Business Issues -> Change
RSS Feed:
|
By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Published: 21st May 2009 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2009 |
The role of enterprise architecture (EA)
has never been more important, and never have IT departments had to be
as responsive to the businesses they support as now. So how are
enterprise architects perceived in a daunting economic recession, as saviors or door stops?
During a recent panel discussion, at The Open Group's 22nd annual Enterprise Architecture Practitioner's Conference
in London, England, this question was probed. "Resisting Short-term
Thinking: Rationalizing Investments in Enterprise Architecture During a
Recession" uncovered surprising insights into how enterprise architects
can help businesses and IT departments, especially during periods of
turmoil.
The challenge for EA is to be able to balance the
long-term goals against the pressing short-term needs of the business.
There are intense commercial pressures right now to reduce costs at a
time when capital expenditure is severely constrained. Operational
efficiency has become an imperative, but agility and speed to market
are equally as important. How to reconcile the short-term needs with
the long-term goals? Can they be done simultaneously? Can the
architects bridge the two?
To better understand how IT and
business can better support each other, with architects as the leads,
please listen or read as noted IT journalist and analyst Kevin White, contributing editor to Computer Business Review in the UK, as he moderates the panel.
Guests include Henry Peyret, principal analyst at Forrester Research; Phil Pavitt, the group CIO for Transport for London; Thomas Obitz, a principal architect at Infosys; Mike Turner, enterprise architect at Capgemini, and Terry Blevins, a senior principal information systems engineer at MITRE and Open Group Customer Council Board member.
Here are some excerpts:
White: In a downturn, there is a natural tendency
to accentuate the tactical, short-term initiatives, and EA arguably is
inherently long-term. This is a crucial issue of how you balance that
long-term architectural goal against the short-term needs of the
business.
Pavitt:
... Suddenly, I can see where EA actually become a critical part.
Taking our standards and designs, because they're common across the
business, becomes a very efficient way to operate and to run.
So my role as CIO,
it is to demonstrate to the business that we can add value, and that
value is primarily helping them with their business needs, as it ever
was, but now helping them in a way that's cost-effective and frees up
cash on other things.
In this last year, the project meetings
I've been to, where the respective project director says, "And that
will be $X million over 12 years, etc.," all those conversations have
gone. It's much shorter values over much shorter times. The day of the
big program is dead. The day of the big outsource is dead.
The
understanding of our architectural process that's going to apply to
that is a critical interpretation that CIO and his office will do for
the business. Otherwise, they will go for "short-termism."
Obitz: EA clearly becomes a tool for strategic business
transformation. ... Enterprise architects are changing their
positioning, and that means that the value that the organizations are
expecting out of them is changing, and also, the way they are talking
about value and how they are proving value.
... What is EA good
for? It's an approach for solving the problems of an organization. As
we say, the problems are here and now. ... You need to identify
architectural approaches to solve them. And, you need to start gradual
change right now. So, yes, you are capable of demonstrating a long-term
path, but you are creating value in the short-term.
Basically,
as enterprise architects, what we need to change in our overall approach
is that we need to go away completely from this architectural approach,
which is about, "We build a big picture of how we could imagine things
work and then implement that over a long time," to "What's an approach
that's issue-driven." We need to identify where the issues of the
organizations are today, identify what needs to change, and then
consolidate that into the big picture.
[Architects] need to
understand how decisions are made at the top level, and they need to
have an approach of presenting what he's doing and what he suggests in
a way that is understandable and traceable for the most senior decision
makers in the organization. We're basically moving toward management
consulting.
White: EA
has to make an impact, a business impact. What other ways can we
accelerate fast impact programs, where there is a necessary focus on
operational efficiency, productivity, and cost reduction?
Turner: One of the real opportunity areas that
EA is uniquely placed to deal with is working across silos. IT could be
one of those silos, but there's any number of other silos within the
business, across HR, finance, and different parts of operations. EA is
a fantastic tool to be able to consult a wide variety of stakeholders
about a particular market change, get a consensus viewpoint about that,
and really have to define the responses across the whole organization.
...
The worst thing you could do in any crisis situation is to allow
fragmentation and different parts of the business to go and try
different strategies. You may be cutting cost in one area and trying to
increase value in a different area. You end up conflicting with each
other and ultimately creating more tension and having a destructive
impact on the business.
Peyret: Currently, there is a trend to rationalize everywhere,
to try to decrease the cost. Obviously, it's the right time to score
applications and be able to say, "Okay, I would like to cancel and kill
some of those systems that are expensive, that cost a lot, are not
maintainable, are not sustainable for the long-term, and many other
things like that."
At the same time, I also see some industries
in which IT is becoming more important, and where some of the business
will be done with IT involvement. ... I see some innovation, and one of
the roles obviously of EA is to help businesses bring that innovation
in at a right time. We have seen some of those mistakes in the past.
Pavitt: ... I do agree with the sentiment that's been
expressed here: get to know your customers. I've been frustrated with
my own EA team time and time again. They are politically naive. As a
CIO, I'm meant to be one of the sharpest political operators in my
business, not because my business is particularly more political than
anybody else's, but I'm the one who operates horizontally.
I'm
the one who can be used as an excuse for every other department's
failure, whether I've caused it or not. I'm the one in my company who
is measured 1.7 million times every hour when someone presses the Enter
button. We're the only department that's measured that often in real
time of any other team in the company.
Recognizing value in
terms of what the customer, in our case the actual user, wants is
critical. EA should be much more physical, politically savvy, and much
closer to their customers. This is not a visit once a month.
Most
of my EAs will end up in the business in the next six months, not in
IT. I'll force them to be in the business, because I've asked them to
do it nicely. Then they'll judge even more the value they can
contribute. Of course, if the business then doesn't value them, they
would do something about it.
Obitz:
... Enterprise architects need to put rigor into how they justify and
explain the value of what they are doing. ... Enterprise architects ...
need to take a different approach. The typical IT architect approach,
"I do this because I think this is best practice," is something that
nobody outside a team has ever accepted as a measure that is
presentable.
If they are very rigorous and are collecting data
about what they're doing, collecting data about the business value
they're influencing and enabling for the whole organization, and if
they are collecting data on how they're accepted and involved with the
work of the remaining organization, then 85 percent are capable of
justifying the work of the EA team.
You need to put in this work. It's extra work, admin work, and it's boring. Enterprise architects don't want to do that. They need to talk about it. If an EA team doesn't report metrics on a regular basis, they're not recognized as a value source in the organization.
Read a full transcript of the discussion. The full podcast is also available for download here.
Sorry, we are no longer accepting comments on this item. We suggest trying to contact the author directly.
Published by: IT Analysis Communications Ltd.
T: +44 (0)1908 880760 | F: +44 (0)1908 880761