across the enterprise. The challenge is how to prove the business value of data if the business doesn’t care about it. (more…)
Do We Really Need Another Information Framework?
The EIM Consortium is a group of nine companies that formed this year with the mission to:
“Promote the adoption of Enterprise Information Management as a business function by establishing an open industry reference architecture in order to protect and optimize the business value derived from data assets.”
That sounds nice, but we do really need another framework for EIM or Data Governance? Yes we do, and here’s why. (more…)
A few days ago, I came across a post, 5 C’s of MDM (Case, Content, Connecting, Cleansing, and Controlling), by Peter Krensky, Sr. Research Associate, Aberdeen Group and this response by Alan Duncan with his 5 C’s (Communicate, Co-operate, Collaborate, Cajole and Coerce). I like Alan’s list much better. Even though I work for a product company specializing in information management technology, the secret to successful enterprise information management (EIM) is in tackling the business and organizational issues, not the technology challenges. Fundamentally, data management at the enterprise level is an agreement problem, not a technology problem.
So, here I go with my 5 C’s: (more…)