“The
If the
So, the theory is that by simply by shining a light in the dark recesses of the enterprise, users will recognize the additional attention and respond to it with enhanced performance. What a nice additional win for User-centric EA!
“The
If the
So, the theory is that by simply by shining a light in the dark recesses of the enterprise, users will recognize the additional attention and respond to it with enhanced performance. What a nice additional win for User-centric EA!
The Hawthorne Effect and Enterprise Architecture
Irrational Negotiators and Enterprise Architecture
User-centric EA seeks to develop an organization both through integration and differentiation.
In Lawrence and Lorsch's groundbreaking work "Organization and Environment," the authors explore the implications of integration and differentiation in the enterprise.
Both integration and differentiation can be useful in different environments. For example, in stable environments an integrated organization tends to function best, while in an uncertain or turbulent environment, an organization that is differentiated internally has greater prospects for success. A key finding of Lawrence and Lorsch’s research was that the most successful organizations simultaneously achieved high levels of both.
Contingency theory states that there is not one best way for an organization in terms of structure or leadership style. Rather, according to contingency theory, it is best to vary the organizational structure and management style depending on the environment in which the enterprise operates.
EA should plan for organizations in various environments. No one plan can be successful in every type of environment. Therefore, EA should use contingency theory to develop options or alternate paths for an organization to take depending on the landscape it finds itself in. Refining the degree of differentiation and integration of departments in the enterprise is one way to navigate in different operational environments. Centralizing or decentralizing decision making, situational leadership, and altering task versus people orientation are just some of the other factors that can be varied to adjust to changing environments. The key is to keep the options open, to be nimble and agile with planning, so that the enterprise is not hamstrung by ill-conceived plans that were developed for a future state that may not exist.
Contingency Theory and Enterprise Architecture
The Wall Street Journal,
Overall “the Mac is on a roll…Macintosh computers has surged in popularity in the past few years, with sales growing much faster than the overall PC market, especially in the U.S. By some measures, Mac laptops are now approaching a 20% share of
Reasons for Mac’s recent success:
Advantages of OS X versus Microsoft Vista
Apple continues to be the technological leader, ahead of Microsoft, in terms of functionality, user-friendliness, speed, and the cool factor. From a User-centric EA perspective, Apple is the game to beat, even though Microsoft remains the 800 pound gorilla. As an EA practitioner, I am trained to look 3-5 years ahead and it is hard to not see Apple continuing to make major inroads against Microsoft.
Apple’s OS Leopard and Enterprise Architecture
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
In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler writes:
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.
(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
Cloud Computing and Enterprise Architecture
Feng Shui, which literally means earth and water, is typically a way of “arranging living quarters with optimal comfort for mind and body.” It is the adaptation of “homes to harmonize with the currents of ch’i” (life force or energy).
However, feng shui does not only apply to home arrangement. More broadly, “the aim of feng shui is to change and harmonize the environment—cosmic, currents known as ch’i—to improve fortunes.” “The Chinese saw a magical link between man and the landscape: Nature reacts to any change and that reaction rebounds in man. They saw the world and themselves as part of a sacred metabolic system.”
Feng shui has a basis in Taoism. “The Taoists glorified nature. Love of nature permeated their view of life. Things would not be correct until man could mirror within, the harmony of nature without.” “Tao united everything, exemplifying the need of nature and man to bring all opposing forces [yin and yang] into a fluctuating harmony.”
“Ch’i is the most important component of feng shui.” “Ch’i must flow smoothly and near a person to improve his ch’i. It must be balanced. If the current is too strong or too weak, it can have negative effects.” “Feng shui practitioners try to direct a smooth, good current of ch’i to a person and divert of convert harmful ch’i.” (Adapted from Feng Shui by Sarah Rossbach)
In User-centric EA, we seek to create information products that are useful (relevant—current, accurate, and complete) and useable (easy to understand and readily accessible) to the end users to enhance decision-making. One way to make EA products more usable is by applying the teachings of feng shui in terms of harmony, flow, and balance.
User-centric EA seeks to harmonize information products to make them balanced, flowing, and positive or harmonious to a person’s ch’i. In other words, if EA information products focus not only on content, but also on the format, then the information products can be easier to understand, more potent in reaching end users, and more influential to decision-making.
“Feng shui brings good fortune to the home.” I believe it can also bring good fortune to the enterprise that effectively uses it to communicate vital information to end users for business and technology decision-making.
Feng Shui and Enterprise Architecture
Lecture by John Zachman on Enterprise Architecture
The Wall Street Journal,
Are we to value or decry our seniors?
From a User-centric EA approach, it is important to recognize the valuable contribution that senior people in the organization can bring to the strategic issues that we face daily.
With Age Comes Wisdom and Enterprise Architecture
CIO and Enterprise Architecture
User Concerns (Finally) Answered and Enterprise Architecture
Terascale Computing and Enterprise Architecture
Linux and Enterprise Architecture
J. Robert Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist, best known for his role as the director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop the first nuclear weapons, at the secret Los Alamo laboratory in New Mexico. Known as "the father of the atomic bomb," Oppenheimer was shocked by the weapon's killing power after it was used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…After the war, Oppenheimer was a chief advisor to the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for international control of atomic energy and to avert the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union.” (Wikipedia)
Oppenheimer believed that technology and science had their own imperatives, and that whatever could be discovered or done would be discovered and done. "It is a profound and necessary truth," he told a Canadian audience in 1962, "that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them." Because he believed that some country would build a nuclear bomb, he preferred that it be the United States, whose politics were imperfect but preferable to those of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union…Oppenheimer was a fatalist about the evolution of technology and science…He looked to humanity's most progressive institutions to restrain the malignant use of technology. Oppenheimer was asked to build a nuclear bomb, and he hoped reason would dictate that it be used twice, in a just war, and then never again. (MIT Technology Review, “Oppenheimer's Ghost”, November/December 2007)
From a humanistic perspective—I am intrigued by the polarity of Oppenheimer’s acknowledgement that in building the atomic bomb and supporting its use against Japan in WWII that he had blood on his hands, but at the same time believing that its use in WWII was justified to prevent further loss of life as well as it existence being a deterrent for future conflicts.
From a User-centric EA perspective—I am interested in Oppenheimer’s fatalistic belief in the evolution of technology. Are technology advances predetermined and inevitable as Oppenheimer believed or is there an element of human control?
Of course, organizations determine through their IT governance (i.e. investment review boards and enterprise architecture strategy), what IT projects to invest in. However, looking beyond distinct individuals or organizations, it seems that nothing will truly impede global technological progress, if there is any gain to be had economically, politically, socially, or otherwise. Net utility (cost-benefit analysis) determines whether innovation is funded and pursued.
EA and IT governance can broker IT investments, but just like the building of the atomic bomb, if it can be done and it benefits someone, it will be done by someone, somewhere!
The Atomic Bomb and Enterprise Architecture
One of the most difficult challenges we face as enterprise architects is when end-users don’t ask permission, but instead ask forgiveness.
The typical scenario is that a division or unit or group of end-users decides to go out and purchase some new IT widget, gadget, or system without going through the CIO shop. (I know this shouldn’t happen if the CIO controls the IT funding, but even then someone always finds some money squirreled away and decides to use it for something they weren’t supposed to or in some cases even bypasses the money channels altogether, getting a freebie from a eager vendor looking to build or test some new capabilities to sell later to other customers).
Well, where’s the harm?
Oh my G-d, where should I start…
Innovation from the field and operators is great, but bypassing the CIO shop circumvents the structured processes and good governance that is in place to ensure projects succeed. Without these mechanisms, IT project can be at tremendous risk:
No question, from an end-users perspective, there are quite a few hurdles to go through in implementing a new IT project. An if we’re honest with ourselves, the process can be onerous. Therefore, the CIO and his staff needs to work to streamline the processes, integrate them, provide the users with job aids and excellent customer support. Additionally, there should be a quick pass process for getting those “emergency” (must have now) projects through quickly (although not any less comprehensively).
The key is to balance the needs of the enterprise (ensuring mission execution and sound stewardship of enterprise resources), end-users (supporting innovation and operators ability to do their jobs successfully and safely), and customers or citizens (bringing new products or services to market quickly, reliably, and at high quality levels). To do this we have to balance the necessary processes and governance to ensure IT projects’ success with the imperative to foster innovation and deliver quality and speedily to market.
So as an enterprise architect, what do you do when a end-user asks forgiveness, instead of permission?
Circumventing the CIO—What’s the Harm?
Fortune Magazine, 1 October 2007, reports on the world’s best companies are finding out that “no matter what business they’re in, their real business is building leaders.”
“’People are our greatest asset’, CEOs always say that. They almost never mean it. Most companies maintain their office copiers better than they build the capabilities of their people.” But now companies are finding in this high liquidity market, that they are less dependent on financial capital, and more on human capital, and so they are getting serious about leadership development!
Fortune provides a number of good ideas for organizations to help develop their future leaders:
In a world economy built on human capital, organizations must develop their leaders and mean it!
While many incorrectly think of enterprise architecture as simply a technology-based endeavor, EA is really a broad-based blueprint for the organization.
In User-centric EA, we look to build the capabilities of the organization to meet mission requirements: this includes everything from technology solutions, to more efficient business processes, to information sharing, to human capital development.
Previously, I have called for a human capital reference model (and persepctive) to be added to the Federal
The pressing need for more and better leadership (and management) development is yet another reason to finally get this done by really focusing attention on the organization’s human capital needs through its inclusion in the FEA.
Leadership Development and Enterprise Architecture
User-centric Enterprise Architecture supports the development of a meaningful IT strategic plan for the organization. Based on my experience in strategic planning, there are a number of core goals that should be represented in the IT Strategic Plan. These are as follows:
Together, these six goals provide the foundation for a sound IT strategic plan.
As a visual representation, I see these goals in the following way: First there is a Venn diagram in the center composed of People, Process, and Technology. This diagram is surrounded by a circle made up of sound Governance. Emerging from this circle and Venn diagram is Information (and IT capability) provided to the organization to optimize business processes and enable mission execution. And underlying all this is a foundation of responsible Stewardship of IT resources.
IT Strategic Plan and Enterprise Architecture
The Wall Street Journal 25 September 2007 reports on a new model being called the “wave of the future”, where IT projects are rolled out “on schedule…even if all the kinks haven’t been worked out” and then fix it later, as problems arise.
The idea of this model is that by rolling out and fixing problems on the fly, you avoid extensive schedule delays and cost-overruns common with IT projects.
“Oracle hailed it as a model for both universities and corporations to follow.” The strategy is to “implement, adapt, grow.”
This model of fix it later is being used by “Internet companies like Google Inc. These companies label the software they release ‘beta,’ meaning that it is good enough to use, but it isn’t finished. Sometimes they keep it that way for years, using feedback from users to create ever more-refined versions.”
In the fix it later model, you “admit from the start that there will be mistakes; then work through the glitches [after rollout] with users’ help. This is the opposite of the traditional model that says companies “take their time and don’t start using a new computer system until they are convinced almost everything works right.”
Which approach is better?
From a User-centric Enterprise Architecture point of view, we have to balance two competing drivers.
Perhaps, the best IT model is a hybrid that I would call—“Get It Right, On Schedule and Within Budget!”
IT Projects - Get It Right or Fix It Later?
Sun Tsu (544 BC – 496 BC) is the author of The Art of War (an immensely influential ancient Chinese book on military strategy).
The following are three lessons from The Art of War for
“Tzu-lu [a disciple of Confucius] said, supposing you had command of the Three Hosts, whom would you take to help you? The master [Sun Tsu] said, the man who was ready to beard a tiger or rush a river without caring whether he lived or died—that sort of man, I should not take. I should certainly take someone who approached difficulties with due caution and who preferred to succeed by strategy.” (The Art of War)
Sun Tsu recognizes the importance of strategy and the danger of rash actions. Similarly, User-centric EA identifies the needs of the organization and its users and develops an appropriate plan for the enterprise to execute. The well thought out EA plan guides the organization in lieu of rash and flailing actions of individuals.
2) Agility is Tactic #1
“Just a water adapts itself to the conformation of the ground, so in war one must be flexible…this is not in any sense a passive concept, for if the enemy is given enough rope he will frequently hang himself. Under certain conditions, one yields a city, sacrifices a portion of his force, or give up ground in order to gain a more valuable objective.”
User-centric EA must always be flexible and adapt to the needs of its users and the enterprise. It’s easy to get caught up in ivory-tower architecture efforts, rigid EA plans, and governance structures that hinder rather than help progress. But if we remember that the “more valuable objective” is the mission execution of the organization, then we put these needs first and foremost and adjust the architecture to it.
For example, in Hurricane Katrina, when action on the ground was needed to be taken immediately to save lives, governance was loosened to allow the enterprise to adapt quickly.
3) Unification is strength
“He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious…the appropriate season is not as important as the advantages of the ground; these are not as important as harmonious human relations.”
In User-centric EA, the enterprise is unified (and focused) in meeting user requirements, executing on mission, and moving the organization forward in a structured, orderly way. By everyone following the same script (the target and transition plan), organizational progress is faster, deeper (the change is up and down the organizational ranks), and more meaningful (since everyone is on board).
The Art of War and Enterprise Architecture
The Wall Street Journal in conjunction with MIT Sloan School of Management on
By practicing agile planning (as I call it), decisions are broken down into stages, where management can review events and decide whether “to proceed, hold back, or retreat at each stage” or alter course altogether.
From a User-centric EA perspective, I really like the idea of agile planning in coming up with the architecture target and transition plan. What we may think today is the best business or technical plan to meet user needs, may not be the case 6 months or a year later. Moreover, as plans extend beyond 3-5 year timeframe, the ability to hit the target is often grossly exaggerated.
The concept of agile planning is to come up with milestones and then based on event-driven triggers follow through to a series of next steps. Agile planning gives the enterprise tremendous flexibility to adjust to changes (whether internal or external-driven), and not get trapped in the “planning pit” , whereby decision-makers are caught in the decision hole that they dug for themselves.
While as planners, we cannot be wishy-washy—we must develop a clear way ahead for the organization—developing the capability to move forward, yet be nimble enough to adjust to changing circumstance is the way to build a truly wonderful plan.
Agile Planning and Enterprise Architecture
Vision, Goals, and Enterprise Architecture
The Wall Street Journal,
The article continues, “Big bureaucracies are set up to place human barriers around decision makers. Today there’s the added protection of automated phones and web sites that bury contact information for real people. So the buck stops in the lower rungs of the hierarchy.”
“The government agency…sent lower level staffers to break news to clients that they didn’t get approved…’the true irony of the situation is sending in someone who is less qualified to address a hostile situation, and that creates more hostility, which makes it more likely for him to get shot.’”
The following day, 12 September 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported in another article about another situation of shooting the messenger, as follows: “American Airlines told the Transportation Security Administration in July, that a passenger on a flight to New York had slapped a flight attendant across the face when the plane was ordered emptied in Miami after bad weather kept the flight from leaving. Police were called.”
“Those middlemen aren’t responsible for disruptive decisions or business failures. But they’re the poor souls held accountable.” (WSJ,
As EA practitioners, we are often the messengers of corporate news; we analyze problems areas and uncover gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities. Often, others in the organization do not want to hear about these problems and do not want EA to be providing the solutions. Instead, they look to shoot the EA messenger. Rather than pointing fingers and letting off steam at the EA folks doing their jobs, how about teaming up, collaborating, and working to improve the organization and make things better for everyone!
Shooting the Messenger and Enterprise Architecture
Barring another Roswell alien landing, we will have to thank the Clinger-Cohen Act for helping us ensure that this critical (and expensive) information is better documented going forward.
NASA and Enterprise Architecture
What is the Information Age?
“Alvin Toffler, a famous American writer and futurist, in his book The Third Wave, describes three types of societies, based on the concept of 'waves' - each wave pushes the older societies and cultures aside.
What is a knowledge worker?
“Peter Drucker, in 1959, coined the term Knowledge worker, as one who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace. Knowledge Workers are now estimated to outnumber all other workers in North America by at least a four to one margin (Haag et al, 2006, pg. 4). A Knowledge Worker's benefit to a company could be in the form of developing business intelligence, increasing the value of intellectual capital , gaining insight into customer preferences, or a variety of other important gains in knowledge that aid the business.” (Toffler and Drucker sections are adapted from Wikipedia)
How does EA fit in the Information Age and support the knowledge worker?
EA is a process for capturing, analyzing, and serving up information to achieve improved IT planning, governance, and decision making. So, EA works with data and information and supports the knowledge worker in the following way:
In User-centric EA, all aspects of information management (in terms of development, maintenance, and use of information products) are done with the enterprise and end-user in mind. User-centric EA seeks to make all aspects of EA information useful (i.e. relevant—current, accurate, complete) and usable (i.e. easy to understand and readily accessible) for the information age enterprise and knowledge workers that we support!
Information Management and Enterprise Architecture
The Wall Street Journal,
Companies are realizing the “the human beings who execute the goals of business are more than just cogs in a wheel.” Companies are now showing they do care more about their workers, through:
In the traditional rigid, controlling workplace, workers’ needs are left unmet; over time, this “erodes concentration, commitment, and creativity.” Good workplace policies “enable employees to manage their large lives, freeing them to apply more brainpower to complex information-age jobs.”
What’s more, organizations are finding that creating a great workplace for employees actually pays off in dollars (i.e. it “actually causes an increase in a company’s overall financial performance.”)
The New York Conference Board found in a study last year “clear and mounting evidence that employee engagement is strongly correlated to ‘productivity, profit, and revenue growth.’”
User-centric EA is driven to mission execution and meeting end user needs (including employee satisfaction). This is why I have been a long-time proponent for adding a human capital reference model and perspective to the Federal
Engaging Employees Hearts and Minds and Enterprise Architecture
“In economics, the guns versus butter model is the classic example of the production possibility frontier. It models the relationship between a nation's investment in defense and civilian goods. In this model, a nation has to choose between two options when spending its finite resources. It can buy either guns or butter, or a combination of both. This can be seen as an analogy for choices between defense and civilian spending in more complex economies.” (Wikipedia)
The guns versus butter model teaches us that you cannot have it all! There are clear limitations to resources, and it is not possible to produce or spend beyond that.
Yes, of course, our resources can be extended by increasing the limits of production through for example, advances in technology that make us more efficient (like advances in automation or agricultural production). Similarly, we can spend more than we have on both guns and butter, through deficit spending, although this is a temporary phenomenon where we borrow to spend now, and this must be repaid in the future.
The point is that as society, organizations, or individuals with finite resources, we must make choices, since we can’t have it all. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet with their billions of dollars, have to make choices too (although their choices may be a little bit larger than ours—should I buy this mega-company or that one).
From a User-centric Enterprise Architecture perspective, the lesson of the guns versus butter economic model is very important. As we baseline the architecture of the organization and see all that is wrong with it (gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities), we are tempted to want to fix everything, right away. In other words, the target architecture becomes an unrealistic wish list and one that seeks to solve all that is wrong in the enterprise. One of my associates calls this the feed the world solution, which he promptly points out are those initiatives that never really go everywhere, because you can’t “swallow an elephant in one bite.”
In EA, we have to develop a target architecture and transition plan that is realistic: one that takes into account the limitations of resources as well as the limitations of the organization to rapidly undergo change. It becomes an issue of priorities. A good architect not only helps the organization identify the possibilities for improvement, but also works with leadership and stakeholders to prioritize those and phase them in. realistically, through the transition plan.
Guns versus Butter Model and Enterprise Architecture
The idea here is that we “painstakingly climb the ‘ladder of success’ rung by rung—the diploma, the late nights, the promotions—only to discover as we reached the top rung, that the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall.”
“Absorbed in the ascent, we left a trail of shattered relationships or missed moments of deep, rich living in the wake of the intense overfocused effort. In the race up the rungs we simply did not take the time to do what really mattered most.”
What is really important?
Covey sums it up nicely, as follows:
In case you don’t recognize it, these align nicely to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
http://usercentricea.blogspot.com/2007/08/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-and.html
Maslow “in his last years, revised his earlier theory and acknowledged that the peak experience was not “self-actualization, but “self-transcendence,” or living for a higher purpose than self.
George Bernard Shaw put it this way:
“This is the true joy in life…being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one…being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy…I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can…I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle to me. It’s a sort of splendid torch which I’ve got to hold up for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.
Covey says it this way:
“The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”
As an enterprise architect, who works everyday to build a better organization, with efficient and effective business processes, timely and meaningful information supporting the business, and information technology solutions that drive mission execution, I thought it was important to put this important job in perspective. Because in order to be effective in the role as an enterprise architect, we have to realize that “balance and synergy” among the four needs—physical, social, mental, and spiritual—are imperative.
As Covey states: “we tend to see them [these needs] as separate ‘compartments’ of life. We think of ‘balance’ as running from one area to another fast enough to spend time in each one of a regular basis [or not!]…but [this] ignores the reality of their powerful synergy. It’s where…we find true inner balance, deep fulfillment, and joy.”
First Things First and Enterprise Architecture
“Functionalism is about the structure and workings of society. Functionalists see society as made up of inter-dependent sections which work together to fulfill the functions necessary for the survival of society as a whole. The theory is based around a number of key concepts. First, society is viewed as a system – a collection of interdependent parts, with a tendency toward equilibrium. Second, there are functional requirements that must be met in a society for its survival (such as reproduction of the population). Third, phenomena are seen to exist because they serve a function. Functionalists believe that one can compare society to a living organism, in that both a society and an organism are made up of interdependent working parts (organs) and systems that must function together in order for the greater body to function.” (Wikipedia)
User-centric EA is firmly grounded in functionalism. EA sees the enterprise as composed of interrelated parts that rely on each other in order to function and survive. Each individual, group, department, division and so on plays a critical role (like organs in a body).
Enterprise architects develop models of the business, data, and systems that show exactly what the parts (or elements) in the organization are and how they interrelate and function—this is functionalism. For example, in the business model, the actors perform activities (or tasks); the activities make up processes, and the interrelated processes make up functions. Clearly there is a structure and interdependency of like components that fulfills enterprise functions. Similarly, the organization’s IT hardware and software products are combined with databases to make up applications with specific business functions. The functionally interrelated applications combine to make up systems. Again, the collection of independent parts (products, applications, systems) forms collections that serve specified functions for the organization.
If a business activity or process or an IT product or application no longer serves a necessary or viable function for the growth and “survival” of the organization or if there are redundancies in these, then the architect recommends that those unnecessary components be discontinued. Similarly, if there are gaps or inefficiencies in the business or IT, where required functions are not being served or served well, then the architect recommends a those gaps be filled or those business or IT areas be reengineered.
EA’s basis in functionalism is what makes it grounded in the realities of the organization needs for survival and maturation.
Functionalism and Enterprise Architecture
“Hoshin Kanri is a strategic planning methodology that uses a Shewhart Cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) to create goals, assign measurable milestones, and assess progress.” (Adapted from Wikipedia)
In Hoshin Kanri (HK) “the vision must be shared by all, so that everybody acts (at his own level) consistently to hit targets. Each company layer or function defines its own targets, according to the top ones. The principle goes cascading down to the base (vertical diffusion) or in coordination between divisions (horizontal collaboration) or a mix of both. The concept’s idea states: if all underlying objectives are met, the higher objective is automatically met, and so on, cascading up.”
(http://membres.lycos.fr/hconline/hoshin_us.htm)
The four phases:
In general, setting the ‘right’ objectives means they should be SMART:
(adapted from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/)
In HK objectives should also:
How does HK differ from Management By Objective (MBO)?
(adapted from http://membres.lycos.fr/hconline/hoshin_us.htm)
In short, Hoshin Kanri seems like an evolution of Management by Objective.
The methodology and principles of Hoshin Kanri is a terrific match with User-centric EA. Both focus on developing SMART plans, improving processes, using innovative (yet trusted) technologies to meet mission and user needs, communicating clearly with stakeholders, and building consensus on a way ahead.
Hoshin Kanri and Enterprise Architecture