April 3, 2014
Records Manager Appreciation Day!
Records Management is not about 45s, 33s, or 8-track music collections, but managing key document and electronic records.
It's critically important for an organization to be able to archive and access needed information for managing their business, and enabling transparency and accountability.
Managing records saves us time and money in the long run.
Moreover, as information workers in an information economy, information is power! And we need to be able to get to information, whenever and wherever we need it.
While records may not be sexy unless you're Lady Gaga or Madonna, information is the lifeblood of the 21st century, so say thank you to your records management and information access professionals today! ;-)
October 24, 2013
Performance and Transparency - 2gether 4ever
Here are their store performance measures prominently displayed.
Not a high-tech solution, but every measure has its place and metrics.
- Looks at friendly customer service.
- Tracks speed of checkout.
- Measures accuracy of transactions.
This lines up well with the management adage that "you can't manage what you don't measure."
Some pointers:
- Identify, collaboratively, your key drivers of performance
- Determine whether/how you can measure them efficiently (i.e. qualitatively, quantitatively)
- Set realistic, stretch targets for the organization
- Communicate the goals and measures, 360 degrees
- Regularly capture the measures and make the metrics transparent
- Recognize and reward success and course correct when necessary
- Reevaluate measures and goals over time to ensure they are still relevant
Wash, rinse, repeat for continuous improvement. ;-)
(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)
Performance and Transparency - 2gether 4ever
July 13, 2013
Head Spinning From All The Spin
All dictatorships function very much from this premise as we see even now a days in totalitarian governments that limit Internet access, block websites, and filter news and messages from the people, so as to keep them docile and servile.
However, even in a democracy as fine as ours, the ability to control the message is a very powerful tool in directing how events are understood by the public and what action is taken, or not.
Some recent examples:
1) Syria's Use of Chemical Weapons:
Numerous allies including England, France, and Israel say they have intelligence about Syria's use of sarin gas against their own people...So did Syria cross the red line and use chemical weapons requiring us to take action or is this a matter for investigation and evidence?
2) Iran's Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
Iran is one of the world's richest in energy resources and reserves...So is Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty necessitating that we stop them or are they just building nuclear facilities for peaceful civilian energy needs?
3) Egyptian Military Coup and Roadmap For Reconciliation:
Egypt's military overthrew the Egyptian Prime Minister from the Muslim Brotherhood who oversaw the rewriting of the constitution in 2011 to be based on Islamic law and not inclusive of other more secular elements of society...So is the restoration of true democracy and civil rights for the Egyptian people or a brutal coup?
4) Sudan Committing Genocide in Darfur:
With over 400,000 killed, 2,500,000 displaced, and 400 villages completely destroyed in Darfur...So did Sudan commit genocide requiring prevention, intervention, and punishment or was this just Sudanese internal conflict?
5) People Employed in U.S. at 30-Year Lows:
The proportion of the U.S. population that is working is at low rates not seen since the recession of the 1980's...So is the unemployment rate still a critical national issue or is the unemployment rate really better and the economy strong again?
6) Edward Snowden Leaking Classified Information:
Snowden sought out the job with Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence on classified NSA surveillance and when he did he leaked this information to the news and harmed national security...So is Snowden a traitor or a whistleblower?
7) An $82 Billion Federal IT Budget:
The Federal IT budget is anticipated to rise to $82 billion in 2014...So are we still spending on large troubled IT projects or realizing billions in IT savings from new technology trends in cloud, mobile, social computing and more?
As Bill Clinton in 1998 said when questioned about the Monica Lewinsky affair..."It depends what the meaning of the word is, is?"
We see clearly that definitions are important, interpretations are important, and spin can make right seem wrong and wrong seem like right.
How we communicate and present something is very important and has critical ramifications on what is done about it whether in terms of action, attribution, and retribution.
Moreover, we should keep in mind that "He who knows doesn't tell, and he who tells doesn't know," so there are limits to what even gets communicated from the get-go.
What is communicated, when, and in how much clarity or distortion is a function one on hand of people's agendas, biases, career building (including the desire to get and keep power), as well as the genuine need for secrecy and security.
On the other hand, the desire for openness, transparency, truth, and healthy debate (facilitated by the media, checks and balances in government, and the judicial system) provides a counterbalance.
We the people must press to determine--is the person telling it like it is or are some things being contrived, manipulated, edited, and Photoshopped.
In the end, critical thinking and looking beyond the surface can make the difference between what we know we know and what we think we know. ;-)
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Jah~)
Head Spinning From All The Spin
November 18, 2012
When All Is Not Green
Are their programs successful or not, is everything okay on their staff, will they--without fudging the numbers--meet their performance goals and targets (if they have any), and so on.
People are afraid if they made a mistake or something isn't working as intended that they will be in trouble.
Maybe they will be yelled at, lose authority and power, be sidelined, demoted, or even fired; and their organizations may be downsized, outsourced, consolidated with another, or outright eliminated.
So people hide the facts and the truth--as if, what they don't know, can't harm me.
So everything appears copasetic in organization-land!
But the truth is we need a solid guidepost to know where we are going, which paths are safe, and which are fraught with danger--and that is anchored in open and honest communication.
There is a great story about this in Bloomberg BusinessWeek (15 November 2012) about how in 2006, when ex-Boeing executive, Alan Mulally took over as CEO of Ford--and Ford was bleeding red ink, facing their largest loss for automobiles in history of $17 billion, that at the executive Thursday morning meetings, the performance scorecard for their initiatives "was a sea of green."
Here the company is bordering on financial collapse, but the executives are reporting--all clear!
The story goes that Mark Fields, head of Ford's North American business stepped up and showed the first red revealing a problem with a problem tailgate latch on their new Edge SVU that would halt production.
With the room filled with tension, Alan Mulally rather than get mad and castigate or punish the executive, what did he do--he clapped!
Mulally said: "Great visibility. Is there anything we can do to help you?"
And what ultimately happened to Mark Fields, the executive who told the truth about problems in his area of responsibility?
Last month, "Ford's board elevated him to chief operating officer," which analysts read as a sign that he will be the next CEO when Mulally is supposed to retire at the end of 2014.
The bottom line is that we cannot fix problems if we can't identify them and face up to them with our people.
While we need good data and sound analysis to identify problems in the organization, problems will remain illusive without the trust, candor, and teamwork to ultimately come to terms with them and solve them.
I love this story about Ford and think it is a model for us in leadership, communication, and performance management. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
When All Is Not Green
October 12, 2012
Cloud $ Confusion
No, I am not talking about the definition of cloud (which dogged many for quite some time), but the cost-savings or the elusiveness of them related to cloud computing.
On one hand, we have the Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, which estimated that 25% of the Federal IT Budget of $80 billion could move to the cloud and NextGov (Sept 2012) reported that the Federal CIO told a senate panel in May 2011 that with Cloud, the government would save a minimum of $5 billion annually.
Next we have bombastic estimates of cost savings from the likes of the MeriTalk Cloud Computing Exchange that estimates about $5.5 billion in savings so far annually (7% of the Federal IT budget) and that this could grow to $12 billion (or 15% of the IT budget) within 3 years, as quoted in an article in Forbes (April 2012) or as much as $16.6 billion annually as quoted in the NextGov article--more than triple the estimated savings that even OMB put out.
On the other hand, we have a raft of recent articles questioning the ability to get to these savings, federal managers and the private sector's belief in them, and even the ability to accurately calculate and report on them.
- Federal Computer Week (1 Feb 2012)--"Federal managers doubt cloud computing's cost-savings claims" and that "most respondents were also not sold on the promises of cloud computing as a long-term money saver."
- Federal Times (8 October 2012)--"Is the cloud overhyped? predicted savings hard to verify" and a table included show projected cloud-saving goals of only about $16 million per year across 9 Federal agencies.
- CIO Magazine (15 March 2012)--"Despite Predictions to the Contrary, Exchange Holds Off Gmail in D.C." cites how with a pilot of 300 users, they found Gmail didn't even pass the "as good or better" test.
- ComputerWorld (7 September 2012)--"GM to hire 10,000 IT pros as it 'insources' work" so majority of work is done by GM employees and enables the business.
Aside from the cost-savings and mission satisfaction with cloud services, there is still the issue of security, where according to the article in Forbes from this year, still "A majority of IT managers, 85%, say they are worried about the security implications of moving to their operations to the cloud," with most applications being moved being things like collaboration and conferencing tools, email, and administrative applications--this is not primarily the high value mission-driven systems of the organization.
Evidently, there continues to be a huge disconnect being the hype and the reality of cloud computing.
One thing is for sure--it's time to stop making up cost-saving numbers to score points inside one's agency or outside.
One way to promote more accurate reporting is to require documentation substantiating the cost-savings by showing the before and after costs, and oh yeah including the migration costs too and all the planning that goes into it.
Another more drastic way is to take the claimed savings back to the Treasury and the taxpayer.
Only with accurate reporting and transparency can we make good business decisions about what the real cost-benefits are of moving to the cloud and therefore, what actually should be moved there.
While there is an intuitiveness that we will reduce costs and achieve efficiencies by using shared services, leveraging service providers with core IT expertise, and by paying for only what we use, we still need to know the accurate numbers and risks to gauge the true net benefits of cloud.
It's either know what you are actually getting or just go with what sounds good and try to pull out a cookie--how would you proceed?
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Cloud $ Confusion
August 3, 2012
FOIA Making Us Stronger
Similarly, Government Executive Magazine ran an feature article in June 2012 called "The Truth Behind Transparency," calling progress with open government as "tough to gauge."
The basic idea of FOIA as the website for Sunshine Week put it is: "the public's right to know about its government."
Obviously, as GovExec points out, one of the main questions over the years with FOIA is "how quickly and fully do agencies respond to FOIA requests?"
To much and too soon, and do you perhaps put at risk various sensitive information, jeopardizing elements of the functioning of government itself?
Too little and too late, and then is the opportunity for mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse simply an after fact?
As Beth Novek, former deputy chief technology officer for open government, described it, open government is a "shorthand for open innovation or the idea that working in a transparent, participatory, and collaborative fashion helps improve performance, inform decision-making, encourage entrepreneurship and solve problems more effectively."
Transparency can aid in accountability by shedding a light on leadership and its performance management. It can also be a great opportunity to bring new ideas and opinions to the fold, perhaps leading to better decisions and results, at the end of the day, for all.
The challenge for government is to guard against any information risks to the safety and security of our nation.
An informed nation, is a stronger nation--to me, it is a foundation of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Government and the people working together, duly informed, to confront our toughest challenges and solve our greatest problems.
FOIA Making Us Stronger
May 6, 2012
Losing Trust In What We Need Most, Each Other
Throughout history, people have joined and held allegiance to groups and institutions "to get visceral comfort and pride from familiar fellowship."
Belonging is a familiar way to get social connection, meaning, and to make the environment "less disorienting and dangerous."
Essentially, what this means it that we stand stronger together than we do alone and apart.
Today, people search for "like-minded friends, and they yearn to be in the one of the best" groups--from elite fighting forces like our special operations to Ivy League universities, Fortune 500 companies, religious sects, and fraternities--we all want to be part of the best, brightest, and most powerful collectives.
On one hand, tribing is positive, in terms of the close friendships, networks, and associations we form and the problems that we can confront together.
Yet on the other hand, it can be highly negative in terms of bias, distrust, rivalry, outright hostility, and even open warfare that can ensure.
The downside to tribes occurs because their members are prone to ethnocentrism--belief that one's own group is superior to another and is more deserving of success, money, and power, while everyone else in the "out-groups" are deemed inferior, undeserving and worthy of only the leftovers.
The negative side of tribes can manifest in the proverbial old-boys club at work looking out for each other to people associating hyper-closely with their favorite sports team and their symbolic victories and losses.
Despite the risks of tribes, we have a strong innate genetic and cultural disposition to groups and institutions and the many benefits they can bring to us, so it is sad to see as The Atlantic reports (21 April 2012), that Americans have "lost trust in one another and the institutions that are supposed to hold us together."
The article states that the reasons for this are that we've been "battered by unbridled commercialism, stymied by an incompetent government beholden to special interests, and flustered by new technology and new media."
The result is that "seven in 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track; eight in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed."
So there is now a historical break from trusting in our affiliations, institutions, and government to one represented by the motto of "In nothing we trust."
Instead of turning to each other and bonding together to solve large and complex problems, there is the potential that "people could disconnect, refocus, inward, and turn away from their social contract."
Not having a tribe is worse than working through the difficult issues associated with affiliation--a society of alienated people is not better!
When people no longer feel bonded to institutions and the rules and governance they provide, we have a potential social meltdown.
This should of deep concern to everyone, because no man is an island.
We can see this alienation in action as people withdraw from real world social interaction to spending more and more time online in the virtual world.
Although there is some measure of interaction on social networks, the connections are at arms-length; when it gets inconvenient, we can just log off.
One might argue that people are still affiliated with stakeholder-driven organizations and institutions (the government, the workplace, religion, etc.), but unfortunately these are being seen as having been usurped by false prophets and marketing types who who will say whatever it takes to get the popular nod and the job, and by fraudulent leaders who are in it to take far more than they ever planned to give.
What needs to happen now is to re-institute belief in the group by insisting on leaders that have integrity and a governance process underpinned by accountability, transparency, and diversity.
To get out of our web of socio-economic problems, group trust and affiliation is vital to solving problems together.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to CraigTaylor1974)
Losing Trust In What We Need Most, Each Other
April 17, 2012
Let's Come Clean About The Cloud
The question is were the savings really achievable to begin and how do you know whether we are getting to the target if we don't have an accurate baseline to being with.
From an enterprise architecture perspective, we need to have a common criteria for where we are and where we are going.
The notion that cloud was going to save $5 billion a year as the former federal CIO stated seems to now be in doubt as the article states that "last year agencies reported their projected saving would be far less..."
Again in yet another article in the same issue of Federal Times, it states that the Army's "original estimate of $100 million per year [savings in moving email to the DISA private cloud] was [also] 'overstated.'"
If we don't know where we are really trying to go, then as they say any road will get us there.
So are we moving to cloud computing today only to be moving back tomorrow because of potentially soft assumptions and the desire to believe so badly.
For example, what are our assumptions in determining our current in-house costs for email--are these costs distinctly broken out from other enterprise IT costs to begin? Is it too easy to claim savings when we are coming up with your own cost figures for the as-is?
If we do not mandate that proclaimed cost-savings are to be returned to the Treasury, how can we ensure that we are not just caught up in the prevailing groupthink and rush to action.
This situation is reminiscent of the pendulum swinging between outsourcing and in-sourcing and the savings that each is claimed to yield depending on the policy at the time.
I think it is great that there is momentum for improved technology and cost-savings. However, if we don't match that enthusiasm with the transparency and accuracy in reporting numbers, then we have exactly what happens with what the papers are reporting now and we undermine our own credibility.
While cloud computing or other such initiatives may indeed be the way go, we've got to keep sight of the process by which we make decisions and not get caught up in hype or speculation.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Opensourceway)
Let's Come Clean About The Cloud
September 24, 2011
Have Your Voice Heard
Have Your Voice Heard
July 4, 2011
Appropriate Technology For All
Appropriate Technology For All
June 9, 2011
Misappropriating Twitter
By now we are all familiar with the news story regarding a prominent lawmaker, recently married, who admitted to a longstanding pattern of inappropriate sexual exploits via Twitter.
As The Wall Street Journal (9 June 2011) notes, the individual got caught when he “mistakenly sent the photo to tens of thousands of Twitter followers,” rather than as a private message.
As a public servant who is a proponent of social media technology used appropriately, I was very concerned when I saw this in the news (note: all opinions my own).
The government needs social media tools like Twitter. It is an important tool for sharing information and alerts. It is obviously not for “sexting” your followers, especially with a Twitter handle that is apparently coming from someone in the government.
Twitter is an important means of engaging the public in important ways, moving this great country forward on policy issues and a vision that is noble, righteous, and for the betterment of our world. What a shame when these tools are misappropriated!
So while I cannot say “with certitude” what exactly this person was thinking, I am certain that we need social media in government and that there are numerous positive ways for it to be applied. With the caveat that the basis for social media by anyone in government has to be truth, transparency and genuine outreach on issues of importance to the people.
A lot of government people and agencies are doing a good job with Twitter and other social media tools. Let's go back to focusing on the positive work that we can do with them, even as we note with caution how badly they can be misused.
Misappropriating Twitter
March 20, 2011
Fixing The Information Flow
Fixing The Information Flow
March 11, 2011
Power To The People
Power To The People
February 14, 2010
No Ego Leadership
It’s funny that we get so used to the way things are in our country and culture that it becomes difficult to think there is any other workable way of doing things.
The New York Times, 14 February 2010, has an interview with Vineet Nayar the CEO of HCL Technologies, a global services 100 IT company based in India and ranked by Hewitt Associates in the 30 best employers in Asia.
However, reading the interview from the CEO of this Indian company opens up broad new possibilities for the way we can conduct our organizational affairs and perhaps become more competitive in the 21st century, global market-place.
No single country, industry, company, or person has a monopoly on innovation, and we can learn from some of the outside the box thinking at HCL.
Here are some of Mr. Nayar’s thought-provoking leadership ideas:
Subject | Key Idea |
Role of CEO | “My job is to make sure everybody is enabled to what they do well. It’s part of our ‘Employees First’ philosophy.” |
Delegation | We “make sure everybody understands that the CEO is the most incompetent person to answer questions, and I say this to all my employees openly.” |
Transparency | “All HCL’s financial information is on our internal Web. We are completely open. We put all our dirty linen on the table, and we answer everyone’s questions.” |
Hierarchy | “We’ve inverted the pyramid of the organization and made reverse accountability a reality.” |
Performance | “My [the CEO’s] 360 degree feedback is open to 50,000 employees—the results are published on the internal Web for everybody to see. And 3,800 managers participate in an open 360-degree and the results—they’re anonymous so that people are candid—are available in the internal Web [as well].” |
Information-sharing | “We started having people make their presentations and record them for our internal Web site. We open that for review to a 360-degree workshop, which mean yours subordinates will review it. You managers will read it. Your peers will read it and everybody will comment on it.” |
Feedback | Prospective employees will say “I completely disagree. And they will have a fight with me… I want people who will kick my butt on points where we disagree.” |
Learning | “I want people to say they want to learn. I don’t want teachers.” |
At first glance, the ideas of Mr. Nayar seem almost crazy, because they are so different from what we are used to. But upon deeper reflection, we can see value in much of his leadership style.
To me, this seems a testament that when a leader has no ego and is willing to think innovatively and behave with integrity, the possibilities for positive change is not bound by any box or paradigm. We need to realize that we can learn from everybody, everywhere, and with an open mind and of course some discretion, we can progress our thinking and ways of doing business in ways we may never have even imagined.
No Ego Leadership
January 21, 2010
Andy Blumenthal Talks About Social Media
Andy Blumenthal Talks About Social Media
November 14, 2009
Delivering Obsolete and Broken IT Projects, No More
NextGov reported on 9 Nov 2009, that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that “forecasts $3 billion in cost overruns on 16 major projects.”
What’s so of baffling is that these overruns occurred despite the agency’s use of earned value management.
According to Dave Powner, director of IT management issues at GAO, “Every one of the agencies had major problems in determining earned value management…as a result the agencies were unable to accurately identify the progress contractors had made on IT projects.”
These finding are expected to drive the 2009 Information Technology Oversight and Waste Prevention Act to increase oversight of IT investments.
This bill calls for “a Web site to publish information on the status of federal IT investments, similar to the Federal IT Dashboard,” but with more accurate data and with explanations on why projects are over budget.
Certainly, the use of measurements and dashboards to display and track these are helpful in understanding how we are doing in managing our IT investments—so they are on schedule, within budget, and to customer specification.
Clearly, we can only begin to better manage that which we measure and track. Our IT investments and their execution are no longer a black box or so it’s supposed to work.
However, to make these metrics and dashboard effective to improve IT execution, there are a number of critical success factors:
- Transparency—This is a concept that is in common use these days, and we need to continue to put it in action. All IT investments need to be measured, not just the “major” ones, and their success and failures need to be visible. The purpose must not to scrutinize or shame project managers, but to be able to genuinely guide projects to successful conclusions. This is what the control phase of capital planning and investment control is all about. We need to course correct projects early and often, if necessary, before they are billions of dollars out of control.
- Honesty in Reporting—Projects need to be reported accurately—no gaming the system. If the facts are sugarcoated or whitewashed, then no dashboard in the world is going to catch the problems that are misreported to begin with. Unfortunately with project management, the elements of scope, schedule, and cost can be manipulated to make it seem as if a project is okay, when it isn’t. One example is de-scoping the project to enable a delivery on schedule and on cost, even though what’s being delivered is not what was asked for or agreed upon.
- Skills Enhancement—With better measurement of IT investments, we need to provide more training to our project managers. We can’t just expect perfection day 1. We need to work with people and grow them to be better project managers. We can do this with training, mentoring, coaching, and so on. Remember, it’s generally the people that make the IT project a success or failure, not the technology—so let’s invest in our people to make them better project managers.
- Accountability—We shouldn’t be looking to exact a pound of flesh for genuine human foibles—mistakes do happen. But at the same time, people must be held accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse. Sometimes, people get complacent and they need a reminder that there are real implications to an IT project’s success or failure—mission and people are depending on you to do your job, so you had better do it responsibly and to the best of your ability.
- Continuous Improvement—Ever since business school, I’ve always loved the Japanese management practice of Kaizen—continuous improvement. This concept is right on the mark with our IT investment and project execution. We are not going to magically put up a dashboard and whoola—better IT projects. It’s going to be a process, a transformation over time. We need to incrementally improve our IT project success rate through learning measurement, and best practices implementation. Of course, time is money, and we need to move quickly, but we do not want to artificially create the appearance of short-term performance improvement at the expense of genuine long-term success.
All the power to IT performance measurement and dashboarding, but with the absolute commitment to not only track and measure, but also grow and improve our customer results. It’s not a gotcha that we need, but a how can we help you succeed.
Delivering Obsolete and Broken IT Projects, No More
June 18, 2009
Andy Blumenthal Presents How Enterprise Architecture is Transforming Government (June 2009)
Andy Blumenthal Presents How Enterprise Architecture is Transforming Government (June 2009)
February 1, 2008
Governance and Enterprise Architecture
But what happens when organizational governance, whether EA governance or corporate boards, that is supposed to ensure transparency, does not?
The Wall Street Journal,
“People who have spent time in corporate boardrooms say honest communication is often lacking between CEOs and their fellow directors. ‘Communication and transparency being a problem is more the rule rather than the exception.’”
Sometimes this makes headlines, such as when CEOs conduct activities without informing or getting permission from their directors, such as:
- Backdating stock options
- Holding merger and acquisition talks
- Trying to solve problems independently that need to be vetted
“‘Many times it’s the thing not said, or overly optimistic positioning that gets CEOs in trouble’…as leaders, they want to take charge and inspire confidence, even when things are turning sour. But that instinct can lead them to be less than forthcoming about problems—which can snowball into severe tensions with directors.”
CEOs who do not keep their board up-to-date do so at their own peril—“In 2006, 31.9% of CEOs who stepped down world-wide did so due to conflicts with the board…the forced departures were ‘nearly always because of transparency issues...[this leads to a] slow deterioration of trust, so the termination is generally packaged as a ‘loss of confidence.’”
Things have definitely changed in the relationship between boards and CEOs─ “‘There used to be a bright, clear line: We, the management made the decision and they, the board, reviewed and approved those decisions”…that bright, clear line has gotten really fuzzy now.”
Why does the CEO resist this transparency with the board?
“It’s the CEO’s job to ‘put a good face on things to mobilize and drive the changes that any company needs going forward…this requires inspiring people and giving them confidence that if you only make this last push you will get there.” CEO’s don’t want to admit that things are not progressing as expected. They don’t want to concede that they don’t have all the answers.
What’s the lesson here for User-centric EA?
We can’t think that we have all the answers. Collaboration, vetting, and information transparency is critical to enabling better decision-making. Whether information transparency is coming from EA to business and technical information stakeholders or from the CEO to his board of directors, information transparency inspires trust and “breeds self-correcting behavior” (as the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant often reminds us). Hiding problems, being overly optimistic or self-reliant, or working in stealth are not the cornerstones for good enterprise governance. Rather, openness and frankness about program, projects, products, and plans (EA or otherwise) enables good governance. Hearing opposing points of views leads to better decision-making. Even if it is sometimes painful to hear or slows down the process some; a little enterprise introspection goes a long way to improving the end result.
Governance and Enterprise Architecture
August 18, 2007
Need to Know or Responsibility to Share
This vision of information sharing has the support at the United States Coast Guard, of Commandant Thad Allen. He has had a huge impact in the information sharing in the organization with his vision of "information transparency breeds self-correcting behavior". The doctrine of openness and sharing toward an outcome of improved personal and organizational performance is a powerful vision that can even transform a large, multi-mission maritime organization like the Coast Guard.
In public and private sectors, it used to be information on a "need to know" basis. Information is power and those who wield it are king. Only with the advent of the internet, social networking, vertical and horizontal integration in the marketplace, and the unfortunate 9-11 tragedy has need to know been shifting to "responsibility to share".
Undoubtedly, there is still a long way to go in eliminating the stovepipes in our organizations and between our organizations, but user-centric EA will be there to facilitate this change and build the mechanisms, processes, and governance for bona fide information discovery and exchange. More than that, by developing EA information products, governance processes, and plans, user-centric EA is creating a climate of change that will take organizations into the future of information-sharing.
Need to Know or Responsibility to Share