I strongly agree with the premise of chapter 3 in the course text, that very often organizations confuse IT Architecture with Enterprise Architecture. It's not so surprising, considering EA is all about integrating technologies with business strategy and process. Strategy is pretty intangible, while IT infrastructure is comparatively much more real. It is trivial to measure the number of servers stood up, the number of transactions processed by a new system, or the square footage of a new facility than it is to realize a strategic goal.
I posit that many organizations fall into the IT architecture trap because of the granular nature of many IT initiatives. They represent quick and easy wins. "Look what we accomplished last quarter!" It is much more difficult demonstrate the business value, especially when putting the cart before the horse. Organizations think they're doing EA when all they're doing is IA.
Too often technologies are selected because they are trendy or well marketed. This is when the buzz words start flying around, I'm sure you're all familiar. Agile. Big Data. Cloud. Data Lake. Internet of Things. Software as a Service. These concepts/technologies are great tools that may be leveraged to accomplish a goal, but they are not the goal. Organizations that select a technology and model their strategy around that technology are often shocked that their customers (internal or external) want nothing to do with their product.
Having a clear understanding of customer wants/needs defines business strategy, which in turn defines technology.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteDo Enterprise Architects fail to define the enterprise context? Is this the cause of confusing IT architecture with Enterprise architecture? Or do we falter along the way? Is it even something that Enterprise Architects can control? If yes to what extent? what are your thoughts on this?
I like the graphic you included. Too many people first focus on the business architecture, add try to dig down from there. By working with the technology you have, you can visualize the end goal better. It's a strategy in line with Chapter 3.
ReplyDeleteIt can also help them avoid the IT/EA trap, which is also what you're referring to with the buzz words. Most of the time, in my opinion, I see so many initiatives running around in circles because no one truly understands the end goal. Not only does this waste company resources and result in a groupthink mentality, but it also drains your workforce from all the extra initiative they must take.
Our organization suffers from a lack of IT resources, in my opinion because we focus too heavily on business goals and too little on IT goals, even when the latter supports the business's strategy. My hope is that by applying some of the concepts we've learned in studying EA, out IT organization can connect our infrastructure improvement projects to business strategy, thereby justifying increased spend/headcount.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about short term gains. Cost and Value management teaches us that cost & value effects are not necessarily linear with time. Long term losses are often felt much further down than time scale and sometimes are not addressed simply because of the length of time passed to address an issue. Short term gains may also hide the actual results of an Enterprise wide initiative that is destined for failure.
ReplyDeleteI like the graphic too. And I totally agree with your premise. I think part of the problem is that IT and the Business have some difficulty understanding each other. Also until the business sees results, they don't want to slow down long enough to do the work necessary for EA. I really liked the Gartner article about Just Enough, Just in Time EA.
ReplyDelete