Technology V Requirements the Chicken and Egg dilemma

A recent tweet from a business analyst said,

“We need to change the system so that it works for you, instead of you working for the system.”

As much as this is laudable in the true business analytical form of establishing requirements first and then build the system the practicality and real world scenario is somewhat different.

With the increasing use of cloud service platforms that spread the costs of development over large numbers of clients the reverse becomes reality. Changing systems to fit to your specific needs is expensive and time consuming, the alternative though is a loss of differentiation.

I feel a similar way about sector capability frameworks if an insurance company has the same capability map as another how does it make itself competitively different.

Over recent years we have seen, driven by technology platforms, a move to standardised working. The economic pressures of reduction in development costs and SAAS platforming has increased commoditisation.

This trend results in value being created through cost leadership - size and the spread of fixed costs being the order of the day.

On our course in developing operating models we address this issue and use a matrix grid to plot choices whether to build buy adapt or use stitch and glue addressing the balance between value chains delivery (differentiation) and cost. #businessarchitecturetraining #operatingmodels #business analysis.

Methods seem to be the answer to all business change issues, follow a methodology and all is well. As the years pass I see repackaged ideas with new fancy names, promoted by fancy graphics and delivered by accreditation and expensive training courses. Each one is the new silver bullet that becomes the mantra of the cult that follows - it nothing changes.

Methodologies actually restrict creative thought, create silo thinking and result in increased costs in change due to  focus on method rather than outcomes. What is needed is a more critical evaluation of methods using the right tool for the right tasks not just blindly following the latest craze.

These thoughts stem from thinking about Dave Snowden's work on Cynefin which I was introduce to earlier this year - see earlier posts. It illustrates that one dimension thinking results in trying to apply a method to inappropriate scenarios. Why do I say this? Well previously I was a business process    management acolyte I did lean and had played with 6 Sigma now and again. I was in "disorder" see Cynefin Model but didn't know it!

My business architecture paradigm was  - strategy, design, deliver in a holistic top down approach what I now realise that this is fine for the simple and obvious domains and perhaps for complicated - "the fine engineered watch"  - but not for the complex and chaotic where centrally controlled design blue prints, EA and  holistic business architectures just don't fit.

Whilst it is still valid in many cases a one stop method doesn't fit every organisation, especially those based on emergent strategies and evolutionary change.

So, time to think about dynamic operating models and techniques in these more challenging zones.

Complex and complicated - More depth

Some weeks ago I mentioned the two types of systems -  complex and complicated - a topic stimulated due to a client ask. In the meantime several colleagues pointed to the Cynefin framework by Dave Snowden who is cited as the creator of this idea.

Cynefin is a welsh word meaning habitat and the framework has five zones or domains. The two we already know are Complicated and Complex but the others are: simple (obvious)  , Chaotic and the fifth in the middle Disorder. The latter is a state of not knowing where you are at all whilst the other four are states to identify where you are and once identified give guidance to how to respond.

The framework is a sense making tool and as such does not have defining axes , as confirmed by Dave Snowdon in a response to a tweet on the topic last week. It is all about identifying your system state and how to respond - useful thinking.

Where do operating models sit?

Well certainly in the  obvious(simple zone) and probably in the complicated zone, but probably not in the complex zone and most definitely not in the chaotic area.

One final point to add is an organisation may well have several parts operating in several zones at the same time - life is often not simple!

If you search Cynefin there are some nice short explanatory videos  on YouTube, one by Dave Snowden himself. see Video Dave Snowden.There is a nice artistic graphic on creative commons licence by Sketching Maniacs see Edwin Stoop Cynefin illustration graphic.

Complex and Complicated

I was first exposed to systems thinking back in 2001 when working with some guys at Detica. The idea of a system of interactions with feed back loops and knock on consequences is fairly clear. Peter Checkland positioned it in literature but his books were a hard read.

Times change and new ways of presenting things appear to help us understand older concepts better. Recently I came across the words Complex and Complicated and although at first it seemed a bit semantic it cleared up some previous thinking with a nice model.

The words sound the same but as presented the complicated system is one with an engineering basis where things are difficult but logical and where 1 + 1 make two. The complex system however is more chaotic where the reaction to changes may not necessarily produce expected results.

How does all this fit with operating models? Well, it re-enforces the idea that there is not one form of operating model if a system some are complicated and some are complex and others have bits of both.  In a practical sense how does this realise itself? In low variability high volume organisations often mass market frequently B2C the model is one that describes a Complicated System - it is about algorithms processes and the elimination of variety in the operation. In these cases the business runs like a Swiss watch made up of many interacting well oiled components consistently delivering the same result time and time again - typical lean sigma territory.

The model of a system that is complex is more likely to be in services where there is a high rate of variety and heterogeneity - each case is different each customer interaction is a unique set of professionally applied offerings, Process maps are almost pointless if not impossible to define. Typically these are B2B or sometime B2C but with a more professional services slant; consultancy, accounting, legal actuarial and other markets. The third option, this is probably highly common, is a mix of the two with a transcational core surrounded by a complex startegic product development outer shell.

This is helpful because often people in BPM or 6 Sigma peddle a "one way fits all" approach and in reality things are not as simple as all that. The words might be clumsy, I do feel there must be better ways to describe this, but the thinking behind it is sound.

Using tools properly

Business studies is full of two way grids ,matrices and canvasses of one type or another, These range from well known acronym driven tools like PESTLE SWOT to the now famous business model canvas,

As a lecturer in degree level business I see students getting the wrong end of tools; they think as long as they can talk about PESTLE or SWOT or Porter's Five forces they know Strategic management inside out.

Unfortunately the tools and acronyms give a false sense of security; many students know the tools but fail to use them well. This is not just for students business professionals also fall foul of generalist lists or a patch work quilt of "post it" notes on a flip chart. What is missing is the motivation behind a listed factor.

The classic at the moment for any PESTLE analysis or SWOT threat is BREXIT.  Apart from every poorly managed and failing business blaming BREXIT rather than themselves, the threat is rarely explained.

This type of thing is especially seen in PESTLE and if you don't explain the reasoning for something on the list and its consequence clearly stated then doing the PESTLE in the first place is pointless.

Kaplan and Norton also got frustrated when the great Balanced Score Card  resulted in massive lists under the headings and had to write another book to rectify the poor usage - Strategy Mapping,.

Rubbish in rubbish out - no tool or framework is going to solve that for you.

Senior Management don't get AGILE.

On a recent Twitter discussion a tweeter was complaining about senior engagement and asking where senior managers get their information and attitude about AGILE.

I wrote back and said that software developments whatever they are are so low down in the weeds that C level exec have very little knowledge and interest.

Upward selling of methodologies is always a looser's game and we focus too much of the latest fad or trend ; this is particularly a problem in the technology space. It stems from an over introspective view of what we do and an over inflated importance in terms of tactical issues in the bigger picture.

In the echo chamber where everyone is doing and saying the same then there is little perception that others outside of our world just don't see things as importantly as we do.

Focus on what methods deliver - outputs-  not on selling the brand of the methodology. I have seen too much of people evangelizing about one method or another,  whether it is Six Sigma , Lean or Agile, or anything else for that matter, it is just counterproductive. So many change initiatives start with selling some silver bullet approach rather than getting on with delivering quality outputs.

Forget the selling the method, the training and the overview pitches just use it to do good things - that is what earns respect; the  pay rises and bonuses will follow.

Strategy a difficult lesson.

Traditional strategy theories based on the VMOST type approach and those of Porter and Mintzberg present unconvincing output among students.  Mission, goals and vision are easily stated but the problem comes when trying to teach people to convert these into meaningful actions. There seems to be a missing link ,a gulf if you like, between traditional corporate strategy statements and operating model design.

The development of the business model canvas helps here greatly but it still fails to appear in the main textbooks that stick to the older strategic planning tools and theories.

The business model and the expansion of the "how to" part of that model - the operating model is key.

What we need to do is to try to connect up the steps in "strategy to reality" or "strategy to execution" from these currently isolated separate steps into a more continuous development that logically takes us through iterative developing steps towards a sensible outcome that is meaningful in both strategic and day to day terms.

The four steps to success - strategy operating model development implementation and control need to have tools and techniques that create a much more visible end to end process rather than being stuck in their own worlds.

Strategists, architects, project managers and finally the operational managers ,who have to realise the strategy day to day,  all talk different languages and use different approaches that seem to pull everyone in towards the middle of their own area of expertise.

This year we hope to expand on this thinking as we develop a strategy to execution storyboard to help people link strategy through to business as usual using a set of simple tools and approaches.

I have been trialing these ideas with our third year undergraduate students who are studying the UK's only specialist degree in insurance. The Strategic Management Module has given me a great opportunity as a lecturer to try to stitch the parts together and make some sense of the stages that traditionally are taught in a separate way.

I will keep you posted!

2019 A New Year and a promise.to post more.

This blog has been running for since 2013 and I should post more, I know. It is easy to forget or focus on other things. So let me start the year with better intentions with a new brief post.

As I start 2019 I see  reduction in the interest in business architecture as a term and a discipline as in recent years it seems unfortunately to have been absorbed and assimilated by the "Borg" of I.T. Self important guilds and bodies have just, to be frank,  certificated it to death.

What is clear though is that the underlying techniques and tools still are in demand, but from business people in operations and from elsewhere outside of the I .T. department. In reality the term business architecture is not in their vocabulary at all but what they do is. I suppose in truth it doesn't really matter as we should not be marketing a discipline or role as such, which has been quite common over the years, but what is important is the promotion of the right type of good solid design methods.

Marketing the discipline has passed; let us now focus on the outcomes and how to achieve those outcomes instead.

1. What is the future operation going to look like and why? 
2. How do I communicate why we are moving this way? 
3. How do I analyse this poorly presented strategy?
4. How do I avoid transformation failure and unnecessary expenditure?
5. Are buzzword topics  necessary or are they a distraction?
6. How do I plan what to build and when?

Some key questions, a sample set among many others,   that will be answered in 2019.

Happy New Year.....

The Cheshire Cat and Operating Models

On reviewing an article on operating model choices - I researched a phrase which is a slight mis-quote from Lewis Carroll - 

‘if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there’.

It describes the futility of operating model work without strategic direction. It was used to suggest a good strategy is essential prior to design. The real passage has a similar meaning and is apt.

‘Cheshire Puss,’ she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. 

‘Come, it’s pleased so far,’ thought Alice, and she went on. ‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’

‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.

‘I don’t much care where—’ said Alice.

‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.

‘—so long as I get somewhere,’ Alice added as an explanation.

‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, ‘if you only walk long enough.’

Pretty much sums up a lot of business change – enjoy!

T34 Poznan (Posen-Ferstung) Poland. Military Capability

When looking at kit like this you start to think about capabilities in a different light. Military analogies and historical case studies help things make a lot more sense to "services" business people, steeped in process thinking, who often struggle with the capability modelling concept. The ability to tackle enemy heavy armour reliably on the Eastern Front WWII , cheaply and in quantity was what made the T34 a capability supporting asset; a war winning weapon for the soviets.  Looking at battle field examples in the field - Poznan Poland-  rather than prepared examples given to the west, (such as those specimens at Bovington (Dorset)) shows the fit for purpose finish in its true form.  The build speed for a T34 was many times faster than its German rivals and the cost many times lower than the iconic Tiger II. Simpler, easier to maintain, cheaper and faster to deploy the technology backed up by a superior production system won the day. T34 Poznan (Posen-Ferstung) Poland.

Process mapping is not always universally a good thing.

Process management is promoted as the answer to most operational difficulties. Get stuff mapped, understand the measures that deliver what stakeholders required and reduce the variability. Tool vendors "lap this up" and provide repositories and mapping tools to do the job plus add-ons in some cases to create business architectures - great.

Like many things it all becomes, in some cases a bit too much, where the above approach is preached by some as the only way - basically if you don't do this you don't know what your are doing! It becomes simplistic with mantras like " if you can't measure it you can't measure it "," Your standards aren't standards" that doesn't comply with **BPMN 2.0 so it isn't professional process mapping. and so on.

The approach described is probably fine in high volume low variety environments where doing the same thing the same way makes measurement and outcomes consistent. Quality systems require compliance to documented processes and systems; this is all wrapped up in this *BPM paradigm.

However what about environments where the service provided is nearly always different every time a client pulls value? Does it then make sense to map processes and engage the BPM way of doing things. Process mapping implicit knowledge of professional knowledge workers is pretty hard - I have tried a few times over the years and it is a bit pointless as an exercise I can tell you!

So what is the message here?

The point I am making is that  methods and techniques have to be appropriate and just because you are an expert in one method or another don't get drawn into thinking that it is the only way and please stop,  reflect  on what you are saying because some of the evangelism we see in some methodologies today is highly counterproductive.

 AGILE, Six Sigma, Scrum, Prince 2 to name a few candidates for consideration- I am sure readers can think of others where it has all got a bit too much.

*BPM Business Process Management
** BPMN Business Process Mapping Notation Version 2.0.

New Canvas

The Book Available from Amazon.

The book operating model canvas written by Andrew Campbell et all and  published last year by Van Haren, it is a fine colourful read, however it needs more substance behind its introductory text of the zones of the POLISM framework. In order to fill this gap Kirill Deverenski and myself, with permission of the author,  have been writing some supporting articles - one for each zone.

The operating model canvas seeks to expand the left hand side of the now Osterwalder's fairly famous Business Model Canvas by providing a pull out and replace plugin for: Supplier, Key Activities and Key Resources.

In essence  these pieces try to explain the role of tracing value through the model and flesh out the various things you need to think about and provide some steps for each zone. please see.

www.operatingmodelpartners.com

We hope to complete the series soon with the Information Zone. This material and the thinking behind it support our: How to use the Operating Model INFORMATION ZONE Now OUT! SEPT 18.


el Canvas Course available for booking for corporate groups.  It may well also result in a work book in 2019  - we shall see.

Standards in Business Archecture - "A Land Grab" ?

The other day I came across a list of myths about business architecture  that were being dispatched into the "shredder" with vigour.

One myth that was being torn down was.

“There is no commonly defined approach to business architecture”.

I was really unhappy about the language being used and the message being promoted:

The myth was dismissed by saying: Yes there is! It is well defined and used across the world, it goes on to say that: those that claim otherwise -saying “business architecture is an art not a science - are self-serving and prolonging the journey to achieving business architectural value” Wow….

A pretty radical claim– perhaps a bit arrogant - don’t you think?

In other words we know what business architecture is; we created the standards and everyone else outside of our club can just go away.

This would be a more accurate and genuine statement:

“There are organisations who publish proprietary methodologies for the application of business architecture.”  

There is nothing wrong with the standards that this group is promoting, in fact most of what they say is pretty sensible. What is objectionable is the idea that this then becomes the so called de-facto standard.  It is a standard - yes - but to claim it as a common standard - the only way- is "pushing the envelope".

Are we saying that  - "if you don’t use these standards or methods then you not doing business architecture?" Are we constraining business architecture by trying to get everyone to produce the same stuff? I would argue yes - many other agree too.

On another occasion I saw a post saying 

“we had a consultancy in here that produced a slide deck that didn’t conform to standards” -

as if this was a heinous crime. In reality why would I pay high day rates to get standard materials? I want consultants to be innovative and present new ways of thinking and ways of communicating messages.

On reading the myths and the proposed approach business architecture must therefore mean a much tighter environment that I and many I associate with think. For example I know one individual that dislikes capability maps intensely and he thinks value chains are they way to go; is he less of a business architect than others? In fact this  individual is a substantial strategy author with many books to his name and years of experience; but if he doesn't use capability mapping then this isn't business architecture say the standards body!

Many colleagues find that their business stakeholders don’t like the artefacts that these so called standards produce and therefore produce different materials which are artistically crafted to communicate skilfully their messages. They use their skills to craft models and diagrams to satisfy messages and client needs. 

Please note the use of the phrase “artistically crafted” so from their perspective is business architecture and art or a science? Actually the answer is probably a mix of the two.

There are two forces at work here: standardisation and innovation and your view will probably be different depending which camp you sit in:

• If you are an I.T. person looking outwards to get clarity from the business and then communicating those findings back to your software developers then standards are great. Observe, record and populate the standards.Same format, same look; consistency is great for coders and analysts all of whom know the language and taxonomy – super. 

• However if you are shaping a change and need to select techniques and innovate or motivate others to identify requirements, messages and present pictures of the future then standards get in the way.

Let us postulate which group the standards body originate from?

If I have an operating model that shows how the organisation works to create value for customers and it is done using Domains of Change: POLISM or CCPPOLDAT or some other construct; is that now not business architecture. Perhaps my definition is too broad?

Some say The I.T and project management world has been ruined by methodology based standards, accreditation and certification. Only last month articles were on LinkedIn saying PMP and Prince2 were the worst thing that has happened to PM, devaluing the profession and turning project managers into administrators.    Why has this happened?

“Surprise - Surprise” Money. Professional Associations, Clubs, Guilds and the like have membership fees, they run accreditation and certification programmes - more fees. 

They appoint and certify training organisations - more fees. They work with software vendors to produce tools that work to the standards - licensing fees and so it goes on.

Fine create a methodology to sell and promote – carry on please - but have the courtesy to promote it as it is a proprietary approach not as a panacea or universal standard.     

EA reclaims itself?

Linkedin is full of posts with EA's trying to reclaim the title this is all sponsored by one particular well meaning individual.

The posts are asking to claim back the fact that EA is all about I.T. TOGAF style not anything else.

We find it a bit amusing as they are right in their own way; in at least they recognise what their EA actually is based on what most people with this, rather odd, title actually do on a day to day basis; but it is really amusing when the label doesn't just doesn't fit.

These guys just don't like the fact that Enterprise Architecture is viewed by some as architecting the enterprise.

Other protagonists argue that EA is more than just architecting the I.T. across the enterprise: systems thinking, strategic planning/thinking, consulting  and design. They say "EA doesn't do what it says on the tin" in most organisations. True.

 All these parties  have an opinion, which is fair enough, but it causes so many problems in positioning this type of activity in the business for both EITA , EA and architecting in general.

Highly confusing all round, no wonder business people raise and eyebrow and shuffle off down the corridor.

EA is really EITA or is it?
Is business architecture a subset of EA or has EA become so abused as a term that business architecture has to take the lead as the overarching discipline?

This has been going on for years and in truth it is getting boring.

John Lewis and Marks & Spencer Executives working up from the ranks - "Lifers Benefit or Hindrance" ?

Linked had one of those congratulating posts last week in reference to the promotion of Nicholds Paula Nicholds to the position of first female MD in John Lewis. 

The theme of the post was "look a women has worked to the top isn't that great" and to be fair I suppose to some that's good. Mind you in some ways it degrades her achievement because if the appointment was to a male than the post wouldn't have been made. So "she got their despite being a women",  which really I'm sure isn't the message and is probably if you think about it a little insulting to her undoubtedly excellent achievement. Good on her or him whoever they are and whatever their gender. John Lewis is a great organisation and persists in a rapidly changing retail environment a bastion of historic retail business models some argue the only  remaining multi site department store in the UK "Are you being served" mold - " Bless you Young Mr. Grace".

One point I saw which I didn't comment on, because I didn't want to be seen to be diminishing the achievement, or to be negative, was the fact that she has worked in John Lewis 22 years working her way up from a lowly start in the haberdashery department, which incidentally is reported she has decided to close. I did start to consider whether having an MD, a strategic role no less, who had worked her way up women and girl to this latest role was such a good idea?

Today, I noticed the announcement of the closure of many Marks and Spencer stores and again saw a senior manager CEO I believe, a Steve Rowe who had worked in the business since he was 15 having spent a year break form M&S elsewhere (Top Shop) at the tender age of 18 before settling into a man and boy career at M&S ; if the maths are correct that means a service of 30-31 years. Some would argue that is great- it shows loyalty, inspires others that anything is possible. It demonstrates an organisation with a career path  and a future.

If you study business change and cultural aspects in particular, then some concerns start to come into play. Corporate change requires an understanding of culture and whether that culture is right for the strategy. The longer you work for an organisation the less culturally aware you become; you see little else and can assume that everywhere else is the same. Seeing what is wrong and challenging the status-quo is pretty difficult when you know little else than that your own organisation. 

I find in workshops in general, long service people have great difficulty in understanding their own corporate culture and whether it is positive or not positive. If an organisation  is set in its ways and cannot change in response to external drivers then there is a big issue. Topics such as strategic drift, death spirals and cultural gravity come to mind in this discussion.

If senior people have not worked anywhere else and have not experienced anything different - are they perhaps part of the problem? Are they going to come up with strategically exciting ideas or is it going to be more of the same. In retail which is in its biggest shake up in its history presently surely walking in the same old footsteps is not going to provide the innovation needed. 

Change leadership is going to be a real challenge for individuals with such introspective background unless they are really talented and have capacity for self-analysis and high levels of reflection.  Not commenting on these two names specifically, most senior people with egos and hubris that goes with the rank are not well known for those qualities!

The reverse we often see too, Executives jumping from one organisation to another, re-engineering slashing and burning, restructuring and leading change. Whatever their lowly status in their early careers the experience is not in the business using the operational processes of the business that they now lead. 

Many see these individuals as not knowing their business, inexperienced in the detail and the mechanics of the operating model. So, too much service or too little what is the answer. 

Probably a mix is the answer; neither too much service nor too little, or a mix at the senior level with some long service people and some newbies balanced in the organisational power structure. 

Some suggest you appoint a solid BAU (business as usual)  character in times of stability and a mover and shaker in times of transformation and hand back to a "Steady Eddie" career long timer after the change. Today though, are we now in continual change; the old Lewin theory of unfreeze - change - refreeze seems a bit "out of touch".

Is retail currently in BAU territory or transformational change? It has to be the latter.

I still think appointing someone to the most senior strategical role having worked virtually nowhere else, with no experience of any other industry too to give you different perspectives is a risky appointment in such a turbulent time in retail. 

Of course these two may well be the exception and I do sincerely wish them both luck and my respect; time will tell.

Operating Model Canvas New Book: Andrew Campbell

I have just a few hours reviewing a book on Operating Models for Andrew Campbell of Ashridge Business School, he runs courses on operating model development too; so we have a common interest in sharing ideas. I have been working with Andrew off and on over the last six months and we have had some interesting discussions which have had some influence on this new book.

We don't agree on everything, as I am sure you can imagine, but in essense there is a common thread there which makes sense.  He likes value chains. I prefer capability maps; he loves organisational charts, I am less keen! But if these methods work and get the results then that is all that is important.

The new book is going to be in the style of Business Model Generation. it is more a pick up and browse a few pages when you need them. rather than a cover to cover read. It is diagram heavy, text light and really colourful.

Looking forward to a publishing date,

Business Architecture " Don't boil the Ocean"

Appropriate modelling to serve stakeholders and communicate particular things is becoming much more the preferred approach than modelling the whole enterprise at all levels of detail.

The business case for a central architecture team is a difficult one to write and to get approved in a changing world. Tool vendors in the majority provide a: holistic model, modle everything approach in their provided databases (meta modals)  and this doesn't help AGILE architecture.

Selling the top down centralised way for doing business architecture is becoming less and less successful as many of these centralised teams are being disbanded in cost cutting programmes. Architecture teams employ expensive people and they need to demonstrate real visible value in pound and dollar terms.

Embedding architecting skills within individuals, who then operate in different roles across the organisation, rather than training specialists and placing them in vunerable teams is growing as the alternative way forward.

Business architecture is evolving and training needs to adapt in response. Through teaching AGILE architecting to support faster and more dynamic responses we can assist. No longer can we justify the cost and time in large centralised modelling teams except in certain strategic situations; such as cost leadership in high volume repeatable activity where controlled repitition is the strategy.

We need to diversify the people across the organisation to maintain and protect the ability to shape and design.

So bin the holistic metamodels! Ask the stakeholder what they what to see and now and model that and stop.

Agile Training

The title suggests some training in Agile approaches, bit of DSDM maybe, SCRUM or Xtreme Programming but what we are talking about is being Agile in training delivery!

Applying lean or Agile principles to training is a little new. Most courses have an agenda, some set slides and a fixed timetable; is this a learner focused approach? If we are not careful this becomes a teacher focused learning experience where we deliver a set programme whatever to a set of delegates. Death by PowerPoint can be the result and how much really gets learnt?

Agile training sets a framework of learning outcomes and a "backlog" of material and resources which are drawn down in response to learner demand. In other words the trainer responds to delegate engagement and delivers what the delegates are interested in; going off the plan is part of the plan.

Of course this type of approach requires a much higher teaching skill set than following a set of PowerPoint's. Many commercial trainers will have difficulty moving away from their serial, step by step, approach. On reflection it is easy to see why this might happen in a world of  content  driven by accreditation and badge collecting.

Accreditation bodies inadvertently create a fixed and rigid approach to training as the content has to be signed off, and to be frank, amendment is bureaucratically fraught and requires more fees to be paid. Accreditation is mostly about fees. So sticking to an unchanging course plan; delivering  time and time again without any reflection and change is the norm. This goes against the theories of teaching CPD big time, yet most commercial training is set in this model.

Training course that change and adapt on each and every delivery in response to learner need are quite rare in reality, but provide a much more flexible and adaptive response to learning requirements. Applying lean principals to learning is an interesting and valuable approach that needs some consideration.

Business Analysis Front of House or Back Stage

When you go to a show you want to see the production. In fact the mystery of how things are done is part of the experience. Knowing the trade secrets often spoils the show. A stage show, or film for that matter, is about receiving the communication. 

Quite often these days a DVD or a streaming site has "how the film was made", or extra features. On Amazon Prime for example this "secrets first” is at the beginning of the list to see, if you don't watch it you can't use the next episode feature on returning because you haven't watched the spoiler - most frustrating.

The "how we did it" is about showing how clever we are in making the film and seeing it in advance to my mind spoils the communication experience. It takes away the magic and spoils the excitement.

I like to use this analogy when training analysts because what stakeholders want to hear or see is the messages and outputs not about how clever or more educated the analyst is.

Why is it then that a large proportion of time is spent selling method and notation to business stakeholders, when it is the outcome that is the interesting bit? The business stakeholder is pretty cynical about this methodology or that methodology, especially us older folks who have seen the latest panacea fall into obscurity time and time again. I’m not suggesting that the excitement and magic is the aim here or “smoke and mirrors” either. In a business sense that is going too far, but the avoiding obscurity of the clarity of the communication is not going too far.

There is a place for the back stage and a place for front of house. Keep the methodologies and lectures on notations behind the scenes.

Nobody likes a “clever clogs” who reminds a business person that they are intellectually deficient and that “we in I.T. or change know better”. As the years have gone by, many operations people have learned to ignore technical types as this cultural faux pas has embedded a sense of frustration and to be frank total dis-engagement. IDEF0 , UML, Prince2, TOGAF and many others do I need to say more?

So many times we lead with method based training and force everyone to conform and adhere to the latest mantra. “They have had the training so now they will perform; job done!” Invariably they don’t perform because it is a case of “here we go again”; last decades business process engineering becomes six sigma, then lean and now agile this and that. So, many times we lead with method based training and force everyone to conform and adhere

Outputs and outcomes are what the show is about, not trying to overtly, or even unintentionally, showing how knowledgeable or superior you are.

So, focus on the outcomes present the method driven results; if the outcomes hit the spot than the methodology can follow if really necessary.  Forget the business training on the latest approach; lead by example and produce successful outcomes then business people will ask you: “how is that done then”, that is the opportunity to provide the education. The sale has already been made.

Operating Models All Look The Same!

Operating Modelling

If you follow I.T based frameworks the you might think that. In reality a model serves a purpose and that purpose is more important than following a prescribed standard. Modelling languages and frameworks help give structure no doubt, but how do your stakeholders view them?

The reality is that most business people  don't have the time to get their heads around alien notation and ISO standards that so many people spend hours on linked in groups discussing and arguing about.

Stakeholders want clear messages and easy to consume material that is relevant to their needs as well as forming part of a joined  up picture - architecture!

If your organisation follows a cost leadership strategy then your operating model is likely to be process centric with lots of focus on squeezing out every "ounce" of waste and cost. The BPM vendors are all about this and some of them market excellent tools to help create such models but what if your business is different?

If your reason for existence is not about the lowest cost to provide a comoditised product; but is about innovation and differentiation a process centric operating model is hardly of interest. The processes probably change case by case, week by week  and keeping it all documented is going to be a futile waste of effort.

Operating models need to be structured to communicate the right things to the right people. So don't start with a methodology, framework or modelling tool and impose it on your colleagues. Start with stakeholders first and understand what is required.

If you want some more help in developing Operating Models then perhaps think about organising a seminar  or one to one mentoring programmes from Dever Solutions Limited
www.deversolutions.co.uk