L'Chaim for Body and Soul

Please see my new article in The Times of Israel called "L'Chaim for Body and Soul."

Everything that happens in this world has not only a physical dimension but a spiritual one as well. Our very existence is a combination of body and soul, so naturally they work together in tandem. And our physical well-being must be matched by our spiritual alignment with God.

(AI generated image from Craiyon)

L'Chaim for Body and Soul

Raising the Bar By Aligning Expectations and Personality

I always love on the court television show Judge Hatchett, when she tells people: "I expect great things from you!"

The Pygmalion Effect says that when we have high expectations of performance for people, they perform better.

In other words, how you see others is how they perform.

While behavior is driven by a host of motivational factors (recognition, rewards, and so on), behavior and ultimately performance is impacted by genetic and environmental factors—“nature and nurture”—and the nurture aspect includes people’s expectations of us.

Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, people live up or down to expectations.

For example, studies by Rosenthal and Jacobson showed that if teachers expected enhanced performance from selected children, those children performed better.

When people have high or low expectations for others, they treat them differently—consciously or unconsciously—they tip off what they believe the others are capable of and will ultimately deliver. In the video, The Pygmalion Effect: Managing the power of Expectation, these show up in the following ways:

• Climate: The social and emotional mood we create, such as tone, eye contact, facial expression, body language, etc.
• Inputs: The amount and quality of instruction, assistance, or input we provide.
• Outputs: The opportunities to do the type of work that best aligns with the employee and produce that we provide.
• Feedback: The strength and duration of the feedback we provide.

In business, expect great things from people and set them to succeed by providing the following to meet those expectations:

• Inspiration
• Teaching
• Opportunity
• Encouragement

Additionally, treat others in the style that is consistent with the way that they see themselves, so that there is underlying alignment between the workplace (i.e. how we treat the employee) and who the employee fundamentally is.

Normally people think that setting high expectations means creating a situation where the individual’s high performance will take extra effort – both on their part and on the part of the manager.

However, this is not necessarily the case at all. All we have to do is align organizational expectations with the inherent knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employee, and their individual aspirations for development.

The point is we need to play to people’s strengths and help them work on their weaknesses. This, along with ongoing encouragement, can make our goals a reality, and enable the organization to set the bar meaningfully high for each and every one of us.

Raising the Bar By Aligning Expectations and Personality

Toward A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board

A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board (FEAB) would provide “teeth” to further implementing enterprise architecture across government.

We have a Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) that provides a government wide framework for architecture strategy and planning, but we do not have a FEA Board to govern the subsequent IT investments through capital planning and investment control (CPIC). CPIC is the governance process whereby we select, control, and evaluate new IT investments.

Interestingly, The Federal CIO Council’s Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide (October 2000) specifically calls for complementary EA and CPIC functions (see graphics).

In this paradigm, the enterprise architecture (EA) informs, guides, drives the CPIC, and in turn the decisions from the CPIC governance process updates the EA planning, so that the EA and CPIC processes are seen as mutually supportive.

In the federal government, we have departmental and agency architectures and boards that serve to plan and govern IT investments at their respective levels. However, as we seek to build greater standardization, interoperability, and reuse across government with IT initiatives that cut across traditional government boundaries driven and guided by the Federal CIO and Federal CIO Council, there is a need for a FEAB to review new and major changes to IT investments.

There would be many purposes for the FEAB.

• Strategic alignment: One would be to ensure strategic alignment not to any single department or agency mission, but rather to the greater federal government strategy and policy. Some examples of this would be data center consolidation, green IT, open government, and more.
• Streamlining of investments: Additionally, the FEAB would assess IT investments to ensure that there is no overlap or opportunities for consolidation of initiatives. OMB performs some of this function today, but a FEAB would augment their capability with IT subject matter experts from across the government.
• Other key benefits: Of course, the FEAB would also look at things like return on investment measures, risk mitigation plans, technical compliance to federal architecture standards and mandates (security, privacy, records, FOIA, Section 508, etc.).

The FEAB would not be a substitute for the EA Boards that provide oversight functions at the department and agency levels, but would provide governance for the largest and riskiest IT initiatives and those that cut across different agencies.

While the OMB currently assesses IT investments using Exhibits 300s and 53s, which include EA assessment questions, the FEAB would provide a governance board made up of cross-cutting governmental IT subject matter experts to vet these business cases from an EA perspective thoroughly and provide recommendations to the Federal CIO Council and the OMB on approval or denial. Therefore, and not unimportantly, the stand-up of a FEAB would add an important human factor to the Federal Enterprise Architecture and make it “real.”

Of course, with a portfolio of some 10,000 IT systems, the FEAB would not be able to govern every new Federal IT investment. Therefore, it would be critical to establish thresholds that would be practical for implementation.

I would envision the FEAB being chaired by the Federal Architect and the board being a recommendation body to the Federal CIO Council and the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.

Critical initiatives by Federal CIO Vivek Kundra to effectively manage (i.e. CPIC control phase) IT investments through the Federal IT Dashboard and TechStat sessions would be augmented by the FEAB work to carefully recommend for selection (i.e. CPIC select phase) new federal IT investments.

Together, I see the federal select and control mechanisms of CPIC functioning in harmony to enhance governments IT planning, investment decision-making, and execution. Essentially, the FEA (architecture) and FEAB (governance) on the “front-end” will guide new IT investments, and the IT Dashboard and TechStat sessions on the “back-end” will ensure IT investments are properly progressing for the taxpayer based on cost, schedule, and performance measures.

In summary, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Board would be the governance arm of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, and serve as a support to the IT leadership of the Federal CIO, the Federal CIO Council, and the IT budgetary functions performed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Toward A Federal Enterprise Architecture Board

Decoding Decision-Making

Decision-making is something we have to do every day as individuals and as organizations, yet often we end up making some very bad decisions and thus some costly mistakes.

Improving the decision-making process is critical to keeping us safe, sound, and stably advancing toward the achievement of our goals.

All too often decisions are made based on gut, intuition, politics, and subjective management whim. This is almost as good as flipping a coin or rolling a pair of dice.

Disciplines such as enterprise architecture planning and governance attempt to improve on the decision-making process by establishing a strategic roadmap and then guiding the organization toward the target architecture through governance boards that vet and validate decisions based on return on investment, risk mitigation, alignment to strategic business goals, and compliance to technical standards and architecture.

In essence, decisions are taken out of the realm of the “I think” or “I feel” phenomenon and into the order of larger group analysis and toward true information-based decision-making.

While no decision process is perfect, the mere presence of an orderly process with “quality gates” and gatekeepers helps to mitigate reckless decisions.

“Make Better Decisions,” an article in Harvard Business Review (HBR), November 2009, states, “In recent years, decision makers in both the public and private sectors have made an astounding number of poor calls.”

This is attributed to two major drivers:

Individuals going it alone: “Decisions have generally been viewed as the prerogative of individuals-usually senior executives. The process employed, the information used, the logic relied on, have been left up to them, in something of a black box. Information goes in [quantity and quality vary], decisions come out—and who knows what happens in between.”

A non-structured decision-making processes: “Decision-making has rarely been the focus of systematic analysis inside the firm. Very few organizations have ‘reengineered’ the decision. Yet there are just as many opportunities to improve decision making as to improve other processes.”

The article’s author, Thomas Davenport, who has a forthcoming book on decision-making, proposes four steps (four I’s) organizations can take to improve this process:

Identification—What decision needs to be made and which are most important?

Inventory—What are the factors or attributes for making each decision?

Intervention—What is the process, roles, and systems for decision-making?

Institutionalization—How do we establish sound decision-making ongoingly through training, measurement, and process improvement?

He acknowledges that “better processes won’t guarantee better decisions, of course, but they can make them more likely.”

It is interesting that Davenport’s business management approach is so closely aligned with IT management best practices such as enterprise architecture and capital planning and investment control (CPIC). Is shows that the two disciplines are in sync and moving together toward optimized decision-making.

One other point I’d like to make is that even with the best processes and intentions, organizations may stumble when it comes to decision making because they fail into various decision traps based on things like: groupthink, silo-thinking and turf battles, analysis paralysis, autocratic leadership, cultures where employees fear making mistakes or where innovation is discouraged or even frowned upon, and various other dysfunctional impediments to sound decision-making.

Each of these areas could easily be a discourse in and of themselves. The point however is that getting to better decision-making is not a simple thing that can be achieved through articulating a new processes or standing up a new governance board alone.

We cannot delegate good decision-making or write a cursory business case and voila the decision is a good one. Rather optimizing decision-making processes is an ongoing endeavor and not a one-time event. It requires genuine commitment, participation, transparency, and plenty of information sharing and collaboration across the enterprise.

Decoding Decision-Making

Leading Through Planning

Recently, I was reminded of two pointers in developing an effective IT strategic plan:

1. Strategic planning is about leadership and setting direction—There is an interesting saying with respect to this that the manager ensures that you do things right, and the leader ensures that you do the right things. The strategic plan, including the vision, mission, and value statements are about leadership establishing and communicating what the ‘right thing’ is. An effective metaphor for this is that the manager ensures that you climb the ladder, but the leader ensures that the ladder is up against the “right” wall.
2. Strategic planning goals, objectives, and initiatives have to be aligned and actionable —that means that you need to set the strategic plan elements at an appropriate level of detail and in cascading fashion. One way to do this is to navigate up and down between goal, objectives, and initiatives in the following way: To navigate to a higher elements of the plan hierarchy, ask why. Why do we do XYZ? To navigate to lower levels of detail and specificity, ask how. How do or will we do XYZ.

Together, these two guidelines help to develop an IT strategic plan that is both effective in terms of goal setting and organizational focus as well as at the appropriate levels of detail and alignment to be truly actionable.

Leading Through Planning

Executives, One Foot In and One Foot Out

The last thing any executive should be doing is getting caught up in the weeds of management. The executive needs to lead and define the organizational strategy and the management team needs to execute. The executive is the link between what needs to get done (stakeholders’ needs) for the stakeholders and getting it done (management execution) through the organization’s people, process, and technology.

How does the executive perform this linking role?

Not by looking myopically inside the organization, and not by jetting around the globe shaking hands and kissing babies. Peter Drucker said “ The chief executive officer (CEO) is the link between the Inside that is ‘the organization,’ and the Outside of society, economy, technology, markets, and customers. “

In Harvard Business Review, May 2009, A. G. Lafley the CEO of Proctor & Gamble see’s that the CEO’s job is to “link the external world with the internal organization.”

The executive is the bridge between inside and outside the organization. And by having one foot in each, he/she is able to cross the artificial boundaries and bring vital stakeholder requirements in and carry organizational value back out.

Lafley breaks down the CEO’s role into four key areas, which I would summarize as follows:

• BUSINESS SCOPE: Determining “the business we are in” and not in.  No organization can be everything to everybody. We need to determine where we will compete and where we will withdraw. GE’s Jack Welsh used to insist on working only in those markets where GE could be either #1 or #2. Drucker’s view is that “performing people are allocated to opportunities rather than only to problems.”
  
• STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIZATION: “Defining and interpreting the meaningful outside”–this is really about identifying who are our stakeholders and how do we prioritize them?
  
• SETTING THE STRATEGY: Balancing “yield in the present with necessary investment in the future.” Genuine leaders don’t just milk the organization in the short term, but seek to deliver reasonable results immediately while investing for future performance. Lafley states “We deliver in the short term, we invest in and plan for the midterm, and we place experimental bets for the long term.”
  
• ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: “Shaping values and standards.” Lafley argues that “the CEO is uniquely positioned to ensure that a company’s purpose, values, and standards are relevant for the present and the future.” Of course, the culture and values need to guide the organization towards what matters most to it, to meeting its purpose, and satisfying its stakeholders.
  

To me, the Drucker-Lafley view on the CEO as a bridge between boundaries inside and outside the organization, can be extended a step down in the organization to other “chief” roles. The CEO’s vision and strategy to deliver value to the stakeholder to the role is fulfilled in part by the chief information officer (CIO) and chief technology officer (CTO). Together, the CIO and CTO marry needs of the business with the technology to bring them to fruition. Within the organization, the CIO is “outward” facing toward the needs of the business and the CTO is “inward” facing to technology enablement. Together, like two sides of the same coin, they execute from the IT perspective for the CEO.

Similarly, the chief enterprise architect (CEA), at the next rung—supporting the CIO/CTO, is also working to span boundaries—in this case, it is to technically interoperate the organization internally and with external partners The chief enterprise architect works to realize the vision of the CEO and the execution strategy of the CIO/CTO.

The bridge the CEO builds links the internal and external boundaries of the organization by defining stakeholders, scope, business strategy, and organizational culture. The CIO/CTO build on this and create the strategy to align business and technology The CEA takes that decomposes it into business, information, and technological components, defining and linking business functions, information flows, and system enablers to architect technology to the business imperative.

Three levels of executives—CIO, CIO/CTO, and CEA, three bridges—inside/outside the organization, business/technology sides of the organization, and business process/information flows/technologies within. Three delivery mechanisms to stakeholders—one vision and organizational strategy, one technical strategy and execution, one architecture plan to deliver through technology.

Executives, One Foot In and One Foot Out

IT Planning, Governance and The Total CIO

See new article in Architecture and Governance Magazine on: IT Planning, Governance and the CIO: Why a Structured Approach Is Critical to Long-Term Success

(http://www.architectureandgovernance.com/content/it-planning-governance-and-cio-why-structured-approach-critical-long-term-success)

Here's an exrcept:

"IT planning and governance undoubtedly runs counter to the intuitive response—to fight fire with a hose on the spot. Yet dealing with crises as they occur and avoiding larger structures and processes for managing IT issues is ultimately ineffective. The only way to really put out a fire is to find out where the fire is coming from and douse it from there, and further to establish a fire department to rapidly respond to future outbreaks."

IT Planning, Governance and The Total CIO

IT Planning, Governance and The Total CIO

CIOs are consumed by day-to-day tactical/operational IT issues and firefighting IT problems, and as a result, there is a lack of focus on IT planning and governance—two of the biggest problems facing CIOs today.

ISACA, an organization serving IT governance professionals, conducted a survey consisting of 695 interviews with CEO/CIO-level executives in 22 countries, and published the results in IT Governance Global Status Report 2006.

Here are some of the amazing findings from this study.

Firefighting predominates: “Organizations are suffering from IT operational problems…only 7% of the respondents experienced no IT problems at all in the previous year…Operational failures and incidents…are mentioned by approximately 40 percent of respondents.”

IT’s alignment with Business is weak: Only 56% of the organizations surveyed “understands and supports the business users’ needs.”

Strategic Planning is underrated by CIOs: “More than 93 percent of business leaders recognize that IT is import for delivering organization strategy…Somewhat paradoxically, general management perceives the importance…slightly higher than does IT management.” In fact, in the public sector, IT was viewed as a commodity versus strategically by 47% of respondents!

IT governance is lagging: “CIOs recognize the need for better governance over IT,” to align IT strategy and manage risks. Yet, “when asked if they intend to do or plan IT governance measures, only 40 percent replied in the affirmative.”

Liza Lowery Massey, who previously served as CIO of Los Angeles, says in Government Technology, 9 July 2007:

“Establishing IT governance up front is the No. 1 thing I would do over in my career. IT governance is crucial to a CIO’s sanity.

Further, Liza wrote in Government Technology, 14 April 2008:

“Now when I help my clients implement IT governance, I see the benefits firsthand. They include shrinking your IT department’s to-do list, achieving IT/business alignment, putting teeth into policies and standards, and focusing departments on business needs rather than technology. My work life would certainly have been smoother had I set up governance to address these issues instead of trying to handle them all myself.”

CIO Magazine, 1 November 2006, has an article by Gary Beach, entitled “Most CIOs Fail to Convince Top Management That IT Can Transform Business.”

In this article, Gary notes that the rate of investment in IT is half the rate of corporate profit growth, and he asks why?

Certainly, the failure to align with business, and effectively plan and govern IT is hindering CIO’s ability to succeed.

The unfortunate result, as Andy McCue reported in Silicon.com on 26 April 2007, is that “CIOs and the IT department are in danger of being relegated to the role of support function because of a lack of vision and technology innovation.”

The answer is clearly for CIOs to “stabilize the patient” and get out of firefighting mode, and allocate sufficient time, attention, and resources to IT planning and governance. Only in this way will CIOs effectively align IT with business requirements, solve genuine business problems, innovate and transform the enterprise, and fulfill the strategic role that the business is looking for from them.

IT Planning, Governance and The Total CIO

Home Depot and User-Centric Enterprise Architecture

Operational efficiency can be the downfall of customer service.

Home Depot, with approximately $80 billion in sales is #22 on the Fortune 500. They are the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer with over 2200 retail stores, and after Wal-Mart, they are the second largest retailer in the U.S.

Yet, Home Depot has been on a slide, according to Fortune Magazine, 29 September 2008.

“Over the past several years a trip to the big orange box has so often ended in frustration that the company once famous for its helpful employees became fodder for late-night TV jokes and home to hundreds of blog rants about bad experiences and disengaged or scarce employees."

How has this affected business?

“On the University of Michigan’s American Customer Satisfaction Index, Home Depot fell eight points in seven years, to 67 at the end of 2007. It was the largest drop for any retailer in the index, while rival Lowe’s remained steady at 75…In this third year of decline, Home Depot’s same-store sales dropped 7.9% in 2008 second fiscal quarter; rival Lowe’s posted a 5.3% drop.”

What went wrong at Home Depot?

In 2000, Robert Nardelli of GE took over as CEO, acquired 30 companies and nearly doubled revenues, but he also imposed the rigorous GE style “systems- and data-culture, to help centralize purchasing and merchandising…[focusing] on growth and efficiency” and assessing store managers on 30 metrics, but “none related to customer service.”

Can you believe that Home Depot used 30 measures and NOT ONE had to do with customer service???

Unfortunately, says Ken Langone, one of the founders of Home Depot, Nardelli “didn’t appreciate the importance of a kid on the floor with an apron on.”

“The focus was on the metrics below the sales line, but not sales itself,” says a regional manager. “Stores became dirty, employees, surely or scarce. The result a company that looked better on paper, felt much unhappier in person. And in the retail business, where the customer experience is what matters most, that unhappiness eventually showed up at the cash register.”

Back to customer basics:

Now, under new CEO Frank Blake, Home Depot is returning to its customer-driven roots, and as a result they are closing the same-store sales gap with Lowes and stopping the slide in customer satisfaction. But regaining the trust of their customers will certainly be a challenge and a road to recovery.

As I read this story in Fortune about Home Depot and internalized it, I came to appreciate more than ever the duality and criticality of User-centric Enterprise Architecture (UCEA).

UCEA is not just developing the enterprise architecture with our users in mind (i.e. providing critical strategic information and governance services to the executive decision makers, line of business program and project managers, and IT professionals)—that is only one part. Perhaps the more critical element of User-centric EA is focusing the enterprise’s architecture on its customers. The way to continuously move the organization into the future is to always to focus and refocus on the organizations’ customers—on their needs, tastes, and continuous satisfaction.

The key is to align the business and technical architecture with customer needs. The organization will only succeed if its users are getting what they need and that is the architecture that must be developed and refined over time.

Home Depot and User-Centric Enterprise Architecture

IT Portfolio Management and Enterprise Architecture

“IT portfolio management is the application of systematic management to large classes of items managed by enterprise information technology (IT) capabilities. Examples of IT portfolios would be planned initiatives, projects, and ongoing IT services (such as application support). The promise of IT portfolio management is the quantification of previously mysterious IT efforts, enabling measurement and objective evaluation of investment scenarios.” (Wikipedial)

IT portfolio management is a way of categorizing IT investments and analyzing them to ensure sound IT investment decisions. IT portfolios are frequently evaluated in terms of their return, risk, alignment to strategy, technical merit, and diversification.

Why do we need IT portfolio management—why not just assess each project/investment on its own merit?

The added value of developing and evaluating IT portfolios is that you can ensure the diversification of your investments across applications and infrastructure; new systems/major enhancement to existing systems and operations and maintenance; new R&D, proof of concepts, prototypes, and pilots; between strategic, tactical, and operational needs, and across business functions.

ComputerWorld Magazine, 7 April 2008, reports that Hess Corp., a leading global independent energy company, developed creative IT portfolios based on three types of initiatives:

1. Bs—“business applications or business process improvement effort that’s aimed at increasing revenue or generating cost savings.”
2. Es—“enablers” or projects to support business applications such as business intelligence, analytical systems, master data management, systems integration.
3. Ps—“process improvement within the IT organization itself” such as standardizing the approach to applications development (systems development life cycle), project management, performance management, IT governance, and so on.

From an enterprise architecture perspective, we develop the target architecture and transition plan and assess IT investments against that. Again, rather than develop targets and plans and conduct assessments based solely on individual investment alone, EA should look at the aggregate investments by IT portfolios to ensure that the EA plan and subsequent investments are properly diversified. An EA plan that is overweighted or underweighted in particular IT investment categories can have a negative to disastrous effect on the organization.

IT investments represent significant expenditures to organizations and IT is a strategic enabler to mission, so messing up the IT plan with poor investment targets and decisions is costly to the enterprise.

IT Portfolio Management and Enterprise Architecture

Leadership, Change, and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture is about planning, managing, and measuring change in an organization. To effect change requires true leadership, and this requires multiple skills.

In the book, The Leadership Triad by Dale Zand, three essential forces of leadership are presented—knowledge, trust, and power. These leadership forces guide constructive organizational change.

“Like three horses pulling a chariot, these forces, if coordinated and working together, provide a swift and exhilarating ride. But if one force is mismanaged or pulls against the others, the ride is bumpy and can end in disaster.”

Effective leaders integrate the three forces of knowledge, trust, and power to drive effective change and maintain efficient operations in their organizations: “They know what should be done, they have the trust of their people, and they use power appropriately:

1. Knowledge—“leaders know or can find out what should be done…they have vision and they know how to fulfill that vision. They set clear, challenging goals, and they know what needs to be done to reach the goals…they know how to gain access to the knowledge of others, and they know how to work with people to convert that knowledge into action.”
2. Trust—“people trust effective...leaders, giving them loyalty and commitment… [They] earn trust by disclosing relevant information, sharing influence, and competently using knowledge. They earn trust by fairness in their dealings with others—fulfilling the spirit of their agreements, sharing rewards and hard times and not abusing their power.”
3. Power—“leaders use their power appropriately. They know how to be directive or to delegate. They know how to review and evaluate constructively. They know how to be consultants, providing guidance rather than issuing commands.”

Why not just lead in a command and control fashion like in the military or law enforcement organization?

“The heroic fantasy of one person at the head of a column and followers shouting ‘charge’ as they mount the battlements is outdated. Instead leaders need to learn to use the sensing, searching, and thinking ability of all people within the organization.”

How are these leadership skills similar to those necessary for implementing enterprise architecture?

Knowledge, trust, and power are the cornerstones of an enterprise architecture program.

1. EA makes information transparent and provides information products to distribute knowledge and enable better decision-making. EA information is critical to decision-making, particularly in terms of ensuring sound IT investment management decisions, IT planning, analysis of problem areas—uncovering gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities--driving business process improvement, reengineering, and the introduction of new technologies to the organization.

“In the twentieth century society crossed…into the information age, marked by the emergence of the knowledge organization.”

“Competitive advantage in the information age is in constant jeopardy—knowledge is fluid, and creative thinkers leapfrog over existing knowledge.”

“Knowledge travels with the speed of thought, but can be blocked by the smallest emotional barrier. It can enlighten the entire organization’s operation, yet it can easily be concealed if people do not want leaders to see it. People throughout organizations continually acquire and create important, critical knowledge about customers, [suppliers], products, technology, costs, and competitors. But that knowledge can remain hidden and inaccessible to leaders. In the new world leaders need to liberate knowledge and creative thinking at all levels and in all corners of the organization. To compete, leaders need to move knowledge from where it is to where it can be used to define and achieve appropriate goals.”

EA helps to synthesize information and liberate knowledge to meet strategic goals.

2. EA is based on the trust of business and technical leaders and staff across the enterprise. EA synthesizes business and technology information. It relies on the trust of divisions, departments, and subject matter experts (SMEs) throughout the organization to share (and not hoard) information and build a results-driven, process-oriented, interoperable, standardized, cost-effective organization, rather than a siloed, ineffective one. In an EA-directed organization, siloed functions and management relinquish their own personal interests and perhaps, selfish motives and instead plan for the good of the overall organization. For example, decisions on IT investments are made based on enterprise priorities and cost-benefit-risk-architecture considerations, rather than who has the money to spend.

“Trust regulates the disclosure of information—how open people are with relevant information…trust regulates mutual influence—how receptive people are to each other’s goals and concerns, and trust regulates control—the intention to fulfill the spirit of a decision and willingness to rely on another person to implement her part of the decision.”

“Mistrust causes people to censor, delay, and distort relevant information. Social uncertainty compounds ambiguity, masks difficulties and deprives leaders of the opportunity to make high-quality decisions

3. The EA Board (chaired by the chief enterprise architect) ensures that proposed new IT projects, products, and standards align to and comply with the enterprise architecture. EA must have the power to mandate and enforce alignment and compliance or else the target architecture and transition plan is just a sham that will not yield enterprise results and achieve stated goals. Additionally, EA must have the ability to require SMEs to contribute regularly to the development, maintenance, and use of the EA. The business and technical SMEs are the owners of the EA content and must be partners with the EA team in ensuring that the architecture is kept current, accurate, and complete.

“Power is the ability to influence others so that they do or do not do something.”

“Leaders have legitimate power to determine the process by which decisions will be made.”

Knowledge, trust, and power are three dimensions of leadership that are the foundation for an effective EA program. EA ensures that the information needs of the organization are met in terms of business and technical baseline and target architectures and transition plans. EA relies on the trust of its organizational partners in the business and technical domains to share information and adhere to architectural decision and standards that are in the best interests of the overall organization, rather than any one individual, group, or function. And finally, EA requires the power to ensure alignment to and compliance with the architecture and the decisions of the architecture board or else EA is just a paper tiger and will fail.

Leadership, Change, and Enterprise Architecture

“Sacred Cows” and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture develops the organization’s baseline and target architecture and transition plan. EA is an endeavor of change and transformation from current state to future state. To achieve organizational change successfully, the “sacred cows” must be made change-ready.

In the book, Sacred Cows Make The Best Burgers, by Kriegel and Brandt, the authors explain that the greatest inhibitor to organizational change is people’s resistance—people are the gatekeepers of change and people are the enterprise’s most stubborn of sacred cows!

“Sacred Cow—An outmoded belief, assumption, practice, policy, system, or strategy generally invisible, that inhibits change and prevents responsiveness to new opportunities.”

What’s with this analogy to cows?

“Cows trample creative, innovative thinking. They inhibit quick response to change, and cost money and time. They roam everywhere…yet many organizations continue to worship their sacred cattle. They’re afraid to abandon what once made them successful, and they extract a heavy fine from those cow hunters who would ‘pasteur-ize’ them.”

What’s the imperative for change now?

“It’s hurricane season for American business. Winds of change are barreling in from all directions. Competition is tougher than ever and coming from places you least expected. The customer is more sophisticated and demanding. Technological change is incessant. Government regulations are tougher. And everyone is restructuring, reorganizing, reinventing, downsizing, outsourcing—all at ultrasonic pace.”

What are we doing about it?

“New programs, processes, and strategies have been introduced to help you keep ahead of these changes and eliminate sacred cows. In fact, they’re emerging almost as fast as the changes themselves…reengineering, total quality, virtual teams, ‘horizontal’ corporate structures…”

What are the results of these change efforts?

• “Though it’s predicted that U.S corporations will spend $34 billion on reengineering, most efforts will flop.”
• “Some statistics say seven out of ten reengineering initiatives fail.”
• A McKinsey study found that “a majority of companies researched achieved less than a 5 percent change due to reengineering.”
• “Two-thirds of American managers think TQM has failed in their companies.”
• “The number of applicants vying for the Malcolm Baldridge Award…has fallen since its peak year in 1991.”

In short, “The ’Q’ [quality] word has become cheap currency.”

Why do these change efforts fail?

• “People’s resistance to change is ‘the most perplexing, annoying, distressing, and confusing part’ of reengineering.”
• People resist change because “change is uncomfortable, unpredictable, and often seems unsafe. It’s fraught with uncertainty and always looks harder than it is….change brings us face-to-face with the unknown, and that evokes our worst imagined fears: We’ll be fired, humiliated, criticized. So we dig in our heels.”
• “We’ve seen workers fight change for months and years because they didn’t understand it, were afraid of it, or didn’t see it being in their self interest. It’s naïve to assume that the bulk of the workforce will come around. Even when resistance seems to disappear, most often it’s just gone underground, and will resurface when you least expect it.”
• “Management consultants who deal with companies in transition know that the ‘people’ part of change is critical. And that it is most often overlooked and undervalued.

“The reason that three fourths of reengineering efforts fail…is that the focus of change is on work processes, new technology…and decentralized services rather than on the people who must implement change.”

From a User-centric EA perspective, this last point is critical. Enterprise architecture efforts, by definition, are focused on business, technology, and the alignment of the two. EA looks at business process improvement and reengineering and the introduction of new technologies to enable mission success. Traditionally, EA did not look at the human element—the people factor. The necessity of measuring people’s change readiness and assisting people in transitioning to new ways of doing things is one of the most important elements of any change initiative. As I’ve written previously, Human Capital is the missing performance reference model in the Federal Enterprise Architecture. All this points to the importance of transitioning from traditional EA to User-centric EA, where the end-users and stakeholders (i.e. people) are the most important element of the enterprise architecture. How would my kids phrase this, “in the end it’s not the business process or the technology, but the people, stupid!”

What happens if we don’t recognize the centrality of people to the change process?

Plain and simple, change efforts will continue to fail. Money and time will be wasted. Our competition will continue to gain on us and overtake us. Our organizations will be made obsolete by our own inattention to our most important asset—our people!

“Sacred Cows” and Enterprise Architecture

SDLC, CPIC, PMBOK, and EA

User-centric EA seeks to align the various life cycle IT system processes to help users understand, navigate, and complete these as simply and smoothly as possible.

Below is an alignment of the processes for System Development Life Cycle (SDLC), Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC), Enterprise Architecture (EA), and the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK).

SDLC	CPIC	EA	PMBOK
Conceptual Planning	Select	Business Alignment	Initiating
Planning & Requirements	Control	Technical Alignment	Planning
Design			Executing
Development & Testing
Implementation
Operations & Maintenance	Evaluate	Architecture Assessment
Disposition			Closing

The graphic demonstrates that the various IT system processes align quite nicely, and that user seeking to stand up a new system or make major changes to existing systems can follow the basic 7 steps of the SDLC and complete the requirements of CPIC, EA, and PMBOK along the way (the touch points are all identified).

The way to read this graphic is as follows:

For example, in the first phase of the SDLC, the conceptual planning stage, the user does the following: 1) defines their need (SDLC process) 2) develop their business justification and seek to obtain approval and funding from the IT Investment Review Board (CPIC process) 3) develops their business alignment and seeks approval from the Enterprise Architecture Board (EA process), and 4) define their project and seek authorization to proceed (PMBOK process).

For CPIC, users identify the following:

• Select—How does the investment meet business decision criteria?
• Control—Is the investment being managed with the planned cost, schedule, and performance criteria?
• Evaluate—Did the investment meet the promised performance goals?

For EA, users demonstrate the following:

• Business Alignment—Does the investment support the agency mission?
• Technical Alignment—Does the investment interoperate within the technology infrastructure and meet technical standards?
• Architecture Assessment—Is there a need to update the architecture?

For PMBOK, users complete various project management processes:

• Initiating—Define and authorize the project.
• Planning—Define objectives and plan course of action.
• Executing—Integrates resources to carry out project management plan.
• Closing—Accept product or service.

Note: The EA/CPIC alignment is adapted from Architecture Alignment and Assessment Guide, Chief Information Officers Council, August 2001. The PMBOK definitions are adopted from the Project Management Book of Knowledge, Third Edition.

User-centric EA promotes the alignment of the various IT system processes to help users to easily understand the touch points in the various life cycle steps to getting their system up and running. Moreover, the alignment enables the CIO to develop processes and job aids to assist and ‘speed’ users through the process. Thus, the processes are transformed from inhibitors to facilitators of systems progress for the enterprise.

SDLC, CPIC, PMBOK, and EA