Category: Enterprise Architecture

  • Next: Canada, US, and Iceland

    As indicated in a 140 char note on Twitter, I’m leaving Europe. For a month, that is. I am going on a flight/roadtrip, part work, part vacation. Locationwise roughly as follows:

    • Toronto from July 17th to 25th.
    • Washington, DC from July 26th to 31st.
    • Ottawa from July 31st to August 6th.
    • Boston from August 7th to 14th.
      oh, and then a stopover in Iceland:
    • Reykjavík from August 14th to 18th.

    Along the way I will attend The Open Group’s 23rd Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference in Toronto, where I have three contributions: Particapant in Panel Discussion and podcast on Architecture’s Scope Extends Beyond the Enterprise, my lecture Coherency Management and the Future of Enterprise Architecture, and participant in Panel Discussion: Enterprise-Centric Architecture and the Role of “Business”.

    I will probably sneak in a bunch of meetings around the Coherency Management book, which is now with the printer, and with a bit of luck, will be able to announce a few events around the book as I travel on. And then I’m planning some meetings around a new book project I plan to announce shortly. Which reminds me: allow me to introduce two new tags: Government 2.0 and Open Government.

    If you are located – or happen to be – in one of the locations I visit, and are interested in any of the tags to this post, and want to meet, get in touch.

  • Next Generation EA

    Come join us for Architecture Friday in Antwerp on 26 June about next generation enterprise architecture, as seen by two Australians and a Dane: Peter Bernus (wp) and Pat Turner, and me. If you want to participate, get in touch (you may get a discount code!).

    Peter Bernus chairs IFIP WG5.12 Architectures for Enterprise Integration, and arranges the ICEIMT Workshop Next Generation Enterprise Architecture on 23-24 June in Leiden, which I have just registred for (unfortunately only last day). Themes on the agenda:

    • Next Generation Enterprise Architecture (NextGenEA): what is it, what does it need to succeed and what does it include: Interoperability, ‘Cloud Computing’, new ways of Visualization, Enterprise Integration, Enterprise Resource Management, Enterprise Data Consolidation
    • Role of the senior Decision Maker: What is the role of the senior decision maker? What types of information and tools do they require to be effective? Can NextGen EA make a difference or indeed add any value to the day to day activities and key decisions made by senior business managers within a modern Organization?
    • Decision Support Tools: What are the current EA tools on the market? What are the current management decision support tools available to senior decision makers? Is there a gap or a cross over point between the two or is the current marketplace effectively being served by existing product offerings?
    • Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (practice and theory): What do existing EA frameworks say about the role of senior decision makers in the architectural process and what is the role of architecture in the making of critical business decisions within the modern Organization?
    • Interoperability: ­ present and future trends & standardization across Organizations? How do these trends support or refute the case for NextGen EA as a tool for senior decision makers within the modern Organization?
    • NextGen EA: New theories and techniques, interdisciplinary approaches for combining Management Theory and traditional EA topics, such as Enterprise Modelling / Enterprise Engineering / Enterprise Integration
    • Which Research Frameworks are appropriate for the investigation of the above questions?  Human understanding and communication as a condition of interoperability. Suitable social and organisational structures that create the motivation and the opportunity to achieve common understanding and consensus and the potential need for new organisational forms and cultural change

    Being a ICEIMT workshop means it is part of the International Conference on Enterprise Integration and Modelling Technology, a series of landmark conferences held since 1992. ICEIMT originally started as a strategic initiative of NIST and the European Union to review the state of the art in Enterprise Integration (EI) and to make recommendations to industry and research, creating roadmaps for EI research and product development. I’m proud to say that I have just joined the ICEIMT’2010 Steering Committee.

    Before the actual ICEIMT’2010, which is not yet scheduled/placed, the will be another workshop, on 14-16 December in Bled in Slovenia. The main objective of this workshop is to bring together management scientists, engineers and enterprise architects to hold an open discussion on the future synergies of these disciplines.

    • business design and business management — the use of enterprise architecture practice in various transformations
    • coherency of decision making — from senior management to low level control
    • whole of life and complete life cycle approaches to enterprise engineering — the systems science of EA and management
    • decision support tools — enterprise modelling, business process management & analysis, and business intelligence
    • the fusion of the management and engineering disciplines
    • the enterprise architect as a profession: skills, education, training and accreditation
    • unifying theories and enterprise ontologies
    • architecture frameworks and their use in managing projects, programmes, enterprises and networks of enterprises
    • case studies
    • open research questions
    • etc.

    The Leiden-workshop is part of ICE2009 conference on “Collaborative Innovation: Emerging Technologies, Environments and Communities”. ICE stands for International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising. The term Concurrent Enterprising is

    an amalgam which brings together the paradigms of Concurrent Engineering and Extended/Virtual Enterprising: The Concurrent Enterprise is a distributed, temporary alliance of independent, co-operating manufacturers, customers and suppliers using systematic approaches, methods and advanced technologies for increasing efficiency in the design and manufacturing of products and services by means of concurrency, parallelism, integration, standardisation, team work and more for achieving common goals on global markets.

    Sounds interesting, but I only have time to attend the NextGenEA workshop. Actually, only half of it.

  • Counting Down to Book Launch

    This has been a great week, for several reason, but most notably because our book, Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance, is now in AuthorHouse’s hands and should be ready for ordering very soon. On the book’s website, we have published the Table of Contents and a chapter overview, and also some endorsements. And some background interviews with the editors (here’s the interview with me).

    The book introduces the idea of Coherency Management, and asserts that this is the primary outcome goal of an enterprise’s architecture.

    Editors of the book are Gary Doucet, John Gøtze, Pallab Saha, and Scott Bernard. With submissions from over 30 authors and co-authors, the book reinforces the idea that EA is being practiced in an ever-increasing variety of circumstances – from the tactical to the strategic, from the technical to the political, and with governance that ranges from sell to tell. The characteristics, usages, value statements, frameworks, rules, tools and countless other attributes of EA seem to be anything but orderly, definable, classifiable, and understandable as might be hoped given heritage of EA and the famous framework and seminal article on the subject by John Zachman over two decades ago. Notably, EA is viewed as an Enterprise Design and Management approach, adopted to build better enterprises, rather than a IT Design and Management approach limited to build better systems.

    We will use the coherencymanagement.org website not just to promote the book, but also to be a platform for continued dialogues about coherency management and for publishing further studies. We’re especially interested in relevant case studies, and have published one such: Neil Kemp’s interesting case study about Winnipeg Fleet Management.

  • More Book Reviews

    Overall: I recommend the following three books.

    In Advances in Government Enterprise Architecture, my good friend Pallab Saha over in Singapore has made a seminal compilation of 18 chapters on government enterprise architecture written by practitioners and practicing academics from Australia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Several of the contributing authors also have chapters in the Coherency Management book that Pallab and I, together with Gary Doucet and Scott Bernard, are releasing very soon.

    If I should emphasise one chapter from the book, it has to be Pallab Saha’s own chapter about Singapore’s e-government initiative and the Methodology for AGency ENTerprise Architecture (MAGENTA), “a rigorous, disciplined and structured methodology for development of agency enterprise architectures that enables agencies to align to and fully support the government’s transformation objectives and outcomes”. Very interesting read.

    With its 502 pages, Advances provides a very solid view on governmental EA. It is a perfect book for students and researchers of e-government and governmental EA, alas its cost ($195 at Amazon) means that the students have to wait for their libraries to get the book. This is without doubt the reference book for government EA.

    In Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, Dr. Ir. Jan A.P. Hoogervorst from Sogeti in the Netherlands presents a competence-based perspective on governance, where “employees are viewed as the crucial core for effectively addressing the complex, dynamic and uncertain enterprise reality, as well as for successfully defining and operationalizing strategic choices”. Hoogervorst sees enterprise engineering as “the formal conceptual framework and methodology for arranging a unified and integrated enterprise design, which is a necessary condition for enterprise success”.

    Hoogervorst defines Enterprise architecture as “a coherent and consistent set of principles and standards that guides enterprise design,” and he argues that EA is a communicative bridge between the functional and constructional perspectives, that is between a functional, requirements-oriented, black-box system perspective and a constructional, realization-oriented, white-box perspective. I like Hoogervorst’s approach to EA. It’s neither IT-centric nor business-centric; if anything, it’s enterprise-centric.

    The last chapter is about a fictitios case, an energy company. While this certainly helps in understanding enterprise governance and enterprise design in practice, it is in my opinion still leaving the reader with unanswered questions about enterprise engineering. As if Hoogervorst or Springer ‘forgot’ some additional chapters of the book. Or maybe it’s just a ‘cliffhanger’ to forthcoming books? Hoogervorst’s book is the second to be published in Springer’s Enterprise Engineering Series (I reviewed the first book in the series back in December). This series is aimed at academic students and advanced professionals. I’ll certainly recommend Hoogervorst’s book to my students.

    The third book I’ll talk about here has been on my book shelf for a while, as it was published in November 2007, and I bought it right away, but must admit that it didn’t really catch me on the first reading back then. Recently, I was prompted to pick it up again, and am actually happy I did.

    In Lost in Translation (book’s site), Nigel Green and Carl Bate from CapGemini describe a simplified ‘language’ for preventing loss in translation from business needs to IT solutions. This language is called ‘VPEC-T after the five dimensions it focuses on: Values, Policies, Events, Content and Trust. VPEC-T is presented as a common language that is natural for both business and IT, and is “straightforward enough to use, yet sophisticated enough to work in today’s connected world.”

    Subtitled “A handbook for information systems in the 21st century”, the authors do not hide their interests: They provide a tool (‘language’) for how IT-people can become better at capturing what the business wants from IT. In this sense, it’s classic Information Systems thinking (chapter 2), and VPEC-T does indeed come across as, yes, yet another IS-approach. But also, as one that may well take some IS-territory, perhaps especially from IS-practitioners. I will certainly follow VPEC-T. I follow @taoofit on Twitter. I’ve also joined the VPEC-T Google Group. Also, google the acronym and you’ll find a few good things by adopters of it, for example the VPEC-T mindmap which seems quite useful.

  • Agility Utility and Dense Clouds

    I had the pleasure of supervising Adrian Sobotta on his Master Thesis (PDF) titled Enhancing the Agility Promoting Benefits of Service-Orientation with Utility Computing.

    Abstract: Enterprises have been exploiting the agility improving abilities of information technology heavily in the last decade. The problem of lacking agility is especially important in today’s environment which has an overwhelming characteristic of ‘change’ defining it. As such, a number of enterprise aligning uses of information technology have been proposed by both academia and practitioners. One such use is the implementation of service-orientation that promotes loose coupling and reusability among other highly desirable agility drivers. This Master ’s thesis proposes an extension to the service-orientation design paradigm to include cloud based utility computing. This new design paradigm stands to promote enterprises level of agility higher than was possible before with ‘traditional’ service-oriented architectures alone. Download (PDF).

    Highly recommended!

  • Enterprise Architecture Books of 2008: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

    I wanted to follow up on my 2009 book post with one looking back at EA-books of 2008. I’ve however been waiting for some of them, but those I got the other day, and have now been checking them out. From what I count, 2008 gave us 9 EA-books. That is, books about enterprise architecture. Published in 2008. Did I forget any books on that list?

    Without further ado, here is my highlights of 2008:

    The Good

    Jaap Schekkerman‘s Enterprise Architecture Good Practices Guide: How to Manage the Enterprise Architecture Practice is a clear winner.

    At 386 pages, Schekkerman’s Guide is based on IFEAD‘s EA guides published over the years, and is one big EA-goodie-bag for organizations that seek guidance in initiating, developing, using, and maintaining their EA practice. Schekkerman’s Primer does a good job at covering contemporary EA practice.

    This is his third book. It much better than the two previous ones. Which weren’t bad.

    But speaking of bad:

    The Bad

    Jeff Handley’s “Enterprise Architecture Best Practice Handbook: Building, Running and Managing Effective Enterprise Architecture Programs – Ready to use supporting documents bringing Enterprise Architecture Theory into Practice” claims that it “covers every detail, including some missed in other books”, and is presented as a “thorough book”, that “leaves no key process out and completely covers everything …”. In addition, the book “is realistic and lays the foundation for a successful implementation”. At 120 pages! Of which pages 5-66 are hardly readable powerpoint slides with bullet point speakers notes. To add insult to injury, the book is rather expensive.

    There is actually a few good nuggests of information buried down in the material, but it’ll be an insult to books to call this a book. The main reson it get two stars out of ten is that I have to be able to score something even lower, see below.

    The Ugly

    Continuing with books I do not recommend, we have Gerard Blokdijk’s Enterprise Architecture 100 Success Secrets – 100 Most Asked Questions on Enterprise Architecture Definition, Design, Framework, Governance and Integration, which is the joke of the year.

    A seemingly random collection of 100 one-pagers from near and far, “the top 100 questions that we are asked and those we come across in forums, our consultancy and education programs”. And then it “tells you exactly how to deal with those questions, with tips that have never before been offered in print”.

    I notice that the Bad and the Ugly books are both published by Emereo Pty Ltd. My New Year’s Resolution will be never to buy any of their books again.

  • 2009 – A Year of EA Books

    If you are into EA-books, you can look forward to 2009. There will be at least three books you must read.

    cmbook

    We are working hard on getting our book ready for publication. There is still no set date for publication/availability, but we still say ‘early 2009’, and will self-publish the book to speed up the publishing.

    Having many contributers, and four strong-willed editors, would have been a challenge on any book project, but since we write about coherency, we have been determined to create a coherent book, and have had many and long discussions in the editor team and with contributors.

    If you have read our JEA article, you will have an idea about how we think conherency management. In the book, we have invited world-leading enterprise architects to write up their stories and thoughts about coherency management and enterprise architecture, and have also taken another step in fleshing out our own perspectives on how coherency management should be practised.

    Now, shamelessly having promoted my own work first, let me turn to the two other 2009-books you cannot miss. In fact, both of these are available from 1st January, and both can be ordered now.

    hinssenFirst one is Business/IT Fusion (book website) by Peter Hinssen. Subtitled “How to move beyond alignment and transform IT in your organization: A practical guide to a new IT,” and nicely bound and printed on glossy and square paper, this book is targeted at practitioners, in both business and IT, and especially the CIO.

    The book “provides a roadmap for the journey to completely rethink IT, and transform IT into something radically new”, Hinssen writes, and he argues that it’s time for IT 2.0. Hinssen believes that we should not just be concerned with ‘aligning business and IT’, but that we should be busy integrating IT into the business.

    At 276 pages, Hinssen presents the reader with chapters with titles such as: The new CIO: from Robin to Batman; The marketing of IT; Intelligent governance: beyond IT governance; and, Architects of Change: using scenario planning in IT. For a practitioner-oriented book, we get surprisingly much “theory”, with references and all, to the extent that I will have no problems recommending this book in academic circles and to my students. In fact, Hinssens book should be read by all students who like the Ross/Weill/Robertson approach to EA.

    optlandetal

    But speaking of students, there is a new EA-textbook on the market now: Enterprise Architecture: Creating Value by Informed Governance by Martin Op ’t Land, Erik Proper, Maarten Waage, Jeroen Cloo, and Claudia Steghuis. These are all Capgemini consultants, but also recognised university affiliates in the Netherlands.

    The book was created in an effort to develop a textbook for one of the key courses of a Master of Enterprise Architecture program in the Netherlands. At only 145 pages, it is a quite condensed introduction to EA, and I’m not sure how newcomers will take it.

    The authors see the role of enterprise architecture as an instrument for governance, and identify seven key applications for enterprise architecture: situation description, strategic direction, gap analysis, tactical planning, operational planning, selection of partial solutions, and solution architecture, enabling informed governance.

    Enterprise architecting is seen as a process involving a dashboard giving stakeholders indicators and controls allowing the gain insight into the current state of enterprise, alternatives for the future, as well as the performance of the transformation process(es), and to steer/direct these transformations.

    The authors define EA as a “coherent set of descriptions, covering a regulations-oriented, design-oriented, and patterns-oriented perspective on an enterprise, which provides indicators and controls that enable the informed governance of the enterprise’s evolution and success”.

    I am not sure I agree with this definition. Strictly speaking, EA is a practice, not just a set of documents. But I do like some of the elements they bring to the table.

    As a textbook, I think the authors have made some unfortunate pedagogical choices. Using Pizzeria “Perla del Nord” as the through-running case is a very unenterprisey example. So when we get to stuff like “The mission of the pizzeria is to offer positive influence in the work-life balance of both yuppies and dinkies,” and the like, I get a bit tired.Perhaps because I remember being in a similar situation around five years ago, where I used a flower shop as an example. I learned that a “Very Small Enterprise” can be useful for learning to understand simple modeling and system thinking, but unproductive when entering the “real” enterprise space – and hence, counterintuitive for understanding EA.

    I am not very surprised that the authors, coming out of the Dutch EA school, like to talk about decomposition, modeling notations, and using Archimate. Students will here find a fine introduction, but need to go elsewhere if seeking actual, practical guidance. The same goes for the Normalized Architecture Organization Maturity Index (NAOMI), an assessment framework designed to determine an organization’s architecture effectiveness. We get an introduction, but not enough info to apply this NAOMI.

    Teachers and advanced learners should check both Hinssen’s book and Op ‘t Land et al’s book out. I continue to use Scott Bernard’s Introduction to Enterprise Architecture, but may reconsider what I use a supplementary books. Maybe Hinssen will end up replacing Ross/weill/Robertson, or at least, supplementing it.

  • FruITion

    Subtitled “Creating the Ultimate Corporate Strategy for Information Technology”, you might go and pick up the recent book called FruITion by Chris Potts (blog, articles) expecting yet another book about business and IT alignment. You probably wouldn’t expect a novel. Actually, you will get both, because FruITion is a novel about the relationship between IT and business.

    So maybe I’d better note: Spoiler alert!

    We follow CIO Ian Taylor during a week in an enterprise in London where new strategies are created and heads are rolling. Effectively, we follow how Ian becomes a corporate strategist, learning to write one-page documents with just text and numbers, and how he gets a new job title and a seat in the executive committee. The enterprise ends up replacing Ian the CIO with Ian the Chief Internal Investment Officer, CIIO.

    It’s not a murder mystery, but we do have a victim. The victim is the IT strategy, and it is the CIO who ‘did it’ while committing strategic harakiri as The Last CIO, only to be resurrected as the CIIO.

    Potts tells the story though Ian’s thoughts and conversations. Here’s an example from a conversation between Graham, the Group Strategy Director, and Ian:

    “I’m not sure about Enterprise Architecture. What’s that all about?”

    “It’s the people who do what we currently call Strategy.”

    “What do they ‘architect’, as you call it?”

    “Business processes, information, systems, technologies.”

    “That’s not enterprise, that’s capital.” He saw my blank look. “Factors of Production. Economies.”

    “Economies or not, it’s what everyone calls Enterprise Architecture.”

    He seemed to accept this retort, at least for the time being.

    “Well, if it’s a core competency, we’ll integrate that, and Business Amalysis, into my own strategy group and learn where they fit.”

    p 172-173

    And later, in the end, Ian tells us:

    “One of the first things that Graham did with his new Enterprise Architects was to get them architecting ‘enterprise’ as defined by economics, rather than just ‘capital’. He wanted them working on people’s ideas and motivations for creating maximum value from the capital we were investing in, as well as helping to shape that capital.” p 214

    Actually, these two places are just about the only places in the book where Potts/Ian talks (literally) about EA. There is quite a bit more talk about capital and investment strategies. Had the book been a bit longer and more educational, I’m sure Ian the CIIO would eventually have introduced ValIT, balanced scorecards, and EVM.

    If it were me writing the story, I would have chosen to have Graham, Ian and the others talk about coherency management, embedded architecture and evergreening the enterprise. Potts brings us only half-way there, but at least goes in the right directioon I think, by emphasising the need for strategy alignment.

    Potts did an interview with Claudia Imhoff, which I found interesting to listen to. Partly becuase Potts talks about the book, but also because I found Dr Imhoff’s comments and questions quite revealing: She doesn’t get it (Potts message), and I’m afraid she is not the only person not getting the message.

    The book’s title, Fruition, is a good one. But it’s a pity that Potts offers the usual, narrow meaning of the word, as bearing of fruit, getting value, reaping the benefits. As John Smith has taught me, there is a Buddhist three-fold logic of Ground, Path, and Fruition, where fruition means direction and level of development, the creation of an enlightened culture. This may be what Potts means by “architecting ‘enterprise’ as defined by economics, rather than just ‘capital’”, but I’m not sure.

  • Business of Government Research

    I’m very pleased to announce that The IBM Center for The Business of Government has selected me as a recipient of a research stipend in the area of Transforming Government.

    As a grantee, I must write up a report (monograph) presenting new approaches to improving the effectiveness of government, and it should assist public sector managers in effectively responding to their mission and management challenges. In my case, it will be a report about how enterprise architecture can be used to improve the effectiveness of government.

    The Center’s reports are generally of a very high quality, so I realise I’m up for a challenge. But what a great one it is!

  • Aligning the Ducks

    Ducks. Aligned Ducks.

    If big challenges don’t scare you; and
    If you like to eat elephants one bite at a time; and
    If you want to know what we do for who and why; and
    If you want to be part of solutions that contribute real and enduring value;
    Then Enterprise Architecture and New Business Architecture is right for you.
    — Gary Doucet

    The keynote speaker at the annual Architecture Conference organised by the Danish government, and held in Ã…rhus on 2-3 April, is Gary Doucet, Chief Architect of the Canadian Federal Government. He reports to the federal CIO in the Treasury Board Secretariat. Last week, I caught Gary in between his snow shoveling exercises the other day, and conducted an interview with him. It has now been cleared, so here goes:

    Why don’t you start by telling us about what is going on in general in government in Canada?
    “There is always a lot going on in the government. We are constantly working to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies in delivering quality programs and services to Canadians.”

    What are the priorities?
    “The Government of Canada is working to improve accountability through transparency, enhancing the collective ability to manage and reallocate resources, improving the quality and reliability of information to support decision making, and its management practices as well as streamlining its processes, policies and administrative functions. We are doing this through a number of initiatives, such as:

    • the Federal Accountability Act, which brought forward specific measures to help strengthen accountability and oversight in government operations;
    • the Corporate Administrative Shared Services Initiative, which helps us identify opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of corporate administrative processes such as finance, HR and material management and services government-wide;
    • IT-Shared Service Organization, whose mission is to be the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence for the delivery of IT infrastructure solutions to federal institutions. They have the mission to consolidate the IT infrastructure of the Government of Canada (current emphasis is on data centres, desktop and network services);
    • a Policy Suite Renewal initiative which is an effort to streamline our policies, standards and guidelines while at the same time clarifying responsibilities and accountabilities within government;
    • an Expenditure Management System Renewal which is an effort to streamline our budget and management processes to ensure our focus is on maximized results for resources expended. Better outcomes for our investment dollar; and
    • the Management Accountability Framework which sets out the Treasury Board’s expectations of public service managers, especially deputy heads, for good public service management measure the management performance of government organizations”.

    The Federal Government of Canada is indeed busy it sounds! How do you get everything to work together?
    “Getting things to work together in such a diverse array of initiatives is not easy. For our part, we’re starting to introduce some of our EA tools to support these initiatives as well as our improve existing management practices. In particular we are rolling out GSRM (Governments of Canada Strategic Reference Model) and BTEP (Business Transformation Enablement Program) where and when it makes sense.”

    Tell us more about GSRM and BTEP, please.
    “BTEP is essentially a collection of best practices knitted together around a common structure and language for the business of government. That common language is GSRM, which is a public-sector-business-driven model that was developed by municipalities years ago. Some of these municipalities (like Peel and the City of Winnipeg) used it (called MRM – Municipal (Services) Reference Model) to better understand their expenditures and results. It allowed cities to compare their results to each other. It allowed a better understanding between investment and outcome. Years later, provinces began to leverage the model, adding their unique features to handle the services of provincial governments. Calling their model PSRM – Public Service Reference Model. The province of Ontario was a leader in this space. About 5 years ago we started work to extend the model for the federal government. The model was missing a few elements, national defense as one example, but the basic constructs were the same. It was at this time that the idea that a method based on the reference models took hold.”

    To many, GSRM may be seen as strange words and fancy talk. Is that really required?
    “Think about the bridge you drive home on last night. As a user, you care about certain things, where is it, how many lanes, is it slippery when wet, and generally how it looks. You trust that people with engineering and architecture degrees built it safely. When those people get together, they will talk about the bridge using terms from the fields of Civil Engineering (e.g. Static’s and Dynamics) and they will talk about coefficients of elasticity, tensile strength of steel, etc. The argument I make is that Business is complicated, like a bridge. It takes real science to architect and engineer it. Precision around the language of business design is necessary the same way it is necessary for the bridge. Within this context, GSRM and BTEP were first written for the architect community of practice, not the end users. Moving forward, as EA matures as a recognized best practice, increasingly we are seeing the executive and business owner groups look to common consistent program, service, information, technology and organization design, guided by best practices – like those embodied with EA.”

    Why would the CIO care?
    “For years, CIO’s as a profession have been working on capturing business in order to build systems. Capture Business — Design Systems. To do this, the profession has come up with tools and methods to help with the process of capturing the business in order to build systems. These tools are pretty powerful. Then, something strange happened. Somebody, somewhere made the leap from: ‘Capture Business — Design Systems’ to ‘Capture Business — Design Business’. These methods and tools became business capable and business centric. That is, the common languages we are discussing today would be used not for the sake of building some IT solution; instead, we do it simply to design better business. Answering questions like: what do we do, why do we do it, who benefits, and how much does that outcome cost. This idea is not all new but there are things that make it different. The models, tools, forms, etc of this new approach form a type of ‘science’. It is holistic. It is powerful. This advancement might be seen as the pivotal change in Business – IT relationship. But it also – and more importantly – a vital tool for business designs.”

    So what is the vision?
    “How about this as a vision: Business/Program/Service experts plan and design their programs, services, processes and clearly identify outputs, outcomes, target groups, etc. using a set of tools and methods they are experts with. Their processes are detailed, their job descriptions are synchronized with the processes, citizens can understand their services and how other services within link to what they see. Business experts do all of this. Then one day, the business people decide the want to automate something and need to adjust an IT enabled part of the business. Instead of relying on the interview process, the IT people pick up the designs (from a tool they also know). That which was previously gathered in an interview is now already there because the business experts needed it there to design their processes, services, etc. That’s simply the business being better able to deal with IT folks. The real interesting challenge is business people speaking to business people. It is a common occurrence to have programs looks at clients in completely different ways. When we start projects with multiple jurisdictions we see even more challenges for interconnections. That is why GSRM is critical; it forces each player to look at the business through a different set of terms and within a rigorous common reference model and structure. But after a few exercises, the participants will begin to see connections they never knew were there. The BTEP method helps get through this initial hump. It is like many other strategic planning methods, the difference is that BTEP uses a common language and very strong structure.”

    Is this really happening?
    “Well, let me tell you a real story. I attended a meeting where Ken Cochrane (our CIO) was asked his opinion about the technology required to resolve this huge business issue involving billions of dollars of program delivery. Ken was asked to talk about recommended solution approaches. The conversation revolved around technology, managing large technology projects, service oriented architecture, ERPs, data centres, software, etc. Then it was time for Ken to speak. For the next hour we talked about business requirements, business design principles, service design, service standards, outcomes and designs with well understood recipients. We talked about business design and processes. Yes, we would help, but we would help by asking our business ‘scientists’ to work with the business owners. We would NOT address business questions with technology answers.”

    Gary calls this stuff ‘Business Architecture’ to indicate how it is similar to how one might architect the bridge.

    So in concluding the interview, Gary says, “We must start to address these bigger issues. It starts, I believe, in understanding your business. Like a builder understands a bridge, not how a driver understands a bridge.”