The Constraints of EA and Biz Arc Tools

Having spent some time working with a tool vendor over the last year I have come to the conclusion that tools for creating the models in business architecture are a double edged sword.

Clearly the ability to create relationships between business components and then present views appropriate to stakeholders is good, particularly when the meta-model as it always is, is complex and multi-dimensional. However, tools are prescriptive. Tools may or may not support particular methodologies; often they support one or two as the vendor has to pay royalties to the owner of the methodology which pushes up the development cost and ultimately the cost to the purchaser. Some methods like TOGAF are aligned to I.T. architecture and are weaker on the business front and therefore the tool mimics the weaknesses.

Other tools come from a perspective bias like process centric modelling where process sits in the middle and everything connects to it. Process centric tools are designed with keeping a library of processes for the operation controlling and presenting those to business users. In more advanced business process tools other business components are mapped to the process with the process being the hub. This is all fine if the objective is operations mapping and control but what if it isn't?

The trouble with tools is that your thinking gets constrained by what the software tool was designed to model. Invariably most tools are built by I.T systems people to model hard components close to systems requirements. Marketing biased items and HR biased items are invariably absent. Try modelling customer segments, propositions, channels, skills and learning development to link to the more traditional items and then the issues start to appear.

Some tools are just so complicated it takes a week or so of training to get going and then explaining what is going on to business stakeholders becomes a nightmare. In many organisation the purchase and adherence to a tool becomes more important than anything else, architects focus on their tool and the tool becomes the role not the architecture. Adding on to this the serious price per seat for many high end tools means they sit in I.T. hidden away in an ivory tower whilst business architecture needs to be a the "coal face".

I like multidimensional modelling tools but I have learnt not to become obsessed by them.

Who is the customer? - Confuse what is waste and then things unravel from there -

Some sectors have an issue with it not being entirely clear who their customers are and some have suggested reviewing the fundamental definition of waste as a consequence. This was my response on a lean in education forum recently:

"On the matter of redefining MUDA; this is a fundamental philosophy of lean, if we amend that then it is no longer lean. The whole thing will fall apart as people will then want to redefine everything else. I do think however that we can think more imaginatively around the definition of customer leaving the integrity of the core definition in place.

In education there is a customer or stakeholder web with several parties pulling value from the system, some in tension. We need therefore to create a value balanced scorecard that represents this extra layer of complexity. In process work you could traffic light the different types of value-add back to the relevant stakeholders.

This situation is not uncommon, I have had discussions with public sector clients where this very subject has come up; they have the public pulling value, but also have to provide a statutory requirement to the rule of law. In the private sector there are issues within value webs i.e. manufacturer – dealer - consumer, within shared services and outsourcing. This “who is the customer” is a common thread.

However a key point is that these issues must be thought through in advance of training or launching a lean initiative else of the first morning a staff member may well steal the thunder of your programme and potentially de-rail the whole initiative,"

Stereotypes in employment and diversity in the workplace.

"Permanent or Contractor Nothing Else Exists".

Some colleagues of mind discussed recently a fairly frustrating scenario for them. Two of them have been for the last five years or so being running consulting service businesses; they use their network to obtain short term consulting work, sometimes for a week or two, or perhaps a couple of days a week with one client and a couple with another, a few hours there and a few ours here. They make a reasonable living but work is a bit up and down at times therefore they have applied recently for a few traditional roles.

Recruiters and line managers cannot get past the stereotype view that you either work full time on a permanent contract as an employee or you work on contracts one after the other. The idea that people run their own business and are employed by that business and deal with multiple clients with large amounts of time being invested in business development seems to be difficult to grasp. Running a proper business is a permanent position.

They want to see a chronological CV detailing all dates of deployment or demand CV's with no GAPS as one "fool" wrote in a reply to a colleague today. When you run your own small business then this is really an unrealistic request.

The sad part is theses guys are good at what they do but the "employ in my own image " brigade are missing out on entrepreneurial skill sets that would result in much more significant change that employing "dull" "run of the mill" individuals like themselves usually creates.

The "employ in my own image" approach creates a lack of diversity in a business and promotes group think and an unimaginative culture. Statements like "I am looking for cultural fit" actually mean "I am looking to employ people like the ones we already have" which could mean discrimination, and often does. Is this ageism perhaps or worse?

If you have a young staff and a fifty something arrives for interview and he/she is told I don't think you fit in with the culture is that ageism? probably is.

Employing different people from different employment circumstances, cultures, backgrounds and ages is diversity in action, it reflects the society that your customers represent - employ in your own image reduces diversity narrows the culture and limits your ability to serve the community that owes you a living.

A lot of this activity is not often deliberate it is usually down to naivety and ignorance. If a manager has not be exposed to a different way of working and always operated like he/she does then they have limited perception beyond their own world.

Underneath runs stereotypes of age and cultural background that generate anti-diversity behaviours in recruitment. Any amount of government legislation will not solve this, the only thing that can work is management training which brings these issues to the fore and makes people understand what they are doing as most ,to be fair, are blissfully ignorant of what they do and how it affect lives.

I do feel for individuals who have in the face of redundancy gone out and done brave "stuff" and created portfolio income based live styles and then are effectively shunned by the main stream when they try to return to a more conventional approach faced with a short sighted and narrow minded  approach.

I do feel sorry for competent older workers who get interviewed by  a young line manager who then "bins" their application because of "lack of cultural fit" because they don't think the candidate will fit in with the young team.

Mr/ Mrs Salary-man one day it might well happen to you ; open your minds to a diverse workforce and you may well be pleasantly surprised.

Management Buyouts Repeating Failure or Healthy New Start?

I was reading today about a current management buyout where a failing manufacturer in the leisure equipment industry was undergoing a management buyout. One can surmise that recently well publicised poor quality issues and ensuing warranty work has come home to roost. It seems that the existing management team are proposing a buyout which is interesting, if not somewhat worrying.

Management buy outs often fail because the reason they happen is to maintain the jobs of the managers and the workforce. The “new” management team then take a previously failed business model often made worse with an over leveraged balance sheet and just repeat the same model all over again with the same results reappearing after a short period. Minor tweaks and changes are not enough.

Often it an emotional conveyor belt that carries these things forward; very difficult to have true objectivity if one is drawn into the demise of the organisation you work for. On the other hand the emotional ownership  and commitment can be beneficial in drive and leadership but the earlier issues still remain behind the scenes. 

Institutionalised management teams have great difficult in making the step changes to turn a business round as they are often set in their ways; their original lack of skills creating the situation “as is” so making any real beneficial change is very unlikely.

What is needed to turn a failing business around is a fresh approach a different mind-set that gets rid of all the myths, legends and group think within the old business: a different business model a different strategy and a new target operating model.

Attributed to Einstein. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What is strategic architecture?

HNC/D strategy units talk about strategic architecture and it forms a criteria point in the syllabus. Often my students struggle to find a good definition as is it is not present in many text books; so I thought if I placed it here it might help a few people.

Architecture is how components fit together to make the whole so:

Strategic Architecture means how the organisation is constructed to achieve its stated strategy. This will include all the strategic artifacts  goals, missions , visions, business operating models, business models, target operating models and all the components for delivering the strategy including business components, projects and programmes that are created to deliver the strategy.

In essence any identifiable items that connects together with other items to facilitate delivery of that strategy.

As Tom Graves rightly says" architecture represents the lines that connect the boxes". So strategic architecture is how the business is connected together to deliver the strategy.