visualization methods : handle with care : heat maps
Tango
Enterprise_Architecture_for_Business_Success_----_Chapter_5.pdf
46 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success, 2014, 46-100
Inji Wijegunaratne, George Fernandez & Peter Evans-Greenwood All rights reserved-© 2014 Bentham Science Publishers
CHAPTER 5
Alignment Abstract: To detail the main meaningful activities of EA, in chapters 5, 6 and 7 we go through a scenario illustrating the lifecycle of a pragmatic, business aligned EA development exercise.
Chapter 5 covers the first, crucial stage of our EA lifecycle: Align. The main activities, tools, techniques and artefacts for the alignment phase are introduced.
Keywords: Architecture artefacts, business and IT alignment, business value classification, current state assessment, enterprise ‘as is’, Heat Maps, investment priorities, IT strategy maps, business service maps, strategy maps, The EA project.
5.1. Business-IT Alignment: Context
The context of this Align stage, as we reasoned in the Introduction to Section 3, is business/IT planning. In many ways this stage is crucially important, since it sets the scene for all that is to follow. If we get this right, we would have done our part in ensuring that IT’s direction is entirely aligned and compatible with that of the business (Fig. 5.1).
What do we try to establish in Align?
• What are the business drivers?
• What does IT need to meet/satisfy/support these business drivers?
• What concrete initiatives is the business looking at to evolve the enterprise and carry it into the future?
• What does the end state look like?
As we said before, it is our responsibility to conduct this exercise at the speed that business wants; we need to organize ourselves and the Align assignment to deliver at ‘business speed’.
You are likely to find yourself in a setting like this (see “Alignment project - illustrative structure and relationships” (Image 5.1)); the organizational structure and relationships of an alignment exercise can be complex. Keeping this large and disparate group—typically, high-level stakeholders—with possibly different
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 47
Fig. (5.1). Enterprise Architecture and the business and IT operating cycles.
Align Elaborate Govern
IdenIfy(the(future([from( several(possibiliIes](that( opImally(aligns%with(vision(and( objecIves.( Melbourne(example(–(four(day( workshop((
Elaborate(on(the(future(state( and(the(roadmap.((Provide( technical(leadership(for( transiIon(planning.( Melbourne(example(–(six( month(planning/scoping((
Govern/!the((transformaIon( programme(using(the(target( state(as(a(baseline.(( Melbourne(example(–(( transformaIon(program.%
EA(governance(driver(EA(as(value(driver(
Align(
Govern(Elaborate(
Elaborate(
Govern(
Enterprise(architecture(in(the(context(of(the(business(and(IT(operaIng(cycles(
Figure(5.1(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
48 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Image (5.1).
interests and priorities on-side as you proceed is crucial: if you do so, gaining their acceptance, approval, and support for your deliverables will mean that business and IT have lined up in cohesion in an agreed direction. Of course it is up to IT to deliver on their part of the commitment (over which you personally, as an enterprise architect, may not have much control – see Chapter 7 for more on this point), but, in helping unify business and IT vision, you will certainly have done your part.
Alignment)assignment)
Business)Sponsors)
�Assignment) governance)
)Senior)business) )and)IT)mgt�
Lead) Other)IT)) sakeholders)–)Project)
groups,)EAs)etc.%
Other))business) stakeholders)
Team)
Business)strategy) development)
IT)Sponsors)
Alignment)project)–))illustra3ve)structure)and)rela3onships)
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 49
It helps if the alignment team is a joint business and IT team; consider this as a consulting assignment rather than, say, a development project. Stakeholder buy-in is more important than trying to keep to an initially agreed scope; you can change tack and detail of output and overrun by a week, if the stakeholders are happy. Manage politics and stakeholder expectations; apprise stakeholders of developments, keep ‘surprises’ to a minimum; don’t present findings and deliverables as a fait accompli, always involve stakeholders in the journey.
What is a typical timeframe? It depends on the circumstances: as we have said several times, it is essential to execute these activities at a speed the stakeholders require. Techniques presented in this Chapter can be employed for a six week— small—assignment for two people or a six to eight month—large—assignment for ten people. It is up to you, as the practitioner, to configure the team, the depth and breadth of the deliverables, and to manage stakeholder expectations to the needs of the circumstances.
5.2. Alignment: Process
Image (5.2).
Unnumbered(5.1b(
Assess(current(state(
Clarify(strategy(
Realize(strategy(requirements(
Organise( &(
present( output(
Uncover( current(state( arIfacts(
Business(strategy(formulaIon(
Business%%strategy%and%IT%alignment%substanEally%in%parallel%
Assess(current(state(
Business(strategy(
Clarify(strategy( Realize(strategy(requirements( Organise(&( present( output(Uncover(
current(state( arIfacts(
Business%%strategy%and%IT%alignment%performed%sequenEally%
Stakeholder%approval%
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
50 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Broadly, as depicted above (Image 5.2), you would understand and clarify the business strategy (which the business may or may not have formalized and documented), and together with business stakeholders identify ways that IT can assist in realizing these strategy requirements. At the same time the current state is assessed to uncover opportunities to support the business as well as to expose any issues standing in the way. These are then organized and presented for stakeholder buy-in.
Notice that the term ‘architecture’ is noticeably absent in the above description. This is intentional: the primary objective in this phase is to undertake this exercise at a pace and level of detail that the business requires (remember the six day workshop of the Melbourne example). For example the knowledge of IT SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) may suffice to accomplish the task of realizing a strategy requirement, especially if this is undertaken in a business/IT workshop format.
Image (5.3) shows Align stage tasks in more detail, for example the interplay between an evolving roadmap and an emerging target state in organizing and presenting the findings. But we must stress that you should be mindful of the relatively unstructured nature of the activities of this stage. This is no cookie- cutter process; the illustration is a reference for guidance only. The process must
Align Stage Tasks
Image (5.3).
Unnumbered(5.1c(
Understand(( business((and( business(drivers(
Assess(current( IT(estate( ( ( (
Current(IT( spend(analysis(
Data(gathering(
Interview( quesIons/( discussion( points(
Business/IT(alignment(
IdenIfy( opportuniIes(for(( IT(efficiencies,(risk( minimisaIon,(cost( reducIon,( capability( improvement(
IT(estate(assessment(
Develop((high( level(response(to( business(drivers((
Consolidate( iniIaIves(&( develop( roadmap(
Sequenced( iniIaIves;(H/L( costs(&(benefits(
IdenIfy((high(level( target((state(
Develop(target(IT( processes((
Target(Architecture(
Other%inputs%
PrioriIsaIon( +(roadmap(((
PrioriIse( iniIaIves( • Business(( importance(
• FuncIonal(+( technical( precedence(
Business((
IT/IS(
CapabiliIes(
Elaborate(on(target(( state:( Program(planning((
Enterprise/( program(arch.(
artefacts((
Target(IT(processes(
Develop(target(IT( capability(map(
IT( improvement( iniIaIves((
Business( alignment( iniIaIves((
Systems([funcIonal(( &(technical(]( assessment(
IT(capability( assessment( Financial(( assessment(
ElaboraIon(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 51
be configured to the imperatives of each situation, with a focus on the essential output—what does IT need to do to support the business drivers? How do we best identify this in a manner that carries the business (and IT) stakeholders forward? If this is done well, the time and resources for elaborating on these outcomes will come later.
5.3. Alignment: Content
5.3.1. Technique: Strategy Maps and the Different Views of an Organization
Let us first consider the strategy map (Fig. 5.2), a technique introduced by Kaplan and Norton in:
• “Having Trouble with Your Strategy ”, Kaplan & Norton, HBR, Sept-Oct 2000
• “Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets”, Kaplan & Norton, HBR, Feb 2004
Fig. (5.2). A strategy map.
Figure(5.2(
(Improve(cost( structure((
Increase(asset( uIlisaIon(
Enhance( customer(value(
(Expand(revenue( opportuniIes(
ProducIvity( Revenue(growth(
Financial(view(
Customer(view(
Internal( process(view(
Learning(&( growth(view(
(Price( Service( Partnership((Quality( (Availability( SelecIon( FuncIonality( Brand(
(OperaIons(mgt( Customer(mgt( InnovaIon( Regulatory(&(social(
(Human(capital( InformaIon(
capital( OrganisaIon(
capital(
Typical(differenIators(for( OperaEonal%excellence% Customer%inEmacy% Product%leadership%
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
52 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
These techniques developed by Kaplan and Norton enable structure and traceability in strategy development. With these techniques, changes to operational and organizational assets to support strategy outcomes are clearly identified, making it easy to communicate and execute the strategy.
Carrying over from their balanced scorecard technique, a strategy map includes four different views:
• Financial view: Typically the starting point for a for-profit organization. (Other organizations—such as a University—may have different values as their top consideration.) In the general case there are two avenues to explore:
o Increasing revenue: expanding revenue opportunities with new markets, new products, and new customers, or increasing value to existing customers by extending relationships with them.
o Improved productivity: reducing cost by tightening direct and indirect expenses, and using assets more efficiently.
• Customer view: What does the enterprise undertake, from an external or customer facing standpoint, to satisfy the drivers identified from the top- level financial standpoint? Kaplan and Norton identify three generic areas of focus:
o Operational excellence: product quality, price, availability, selection, and brand recognition and positioning are key.
o Customer intimacy: deepening relationships with customers, for example, through excellent service, brand positioning and recognition.
o Product leadership: focusing on the quality and functionality of its products.
• Internal: How do you organize yourself internally to achieve these external customer facing goals? These goals may be achieved via making changes to one or more of the following dimensions
o Operations management
o Customer management
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 53
o Innovation
o Regulatory and social
• Learning and Growth: this perspective defines the core competencies and skills, and the culture needed to support the internal processes, which in turn support the externally facing objectives that in turn support the drivers from the strategic financial standpoint.
How does this technique help us? We observe that this is a powerful technique firstly to clarify your thoughts and present them clearly and concisely; secondly, this technique establishes traceability, the linkages between separate perspectives and so assists in building a chain of evidence.
A slight modification creates a clear and concise visual representation of the outcomes of business and IT alignment.
5.3.1.1. Modified Strategy Map
We modify the strategy map representation to facilitate our EA ends, as shown in the schematic in Fig. (5.3). The right side vertical shows the original strategy map concept, whereas the left vertical illustrates the modified perspective. Essentially, recognizing that the Business is IT’s customer, the four business strategy perspectives are collapsed into a ‘customer view’ for IT; the ‘internal’ view for IT then reflects the concrete things IT must undertake to satisfy the imperatives of the goals of IT’s customers.
The figure shows the Mobil example presented in the Kaplan and Norton work. We take up their thread to produce an internal IT perspective congruent with business goals and the outcome in a modified version of the strategy map.
• Shown in the figure is a representation of the outcome of the analysis.
• What is required of IT to align with the strategy drivers is shown in the bottom two rows: The ‘internal’ view is a high level view of what IT needs to do; the last row contains the concrete actions.
• This layout makes the traceability between strategy directives and IT actions very clear.
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
54 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Fig. (5.3). The IT Strategy Map-derived from the general Strategy Map.
Fig. (5.4). From strategy to concrete action.
Figure(5.3(
D ir ec I o n ((
“C u st o m er ”( vi ew (
“I n te rn al ”( vi ew (
B u si n es s( st ra te gy (– (t yp ic al ly (“ gi ve n ”(
(Become(industry(cost(leader( in(each(supply(chain(category(
Maximise(use(of( exisIng(assets(
Sell(more( premuim(brands(
New(non(petrol(revenue(sources(–( expand(convenience(store(presence(
ProducIvity( Revenue(growth(
Fin an cial(view(
C u sto
m er(view(
In tern
al(p ro cess(
view( Learn
in g(&
(gro w th (view(
Enable(speedy( purchase(
Help(dealers(develop(their( business(skills((
(Friendly,(helpful( staff(
(Recognise( customer(loyalty(
Offer(more(consumer( products(
(Create(non` petrol(
products(&( svcs(
Beber(understand(( customer((segments(&(build( excellent(franchise(teams(
Improve(hardware(performance(and(inventory(mgt,( deliver(on(spec(&(on(Ime,(become(industry(cost(leader(
Improve(((((( EH&S(
Adapt(new(technology(that( aids(process(improvements(
Align(business(&( personal((staff)(goals(
Mobil(example(“Having(Trouble(with(Your(Strategy(”,(( Kaplan(&(Norton,(HBR,(Sept`Oct(2000(
(Promote(funcIonal(excellence,(develop(leadership(skills,( create(integrated(company(view(in(employee(minds(
What(concrete(things(do(we,(as(IT(need(to(do?(
Business%strategy%view%% Kaplan%&%Norton
IT%view%%
Figure(5.4(
" How(can(IT(enable(speedy(
purchase?(
" How(can(IT(assist(in(rewarding(
customer(loyalty?(
" How(can(IT(help(beber(
understand(customer((
segments?(
" Improve(operaIonal(
performance(and(becoming(
cost(leader?(
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • RaIonalize(suppliers?([lible(we(can(do]( • Standardize(purchase(processes(([can(help]( How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • We(interact(with(each(vendor’s(app(separately(((
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • Loyalty(program( How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • No(current(system( • VH/L(what,(how,(where(etc(for(new(system(
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • SegmentaIon,(beber(customer(info,(targeted( campaigns(
How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • Poor(analyIcs,(no(segmentaIon/campaign((( • VHL(what,(how:((SegmentaIon,(campaign( support,(customer(analyIcs(((
Are(there(any(IT( people,(process,(
changes(needed(to( support(these(
changes?( ( ( ( (
How(do(we(prioriIze( the(change( iniIaIves?(
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • Reduce(costs(across(the(board( How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • Benchmark(IT(operaIonal(costs(–(high(( • How(to(reduce?(
• Licencing;(infra(uIlizaIon(efficiencies;( beber(automated(operaIons(management(((
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 55
Fig. (5.5). IT version of the Strategy Map.
Each of the initiatives presented in this modified strategy map (Fig. 5.5) is described broadly to the level of detail shown in Image (5.4).
Image (5.4).
Figure(5.5(
“Our”%version%of%a%strategy%map%
(Become(industry(cost( leader(in(each(supply(
chain(category(
Reduce(IT(operaIonal( expenditure(
RenegoIate( sosware(licencing((
agreements(
St ra te gy (
d ir ec I o n ((
“C u st o m er ”( vi ew (
“I n te rn al ”( vi ew (
Improve(hardware(performance(and( inventory(mgt,(deliver(on(spec(&(on(Ime,(
become(industry(cost(leader(
Consolidate(and( virtualise(server( environment(
RaIonalise(IT( suppliers/( products(
Sell(more( premium(brands(
(Recognise( customer(loyalty(
Beber(understand(( customer((segments([&(build( excellent(franchise(teams](
Develop(IT(capability( to(support((loyalty( recogniIon(and(
reward(
Improve(the(ability(to( support(customer( segmentaIon(&(
targeted(markeIng((
ReIre(exisIng(loyalty( app(module;(develop( new;(integrate(with( customer((analyIcs(
Deprecate(&(reIre(current( cust(analyIcs;(build(new(
cust(analyIcs(platorm,(incl( segmentaIon(&(campaigns((
C o n cr et e( ac I o n s(
B y( IT (
Unnumbered(5.5a((
Complexity(
{High/Medium/Low}((
Benefit( {H/M/L}(+(descripIon(+(
H/L(quanIficaIon(
Outcome(
Deprecate(&(reIre(current(cust(analyIcs;(build(new(cust(analyIcs(platorm(including(segmentaIon(&( campaigns((
EsImated(duraIon(
EsImated(effort(
IniEaEve%X1.1:%%Build%new%customer%analyEcs%environment%
Technical(descripIon((
HosIng(platorm(( ( IntegraIon( ( Technical(dependencies(
IndicaIve(non`FuncIonal( requirements(
As(applicable(
• Volumes/response(Imes( • Availability( • Scalability(etc(
FuncIonal(descripIon(
FuncIonal(component(1:({inputs,(process,(outputs,(integraIon}( ( FuncIonal(component(2:({inputs,(process,(outputs,(integraIon}( ( FuncIonal(dependencies(
Traceability(
Strategy(driver(/( requirement(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
56 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
These artefacts, the modified strategy map and the high-level description of each initiative indicate a clear, uncluttered approach to represent the outcomes of alignment. Except for the diagram above (Fig. 5.4) briefly describing how we get from business objectives to IT objectives, the ‘how’ has not yet been discussed. This is the topic of the next section.
5.3.2. Realizing the Strategy: Concrete Actions for IT
So how do you get from ‘input’ (strategic business objectives) to output (set of concrete actions for IT) in a real life situation (for example, as an Image 5.5)?
Image (5.5).
The first thing is to clarify the business strategy, if it is not apparent. Then we need to move from business strategy to concrete IT initiatives (Fig. 5.6).
Fig. (5.6). From strategy to initiatives.
Unnumbered(5.5b(
Business( strategy(driver:((((
Sell(more( premium(brands(
Customer(view(:(((( Beber(understand(( customer((segments(
Concrete(acIon:( ReIre(exisIng(loyalty(app(
module;(develop(new;(integrate( with(customer((analyIcs(
Internal(view:( Improve(the(ability(to( support(customer( segmentaIon(&(
targeted(markeIng((
Concrete( acIon:((
Workstream(#( 3(of(the(
transformaIon( program(
From(Business(strategy((
Figure(5.6(
Business(strategy(may(not(be( clear;(business(may(not(have(a( well`arIculated(strategy(–(what(
to(do?((
How(do(you(move(from(business( strategy(to(concrete(iniIaIves?(
Current(state((assessment( • IT(funcIonal(assessment( • Financial(assessment( • IT(capability(assessment( • OperaIonal(&(technical(assessment(
Realising(strategy(requirements( • Technical([architectural](analysis( • Scenarios( • RaIonalisaIon(
Uncover(and/or(clarify(business(( Strategy( (
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 57
5.3.2.1. Clarifying the Business Strategy
Image (5.6).
Image (5.6) illustrates a two-level business strategy, clearly presented and at a level that IT and the business can work together to develop concrete business driven IT initiatives to support these goals. In some situations though, this level of clarity may not exist. Let us run through some scenarios that you may encounter and suggest what you need to do in those circumstances:
• The strategic business direction is not clear
o Help clarify business thinking; structure and organize business imperatives into a form suitable for rows 1 and 2 in ‘our’ strategy map
o Socialize, agree, obtain acceptance
• Business may use another technique
o Analyze, structure and organize business imperatives into a form suitable for rows 1 and 2 in ‘our’ strategy map
o Socialize, agree, obtain acceptance. Use it for communicating with the business if the stakeholders are comfortable with this type of representation as a high-level view; else maintain it as a mapping internal to IT, to foster a business value driven discipline in IT capital works.
• Business gives IT a specific strategic imperative. For example:
o Rationalize your IT estate
o IT costs too much, reduce operational costs by x%
Unnumbered(5.6a(
(Become(industry( cost(leader(
Reduce(operaIonal( costs(across(the(board(
(Tangibly(increase(the( efficiency(of(our((
operaIons(
(Minimise(product( problems:((#(product( recalls,(mtce(cost( during(warranty((
(Improve(response( Ime(and(resoluIon(
for(customer( complaints(
(Improve(order(to( cash(by(30%(
(Grow(revenue(by( 20%(
Develop(products(X( and(Y(–(latent(( market(need(
Improve(retenIon/( repeat(business(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
58 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
o Focus on improving our B2B capabilities.
o If you can, check that these do align with business goals, structure them into the layers of our modified strategy map; see if there are others that the business missed.
• IT find themselves in a situation where they need to develop “their own” strategic goals; for example, business are in a stage of their cycle where a clear strategy/goals are not possible at that time:
o If this is the case, we must be very careful that this exercise is not, and is not seen to be, a purely IT-driven exercise. We may choose to wait until the business vision is clarified; if this is not possible, we need to come up with IT initiatives that do link back to levers that are attractive to the business
o Some generally acceptable IT-driven initiatives are:
IT cost reduction/efficiency improvement, which is an overall cost win, and should be desirable outcome under most business circumstances
Investing to improve service levels to business. This is likely to be an overall cost burden, but should be acceptable if it results in tangible gains via improved business benefit realization within an acceptable timeframe
• What techniques can we use:
o To help clarify business strategy?
Scenarios are a very useful technique to understand and clarify business strategy. For example, exercising an appropriate set of scenarios can help in moving from the first row to the second row of a strategy map.
o To help uncover the type of IT initiative attractive to the business in a situation where strategic business imperatives hard to discern?
A current state assessment is a useful technique, especially analyzing how the different parts of the IT estate (of varying value to the
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 59
business) are supported and the respective financial outlays incurred in supporting them (these techniques are discussed later in the Chapter).
5.3.2.2. Realising a Strategy Requirement
Image (5.7).
There is no magic bullet. First, for clarity, we need to understand, and if needed restate, the strategy requirement. We discussed this previously. We then need to investigate how, in cooperation with the business, IT can assist in realizing the strategy requirement (Image. 5.7). The types of likely outcome are business initiatives supported by IT, business sponsored IT initiatives, or IT platforms – i.e. common functionality sharable by several business divisions such as an Internet platform or an integration platform. Some ways in which we can identify these outcomes are:
• Examining aspects of existing enterprise / domain architecture
Not all parts of the IT estate are equally important for the business; examining the existing enterprise or domain architecture at a high level with
" How(can(IT(enable(speedy(
purchase?(
" How(can(IT(assist(in(rewarding(
customer(loyalty?(
(
" How(can(IT(help(beber(
understand(customer((
segments?(
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • RaIonalise(suppliers?([lible(we(can(do]( • Standardise(purchase(processes(([IT(can(help]( How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • We(interact(with(each(vendor’s(app(separately(((
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • Loyalty(program( How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • No(current(system( • V(high(level(what,(how,(etc(for(new(system(
What(are(the(business(thinking(of?(( • SegmentaIon,(beber(customer(info,(targeted( campaigns(
How(does(current((IT(estate(help/hinder?( • Poor(analyIcs,(no(segmentaIon/campaign((( • VHL(what,(how:((SegmentaIon,(campaign( support,(customer(analyIcs(((
Are(there( any(IT( people,( process,( changes( needed(to( support( these(
changes?(
Unnumbered(5.6b(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
60 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
a critical eye will help understand the relative significance of different parts of the IT estate. We can also understand how the different parts perform today, especially in relation to the emerging strategic needs—are there gaps, deficiencies? What has been the investment in IT; for example, have parts of the estate been systematically neglected, that now have become strategically important?
• Developing and exercising scenarios
Scenarios are equally useful here; in counterpoint to the more analytical approach above, scenarios use the creative parts of the intellectual arsenal in helping understand strengths and weaknesses of the existing IT estate in supporting the business strategies and help in creating appropriate IT responses.
Some techniques to assist in realising a strategy requirement are presented below.
5.3.3. More Techniques for the Align Stage
5.3.3.1 Business Service Maps, Business Value Classification and Heat-Maps
Business Service Maps
Business service maps (also called business function or capability maps) are an important tool that can be used in many facets of this Align stage. A business capability or service is simply a set of similar activities (requiring similar skills and people); not in itself an end-to-end business process but called into play in executing a business process. A business service map is the set of such functions that represent the activities of a business division or the entire enterprise.
Here is a fragment of a business services map for the insurance industry (Fig. 5.7); this map does not belong to any particular insurance company, but is a generic one that depicts business services of a typical insurance operation. Such a reference artefact used as a starting point can accelerate the development of a business services map for a given enterprise.
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 61
Fig. (5.7). Business services map for an insurance company.
Level 1 of the map is each row of the map, i.e. Sales and Marketing, Advisory Services, etc.; level 2 each rectangle, Marketing Strategy, Wealth Management, etc. This map expands out into Level 3 for some business services; e.g. each bulleted line item under Customer Analytics Management.
Figure(5.7(
Risk Mgt
Sales & Marketing Sales Strategy
Account Management
Business Development
Customer Management
Customer Analytics Mgt
Customer Relationship Mgt
Distribution Induction, Training & Support Performance Mgt
Strategy and Planning
Board
HR
Financial Mgt
Procure- ment
Mgt Development Exec Committee Audit Finance Investment Compensation Corporate
Governance
Recruitment Mgmt
Compensation & Benefits
Performance Mgmt
Staff training & Development Career Mgmt
Competency Mgmt
Vendor Mgmt Procurement &
Sourcing
Business Performance monitoring
Research & Innovation
Decision support & analytics
Strategy & planning
Licencing and Appointment
Planning & Governance
Value Chain
Enabling
Board Reporting
Partner mgt
• Market Segmentation • Product Analysis • Sales Analysis
Advisory Services
Wealth Management
Retirement Planning
Marketing strategy Advertising and communication
Brand Management
New Business Planning and
Review
CompensationMgt Recruitment, Renewals, & Termination
Hierarchy Mgt
Customer Acquisition
• Prospecting • Leads Mgt • Needs Analysis • Quotation/ Illustration
Actuarial Liability Valuation Product Pricing
Group Insurance Techniques
Audit
Product Operations Mgt
New Product Research &
Development Product Filing
Product Maintenance Product Removal
Risk Mgt
New Business Operations Mgt
Product Illustration Application Pro
Premium Ops Mgt Premium Billing Premium Receipt
Premium Processing
Premium Cancellation
Channel Ops Mgt
Benefits Payment
Commission payment Data Exchange
Policy Servicing Mgt
Modifications Withdrawals Policy
Cancellation Dividend
Calculation Renewals Re-instatements Portfolio Transfer Reduction Susp
Claims & Annuity Benefits
Claims & Annuity Initiation
Claims & Annuity Reserve
Claims & Annuity Analysis & Settlement
Claims & Annuity Benefits Payment
Claims & Annuity Complaints
Asset Mgt Inves
Financial Supply Chain Mgt
Credit Mgt Presentation &
Payment Cash & Liquidity
Mgt Legal
Legal
Workforce Deployment
Resource Planning
• Interaction Mgt • Complaints Mgt • 360 deg view • Loyalty program mgt
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
62 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Business Value Classification
Fig. (5.8). Business Value Classification-investment priorities.
Classifying business services goes hand in hand with business service maps. We can think about business services in different ways to help shape our investments in them; business value classification helps this process (Fig. 5.8). The above classification is one way of differentiating between business services that we have found to be useful.
• Business differentiation: ability of the business service to help the business differentiate itself
• Business impact: extent to which an unexpected outage to the business service impacts the business
Figure(5.8(
(((
Business% differenEaEon%
Business% impact%
( ( ( ( (
Manage(for(( Service(level( agreement( opImizaIon(
(( Manage(for(( driving(change(and(( differenIaIon(( in(the(market(
Manage(for(cost( minimizaIon(
(((
L(
H
Low( High(
(D rive(valu
e( (C o st(cen
tre((Cost(or(issue(
Is su e( o r( o p p o rt u n it y(
ProacIve(investment(or(opportunity((
Wijegunaratne(I(and(Fernandez(G,(2008;((adapted(from(Steve(Jones,( Enterprise!SOA!Adop2on!Strategies,((2006)(C4(Media(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 63
For example, an outage to a business service bringing in revenue to the enterprise, e.g. insurance premium processing, will have a high business impact as the break will result in loss of revenue; however, it is unlikely to be a differentiator (generally, insurance companies do not compete on how they process premiums). Hence it is a low differentiating, high impact business service.
On the other hand, insurance product design is a differentiator (companies obviously compete on products), but an outage to product design will not impact the daily operation of the business significantly: hence, a high differentiating but low impact business service.
We must also mention that this characterization of a business service is (or should be) a deliberate act by the enterprise. An insurance company may for example make a conscious decision to make a differentiator out of the way it processes premiums—it may see a competitive opportunity there.
A sample heat mapped fragment of a business services map is shown in Fig. (5.9). Each business service is overlaid with a coloured circle identifying its significance (HDLI => high differentiation low impact, HDI => high differentiation and impact, and so on).
How does this classification scheme help us?
Many IT divisions do not possess a clear picture of how the business values different parts of the organization; indeed the business themselves may not have a clear metric for the relative value of their business services. In such an environment IT investment decisions tend to be driven by factors such as the current budget and the cost of the proposed change, or the influence of the business sponsor, but not on the strategic or operational business value of the proposed change.
This framework provides a way to structure and prioritise strategic as well as operational investment decisions. The four quadrants give three investment perspectives:
• Market changing business services: Invest proactively, identifying and creating investment opportunities or opportunistically when an opportunity presents itself.
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
64 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Fig. (5.9). Heat-mapped business services for an insurance company.
• Essential utilities: Invest to maintain service levels or service level agreements (based on an issue or opportunity)
• Others: Manage for cost minimization
To summarise
• Organise your company’s business services in the manner of a business services map.
Figure(5.9(
Risk Mgt
Sales & Marketing Sales Strategy
Account Management
Business Development
Customer Management
Customer Analytics Mgt
Customer Relationship Mgt
Distribution Induction, Training & Support Performance Mgt
Strategy and Planning
Board
HR
Financial Mgt
Procure- ment
Mgt Development Exec Committee Audit Finance Investment Compensation Corporate
Governance
Recruitment Mgmt
Compensation & Benefits
Performance Mgmt
Staff training & Development Career Mgmt
Competency Mgmt
Vendor Mgmt Procurement &
Sourcing
Business Performance monitoring
Research & Innovation
Decision support & analytics
Strategy & planning
Licencing and Appointment
Planning & Governance
Value Chain
Enabling
Board Reporting
Partner mgt
• Market Segmentation • Product Analysis • Sales Analysis
Advisory Services
Wealth Management
Retirement Planning
Marketing strategy Advertising and communication
Brand Management
New Business Planning and
Review
CompensationMgt Recruitment, Renewals, & Termination
Hierarchy Mgt
Customer Acquisition
• Prospecting • Leads Mgt • Needs Analysis • Quotation/ Illustration
Actuarial Liability Valuation Product Pricing
Group Insurance Techniques
Audit
Product Operations Mgt
New Product Research &
Development Product Filing
Product Maintenance Product Removal
Risk Mgt
New Business Operations Mgt
Product Illustration Application Pro
Premium Ops Mgt Premium Billing Premium Receipt
Premium Processing
Premium Cancellation
Channel Ops Mgt
Benefits Payment
Commission payment Data Exchange
Policy Servicing Mgt
Modifications Withdrawals Policy
Cancellation Dividend
Calculation Renewals Re-instatements Portfolio Transfer Reduction Susp
Claims & Annuity Benefits
Claims & Annuity Initiation
Claims & Annuity Reserve
Claims & Annuity Analysis & Settlement
Claims & Annuity Benefits Payment
Claims & Annuity Complaints
Asset Mgt Inves
Financial Supply Chain Mgt
Credit Mgt Presentation &
Payment Cash & Liquidity
Mgt Legal
Legal
Workforce Deployment
Resource Planning
• Interaction Mgt • Complaints Mgt • 360 deg view • Loyalty program mgt
HDLI(
LDI(
LDHI(
HDI(
HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI( HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI( HDLI(
LDI(
LDI(
HDI(
HDI(HDI(
LDHI( LDHI(
LDHI( LDHI( LDHI( LDHI(
LDHI( LDHI( LDHI(
LDHI(
HDI(
HDI(
HDI(
HDI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI( HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDLI(
HDI(
LDHI(
LDHI( LDHI(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 65
• Classify the business services; a heat-map is a useful way to depict the classification
• Use this to inform and guide investment decisions in the business services
Ideally this exercise should be performed by senior business managers. The business should own the business services map plus the heat-map and use these as one measure to guide investment decisions in the business services, irrespective of whether they contain an IT component or not. Pragmatically, the ownership of these artefacts may reside in a business architecture group, and/or IT plus business stakeholders may have joint ownership.
• Business and IT may then use the business services map artefacts as one input to guide their thinking in shaping business and business/IT strategic initiatives to align with the corporate strategic objectives.
• IT may use the business services map artefacts to ask the question “is the spread of IT investments and focus/attention across the IT estate consistent with the relative significance of the business services”, especially in the context of a current state assessment.
5.3.3.2. Current State Assessment: The Enterprise ‘as is’
Current state assessment is not a single technique. Rather, it employs a set of techniques to review and scrutinize the current performance of IT along several dimensions to formulate inferences and recommendations for improvement.
When would you undertake a current state assessment in this (align) context?
For instance
• When cost or efficiency is a strategy driver
• When IT is seen as needing to lift its game
• When IT is in a position to proactively propose improvements
Do not confuse current state assessment with sourcing, identifying, and completing existing architectural artefacts. As a prerequisite for certain elements
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
66 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
of such an analysis we may need to source, review, and collate existing architectural artefacts, but do not spend too much effort in developing or completing them: very rarely do you get that luxury in our context here. Make do with what is there; let stakeholders know that the technical detail/granularity of the output of the align stage is conditional on the quality and detail of the existing information.
Fig. (5.10). Current state assessment.
As Fig. (5.10) attests, a current state assessment is not confined simply to a technical assessment. Functional, financial, and IT capability assessments can yield very significant insights into the operations of the IT division and its IT estate. The most appropriate techniques to fit the current circumstances in the “Align” stage must be chosen.
Opera&onal*and* technical*assessment*
Func&onal* assessment*
IT*capability* assessment*
Current'state'assessment'of'applica1on' por2olio'
Typical*indicators*
• IT*expenditure*spread*by* business*value*
• Propor&on*of*discre&onary*vs* non*discre&onary*expenditure**
• Comparison*against* benchmarks*
Typical*indicators*
• Func&onal*and*technical*fitness*of* applica&on*suite*
• Opera&onal*performance*and* efficiency*
• Supportability** • Opera&onal*risk*profile*of*the*porColio* • Vendor*and*product*spread* • Licencing*efficiencies*
Typical*indicators*
• Maturity*and*effec&veness:** SDLC*processes*[viz*CMM*]*
• Support*and*opera&ons*[viz* ITIL]*
• Environment*management* • Knowledge*management*
Typical*indicators*
• Business*value*categorisa&on* • Func&onal*coverage*by*apps* • Applica&on*categorisa&on*by*
value**
Typical*indicators*
• Interface*fitness*for*purpose**Q*BY*TYPE* • Interface*development*and*support*
unit*effort/cost*Q*BY*TYPE*
• Master*data*ownership*and*use*by*app* [CRUD],*by*business*unit*
• Data*quality*in*opera&onal*and* analy&cal*applica&ons*
• Infrastructure*suitability*and*capacity*
Select'as'appropriate'
Financial* assessment*
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 67
Functional Assessment
Business service maps and business value categorization are extremely valuable tools to guide the analysis here. Using business services heat-maps as a base, a few more artefacts can be constructed: one is explored below, and another under financial assessment:
• Application coverage of business services (Fig. 5.11).
The heat-mapped business services (columns in the figure below) are mapped against the applications of the IT estate (the rows in the figure). Application coverage is then depicted as shown below. Even if it is not possible to differentiate the quality of coverage, this type of analysis can be very insightful. For example;
o Row => # of business services that each application serves
o Column => # applications serving each business service
What inferences can we draw on application coverage?
• As a guide, we should expect a high quality of functional fit against high differentiating business services; high quality of non-functional fit (performance, scalability, availability) against high impact business services.
• Several applications supporting the same business function (cells down a single column) generally means duplication or fragmentation of application functionality.
• We can also infer the relative importance of applications (or application modules of large ERPs); if for example an application spans mostly HDI business services, then the application itself can be categorized as HDI.
• These types of inference can be employed as an input to determine opportunities for rationalization, consolidation, and possible shifts of IT focus (i.e. towards high differentiation and high impact business services).
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
68 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Fig. (5.11). Application coverage of business services: quality.
Financial Assessment
Spread of IT Expenditure Against Business Services
An artefact very similar in form to functional coverage is the spread of IT expenditure across business services. Heat-mapped business services (columns) are mapped against the applications of the IT estate (rows). For each application, the IT expenditure against each business service it covers is shown.
If possible, two plots may be constructed:
• Operational expenditure (support and maintenance)
• Project expenditure
We need to have reasonable ways of defining high, medium, and low quanta of expenditure, and of apportioning costs against each business service (Fig. 5.12).
Group&1&& Group&2& &&
Group&3& Group&4&
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
1& &&
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&2 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&3 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
4&
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&5 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&6 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&7 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&8 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&9 &
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&1 0&
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&1 1&
Bu si ne
ss &s er vi ce /f un
c4 on
&1 2&
Applica4on&1& Applica4on&2& Applica4on&3& Applica4on&4& Applica4on&5& Applica4on&6& Applica4on&7& Applica4on&8& Applica4on&9& Applica4on&10&
Business&services/& func4ons&
Por?olio&Applica4ons&
High&& Med& Low&
High&& Med& Low&
Business&value&
Business&impact& High&& Med& Low&Quality&of&coverage&by&
the&applica4on&
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 69
Fig. (5.12). Application coverage of business services: expenditure.
What inferences can we draw? Obviously, the relative magnitudes of application related IT expenditure against each business service can be inferred from this. But there are a couple of caveats: the first being, as indicated earlier, apportioning accuracy and reliability. The second is an interesting one; for example imagine a relatively small, custom developed application targeting one of your high differentiation business services, say product development. At a relatively small level of outlay, this application performs its job extremely well. There is a low differentiation business service, financial accounting, that uses a module of the organization’s main ERP, that even when apportioned shows an order of magnitude higher expenditure than your product development application.
Spread of aggregate operational spending against the business service categories may also yield useful insights: What is the aggregate spending under each of these categories?
• High business differentiation/High business impact
• High business differentiation/Low business impact
• Low business differentiation/High business impact
Figure(5.12(
Group(1(( Group(2( ((
Group(3( Group(4(
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n 1 (((
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (2 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (3 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n 4 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (5 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (6 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (7 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (8 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (9 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (1 0 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (1 1 (
B u si n es s( se rv ic e/ fu n cI o n (1 2 (
ApplicaIon(1( ApplicaIon(2( ApplicaIon(3( ApplicaIon(4( ApplicaIon(5(
Business(services/( funcIons(
Portolio(ApplicaIons(
High(( Med( Low(
High(( Med( Low(
Business(value(
Business(impact(
High(( Med( Low(OperaIonal(expenditure(for( the(applicaIon(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
70 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
• Low business differentiation/Low business impact
Again the same caveat on apportioning spending applies.
For reasons implicit from the earlier narrative, a low operational IT spend is not necessarily an adverse finding for high differentiation and low impact applications; a low functional fit (i.e. SME opinion of functional fit) is a far sharper and more telling one.
As a guide, you would expect the focus of operational expenditure to be against the high business impact applications and the focus of project expenditure to be against high business differentiation ones. Again, a focus on HBD business services may not necessarily be evident from the dollar value of project expenditure; rather, a focus may be better reflected in the number of project initiatives.
• Breakdown of total spend against benchmarks. Industry benchmarks can be obtained from industry analysts such as Gartner (Gartner for example benchmarks major industry verticals every year). Metrics such as:
o IT spend as a proportion of total revenue
o IT spend per employee
o IT cost per customer (useful for banking, insurance, health insurance verticals)
o IT spend proportion for competitiveness, business operations, compliance (financial services vertical)
o Proportion of IT spend on discretionary (i.e. project) vs non- discretionary (operations, support and maintenance)
These are useful as objective illustrations of how your enterprise fares in terms of IT spending against the industry norm; properly used they can take the heat out of arguments and differences of opinion and help our focus return to the essentials.
Operational and Technical Assessment
The criteria of traditional IT assessments are found in this quadrant. For example:
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 71
• Operational risk profile of the portfolio (impact of an adverse event multiplied by the likelihood of occurrence)
• Non-functional attributes
o Level of technical fitness: how the actual non-functionals (performance, scalability, availability, etc.) fit the requirement
o Operational performance and efficiency
o Infrastructure suitability and capacity (application NFRs vs infrastructure features)
• Maintenance and support
o Supportability (The level of ease/ difficulty of supporting the application: cost of support, quality of support, available support skills)
o Vendor and product spread across the IT estate ("Can we rationalise?")
o Licensing efficiencies
• Integration
o Fitness for purpose by type of interface
o Development and support unit effort/cost by type of interface
• Data
o Master data ownership and use by applications: are there issues of data ownership/conflict in creating, reading, updating, deleting (CRUD) data? By business unit; similarly, do multiple business units lay claim to the ownership of a particular data entity?
o Data quality in operational and analytical applications
These indicators must be operationalized: for example, how do you measure the level of technical fitness? Where do you draw the line for high, medium and low levels of technical fitness?
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
72 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Evidence is gathered by way of a questionnaire/data collection sheet where SMEs provide their opinion or factual data is collected. An example of the latter is where the data on problem tickets raised over a period is gathered for an application: an analysis can attest to the application’s actual availability and stability.
Capability Assessment
Some may argue that an IT capability assessment does not fall within the traditional ambit of enterprise architecture. We have, however, defined the responsibilities of ‘doing enterprise architecture’ within the context of IT strategy and planning. An IT capability assessment is central to ensuring that the IT engine is capable of supporting the ship of the enterprise as it navigates its way through treacherous competitive waters.
You may assess capability along dimensions such as;
• Maturity and effectiveness of SDLC processes (viz. CMM )
• Maturity and effectiveness of support and operations (viz. ITIL/ITSM)
• IT management and governance (viz. COBIT)
Another angle you could consider is capabilities in the major ‘business’ services in an IT division, such as:
• Strategy and planning
• Architecture
• Program and portfolio management
• Development
• Testing
• Operations and support
• Information management (analytics)
• Integration
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 73
• Knowledge management
For the industry standard capability frameworks—CMM and ITSM, COBIT— there are standard assessments that can be used; else you can develop your own assessment. Depending on the time and resources available, you could carry out a detailed assessment, or a high-level one; if the latter, an assessment by a few SMEs should give you a reasonable picture. Typically though, in the Align stage, you want a broad picture, and undertaking the latter should be enough to provide you the main strengths and weaknesses of IT capability.
5.3.3.3. Scenarios: Involving the Business
This approach complements the more analytical techniques, such as current state assessments. The execution of scenarios in a workshop environment by groups of business and technology stakeholders helps understand the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the current enterprise (processes, capabilities, systems and technology) and help identify appropriate responses to the strategic imperatives.
We have earlier identified two stages where scenarios can usefully be employed. The actual scenarios must be constructed to suit the needs of each occasion, but the principles are the same:
• Think of scenarios as being very similar to test scripts in IT testing. Like test scripts coverage and mix is critical to obtain the right balance of outcomes
o Ensure coverage. For our purposes, coverage is predicated upon the source strategy drivers; if for example our purpose is to move from level 1 to 2, construct each scenario so that it maps to one or more level 1 strategy drivers; ensure all drivers are adequately covered
o Ensure right mix of business as usual (functional testing), stretch (performance/ stress testing) scenarios. In the latter, we deliberately stretch the organization’s capabilities and processes to understand better how the business is placed to cope with unusual and stressful situations
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
74 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Scenarios: Clarifying Business Strategy
Image (5.8).
Here, exercising an appropriate set of scenarios can help in moving from the first row to the second row of our strategy map (Image 5.8).
Some examples of business as usual (BAU) scenarios:
• Smith & Co receives an order for 1000 widgets. How long does it take to (a) deliver and (b) receive & process payment? Maps to top-level driver ‘improve operational efficiency’.
• Mrs. Gray makes a complaint. How long to process and resolve? Maps to drivers ‘achieve excellent customer service’ and ‘improve operational efficiency’.
• An acquisition results in transaction volumes growing by 30%. What are the effects on the IT estate? System service levels (performance, availability, throughput), IT skills, IT operational costs? Maps to driver ‘improve operational efficiency’ and ‘grow revenue by 20%’.
Unnumbered(5.12a(
“Our”%%version%of%%a%strategy%map%%
(Become(industry(cost( leader(in(each(supply(
chain(category(
Reduce(IT(operaIonal( expenditure(
RenegoIate( sosware(licencing((
agreements(
St ra te gy (
d ir ec I o n ((
“C u st o m er ”( vi ew (
“I n te rn al ”( vi ew
(
Improve(hardware(performance(and( inventory(mgt,(deliver(on(spec(&(on(Ime,(
become(industry(cost(leader(
Consolidate(and( virtualise(server( environment(
RaIonalise(IT( suppliers/( products(
Sell(more( premium(brands(
(Recognise( customer(loyalty(
Beber(understand(( customer((segments([&(build( excellent(franchise(teams](
Develop(IT(capability( to(support((loyalty( recogniIon(and(
reward(
Improve(the(ability(to( support(customer( segmentaIon(&(
targeted(markeIng((
ReIre(exisIng(loyalty( app(module;(develop( new;(integrate(with( customer((analyIcs(
Deprecate(&(reIre(current( cust(analyIcs;(build(new(
cust(analyIcs(platorm,(incl( segmentaIon(&(campaigns((
C o n cr et e( ac I o n s(
B y( IT (
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 75
• A knowledge worker develops an innovative new product. How does the company identify, capture and industrialize the idea? Maps to drivers ‘improve operational efficiency’, ‘develop competitive products’.
More examples, stretch scenarios:
• Business needs to place a new product in the market within two months. How can this be done? Maps to driver ‘improve operational efficiency’, ‘develop competitive products’.
• A new competitor emerges on the market with a product 30% cheaper than ours. How do we claw back our position? Maps to drivers ‘develop competitive products’, ‘improve business agility’.
We would exercise these scenarios in a workshop environment, where small teams of business and IT stakeholders exercise the enterprise’s business and, where appropriate, IT processes in the context of these scenarios.
Scenarios: Realizing Strategy Requirements (Image 5.9)
Image (5.9).
Unnumbered(5.12b(
“Our”%%version%of%%a%strategy%map%%
(Become(industry(cost( leader(in(each(supply(
chain(category(
Reduce(IT(operaIonal( expenditure(
RenegoIate( sosware(licencing((
agreements(
St ra te gy (
d ir ec I o n ((
“C u st o m er ”( vi ew (
“I n te rn al ”( vi ew
(
Improve(hardware(performance(and( inventory(mgt,(deliver(on(spec(&(on(Ime,(
become(industry(cost(leader(
Consolidate(and( virtualise(server( environment(
RaIonalise(IT( suppliers/( products(
Sell(more( premium(brands(
(Recognise( customer(loyalty(
Beber(understand(( customer((segments([&(build( excellent(franchise(teams](
Develop(IT(capability( to(support((loyalty( recogniIon(and(
reward(
Improve(the(ability(to( support(customer( segmentaIon(&(
targeted(markeIng((
ReIre(exisIng(loyalty( app(module;(develop( new;(integrate(with( customer((analyIcs(
Deprecate(&(reIre(current( cust(analyIcs;(build(new(
cust(analyIcs(platorm,(incl( segmentaIon(&(campaigns((
C o n cr et e( ac I o n s(
B y( IT (
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
76 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
This is the same technique as discussed earlier, but is now used to assist in moving from IT’s customer view to IT’s internal view, moving from tiers 2 and/or 3 to tier 4 of a strategy map.
Fig. (5.13). BAU scenarios examples.
• How can IT enable speedy purchase of supplies? Here are a couple of sample scenarios targeting this question.
o Ms. Green is given purchase orders to place with suppliers A, B, D, with each order comprising more than 40 line items, to fulfill a set of major customer orders needing to be delivered in two months. What process does she need to perform? How does she preserve the integrity of the order? How does she track each order to delivery?
o Ms. Green discovers she made a mistake in the order she placed with supplier B; what does she do to rectify the situation?
Similar scenarios can be constructed to explore
• How can IT assist in rewarding customer loyalty?
! How$can$IT$enable$speedy$
purchase?$
! How$can$IT$assist$in$rewarding$
customer$loyalty?$
$
! How$can$IT$help$be9er$
understand$customer$$
segments?$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Ra>onalise$suppliers?$[li9le$we$can$do]$ • Standardise$purchase$processes$$[can$help]$ How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • We$interact$with$each$vendor’s$app$separately$$$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Loyalty$program$ How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • No$current$system$ • VH/L$what,$how,$where$etc.$for$new$system$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Segmenta>on,$be9er$customer$info,$targeted$ campaigns$
How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • Poor$analy>cs,$no$segmenta>on/campaign$$$ • VHL$what,$how:$$Segmenta>on,$campaign$ support,$customer$analy>cs$$$
Are$there$ any$IT$ people,$ process,$ changes$ needed$to$ support$ these$
changes?$
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 77
• How can IT help better understand customer segments?
You will notice that the scenarios may now be, as compared to the previous set, more operationally focused. The key to success in the technique is to tailor the scenarios appropriately to the needs of the situation—focus, coverage, mix. As we’ve said before, the right mix of people exercising scenarios in an appropriate setting helps crystallize what needs to be done.
5.3.3.4. Using Business Services
A few instances of the use of business services in analysis were explored earlier. This section describes more analytical techniques that employ business services.
Systematic Rationalization
Image (5.10).
Once you have an application to business services mapping (see current state analysis), you may see opportunities for rationalization, e.g. the same business service is supported by many applications (Image 5.10). The case for rationalization would in most cases be supported by the financial analysis: non- discretionary expenditure (support and maintenance) and potential savings through rationalization.
Unnumbered(5.13a(
Business(services(group(
Business(service(
ApplicaIon(
Business(services(group(
Business(service(
ApplicaIon(
• IdenIfy(gaps(&( overlaps(in(app( coverage(of(business( services(
• RaIonalise(the( applicaIon(coverage( of(business(services(so( that(each(bus(svc(is( covered(by(the( minimum(possible(#( [ideally(a(single(app](of( separate(applicaIons:( • Best(funcIonal( coverage(from(the( candidates( • Dependencies((and( other(constraints(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
78 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Questions to ask include:
• Which application/s is capable of best supporting the strategic direction as it applies to this group of business services?
• How can the best features of functional coverage be preserved in the post rationalization world?
• How quickly can you recover the rationalization project expenditure through gains in reduced operational expenditure and other business benefits?
Remember, these points need to be covered at a high level; typically, we do not look for exhaustive technical or financial analyses at this stage.
Exploring the Degree of Standardization
Image (5.11).
In this analysis (Image 5.11), you first need to develop some insights around grouping business services. For example, we were able to develop this insight at a group of businesses operating in the financial services sector.
Across the various businesses of the group, there are:
Unnumbered(5.13b(
((Customer((Management(
(Invoicing/(Billing/(Payment(
(Supply(Chain(
(Financials(
(Payroll(/(HR(
(P ro d u ct (
h o ld in g(
(P ro d u ct (o ff er in g(
(P ro d u ct (F u lfi lm
en t(
((Membership((Services(
Insurance(
((Personal(Finance(
(Wealth(Management(
`(`(`(`(`(`(`((
C en
tralised (
C en
tralised (o r(
stan d ard
ized (
PotenIal(for( standardizaIon(
In d iv id u al ly (
va ri ed
(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 79
• Product offerings encompassing business services in product design, deployment, retirement, product lifecycle management: banking products, insurance products, etc.
• Product holdings: that is, the intersection between the customer and the product, such as my insurance policy, my bank account, my superannuation account, etc.
• Product fulfillment, which is how the business fulfills its obligations associated with each product: claims, policy discounts, superannuation income streams, etc.
• Other: finally, groups of business services such as customer management, supply chain, etc., shown on the right side of the figure are self-explanatory business functions.
This grouping presents a common framework into which the business services of each business unit can be mapped. Once this mapping is complete, we have the basis for a number of interesting cross-business discussions.
For instance, potential commonalities—lost under the business-unit specific representation of business services—may begin to emerge (Image 5.12). There are obvious synergies and business benefits in all businesses centralizing their (hitherto) individual customer bases: upselling, cross-selling, loyalty, discounts, etc. There is potential to standardize certain ERP functions, such as common chart of accounts, single set of payroll/HR processes; and less obviously, potential to standardize supply chain as well as invoicing/payment business services, and so on. Potential may exist in the product space for some degree of commonality and standardization; worth exploring. There is however very little standardization possibilities in product fulfillment, since they necessarily are distinct (virtually none in our example). Another evidentiary factor to bring to this type of discussion is the business differentiation/impact classification of the business services: along with functional similarity, consider if the business service is a high differentiator. If this is the case, there is more of a business case to leave business- unit specific variations as they are, and vice versa.
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
80 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Image (5.12).
Once the business services discussion has reasonably progressed, you can bring application support options (and their relative cost profiles) to the table:
1. Single instance of the application and data supporting all consumers; for example, a single CRM engine for customer management.
2. Single application (or application product) that is replicated: application functions are the same in each replicated instance, but they serve distinct pools of data, for example for supply chain, invoicing/payment in the different business units.
3. Completely different applications servicing their distinct data pools (of course the ‘space’ between options 2 and 3 is a continuum).
Another interesting conversation here is one around metadata; not data types, but the business definitions of potentially common data. For example, a basic question such as “what is your definition of a ‘customer’?” may yield different answers from the different business units: Each business unit may have a distinct definition for customer, and these definitions may not necessarily align.
Unnumbered(5.13c(
((Customer((Management(
(Invoicing/(Billing/(Payment(
(Supply(Chain(
(Financials(
(Payroll(/(HR( (P ro d u ct (
h o ld in g (
(P ro d u ct (o ff e ri n g (
(P ro d u ct (F u lfi lm
e n t(
((Membership((Services(
Insurance(
((Personal(Finance(
(Wealth(Management(
`(`(`(`(`(`(`((
S in g le (
C R M ((
S in g le (E R P ( Seek(funcIonal( commonaliIes(
In d iv id u a l( a p p s(
a n d (s e rv ic e s(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 81
Fig. (5.14). Alternative business grouping.
Here is another way of grouping business services that is similar in concept to the one above but obviously suited to a different industry vertical (Fig. 5.14).
Application Boundary Analysis
A related concept is application or service cluster boundary analysis: what clusters of business services form a boundary for provisioning via a single application or an application module? This is an essential technique in Greenfield situations, but can also be useful in existing IT estates, where any form of re-configuration of the estate is being considered. The figure below shows a logical cluster for provisioning via a CRM application, a Product Management cluster, and a Policy Servicing cluster (Fig. 5.15).
The technique is significant from a service oriented architecture (SOA) perspective too: the ‘application’ boundary is nothing more than boundaries between clusters of SOA services. Interaction between clusters is strictly by service invocation, via an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). Within a cluster though, tighter coupling is permitted and service internals may communicate with each other. For example a customer is created within the CRM service cluster; the
Figure(5.14(
Manufacturing,(Inventory( Warehouse(Management( Quality(Management( LogisIcs(and(Transport( Finance(
Corp(Performance( Management(
HR(
C u st o m er (R el aI
o n sh ip (
M an ag em
en t(
Business(Intelligence(
Product(Lifecycle(Management(
Su p p ly (C h ai n ((
M an ag em
en t(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
82 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Fig. (5.15). Service cluster boundary analysis.
detail of this customer becomes available to the other services within the CRM service cluster. But services in the billing service cluster will need to make an explicit customer inquiry via the ESB.
5.3.3.5. Analysis of Enterprise-Level Architecture Artefacts
We have earlier discussed some enterprise-level artefacts such as business services maps and their significance in this context. The key in referring to enterprise-level architecture artefacts is their relevance and use at this stage of the process: you may have a wide and detailed variety of artefacts, but detail is not
Figure(5.15( Risk Mgt
Sales & Marketing Sales Strategy
Account Management
Business Development
Customer Management
Customer Analytics Mgt
Customer Relationship Mgt
Distribution Induction, Training & Support Performance Mgt
Strategy and Planning
Board
HR
Financial Mgt
Procure- ment
Mgt Development Exec Committee Audit Finance Investment Compensation Corporate
Governance
Recruitment Mgmt
Compensation & Benefits
Performance Mgmt
Staff training & Development Career Mgmt
Competency Mgmt
Vendor Mgmt Procurement &
Sourcing
Business Performance monitoring
Research & Innovation
Decision support & analytics
Strategy & planning
Licencing and Appointment
Planning & Governance
Value Chain
Enabling
Board Reporting
Partner mgt
• Market Segmentation • Product Analysis • Sales Analysis
Advisory Services
Wealth Management
Retirement Planning
Marketing strategy Advertising and communication
Brand Management
New Business Planning and
Review
CompensationMgt Recruitment, Renewals, & Termination
Hierarchy Mgt
Customer Acquisition
• Prospecting • Leads Mgt • Needs Analysis • Quotation/ Illustration
Actuarial Liability Valuation Product Pricing
Group Insurance Techniques
Audit
Product Operations Mgt
New Product Research &
Development Product Filing
Product Maintenance Product Removal
Risk Mgt
New Business Operations Mgt
Product Illustration Application Pro
Premium Ops Mgt Premium Billing Premium Receipt
Premium Processing
Premium Cancellation
Channel Ops Mgt
Benefits Payment
Commission payment Data Exchange
Policy Servicing Mgt
Modifications Withdrawals Policy
Cancellation Dividend
Calculation Renewals Re-instatements Portfolio Transfer Reduction Susp
Claims & Annuity Benefits
Claims & Annuity Initiation
Claims & Annuity Reserve
Claims & Annuity Analysis & Settlement
Claims & Annuity Benefits Payment
Claims & Annuity Complaints
Asset Mgt Inves
Financial Supply Chain Mgt
Credit Mgt Presentation &
Payment Cash & Liquidity
Mgt Legal
Legal
Workforce Deployment
Resource Planning
• Interaction Mgt • Complaints Mgt • 360 deg view • Loyalty program mgt
(CRM(
(Product(design(&(mgt(
(Policy(servicing(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 83
your friend in this stage of the game. Only use artefacts that can provide you insights to progress your analysis. Here are some more sample artefacts:
CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) matrix: A matrix of corporate data entities vs applications, stating which applications Create, Read, Update, and Delete which data entities (Fig. 5.16).
Fig. (5.16). A partial CRUD matrix.
What does a CRUD matrix tell us that is significant for our purposes here?
• Is a corporate entity created by more than one application; updated by more than one application?
Figure(5.16(
C us
to m
er
A cc
ou nt
s
M em
be rs
hi p
P ro
du ct
C re
di t
C ar
ds
O rd
er
P ac
ka ge
D is
pa tc
h
Membershi p Main
CRUD R R R
ISSP U U CRUD CRUD
Edanda Star U U R R R
PASAP R R R CRUD
Credit Master U U CU U
LightFoot CRUD CRUD R R R R
BigEndian U CU U CU R
Reconciliat ion module R R R
ODE Remote U CU R U U CU CU
SKINS R U
EWEP U CU R R R R
Data%Subjects%ApplicaEons%
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
84 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
• What is the system of record for a corporate entity, or some attributes thereof?
• Is the data propagation between the master and others being managed to preserve consistency?
We can infer
• The integrity of managing master data: two or more applications responsible for the same operation on the same entity can point to data integrity issues, if there is no separation by range, type, etc., or a master/slave relationship.
• Fragmentation of master data very likely indicates fragmentation of customer experience, as well as incurring additional maintenance costs.
What is this model below?
Image (5.13).
An entity-relationship model (Image 5.13); encompasses many subject areas. It expresses the relationship between data entities of the enterprise. This in itself
Unnumbered(5.16a(
OrganizaIon(
Property(
Employee(
PosiIon(
Appointment(
Profit( Centre( Cost(Object( Fellowship( Student(
Applicant(
Faculty(
Subject( SecIon( Course( (Major)(
Chair(
Alumnus(
Person(
Proposals( Sponsor(
Project(
Degree(
Course( Content(
Job(
Budget( Gis(
Company(
One(and(only(one(
Zero(or(one(
Zero(or(many(
One(or(many(
EnIty([Name](
Legend%
Space( Hazard(
Primary( InvesIgator(
(PI)(
A(person( can(be(
Is(an(administraIve(department(for(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 85
however, does not give us any information on which applications or business functions are associated with which data. What does it tell us that are useful for what we are currently doing? Quite frankly, not much.
Here is an infrastructure diagram (Image 5.14). This type of artefact can be useful in determining the strengths and limitations of the existing infrastructure in attempting to realize strategic requirements. For instance, assist in analyses such as the determination of the limitations of integration with the supplier systems in exploring supply chain integration.
Image (5.14).
5.4. Realising the Strategy – Continued…
With this bag of techniques under our belt, let us revisit strategy realization.
Unnumbered(5.16b(
xxx(
Oracle( RAC(
Firewall(
ALBPM( Server(
ALSB( Cluster(
WLI( Cluster(
Load(Balancer(
sFTP(Cluster(
IIS(AcIve(
Load(Balancer(
IIS( Passive(
IBM( ApplicaIon( Engine(
Firewall(
Network(Storage(
A cI ve (
AcIve( Oracle( DB(
Passive( Oracle( DB(
Load(Balancer(
WLI( Cluster(
XXX( Cluster(
sFTP( Cluster(
Load(Balancer(
IIS( AcIve(
IIS( Passive(
Firewall(
Proxy((Drop`off(Server( Proxy(Server(
Firewall(
Firewall(
Firewall(
Firewall(
D M Z(
In te rn et (
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
86 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Image (5.15).
! How$can$IT$enable$speedy$
purchase?$
! How$can$IT$assist$in$rewarding$
customer$loyalty?$
$
! How$can$IT$help$be9er$
understand$customer$$
segments?$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Ra>onalize$suppliers?$[li9le$we$can$do]$ • Standardize$purchase$processes$$[IT$can$help]$ How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • We$interact$with$each$vendor’s$app$separately$$$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Loyalty$program$ How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • No$current$system$ • Very$high$level$what,$how,$etc.$for$new$system$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Segmenta>on,$be9er$customer$info,$targeted$ campaigns$
How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • Poor$analy>cs,$no$segmenta>on/campaign$$$ • VHL$what,$how:$$Segmenta>on,$campaign$ support,$customer$analy>cs$$$
Are$there$ any$IT$ people,$ process,$ changes$ needed$to$ support$ these$
changes?$
! How$can$IT$
enable$$
speedy$
purchases?$
! How$can$IT$
assist$in$
rewarding$
customer$
loyalty?$
! How$can$IT$$
help$be9er$
understand$
customer$$
segments?$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Ra>onalize$suppliers?$[li9le$we$can$do]$ • Standardize$purchase$processes$$[can$help]$ How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • We$interact$with$each$vendor’s$app$ separately$$$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Loyalty$program$ How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • No$current$system$ • VHL$what,$how,$etc.$for$new$system$
What$are$the$business$thinking$of?$$ • Segmenta>on,$be9er$customer$info,$targeted$ campaigns$
How$does$current$$IT$estate$help/hinder?$ • Poor$analy>cs,$no$segmenta>on/campaign$$$ • VHL$what,$how:$$Segmenta>on,$campaign$ support,$customer$analy>cs$$$
Are$there$ any$IT,$ people,$ process,$ changes$ needed$to$ support$ these$
changes?$
Strategic$ requirement$
Diagnosis$
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 87
Suppose we have the following findings (uncovered through a workshop with business and IT SMEs) for the first bullet (enabling speedy purchases) of the figure above:
• We interact with each vendor application separately
• We then need to update our supply management systems with order and reference numbers; this may result in changes to expected cost and delivery information
• Vendor # 7 has system limitations on accepting orders larger than 10000 widgets; need to split orders artificially
• Vendor # 3 and 5 applications/ connections unreliable; problem not at our end; average of about 4 outages per month
• Impact assessment by business and IT: Current efficiency at 50% industry norm; significant loss of staff opportunity cost; average of 40% delays in deliveries directly attributed to purchasing problems
• Recommendations (joint business + IT): one Powerpoint slide
o Implement a supplier gateway that interfaces to our current supply management application; all suppliers required to interface directly with it
o Rationalize suppliers. Negotiate on price as well as ability to alleviate current problems (interfacing, order size, etc.)
o Standardize and streamline ordering process
o Expected benefit; expected cost
The above figure (Image 5.15) and workings illustrate a path from strategic requirement to realization. In rationalizing suppliers and standardizing purchase processes as a means of enabling speedy purchases, we have identified some major bottlenecks stifling productivity. A supplier gateway (a business driven IT initiative) has been proposed; also proposed is to use this (supplier ability to integrate with a supplier gateway) as one lever in supplier rationalization negotiations. We observe here the synergy between IT and business in realizing this strategy requirement.
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
88 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
This is an illustration. In another setting a different path may be taken—see below for another example. A few pointers here:
• Be careful of preconceptions: IT’s preconceptions of what is needed are often at variance with what the business actually need. Strangely enough, big ERPs, SOA, are not generally at front of mind for the business stakeholders; rather, they may very well be starved of reliable analytics.
• Relatively small solutions may be found that could have a highly beneficial impact. A search engine with an internal focus could well be an immediate answer, rather than a full-blown knowledge management strategy.
• Do not shirk from thinking through deconstruction scenarios: in this day and age, disaggregating a large and clumsy IT estate can offer great potential. Cloud vendors offer a variety of services, such as infrastructure, platform, application and business process as a service. So, outsourcing may be adroitly done, only targeting appropriate parts of your IT estate. Think ecosystems, rather than monoliths.
o What parts of the business can someone else do better and cheaper than us?
o What parts can we do better in collaboration with a partner?
o What potential things have we not even attempted, that with the support of a partner we can now undertake?
o What core competencies do we nurture ourselves in-house?
For example:
An insurance company with highest level strategic imperatives to improve operational efficiency, improve product profitability, and enhance brand value decides to
Partner with company A
• Completely outsource its premium processing, which it sees as parts of the business that simply needs to be managed to an SLA (SaaS + business process outsourcing)
• Co-source its claims processing plus supply chain management
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 89
process for replacement goods which it sees as conferring some competitive advantage (cloud-based internal systems and co-sourced processes)
Partner with company B
• Provide a mobile-phone based platform for claims assessors which the partner operates and runs
The company focuses internally on
• Product development, marketing, customer relationship management, and analytics
What business/IT initiatives will be needed to accomplish this intent?
This illustrates how relatively monolithic IT estates can fall prey to disaggregation pressures, and how ecosystems can gradually replace command and control structures.
5.5. Developing, Organizing, and Presenting the Findings (Image 5.16)
Image (5.16).
Unnumbered(5.16e(
Understand(( business((and( business(drivers(
Assess(current( IT(estate( ( ( (
Current(IT( spend(analysis(
Data(gathering(
Interview( quesIons/( discussion( points(
Business/IT(alignment(
IdenIfy( opportuniIes(for(( IT(efficiencies,(risk( minimisaIon,(cost( reducIon,( capability( improvement(
IT(estate(assessment(
Develop((high( level(response(to( business(drivers((
Consolidate( iniIaIves(&( develop( roadmap(
Sequenced( iniIaIves;(H/L( costs(&(benefits(
IdenIfy((high(level( target((state(
Develop(target(IT( processes((
Target(Architecture(
Other%inputs%
PrioriIsaIon( +(roadmap(((
PrioriIse( iniIaIves( • Business(( importance( • FuncIonal(+( technical( precedence(
Business((
IT/IS(
CapabiliIes(
Elaborate(on(target(( state:( Program(planning((
Enterprise/( program(arch.(
artefacts((
Target(IT(processes(
Develop(target(IT( capability(map(
IT( improvement( iniIaIves((
Business( alignment( iniIaIves((
Systems([funcIonal(( &(technical(]( assessment(
IT(capability( assessment( Financial(( assessment(
ElaboraIon(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
90 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
We have now done an initial identification of the initiatives that map back to the strategic objectives; i.e. we have a draft of ‘our’ version of the strategy map. Each initiative is scoped at a high level: an initial scoping containing some or all of the descriptive elements in the figure below (Fig. 5.17).
Fig. (5.17). Organising initiatives to form a roadmap plus target state; detail of an initiative template.
Unnumbered(5.16f((
(IniIaIves(
Target(EA(
Business(
Systems(
InformaIon(
Technology(
C o n ce p tu al %
Lo gi ca l%
P h ys ic al %
Program(of(work(
(Become(industry(cost( leader(in(each(supply(
chain(category(
Reduce(IT(operaIonal( expenditure(
RenegoIate( sosware(licencing((
agreements(
Improve(hardware(performance(and( inventory(mgt,(deliver(on(spec(&(on(Ime,(
become(industry(cost(leader(
Consolidate(and( virtualise(server( environment(
RaIonalise(IT( suppliers/( products(
Sell(more( premium(brands(
(Recognise( customer(loyalty(
Beber(understand(( customer((segments([&(build( excellent(franchise(teams](
Develop(IT(capability(to( support((loyalty(
recogniIon(and(reward(
Improve(the(ability(to( support(customer( segmentaIon(&(
targeted(markeIng((
ReIre(exisIng(loyalty( app(module;(develop( new;(integrate(with( customer((analyIcs(
Deprecate(&(reIre(current( cust(analyIcs;(build(new(
cust(analyIcs(platorm,(incl( segmentaIon(&(campaigns((
“Our”%%version%of%%a%strategy%map%%
St ra te gy (
d ir ec I o n ((
“C u st o m er ”( vi ew (
“I n te rn al ”( vi ew (
C o n cr et e( ac I o n s(
B y( IT (
Complexity+
{High/Medium/Low}++
Benefit+ {H/M/L}+++descrip>on+++
H/L+quan>fica>on+
Outcome+
Deprecate+&+re>re+current+cust+analy>cs;+build+new+cust+analy>cs+plaForm+including+segmenta>on+&+ campaigns++
Es>mated+dura>on+
Es>mated+effort+
Ini$a$ve(X1.1:((Build(new(customer(analy$cs(environment(
Technical+descrip>on++
Hos>ng+plaForm++ + Integra>on+ + Technical+dependencies+
Indica>ve+nonLFunc>onal+ requirements+
As+applicable+
• Volumes/response+>mes+ • Availability+ • Scalability+etc.+
Func>onal+descrip>on+
Func>onal+component+1:+{inputs,+process,+outputs,+integra>on}+ + Func>onal+component+2:+{inputs,+process,+outputs,+integra>on}+ + Func>onal+dependencies+
Traceability+
Strategy+driver+/+ requirement+
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 91
Now we need to shape and organize these initiatives to form a roadmap, and then to document the outcomes for stakeholders.
Consolidate and establish precedence relationships among the initiatives:
• The same or similar initiatives may have cropped up in multiple discussions
• There will be dependencies among different initiatives
• There may be precedence requirements that may not have been captured in the initial round
There is generally a precedence hierarchy among initiatives of the following form: say several business units regard provisioning of customer and channel-based analytics as a prime strategic requirement. At the same time, better customer focus and relations is also a strategic requirement. Since this is a group of relatively autonomous business units, they have multiple pools of customers; so we see that a key precedence requirement is to consolidate these pools of customer data into a single cohesive master pool, and then to maintain the integrity of the master as well as any residual individual pools that the business units may decide to maintain. That is, a customer Master Data Management system and process. So a precedence requirement is an MDM system and process, which will require an MDM product. Now if an MDM product is implemented, then once implemented, it can be used to Master other business relevant, but not as urgent, master data. But before the enterprise implements an MDM system it need to undertake an assessment (revisit the feasibility: costs and benefits, risks and constraints), then all going well evaluate and select one.
This thread of dependencies must involve aspects of capability, learning, organizational impediments too. For instance you also realize that the different business units define ‘customer’ slightly differently, differences that could be material to the lifecycle of a ‘customer’. Hence the business data definition for a customer needs to be negotiated and sorted out among the businesses. Equally, master data management across business divisions involves a good deal of cooperation, taking down barriers erected to preserve divisional profitability. The idea that unfettered access to one another’s customer bases is ultimately more profitable than maintaining protectionist barriers must be sold to and bought into by the business divisions: the perspective that ‘customer’ is probably a corporate business responsibility should dawn in the minds of the divisional stakeholders. Your role in facilitating this mind-set transformation may come to the fore when,
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
92 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
say in the context of a master data management discussion, the operational implications of sharing customer bases become starkly clear to business stakeholders to whom a common pool of customers was hitherto an abstract concept.
The activities discussed above reveal a sequence: an initial stage of analyses combining proofs of concept where necessary; ‘platform’ implementation; application development using platform capabilities. It is important that both business and IT stakeholders are engaged in this process: firstly business stakeholders can provide insights that IT alone cannot. Secondly the cost and benefit equation, as well as the timeframe equation, evolve as this process evolves. To mix metaphors, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – customer and channel analytics; better customer relations – requires a chain of building blocks. Building and placing these blocks take time and money—it is critical that you carry your stakeholders through this, sometimes painful, exercise.
So the typical form of a roadmap takes the following shape (Image 5.17):
Image (5.17).
Unnumbered(5.17a(
Analyses(
Platorms(
ApplicaIons(
Capability(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 93
Fig. (5.18). A roadmap example.
Analyses of various types would typically signal the beginning of the roadmap; these analyses and proofs of concept would be followed by ‘platform’ implementations. What is a platform? A platform enables or supports the rapid generation of applications—for example a SOA platform—ESB, registry/repository, development environment, once implemented would support the design, deployment, and operation of services. A master data management platform enables management of not one, but successively to manage various types of master data of interest to the enterprise. Business-driven applications are developed utilizing platform capabilities. IT (and perhaps business) capability improvements are needed to support and sustain the program of change that we identify. The “roadmap example” shown in Fig. (5.18) illustrates this narrative.
You will also have noticed that this process of refining and organizing the initial roadmap involves enterprise architecture thinking in the traditional sense. While at the start of Align stage we relied heavily on artefacts of the ‘business architecture’ category—strategy maps, business services maps and various associated techniques, in consolidating the roadmap we stepped into the more familiar territory of high level application and technical architecture, in analyzing constraints, precedence requirements, and the like. When the need arose we also sketched some early and high-level platform architectures.
There is a vital point to note here: these architectural explorations and analyses took us to places identified to be material to strategic business objectives and imperatives. That is all. We have not ventured beyond that architectural terrain. We have not, for example, segued into an enterprise information model or
Figure(5.18(
Analyses(
Platorms(
ApplicaIons(
Capability(
(New(Internet(based( applicaIons([several](
(Implement(new(internet( platorm(
Internet(platorm( assessment(
Customer(analyIcs(
New(CRM(
(Implement(new(MDM( platorm(
(ReIre/(consolidate(exisIng( websites(
MDM(platorm(assessment(
Program(&(project(mgt(
SDLC(processes(and(quality(
TesIng(tools(and( environments(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
94 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
enterprise application architecture because our chosen EA framework states that they are part of a target state, or because our sense of completeness as an EA compels us. If detail is one enemy during this stage, ideology is the other.
The key architectural principle you need to remember here is you need only to illuminate the parts of the IT estate that are material to the direction that has emerged; and that too only at an appropriate level of detail. If supply chain, marketing, financial reporting have not figured in the deliberations up to now, then let those sleeping dogs lie. Remember, the business has undertaken an enterprise-encompassing strategic assessment (that you may also have assisted) and earmarked certain areas of change; you worked with the business in identifying how IT and the business can work together to implement these changes. Some areas of the business and the IT estate remain undisturbed. There will be time enough later in your career to explore them; perhaps when they come into the business’ radar in the next planning cycle. For now, you have limited time and limited resources to shape and present the outcomes of these deliberations; focus on them.
Image (5.18).
The complete roadmap deliverable contains the initiative descriptions and architectural considerations, a Gantt chart or equivalent capturing their precedence relationships and timeframes. A key presentation strategy here is to depict specific views of the complete roadmap relevant to each stakeholder community (Image 5.18). Each view
Roadmap(
IT(development( division(
IT(analyIcs(and(info( mgt(division((
IT(infrastructure( division(
Map(for(IT(capability( improvement(
Ganb(chart(
IniIaIve(descripIons(
Architectural( consideraIons(
Business(Unit(1((
Business(Unit((3(
Business(Unit(2(
Etc….(
Roadmaps(for(the(Business((Units(
IT(d ivisio
n al(w
o rk(
stream s(an
d (ro
ad m ap s(
CosIng(esImate(
Unnumbered(5.18a((
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 95
contains the scope of works relevant to the stakeholder, as well as high-level architectural aspects of the roadmap and target relevant to that stakeholder. There will obviously be overlaps – for example business unit one and two may share two platforms and three application initiatives. But it does not matter; presenting relevant views of the roadmap will cement ownership, especially if you had earlier carried the stakeholders along the roadmap formulation journey.
Typical contents for a Business Unit (BU) roadmap includes
Summary
• Strategy map for the business unit – traceability from corporate objectives through BU objectives to BU/IT initiatives
• High-level Gantt chart, tracing the specific BU initiatives to platforms and analyses
• Precedence relationships presented visually (e.g., application X <= platform A, platform B <= analysis/assessment D)
• Key benefits (qualitative may do) and summary of high level cost estimates, pertaining to the business unit (Initiatives that the BU needs to fund: perhaps the IT initiatives for the BU – depending on enterprise’s funding model), plus IT funded initiatives (perhaps the shared platforms – depending on the funding model)
Evidence
• Analysis and narrative describing the development of elements of the Business Unit view of the roadmap
• Evidence leading to roadmap development
o Business services maps and heatmaps
o Business service coverage by applications
o Summary of current state assessment conclusions relevant to the business unit
o New application boundary analysis/ centralization/decentralization analysis
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
96 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
o etc.
Detail
• Initiative descriptions – typically one PowerPoint slide per initiative
Typical contents for an IT divisional unit roadmap includes
Summary
• High-level Gantt chart, highlighting the specific initiatives relevant to the division – including dependent initiatives (e.g. infrastructure initiatives relevant to the Information Management division); also the appropriate capability improvement initiatives
Evidence and detail
• Platform architectural sketches and descriptions relevant to the IT division: i.e. EDW/Data mart platforms; ETL platform for the information management division
• Architectural considerations relevant to the division’s set of initiatives
• Precedence relationships relevant to the IT division
5.6. Align Stage – Wrap Up
We have now developed and presented the Align stage outcomes to the stakeholders, and if we carry them through this process as we have explained in this Chapter, stakeholder approval should not pose a problem1 – indeed, the pendulum may well have swung towards their enthusiastic engagement (their enthusiasm will of course be tempered by the delivery and business satisfaction track record of the IT division).
1The decision makers will have been across what was happening as the Align process progressed from identifying direction and focus [how IT can support what the business seeks] to the roadmap to the high level costs and benefits and there will have been no surprises at the end; under these circumstances stakeholder approval usually ceases to be a large hurdle and becomes more in the nature of a step in the process.
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 97
5.6.1. Revisiting the Artefacts
At the end of this ‘Align’ stage, what enterprise architecture artefacts have we produced?
Let us look to the Zachman framework to give us a frame of reference. The Zachman framework is regarded by many as providing the most comprehensive classification and coverage of enterprise architecture content. Let us map the outputs of this Alignment endeavor against the Zachman framework. The illustrations below display this mapping (Figs. 5.19-5.22).
Fig. (5.19). Strategy and business architecture artefacts.
Figure(5.19(
EnEEes% (What)%
AcEviEes% (How)%
LocaEons% (Where)%
People% (who)%
Time% (When)%
MoEvaEon% (Why)%
Planner% List(of(things( important(to( the(business(
List(of(Core( Business( processes(
List(of(Business( LocaIons(
List(of( important( OrganisaIons(
List(of(events(
List(of( Business( Goals/( Strategies(
ObjecEve/% Scope% Contextual%
Owner% Conceptual( Data/Object( Model(
Business( process(Model(
Business( LogisIcs( System(
Workflow( Model(
Master( Schedule( Business(Plan(
Enterprise% Model% Conceptual%
Designer% Logical(Data(Model( System( Architecture( Model(
Distributed( Systems( Architecture(
Human( Interface( Architecture(
Processing( Structure(
Business(Role( Model(
System% Model% Logical%
Builder% Physical(Data(Model( Technology( Design(Model(
Technology( Architecture(
PresentaIon( Architecture(
Control( Structure( Rule(Design(
Technical% Model% Physical%
Subbcontractor% (Programmer)%
Data( DefiniIons( Program(
Network( Architecture(
Security( Architecture(
Timing( DefiniIon(
Rule( SpecificaIon(
Components% Out%of% context%
FuncEoning% Enterprise% Usable(Data(
Working( FuncIon(
Usable( Network(
FuncIoning( OrganisaIon(
Implemented( Schedule(
Working( Strategy(
FuncEoning% Enterprise%
Zachman(framework(
Strategy(Map(
Business(services(+( heat(map(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
98 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Fig. (5.20). Roadmap artefacts.
Figure(5.20(
EnEEes% (What)%
AcEviEes% (How)%
LocaEons% (Where)%
People% (who)%
Time% (When)%
MoEvaEon% (Why)%
Planner% List(of(things( important(to( the(business(
List(of(Core( Business( processes(
List(of(Business( LocaIons(
List(of( important( OrganisaIons(
List(of(events(
List(of( Business( Goals/( Strategies(
ObjecEve/% Scope% Contextual%
Owner% Conceptual( Data/Object( Model(
Business( process(Model(
Business( LogisIcs( System(
Workflow( Model(
Master( Schedule( Business(Plan(
Enterprise% Model% Conceptual%
Designer% Logical(Data(Model( System( Architecture( Model(
Distributed( Systems( Architecture(
Human( Interface( Architecture(
Processing( Structure(
Business(Role( Model(
System% Model% Logical%
Builder% Physical(Data(Model( Technology( Design(Model(
Technology( Architecture(
PresentaIon( Architecture(
Control( Structure( Rule(Design(
Technical% Model% Physical%
Subbcontractor% (Programmer)%
Data( DefiniIons( Program(
Network( Architecture(
Security( Architecture(
Timing( DefiniIon(
Rule( SpecificaIon(
Components% Out%of% context%
FuncEoning% Enterprise% Usable(Data(
Working( FuncIon(
Usable( Network(
FuncIoning( OrganisaIon(
Implemented( Schedule(
Working( Strategy(
FuncEoning% Enterprise%
Zachman(framework(
Roadmap(Ganb( chart(( IniIaIves(list(
Dependencies(and( precedence(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
Alignment Enterprise Architecture for Business Success 99
Fig. (5.21). Business and application architecture artefacts.
Figure(5.21(
EnEEes% (What)%
AcEviEes% (How)%
LocaEons% (Where)%
People% (who)%
Time% (When)%
MoEvaEon% (Why)%
Planner% List(of(things( important(to( the(business(
List(of(Core( Business( processes(
List(of(Business( LocaIons(
List(of( important( OrganisaIons(
List(of(events(
List(of( Business( Goals/( Strategies(
ObjecEve/% Scope% Contextual%
Owner% Conceptual( Data/Object( Model(
Business( process(Model(
Business( LogisIcs( System(
Workflow( Model(
Master( Schedule( Business(Plan(
Enterprise% Model% Conceptual%
Designer% Logical(Data(Model( System( Architecture( Model(
Distributed( Systems( Architecture(
Human( Interface( Architecture(
Processing( Structure(
Business(Role( Model(
System% Model% Logical%
Builder% Physical(Data(Model( Technology( Design(Model(
Technology( Architecture(
PresentaIon( Architecture(
Control( Structure( Rule(Design(
Technical% Model% Physical%
Subbcontractor% (Programmer)%
Data( DefiniIons( Program(
Network( Architecture(
Security( Architecture(
Timing( DefiniIon(
Rule( SpecificaIon(
Components% Out%of% context%
FuncEoning% Enterprise% Usable(Data(
Working( FuncIon(
Usable( Network(
FuncIoning( OrganisaIon(
Implemented( Schedule(
Working( Strategy(
FuncEoning% Enterprise%
Zachman framework
App(coverage(of( business(svcs(
Alternate(business( svcs(grouping(
Business services + heat map
App(coverage( standardisaIon(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
100 Enterprise Architecture for Business Success Wijegunaratne et al.
Fig. (5.22). Application architecture artefacts.
So the main artefacts produced in this phase have found homes within the Zachman framework (Figs. 5.19-5.22), in levels 1, 2, and 3. A somewhat surprising result is that the schedule aspects of the roadmap artefacts too have found a place in the framework. Moreover, current state assessment results can also be mapped to the motivation column of the framework, as part of the underpinning for the business goals and plan.
Figure(5.22(
EnEEes% (What)%
AcEviEes% (How)%
LocaEons% (Where)%
People% (who)%
Time% (When)%
MoEvaEon% (Why)%
Planner% List(of(things( important(to( the(business(
List(of(Core( Business( processes(
List(of(Business( LocaIons(
List(of( important( OrganisaIons(
List(of(events(
List(of( Business( Goals/( Strategies(
ObjecEve/% Scope% Contextual%
Owner% Conceptual( Data/Object( Model(
Business( process(Model(
Business( LogisIcs( System(
Workflow( Model(
Master( Schedule( Business(Plan(
Enterprise% Model% Conceptual%
Designer% Logical(Data(Model( System( Architecture( Model(
Distributed( Systems( Architecture(
Human( Interface( Architecture(
Processing( Structure(
Business(Role( Model(
System% Model% Logical%
Builder% Physical(Data(Model( Technology( Design(Model(
Technology( Architecture(
PresentaIon( Architecture(
Control( Structure( Rule(Design(
Technical% Model% Physical%
Subbcontractor% (Programmer)%
Data( DefiniIons( Program(
Network( Architecture(
Security( Architecture(
Timing( DefiniIon(
Rule( SpecificaIon(
Components% Out%of% context%
FuncEoning% Enterprise% Usable(Data(
Working( FuncIon(
Usable( Network(
FuncIoning( OrganisaIon(
Implemented( Schedule(
Working( Strategy(
FuncEoning% Enterprise%
Zachman(framework(
SOA(platorm( Internet(platorm(
MDM(platorm(
Inji, W. (2014). Enterprise architecture for business success. Bentham Science Publishers. Created from fit on 2022-02-16 14:25:08.
C o p yr
ig h t ©
2 0 1 4 . B
e n th
a m
S ci
e n ce
P u b lis
h e rs
. A
ll ri g h ts
r e se
rv e d .
