Organizational Culture and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture is about managing change and complexity in the organization. EA establishes the roadmap to evolve, transform and remain competitive in an ever changing world. Part of change involves continually going out there and simply trying—trying to climb the next rung on the ladder; trying to innovate and do something that hasn’t been done before; and generally speaking, trying to do things better, faster, cheaper.

As children, we all learned the old saying, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.” This lesson can apply to both individuals and organizations.

In EA, we set targets that are ambitious. If the targets are too easy to achieve, then they are not challenging us to be our best. So we set the bar high—not too high, so that we fall on our face and break our nose—but high enough, so that we don’t necessarily achieve the target the first time around. We set stretch targets, so that we really are transforming the organization.

How do we keep the organizations focused on the goals and continuously trying to achieve the next big thing?

Well, people like organizations, need to sincerely believe that they indeed can succeed, and they must be dedicated and determined to succeed and achieve their goals.

The Wall Street Journal, 29 April 2008 reports that “‘self-efficacy’ [is] the unshakable belief that some people have that they have what it takes to succeed.”

This is the differentiator between “what makes some people [and organizations] rebound from defeats and go on to greatness while others throw in the towel.”

Is self-efficacy the same as self-esteem?

No. Self-efficacy is “a judgment of specific capabilities, rather than a general feeling of self-worth…there are people with high self-efficacy who ‘drive themselves hard but have low self-esteem because their performance always falls short of their high standards. Still such people succeed because they believe that persistent effort will let them beat the odds.”

“Where does such determination come from?”

Well, there is both nature and nurture involved. “In some cases it’s inborn optimism—akin to the kind of resilience that enables some children to emerge unscathed from extreme poverty, tragedy, or abuse. Self-efficacy can also be built by mastering a task; by modeling the behavior of others who have succeeded; and from…getting effective encouragement, distinct from empty praise.”

Organizations are like people. In fact, organizations are made up of people focused on and working towards a common cause in a structured environment.

Like people, organizations need to believe in their goals and be determined to achieve them. The whole organization needs to come together and rally around the goals and be of one mind, convinced that they can and will achieve success.

Of course, neither people nor organizations succeed the first time around every time. We can’t get discouraged or be afraid to make mistakes. Our organizations need to encourage and promote self-efficacy among their employees so that they will engage in reasonable risk taking in order to innovate and transform.

“It took Thomas Edison 1,000 tries before he invented the light bulb. (‘I didn’t fall 1,000 times, he told a reporter. ‘The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps’).”

Organizational Culture and Enterprise Architecture

Don’t Get Put Out To Pasture and Enterprise Architecture

When an organization and its people don’t meet the needs of their users, they are sidelined; users will get their needs met elsewhere. It’s the nature of competition and the free market. And as enterprise architects, we need to make sure that our organizations are always meeting our users’ needs. The target architecture must reflect changing consumer tastes, needs, desires, and requirements.

The Wall Street Journal, 29-30 March 2008, reports that in India, milkmen, who used to be respected and productive civil services, have been put “out to pasture.”

In Mumbai, 300 milk delivery drivers show up for work each day, only to sit idle for their eight hour shifts—they read, nap, or play cards or sudoku. “The state government lost its monopoly on milk and consumer tastes changed. But because Indian work rules strictly protect government workers from layoffs,” the workers remain in a perpetual state of limbo.

In 2001, “private careers with higher quality milk swiftly won customers [away from the government dairy] by delivering milk to doorsteps [instead of to curbside milk stalls like the government milkmen did].”

Once the customer got the taste of the better milk and more convenient delivery, they “swiftly deserted.” The bar had been raised and now the consumers wanted, no demanded, the better product and service.

In the past, milkmen “lived in government housing near work, retired with a pension and often passed their jobs to their sons. ‘We enjoyed doing our work because it was a public service. Time flew by.”

But the government milkmen don’t meet the consumers’ needs anymore and now “most of the deliverymen, plus around 4,000 other dairy workers statewide” are on the “surplus list.”

“The dairy used to deliver around 250,000 gallons of milk each morning. Now it sends less than a quarter of that, delivered by private carriers, since the milk trucks were sold.”

One milkman stated: “We want work. Just give us something to do and we will work 10 hours a day instead of eight. I really miss my truck.”

The lesson is clear for organizations and their workers: deliver exceptional products and services to your customers and meet their every realistic need or they will go elsewhere (to the competition) and you will soon be joining the Indian milkmen and missing your delivery truck.

Don’t Get Put Out To Pasture and Enterprise Architecture

Robot Swarms and Enterprise Architecture

In the not-too-distant future, battlefield engagements will involve swarms of robots overcoming traditional warfighters.

This notion is no longer only the domain of Hollywood writers and producers for movies like iRobot, Battlestar Galactica, and the Terminator. The vision is becoming a reality and potentially a devastating one for our adversaries.

The Gulf Times, 8 April 2008, reports: “Robot Troops on the March.”

“Now ground, air, and sea-based robots of all kinds are playing an increasing role in warfare. Pilotless robots are used for reconnaissance, targeting, and missile guidance. Some of them can even destroy targets. Ground-based robots are used for mine clearing and breaching barriers. Many of them are armed and can be used in warfare in high-risk urban environments."

“There will be a time when robots will become the best value for the money. When this happens, a couple of battalions will be able to destroy an enemy tank division.”

What’s the vision or target architecture for robots to fight?

“Each robot will be armed with two-guided missiles and a machine gun [or two]. Equipped for a total of 1,200-2,400 robots controlled by 200-300 operators from a distance of several kilometers, these two battalions will be able to inflict heavy losses on enemy divisions, and destroy most of their tank and infantry combat vehicles.”

Similarly in the air and at sea: “enemy aircraft will be destroyed not by fighters, but by [swarms] of pilotless flying vehicles controlled from flying command posts.” [And] “Nuclear-powered submarines…will encounter the massive use of relatively compact underwater robots capable of carrying torpedoes.”

What are the primary benefits to robotic warfare?

1. Minimal loss of human life, at least on the robot side of the battlefield
2. Minimal financial cost in losing relatively inexpensive robots.
3. Stealth and precision of robots

What are the major limitations?

1. Robots do not have “high-level artificial intellect” that enables prompt reactions to ever changing situations. “This is why remote controlled rather than fully autonomous robots are used.”
2. Robots’ optical systems are inferior to the human eye-brain coordination.

I find this target architecture for the military to be on one hand fascinating and on the other hand frightening.

The potential of robotics for both helping and hurting people is enormous.

ComputerWorld, 12 April 2008, reports that "Robots are really an evolution of the technology we have now...they are evolving into something you will engage with and will serve you in your life somehow."

Robots can work on the assembly line and produce the goods we need to survive; they can work jobs that are dangerous and dirty; and they can provide caretaking tasks and alleviate suffering and the physical demands on people. David Levy, a British Artificial Intelligence specialist even goes so far to predict that by the year 2050, humans will have not only emotional relationships with robots, but even love and intimacy. (OK, this is a little extreme!)

At the same time, robots are inanimate machines, without dictates of conscience or emotion; they can kill people or destroy things without hesitation or remorse. The clincher is that both these potential uses for robots (good and bad) are in the making and will come to fruition. The potential benefits as well as devastation to humanity are enormous.

Reflecting on this, I believe that EA plays an important role in ensuring that IT projects (like robots in warfare) are implemented with careful thought as to the potential consequences and managing the risk of these.

How can EA help with this?

Robots are a target architecture with commercial and military applications. Robots can be used in both positive and negative ways. In a sense, robots are like nuclear energy, which can be used to power the country or for developing weapons of mass destruction.

These targets architectures need to be planned and governed effectively to ensure safety and security. Through planning you develop the requirements, use cases, and develop the technologies, and through governance you make certain that they are implemented responsibly and effectively.

The EA functions of planning and governance are mutually reinforcing and self-correcting. EA plans are a strategic information asset for enhancing governance, while IT governance is the enforcement mechanism for EA plans. In this way, governance can be a counterbalance to planning, so that plans are thoroughly vetted and rationalized. Through governance, we enhance the organization’s decisions and plans and ensure that they are making the “right” investments, that they are wisely selected, implemented, and controlled.

So for example, with robotics, the planning element of EA provides the goals, objectives, and strategies for robotics in the target architecture, while the governance aspect of EA would ask relevant questions about the benefits, risks, strategic alignment, and architecture and ensure a clear way ahead.

EA planning is strategic, while EA governance is tactical.

Robot Swarms and Enterprise Architecture

Procter & Gamble and Enterprise Architecture

Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) is a Fortune 500, American global corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio, that manufactures a wide range of consumer goods. As of 2007, P&G is the 25th largest US company by revenue, 18th largest by profit, and 10th in Fortune's Most Admired Companies list (as of 2007). In 2007, P&G has revenue of $76 billion, net income of $10 billion, and 138,000 employees working in over 80 countries. (Wikipedia)

P&G has a plethora of billion-dollar brands including: Actonel, Always, Ariel, Bounty, Braun, Charmin, Crest, Dawn, Downey, Duracell, Folgers, Gain, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Iams, Mach 3, Olay, Oral B, Pampers, Pantene, Pringles, Tide, and Wella.

What makes P&G such a successful consumer goods company?

P&G is an all User-centric EA company. P&G is focuses on satisfying the end-user and developing products that are truly innovative and improve lives.

Fortune Magazine, 17 March 2008, quotes P&G CEO A.G. Lafley stating that at P&G “we put the consumer at the center of everything we do…our goal is to delight our consumers at two ‘moments of truth’: first, when they buy a product, and second when they use it.”

“At P&G the CEO is not the boss—the consumer is.” Moreover, they “seek out innovation from

P&G is tailoring their target architecture to their end-users, by truly understanding their needs. And P&G has some terrific new ways of capturing their end-user requirements and building new products to meet those.

1. Innovation labs—“One looks like a grocery store, another like a drugstore, and another like different rooms in a typical middle-class American home…By watching how they navigate the aisles and what catches their eye, the company is able to unlock deeper insights into their behavior.”
2. “Living It”—“enables employees to live with lower-income consumers for several days in their homes, to eat meals with the family, and to go along on shopping trips.”
3. “Working It”—“employees work behind the counter of a small shop. That gives them insight into why shoppers buy a product, how the shopkeeper stacks the shelves, and what kind of business propositions are appealing.”

“The idea behind [innovation labs,] Living It, and Working It was to sit down with the [consumers and the] bosses to hear what they needed, even if they couldn’t articulate it directly.”

What a cool EA concept. We can’t always ask our user directly what they need to achieve mission results and conduct business processes—they may not be able to articulate their needs—so we can instead embed ourselves at times in the mission to learn and understand firsthand what the needs are—by using all of our senses (not just listening). Living It and Working It are terrific concepts for architects to better understand the businesses they are planning and governing. Asking about needs and requirements is a first step, but it isn’t enough. We need to see for ourselves what the business needs to be successful in the future.

Procter & Gamble and Enterprise Architecture

Gross National Happiness and Enterprise Architecture

“Gross domestic product, or GDP, of a country is one of the ways of measuring the size of its economy. GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a given country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year).” (Wikipedia)

Generally, enterprise architecture looks to improve business processes and enable them with technology to improve results of operation and productivity measures. Our national productivity is often measured in terms of its gross domestic product (GDP). But is productivity alone really the measure we need to be focused on?

The Wall Street Journal, 22-23 March 2008, reports that in the “tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan,” they have developed a new measure, called Gross National Happiness (GNH).

The idea of GNH is to balance the country’s modernization and democratization with things that will “boost morale.” The leaders of Bhutan “want to prove that they can achieve economic growth while maintaining governance, protecting the environment, and preserving an ancient culture.

“By traditional economic measures, Bhutan is doing well averaging about 7% growth annually over the past decade.” However, “fast growth should also not usher in a consumerist invasion that affects the national mood.” In other words, materialism isn’t and shouldn’t become the be all and end all!

GNH is a commitment “that if we are going to manage this change, we have to be able to measure it.” So “the government has contracted a local think tank to conduct a nation-wide survey to determine what makes people happy and what makes them sad or stressed out.”

“Researchers have fanned out across the country interviewing more than 1,000 households…the sample size is considered large in a country with only 750,000 people and not a single traffic light.”

The survey is quite comprehensive and includes “nearly 300 questions [that] take several hours to complete.”

Interestingly enough, Bhutan’s planning commission was even renamed early this year to the Gross National Happiness Commission—as we know, enterprise architecture is all about planning and governance too; wouldn’t it be cool to call EA, enterprise happiness and have it focus on a balance of organizational performance factors that are not just based on productivity, but also on truly improving human life?

Even the blueprint for Bhutan’s future (or their target architecture) includes happiness as a goal. The plan is called “Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness.” How many of us can say that our organizations’ strategic plans or architectures includes happiness as a dimension of our planning?

While, we focus on architecting our organizations for success, we need to remember that success is multi-dimensional. Yes, productivity, innovation, efficiency, and technological prowess are important. But we must not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is respect for the individual, and as the United States Declaration of Independence so eloquently puts it—what really important— “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Gross National Happiness and Enterprise Architecture

“Clothes that Clean Themselves” and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture develops current and target architecture and transition plans and provides for governance. With the supersonic speed of change in the information technology industry, it is easy to see the necessity for constantly evolving target architectures for IT and associated business processes. However, how does target architecture apply to run of the mill items, like clothing—isn’t clothes, aside from changing fashions and styles, and occasionally a new material or two, pretty much the same old thing?

MIT Technology Review, 20 February 2008, reports on something truly novel with clothing, namely “Clothes That Clean Themselves.”

We’re all familiar with stain-repellent materials (where spills roll off instead of getting absorbed into the fabric), and that’s sort of cool. But relatively speaking that’s nothing compared with self-cleaning clothing—yes, that is for real (and boy, won’t it be nice to save even more on dry cleaning?)

“Researchers…in Victoria, Australia have found a way to coat fibers with titanium dioxide nanocrystals, which break down food and dirt in sunlight…natural fibers, such as wool, silk, and hemp that will automatically remove food, grime, and even red-wine stains when exposed to sunlight.”

Burning out stains and pathogens, but safe to fabric and the skin:

What’s great is that the nanoparticles “oxidize or decompose organic matter,” but “are harmless to skin. Moreover, the coating does not change the look and feel of the fabric. This titanium oxide coating is just burning organic matter at room temperature in the presence of light.

“Titanium oxide can also destroy pathogens such as bacteria in the presence of sunlight by breaking down the cell walls of the microorganisms. This should make self-cleaning fabrics especially useful in hospitals and other medical settings.”

What is the future for these self-cleaning clothes?

Researcher Walid Daoud says that “Self-cleaning property will become a standard feature of future textiles and other commonly used materials to maintain hygiene and prevent the spreading of pathogenic infection, particularly since pathogenic microorganisms can survive on textiles surfaces for up to three months.”

From a User-centric EA perspective, it is amazing how every area of our life, even simple clothing, can be transformed to next level of target architecture through invention, innovation, process reengineering and technological advances--such as information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.

What next with clothing—maybe they can self-fit in the future, so one size truly can fit all?

“Clothes that Clean Themselves” and Enterprise Architecture

“National Innovation Strategy” and Enterprise Architecture

I believe most people would say that the United States is one of the most innovative countries in the world. And this in no small way has led to immense wealth creation for the people of this nation collectively.

If you think about most of the modern day conveniences we have, I believe the vast majority were innovated right here in the good ‘ol US of A. For example, think internet, computer, automobile, airplane, and so on.

Nevertheless many have argued that our innovativeness and engineering prowess has declined over the years.

One interesting news blog on CNET on 7 February 2008 calls for the need for a “national innovation strategy,” to get us out from being “stuck in ‘incrementalism.’”


The author, a former Harvard Business School professor, gives a number of reasons that we should be concerned about our innovativeness:

1. Inadequate public education system—this one is not new; people have complained for years about the state of public education in this country. And while the No Child Left Behind initiative has helped, the system is still not where it should be. As the author states, “the U.S. public education system does not adequately prepare students.”
2. Federal grant system—“inconsistent priorities and lacks funding.”
3. Overseas opportunities—“there are more opportunities for students and scientists in places outside the United States.”
4. Fewer doctorates (and engineers)—For example, “Finland has twice as many Ph.D.’s per capita as the U.S.”
5. It’s a free for all—“different countries have different models, ranging from heavy government direction like Finland, to the U.S. style ‘let ‘er rip” system that relies on bottom-up innovation…a better model is a hybrid that involves many parties, including government, academia, business, and entrepreneurs.”

While I agree that we face many problems in retaining our edge in innovation, I do believe that at heart we are a nation of innovators. And this is founded in republicanism, liberty, capitalism, and our market economy, where we are taught from birth that anyone can be anything (even the President of the United States).

Moreover, I have never seen a dearth of good ideas being talked about, but rather the shortage is perhaps more in the ability to execute on those than in the creative process itself.

Enterprise architecture is itself a discipline founded in creativity, and hence the structure of defining the baseline, looking outward and establishing a target state, and planning the transition. This does not have to be about incrementalism, but can in fact represent true enterprise innovation.

“National Innovation Strategy” and Enterprise Architecture

Virgin Group and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA establishes the baseline architecture, identifies user requirements, establishes a target architecture, conducts a gap analysis, and develops a transition plan to move from the baseline to the target. In some organizations, these steps are distinct, clear, and sequential; in other enterprises, the transformation occurs more fluidly and in parallel.

Virgin Group is an example of the second type of User-centric EA.

“Virgin, a leading branded venture capital organisation, is one of the world's most recognised and respected brands. Conceived in 1970 by Sir Richard Branson, the Virgin Group has gone on to grow very successful businesses in sectors ranging from mobile telephony, to transportation, travel, financial services, leisure, music, holidays, publishing and retailing. Virgin has created more than 200 branded companies worldwide, employing approximately 50,000 people, in 29 countries. Revenues around the world in 2006 exceeded approx. $20 billion.” (http://www.virgin.com/)

Virgin is run by Richard Branson, a very dominant and visionary leader, who enables the rapid and fluid transformation of Virgin from one initiative to the next. Virgin is constantly identifying new opportunities and going after their targets, and they are not afraid to fail. Failure is viewed as part of being an innovative organization that seeks out new targets, ways of doing business, and new ventures.

The Wall Street Journal, 6 January 2008, provides an enlightening interview with Richard Branson with a callout of a quote as follows: “We’re not afraid of occasionally falling flat on our face.”

“Big-think is part of Mr. Branson’s M.O,” and transformation from current to target architectures is second nature for him.

“When he started Virgin Atlantic Airways, he was a 30-something music exec, and everyone thought he was crazy, including his own board of directors…eventually, Virgin Records, his first business, was sold to help support the growing airline… [and] the sales of his record company in 1992 came at the best possible time, just before the traditional music industry headed into a downward spiral that continues to this current day.”

Baseline architecture to identifying target architecture and successfully through transition—mission accomplished!

How is this enterprise architecture? Branson is planning and executing almost in parallel. He synthesizes business and technology and transforms his current organization to ever-greater endeavors.

For example, Virgin Group is now initiating “Virgin Galactic,” which “plans next year to begin taking tourists to the edge of space in a special aircraft.”

Now with the global credit crisis, Branson and Virgin are again on the EA prowl. They’ve identified Northern Rock (a UK mortgage lender) for possible acquisition. As Branson states, “In times of strife, there are certainly opportunities.”

Branson has set his sights on many other ventures—business, environmental, and philanthropic. In 1994, he launched Virgin Cola, going head-to-head with Coke. Recently, Virgin has committed $100M to their Green Fund for investment in alternate energy. “This year, he launched a service of health workers riding around on motorbikes in Africa to help build an elephant corridor in Kenya.”

Virgin is open to tackling the most difficult of problems. These include: finding ways to incentivize countries not to cut down rain forests, and creating massive inland lakes in Africa and Asia to deal with rising sea levels to prevent flooding and cool the earth, and fertilize deserts. These also include helping to counter climate change, and even, through a group called the Elders, to tackle world peace.

No target or plan is too big or far-fetched for Virgin, and it undertakes change with fluidity and grace. Virgin identifies the needs and opportunities to make a difference, establishes its target, and works creatively to transition to the target and achieve its goal. Failure at the margins is acceptable as long as the aspirations and successes loom large.

Virgin Group is a good example of EA performed fluidly and with great success.

Virgin Group and Enterprise Architecture

Branding and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA is concerned with establishing a baseline and target architecture and transition plan for the organization. This endeavor includes everything from performance results, business function and processes, information requirements, systems and technologies, and how we secure it all. But how about including the organization’s brand and reputation in defining the architecture, especially in targeting and planning for a stronger reputation with customers and stakeholders?

The Wall Street Journal, 9 January 2008, has an article titled, “As Economy Slows, Reputation Takes on Added Meaning.”

Organization’s brands can be an asset or liability, based on how well it has been planned and managed and “cared for and fed.”

‘‘Mending reputations can’t be done overnight’ says Kasper Nielson, the Reputation Institute’s managing partner.” As we do in EA, comparing the current to the target architecture and developing a transition plan, Mr. Nielson “takes companies through a seven-step analysis of what’s causing their reputations to suffer, followed by a close look at which constituencies—employees, customers or investors—are affected and what they are seeking. Then it’s time for the hard work of figuring out what aspects of company conduct are helpful and what needs to be fixed.”

Many organizations only care about their technology and business alignment after they run into problems with poor IT investment decisions or programs that are failing or falling behind because of inadequate automation and technological sophistication. Then the organization wants a quick fix for an enterprise architecture and IT governance, yesterday! Similarly Mr. Neilson states about reputation, “A lot of companies care about reputation only after a crisis hits. Then they want to know, can you fix things? They don’t integrate reputation into their everyday processes. That’s dangerous. You have to do a lot of things right to build up a reputation platform.”

“‘Reputation is invisible, but it’s an enormously powerful force,” says Alan Towers, a New York advisor to companies concerned about reputation issues. He encourages CEO’s themselves to assume the role of chief reputation officer.” If brand and reputation is important enough for the CEO to take the lead role, it is certainly important enough to be considered a factor in building an viable enterprise architecture that will consider not only a company’s technology, but also how it is perceived to customers and stakeholders.

Some examples come to mind in terms of applying EA to organizational branding:

1. Do we want to organization to be perceived as a technological leader or laggard?
2. Is the organization viewed as having strong governance, including IT governance?
3. Do stakeholders perceive that the organizations is spending its resources prudently and controlling its investment in new IT?
4. Do stakeholders see the company as customer-centric, providing the latest in customer service systems, sales ordering and tracking, payment processing, website information and transaction processing, online help and other IT enabled user tools?
5. Is technology seen as integral to the future of the organization or a sidebar or worse yet a distraction?

I once heard someone say that “perception is reality”. So, even if the organization is managing their technology and business alignment, if its stakeholders don’t perceive that to be the case, then the enterprise is not being effective with its constituents. The organization must factor stakeholder perceptions and its organizational reputation into the development of its target architecture and transition plan. Brand and reputation does not just materialize, but rather needs to be planned and managed to. EA can help to perform this role.

Branding and Enterprise Architecture

Unmanned Vehicles and Enterprise Architecture

Cars that drive themselves, fiction or a soon to be reality?

General Motors believe that new technology enabling unmanned vehicles is the key to their business future; so GM is setting their sights on this as their target architecture for their turnaround.

The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2008, reports that GM’s new target architecture is to develop unmanned vehicles by 2018.

Chairman and Chief Executive of GM, Rick Wagoner’s “vision of he not-too-distant future, vehicles crammed with cameras, sensors, and radar and navigation technology will be able to brake and accelerate on their own, avoid accidents, and spot congestion.”

Larry Burns, Chief Technologist at GM states “we see vehicles going from being largely mechanical o becoming more and more electronic.”

“Pushing the technological envelope is a key element of Mr. Wagoner’s strategy for turning GM around and positioning the company to compete with Toyota Motor Corp. in the long term. He is convinced being the first with game-changing innovations is the solutions to one of GM’s fundamental problems—battered image.”

While GM’s quality problems have mostly been addressed, consumers still perceive GM to be a stodgy company and have not come back to buy.

Mark LaNeve, GM’s U.S. sales and marketing chief said that “GM believes it must challenge Toyota on technology leadership in order to reverse the negative perceptions of GM and to win back customers who have defected to foreign brands…Toyota right now clearly has a leadership position on reputation, financial results, and many other measures.”

Will this new architecture strategy work for GM?

I wouldn’t bet on it for a number of reasons:

• Toyota is not standing still while GM retools; in fact, Toyota is already on the leading edge with the Prius gas-electic hybrid, and the Lexus luxury sedan that can parallel park itself.
• If GM doesn’t deliver on this technology promise, they will have shot themselves in the foot; it’s one thing to be perceived as behind the 8 ball and it’s another thing to prove that you can’t deliver on your commitments.
• GM has not clearly articulated the business requirement for unmanned vehicles in the consumer market; we are not dealing with the need for unmanned aerial vehicles in fighting the enemy in Iraq.
• GM’s strategy, as presented, is not coherent; they talk about getting ahead with technology, but have not addressed their inferior position on other issues such as financial results and other measures that GM’s Mark LaNeve acknowledged.

From a User-centric EA perspective, GM has still not caught on to the essence of the Japanese concept of Kaizen—continuous improvement and user-centricity. GM is looking at trying to steal the technology mantle from Toyota instead of incremental and evolutionary improvement time and time again. It’s a philosophy you live by, not one that you steal.

Unmanned Vehicles and Enterprise Architecture

McDonalds and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA is focused on meeting the architecture needs of the users and stakeholders.

The Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2008, reports that McDonald’s is changing course and installing specialty coffee bars like Starbucks.

The question is whether this new target architecture for McDonalds is meeting the needs of their consumers or are they simply copying Starbucks business model (but it’s wrong for McDonald’s clientele)?

“McDonald’s is setting to poach Starbucks customers with the biggest addition to its menu in 30 years. Starting this year, the company’s nearly 14,000 U.S. locations will install coffee bars, with ‘baristas’ serving cappuccinos, lattes, mochas, and the frappe, similar to Starbucks ice-blended Frappuccino.”

McDonalds and Starbucks, which at one time seemed to be in completely different market segments are now going head-to-head. “McDonald’s upgraded its drip coffee and its interior, while Starbucks added drive-through windows and hot breakfast sandwiches.”

McDonald’s is expecting to add $1 billion in revenue (to their annual sales of $21.6 billion) from this coffee program and the addition of smoothies and bottled beverages. “McDonald’s is entering the sixth year of a successful turnaround, while Starbucks has begun struggling after years of strong earning and stock growth.”

So it seems like McDonald’s knows what they’re doing right now.

What’s driving the McDonalds-Starbucks convergence?

“Convenience has become the dominant force shaping the food-service industry. Consumers who are unwilling to cross the street to get coffee or make a left turn to grab lunch have pushed all food purveyors to adapt the strategies of fast-food chains.”

“McDonald’s executives say they aren’t launching espresso drinks to go after Starbucks, but instead to cater to consumers’ growing interest in specialty drinks.”

McDonald’s has realized that “they were missing out on the fastest-growing parts of the beverage business. Data showed that soda sales [McDonald’s specializes in Coke] had flattened while sales of specialty coffee and smoothies were growing at double-digit rates outside McDonald’s. Customers were buying food at McDonald’s, then going to convenience stores to get bottled energy drinks, sports drinks, and tea, as well as sodas by Coke competitors.”

Finally, McDonald’s has done extensive research and testing on the introduction of the coffee bars, including “three hour interviews where they videotaped the customers talking about their coffee-buying habits. The researchers got in the cars of the customers and drove with them to their favorite coffee place and then took them to McDonalds and had them try the espresso drinks.”

McDonald’s new strategy is well researched and data driven, and their identification of user needs and trends, like convenience and specialty drinks, is sound and appears like a solid user-centric EA target and plan.

However, could this strategy still backfire for McDonald’s?

Yes, “it could slow down operations and alienate customers who come to McDonalds for cheap, simple fare rather than theatrics. Franchisees say that many of their customers don’t know what a latte is.”

Will the new McDonald’s target architecture succeed?

Yes and no. While McDonald’s is off to a very good start—in February, “Consumer Reports rated the chain’s drip coffee [the precursor to their new coffee bars] as better-tasting than Starbucks,”—yes, I know this hard to believe, for me too—it seems unlikely that McDonald’s can easily emulate the Starbucks ambiance of style, comfort, and hip that their stores offer. Let’s face it, you like to hang out in Starbucks, but you barely want to touch the skeevy environment in McDonalds.

McDonalds and Enterprise Architecture

Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

In the book Translating Strategy into Action, by Duke Corporate Education, the authors provide numerous insights into strategy development that are applicable to User-centric EA.

• Strategy is hard—“As managers, the combination of more information, a faster pace, greater geographic reach, greater interdependence, and elevated scrutiny means the environment we manage and the problem we face are increasingly complex.” The EA strategy is hard to develop, but even harder for today’s overtaxed managers to quickly and simply execute.
• Strategy is a differentiator—“Strategy is about being different and making choices…it outlines where and how a company will compete [or operate]…it provides direction, guidance, and focus when you are faced with choices.” The EA is a differentiator for where and how the organization will operate.
• Strategy is purpose—“Creating strategic context for your team creates a greater sense of purpose by connecting what they are doing to the bigger picture.” The EA sets up an alignment between IT and business and establishes context and purpose.
• Strategy must be adaptable—“Strategy will always be in a state of flux and should be adaptable to today’s fast-paced environment.” The EA must be flexible and adapt to a changing environment.
• Information is king—“Implementing a strategy requires managers to move from data acquisition to insight. How managers make sense of information is what will set them and their companies apart.” In EA, information is captured, analyzed, and catalogued for developing strategy and enabling decision-making.
• Always start with a baseline—“Strategy translation and execution always entails moving from where you are to where you want to be. Without an honest and incisive analysis of where you are, this journey begins on faulty ground.” In EA, you’ve got to have a baseline in order to get to your target.
• Think capabilities—“The more important step is to focus on building the capabilities necessary to achieve these [strategic action] steps, and ultimately the intended vision.” EA should help you define and develop your operational and technical capabilities and competancies
  
• Embrace change—“Get comfortable with change. Continue to learn how to adapt because the degree and pace of change is increasing. Your firm’s strategy will change, maybe not in major ways, but always in subtle and important ways.” EA requires that the enterprise is open to change, not for change’s sake, but for adapting to changes in our environment.
  

Enterprise architecture is a strategic, big picture endeavor. It involves developing the baseline, target, and transition plan. The EA is the enterprise strategy and blueprint for bridging information requirements with IT solutions. EA is the CIO’s strategy for meeting mission requirements.

Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

Indoor Positioning System and Enterprise Architecture

Many of us are users or are familiar with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Navigation, such as the Garmin, which many people use in their cars for navigating their streets and highways. If you ever have tried to use it indoors, you know it doesn’t work typically because the signal inside buildings is too weak and frequently bounces off surfaces.

However, CNET provides a report by Reuters on 12 December 2007 that there is a new satellite navigation system (developed by French company, Thales) that actually works indoors. It is called an Indoor Positioning System (IPS).

What could this new satellite navigation capability be used for?

IPS “was aimed initially at helping fire services, although it could also be used by the police and armed forces. Eventually, it could also be applied in the consumer market and offered as an additional service with GPS-enabled cell phones, allowing users to navigate around shopping malls or airports.”

How does it work?

“The new system was based on a new kind of radio signal, called Ultra Wide Band, designed for very short range and high data-rate links. It uses radio pulses that can, for example, establish the positions of firefighters inside a building with respect to each other and to fire trucks outside.”

From a User-centric EA perspective, this new technology is very exciting. I don’t know about you all, but I very much appreciate my GPS when traveling or stuck in traffic and looking for an alternate route─it is truly invaluable. The extension of this technology for indoor use, potentially linked with our cell phones, makes for a terrific capability for professionals, like emergency first responders, or everyday consumers, like you and I, who can benefit from knowing where we’re going and how to get there. Like EA itself, IPS will help us locate the where we’re going (similar to the target architecture) and will tell us how to get there (like the EA transition plan). IPS is a great new technology for architects to be on the lookout for and a simile for enterprise architecture, itself.

Indoor Positioning System and Enterprise Architecture

Myers-Briggs and Enterprise Architecture

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality questionnaire designed to identify certain psychological differences according to the typological theories of Carl Gustav Jung as published in his 1921 book Psychological Types (English edition, 1923).The original developers of the indicator were Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. (Wikipedia)

The MBTI indicates 16 personality types among people. MBTI helps explain why different types of people are interested in different things, are good at different things, excel in cetain types of jobs, and find it difficult to understand and get along with others.

In MBTI, there are 4 performances or pairs of opposing tendencies that people are ranked on:

1. Introversion or Extroversion—whether the person directs and receives energy from inside themselves or from the outside world.
2. Sensing or iNtuition—whether the person performs information gathering through their 5 senses or through their 6^th sense, intuition.
3. Thinking or Feeling—whether the person conducts decision-making through logical analysis or through a value-oriened, subjective basis.
4. Judging or Perceiving—whether the person lifestyle is driven to come to closure and act on decisions or remain open and adapt to new information.

In the book, The Character of Organizations by William Bridges, the author extends the use of MBTI from individuals to organizations.

“Everyone knows that organizations differ in their size, structure, and purpose, but they also differ in character…the personality of the individual organization.” Knowing an organization’s character “enables us to understand why organizations act as they do and why they are so very hard to change in any fundamental way.”

Applying the Myers-Briggs 4 pairs of preferences to organizations looks like this:

1. Introversion or Extroversion—“Is the organization primarily outwardly oriented toward markets, competition, and regulations or is it inwardly oriented toward its own technology, its leaders’ dreams, or its own culture.”
2. Sensing or iNtuition—“Is the organization primarily focused on the present, the details, and the actuality of situations or on the future, the big picture, and the possibilities inherent.”
3. Thinking or Feeling—“Decision making happens on the basis of principles like consistency, competence, and efficiency or through a personal process that depends on values like individuality, the common good, or creativity.”
4. Judging or Perceiving—“Prefer to reach firm decision, define things clearly, and get closure on issues or always seeking more input, preferring to leave things loose, or opting to keep their choices open.”

Where does an organization’s character come from?

1. Its founder
2. Influence of business (especially a particular industry)
3. Employee groups
4. Subsequent leaders (especially it’s current leader)
5. Its history and traditions

“An organization’s character is certainly going to change over the years. And with all the variables at work, you can see that the changes are going to be somewhat unpredictable…the important point is that at any given time, an organization will have a particular character, which will to a large extent shape its destiny.”

From a User-centric EA perspective, the character of the organization can have a citical impact on the work of its EA practioners. Here are some examples:

• The target architecture—the EA practioner needs to tailor the target architecture to the character of the organization. For example, an introverted organization may be more intent on developing proprietary technology solutions or customizing software to its own ends than an extroverted organization which may be more inclined to out of the box, commercial-off-the-shelf software solutions.
• IT governance—the EA practioner may need to handle IT governance differently if the organization is a judging or perceiving one. For example, if the organization is more judging, the IT Investment Review Board and EA Review Board may be able to come to decisions on new IT investments and their alignment with the organization's EA more quickly than a perceiving organization, which may be reluctant to make firm decisions on new IT investments or may require additional information and details or require exhaustive analysis of alternatives.
• Change management—the EA practioner may need to handle various levels of resistance to change and manage it accordingly based on whether an organization is more sensing or intuitive. For example, if the organization is more sensing, focused on the present and the details of it, then the enterprise may not be as receptive to change as an organization that is more perceiving, big picture, strategic, and future-oriented.

Just as an understanding of your own and others personality helps guide self-development, life decisions, and social interactions, so too knowing an organization’s character can provide the EA practioner critical information to help develop a realistic architecture for the enterprise, provide useful IT governance for investment management decisions, and influence interactions for effectively managing organizational change.

Myers-Briggs and Enterprise Architecture

The Architect of Destruction: Adolf Hitler

While I know that Hitler was a despicable human being (if he even was a human being) and that I’m pushing the limits on the discussion on enterprise architecture by looking back in history at the vile acts that were perpetrated through the lens of enterprise architecture—nevertheless I find it compelling to look at what happened through this lens. I also know that this is a very cursory exploration of this topic, but nevertheless I want to at least introduce it. Hitler used the finest German engineering and business process acumen, coupled with the latest technological advances of his time, to drive his malevolent ends.

Thus Hitler (“may his name and memory be erased”) was an enterprise architect, although maybe not in the modern sense of the way we think of one working for a Fortune 500 company or in the U.S. federal government (fulfilling the mandates of the Clinger-Cohen Act).

Hitler presided over Germany (1933-1945) and architected the German war machine and the obliteration of 1/3 of the world’s Jews (over 6 million men, women, and children!) and well as millions of other innocent victims whom he considered sub-human or just in the way of his plan for world domination.

In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler writes:

• “In a few days I myself knew that I should some day become an architect. To be sure, it was an incredibly hard road; for the studies I had neglected….the fulfillment of my artistic dream seemed physically impossible.”

While Hitler did not end up becoming an architect-architect, he did become a type of enterprise architect, in the sense that he developed a baseline for Germany (what they were, defeated and shamed after WWI), developed a target for Nazi totalitarianism, world domination, and the obliteration of the Jewish people, and he set out on a transition plan for achieving his objectives. Not only this, but he and his henchmen were masters of business process engineering, using the latest technologies of the time to kill and conquer.

• BASELINE: Germany was defeated and degraded after WWI. “The Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of various territories, demilitarized the Rhineland and imposed other economically damaging sanctions. The culpability of Germany was used as a basis to impose reparations on Germany. Germany in turn perceived the treaty and especially the paragraph on the German guilt as a humiliation.”
• TARGET: Hitler documented his detailed plans for Germany’s conquest of the world and the extermination of the Jews in Mein Kampf. “The book was an autobiography and an exposition of his ideology. It was published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926…in Mein Kampf, Hitler announces his hatred toward what he believed to be the twin evils of the world: Communism and Judaism. The new territory that Germany needed to obtain would properly nurture the ‘historic destiny’ of the German people.”
• TRANSITION PLAN:

1. Hitler architected the rise of Germany. “Hitler oversaw one of the greatest expansions of industrial production and civil improvement Germany had ever seen. The unemployment rate was cut substantially, mostly through arms production. Hitler also oversaw one of the largest infrastructure-improvement campaigns in German history, with the construction of dozens of dams, autobahns (highways), railroads, and other civil works. Hitler's government sponsored architecture on an immense scale.”
2. The extermination of Jews was a planned and systematic process. “The massacres that led to the coining of the word "genocide" (or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question") were planned and ordered. Moreover, Hitler had pored over the first blueprints of gas chambers. Hitler was recorded saying to his associates, ‘we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews.’ Extermination camps were the apex of Nazi engineering. Extermination camps were one type of facility that Nazi Germany built during World War II for the systematic killing of millions of people. The majority of prisoners brought to extermination camps were not expected to survive more than 24 hours beyond arrival.”

(Adapted from Wikipedia)

So we see that while enterprise architecture can be a tool for good (like improving organizational performance and mission execution), it can also be used for evil in the hands of a malevolent psychopath like Adolf Hitler.

The Architect of Destruction: Adolf Hitler

Driving Innovation and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2007 reports that “managing innovation is one of the biggest challenges that companies face.” Why? “They not only need to come up with new ideas, but also need to foster a culture that encourages and rewards innovation.”

Douglas Solomon, the Chief Technology Officer of IDEO (an innovation and design consulting firm) provides some insights on how to make a culture more innovative:

In general, “corporations inherently have antibodies that come out and try and kill any innovation.” Small companies don’t have sufficient resources and big companies “don’t always have the thought processes and the skills to really think outside their current business, nor the permission to really do it.”

Here are four things organizations need to be innovative:

1. Degree of discomfort—“there are still people who say, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I don’t think these companies are in a really good position to change…you have to have a certain degree of discomfort in your business to be willing to make the changes that are necessary”
2. Design thinking—rather than analytical thinking extrapolating from the past to the future, innovative thinking requires ‘design thinking’, which is rooted in creativity, optimism and is goal-driven, trying to create new possibilities for a new future.
3. Time to innovate—“you have to actually build processes, you have to support people, you have to give them time…to think on their own…you have to provide a reward system for encouraging innovation.”
4. Risk tolerance—“you have to tolerate risk, if you’re going to try to be innovative.” Doug Merrill the VP of engineering and CIO of Google adds that “Every company in the world says ‘don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness.’ Every company in the world says ‘It’s OK to fail.” And for 99% of them, it’s probably not true.”

In User-centric EA, developing a target state and transition plan for an organization requires innovation. If there is no innovation in your target architecture and plans, then you’re just regurgitating the same old stuff to the enterprise and it’s probably of very limited, if any, value. EA must step outside its traditional box and come to the table with innovative ideas and new approaches to the business; that is it’s real value add.

As we see above, being innovative is hard: It requires sometimes going against the grain, standing out amidst nay-sayers and the ‘old guard,’ looking outside the enterprise for best practices and marketplace trends, and being optimistic and open-minded to future possibilities that are not eclipsed by ingrained thinking and turf battles. Finally architecting the future state must be grounded in present realities (including constraints such as resources, politics, and other priorities and requirements), but innovate we must if we are to make a better state tomorrow than the one we have today!

Driving Innovation and Enterprise Architecture