Hello again and welcome to my weekly thoughts on Enterprise Architecture!
There have been several interesting readings this week, not just from the class assignments but also from classmates. I especially appreciate those that found what I wrote to be interesting enough to comment. Thanks!!
This week I ran through the EA Roadmap Process and also joined the class discussion on the review of the Gartner toolkit for driving strategic EA. There were quite a few interesting thoughts and comments around this toolkit and how to present to executives, such as how much is too much on a slide and other details around presentation formats. I joined in that conversation with my thoughts on what or how to present back to an executive team, but I started thinking about effectiveness and the challenge that we all face around initiatives and executive buy-in. As I was thinking through this, I came back to some of my experience as a C-level executive working through both internal and customer challenges.
What I am about to say might not be taken well, especially with the group that I am a part of, but hear me out. A lot of the time the challenge when it comes to being effective in a project is IT. We have all been there - we get pushed by the business, they do not understand what it takes, we do not have the people or budget. If you say "no, not me" take a quick look in the mirror and look yourself in the eye! So when we talk about EA and foundations we should take a look at the challenges with IT and how that can affect what we can do in a business-driven EA approach.
Executives are concerned about their Return on Investment (ROI) from IT. That is no secret. IT expenditures continue to grow, which directly affects the bottom line. Therefore, many executives begin to scrutinize the effectiveness of their IT organizations, and this scrutinization can lead to a bias the minute any new initiative is proposed. As a result, IT needs to gain credibility within their domains. They need to show that they can be adaptive and fulfill the strategic requirements of the business, in a timely and efficient manner. If not, then a roadblock to creating an EA foundation is going to exist. If a lack of credibility continues to exist, you may find executives agreeing with the need for EA, but experience shows they will take that initiative to large systems integrators and product and services companies for execution. Remember what I said about IT push back? It is bound to happen when the business hires a firm to tell IT what to do, right?
This idea is not mine, or even new. A quick search will show articles from 10 plus years ago talking about this same subject. For instance, read this one from CIO.com in 2005...
http://www.cio.com/article/2448774/enterprise-architecture/the-relationship-between-enterprise-architecture-and-it-governance.html
I could go on about this, but my point is that to be effective in building an EA foundation a better balance between the internal IT organization, internal business units and external service and technology providers has to be found. A foundation can only be built on solid ground. In most cases in an organization, that has to start with IT.
Hi again Joe,
ReplyDeleteOnce again I enjoyed reading your post. It brought two key discussion points to mind. The first, tailoring your communication to your audience. I’ve found in my experience that the content (i.e. subject, format, and amount) varies greatly contingent on who is on the receiving end.
Which brings me to my second point in response to your statements on credibility. Transparency has always seemed to be a necessary counterpart to credibility. When pitching for buy-ins, some of the key components of a charter include EA deliverables, objectives and metrics, such as gap analysis, program value reports, and success measures. This content lays everything out on the table in order to guide anticipation.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge as a C-level executive, I can learn a lot from you.
-Nate
Thanks for coming back, Nate!
ReplyDeleteCould not agree more on point one. My rule of thumb is the higher up the ladder the presentation is for, the more concise it needs to be.
On point two I think that there is a lot that goes into credibility. Transparency is certainly there on the list and then execution as well. Whether we like it or not these things are what make us and our team credible.
Great points! Thank you for reading!!
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if anyone still has the audacity to suggest that you're wrong. As you say, we have all been there. It's one of the reasons I always tell folks that marketing is probably the biggest part of the job as an Enterprise Architect, and I fully mean that. If you can't elaborate on the importance of the things that you are trying to do and how the impact the bottom line you will never get buy in or support.
If you ever enter a conversation with the business about doing it the "right way" versus getting it done on time or in budget, you will always lose. It's something I think we all inherently know. What we have to do is demonstrate in terms that the business can appreciate like speed of change, ability to adjust to market competition, or total cost of ownership. It's always difficult in the moment but we have to step back and make sure we remember, we're ultimately part of that business.
It also makes me think of the "right-size" concept presented in one of the Gartner articles. Martin Fowler says you should focus on things that will be "hard to change" down the road if you don't make the right decisions now (and by implication let some other things go). I think that balance is critical to show that you are flexible and collaborative....
g888
Bill,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading. I could not agree more with your points. The "Right Way" conversation certainly shuts more doors than it opens. You make an excellent point about the Gartner Article, focusing on the core items or processes that will be hard to change down the road is key. I think that ends up creating a good foundation as well.
Thanks again for commenting !
JC
I have to say I completely agree with the comments about the effectiveness of IT as crucial to success of not only an EA program but the whole business and organization as well. I see that only increasing in value and expectations especially with emerging technologies such as Cloud SaaS/PaaS/IaaS that facilitate agility and the grow-as-you-go models. Bringing EA program to the equation only adds more values at stressing the agility and efficiency of solutions and deliverables even at times when budgeting and time is of greater importance. Much of the old times when IT used to be "really" at odds with the business were due to miscommunication and different backgrounds that make each team look at the same subject from different angles. EA team can and should be able to bridge the distance between business and IT.
ReplyDeleteZiad,
DeleteThanks for commenting! I agree with you. Back in the day, as the saying goes, business was forced to conform their needs to IT systems. That created a lot of these issues. Today business and their processes are driving how systems are designed and deployed. Helping to bridge this gap is what EA can excel at for both IT and the business IMO....