- Adaptive Enterprise
Welcome to our blog. This is an archived post, most of our knowledge and advice remain valid but some material or links may be outdated. Click here to see our most recent posts.
When work on the business function model / capability map is well underway, Brenda is confident that she can promise management a first product to be delivered in a few weeks’ time. She has organized weekly meetings with the team for updates and reviews and things seem to move along at a slow, albeit steady pace.
This frees up her hands for the next topic to be addressed: where are we going?
Brenda realizes that, in order to assist management in decision making about an overhaul of the IT-landscape she needs quite a bit of information… not just about the IT landscape. Both in the baseline and the target situation she needs to understand the relation between products/services, data/information, and systems.
To start the discussion, Brenda wants to plan a series of short, focused workshops to gain a deeper understanding in questions such as:
These are big questions, and Brenda knows that (a) management time is scarce, and that (b) it will take some time to get all of these answered. That’s “ok” though. Getting the information is only one reason for asking: keeping management on their toes and making sure they play an active role in the development of the target architecture are equally important.
After some discussion with her sponsor, Brenda gets the thumbs-up for a full-day kick-off session with management and their strategic advisors. She asks the management assistant of her sponsor to plan the session in 2 weeks, and makes sure her sponsor discusses the session in the next management meeting. As she had anticipated, there was some grumbling with respect to two things. First of all, the amount of time she claims did not sit too well with some, and secondly, some people suggested that it is “nonsense” to talk about these things.
In order to be well prepared for the session with management, Brenda decides to formalize the thoughts and ideas that exist in her group on the lay of the land in the “stakeholder department”. She uses best practices from her own experience, but also the techniques as described in TOGAF on stakeholder management. For documenting and analyzing the stakeholder landscape the Motivation extension in ArchiMate is perfectly suitable. Following TOGAF, for each stakeholder she makes an initial assessment of their power, interest and attitude towards the initiative to transform BriteLite’s business in the proposed direction. BriteLite’s EA tool BiZZdesign Enterprise Studio allows her to capture this detail and based on that generate a stakeholder analysis view. One of her draft versions is shown below.
To soothe the emotions a little, Brenda starts the sessions with some case studies about why these elements are key, illustrating each point with clear examples. She then proceeds with the stakeholder map …which takes up most of the day! What was thought to be a “quick and easy exercise” turns out to be pretty tricky. Doing this thoroughly gives her some credit and at the end of the day she has at least achieved an action list:
This is a pretty good result. Brenda and her team are well under way with the capability map, which frees up time to start on the analysis of products and services.
As before, Brenda stars with a brief introduction in the way of modeling, based on the ArchiMate specification:
Much to her surprise, some team members had already studied the ArchiMate specification + discussions on LinkedIn groups, so the team “gets it” rather quickly. They agree to take a three-step approach: first come up with a list of all the services and definitions, then do the bundling in products, and finally come up with a categorization.
By now the team has claimed a meeting room for the duration of the project to use as a “war room”. All intermediate results that are stable enough are printed on posters and mounted on the wall for easy reference. The room is also well stocked with whiteboards, flipcharts, sticky notes, markers etcetera.
An initial brainstorm results in a preliminary list of services. Each team members takes a full copy of this list for validation with various roles and departments: marketing, product development, and sales are among the key players in this realm. After consolidation, the list of services is grouped into products by creating a matrix in the BiZZdesign Enterprise Studio:
The team is aware that this captures the essence of the products/services architecture, but that some additional services may have been missed. The consensus is that these will be caught only when a ‘layered view’ is created where services are linked to processes. This will reveal additional customer interactions and services that should be added to the model. After some further debate, the team agrees that this is “good enough for now”. However, Brenda reminds them that an additional product should be made: grouping the products into categories.
The team is ‘unsure’ about this area. A preliminary brainstorm on the whiteboard does not help much. They call in the cavalry by bringing in one of the ‘old timers’ from marketing which seems to do the trick. After a quick discussion about the goals of the exercise the team gets to work and comes up with the following categorization:
To wrap-up, Brenda make sure the team creates the following ArchiMate view:
 J. Ross, P. Weill and D. Robertson, Enterprise Architecture as Strategy -- Creating a foundation for business execution, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.