Posted by Andrew Guitarte, PMP, CBAP, PMI-ACP on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - 18:02
Michael Porter defines value proposition in his article on the Six Principles of Strategic Positioning:
A company's strategy must enable it to deliver a value proposition, or set of benefits, different from those that competitors offer. Strategy, then, is neither a quest for the universally best way of competing nor an effort to be all things to every customer. It defines a way of competing that delivers unique value in a particular set of uses or for a particular set of customers. (HBR, 2001, p.2)
If we as business architects were to write our strategy and strategic positioning today, what would it be? How do we position ourselves to our clients, our peers, and "competitors"? Are we offering a "best buy", innovation, "complete solutions", or lock in value proposition?
If we claim, for example, that we help our clients increase their operational effectiveness and efficiency by providing actionable insights, are there other professional disciplines that lay claim to this value proposition? So, what really makes us unique? Your thoughts are welcome.
[Updated on 5/13/2010 2:06 PM]
JD- As usual, our perspectives are quite shared. I'll offer an expansion to your strategic/tactical distinction above: Achieving the value proposition of BA implies that the strategies of an architecture team's effort and targeted operations are one and the same (alignment), regardless of how the initiative gets to that point. In contrast, the tactics of each might have overlap only to the extent that the architecture effort is another distinctive part of enterprise operations and is therefore likely to share some resources, policies, and procedures. Kinda like coach vs. player. All that being said, there are larger EA/BA projects, as significant activities themselves, that could achieve what I call cascaded benefits from the BA value proposition by applying the principles to their own activities. This aspect of the value proposition benefits seems to be most often over-looked (ironic, familiar push back: visionary investment is required). Frank Millar Millar Consultants, LLC
You got me there Frank! Is this a Strategic vs. Tactical difference? Business processes exist to process business transactions and have a number of attributes including CSF, KPI, resources, and metrics. Included in metrics are workload, time, costs, value, and quality. By comparing metrics on a transaction flow basis, or on a process by process basis, the BA is able to determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and usefulness of processes. This might be done on a one off basis, or as part of an ongoing systematic business improvement activity. Either way, the end result is the current business process architecture and list of processes needing improvement. For the future business process architecture the BA would include time, cost, value, quality, etc. targets (aka baseline metrics). Part of creating the future process architecture is to identify gaps and solutions. There are many and varied ways these targets might be arrived at, and that gaps and solutions might be identified. This strategic approach is different from the operational management of processes and the use of BAM in an operational context – i.e. the tactical view.
JD- "Typically BA defines the baseline metrics..." I'll quibble a bit with this wording: I think of BA's as facilitating such defining, as opposed to simply 'defining'. For executive level metrics, the BA works with an executive and can act as the messenger from the executive team to stakeholders in that silo. If the executives are very detailed, they might get involved in the lower level minutia as well. Otherwise, the operations folks must think through what will be acceptable for their detailed reporting with the BA acting as a moderator and making those decisions real. What consistently works well is for the business area to assign a Subject Matter Expert to be the single point of contact for the BA, while not at all precluding the possibility of more widely attended brain storming sessions. "Typically BA ...identifies the gaps between expected and actual performance, the BA then identifies the reasons for the gaps, and proposes corrective actions." Frankly, I see this as Business Activity Monitoring, a job for the relevant business players and not the BA. The BA has defined the BAM environment so that it works, but I see the job of other relevant business operations professionals (BA not usually involved) to leverage this resource and "improve effectiveness and efficiency of the enterprise". When it's time for the business process and associated metrics, the BA should be first called (presuming funds are available for sustaining governance). Frank Millar Millar Consultants, LLC
Andrew - Read the article a number of times and have the following observations: Business architects should be considered as ‘trusted advisors” and must always be ‘honest brokers”; trust is certainly the key, the must condition creates the should condition Enhancing accountability is a not within the normal remit of business architecture; within any corporation there are many groups who are responsible for accountability: internal and external audit; the various regulatory compliance groups; the governance boards, councils, and committees Typically BA defines the baseline metrics and identifies the gaps between expected and actual performance, the BA then identifies the reasons for the gaps, and proposes corrective actions. What business architecture is enhancing is effectiveness and efficiency The ‘value proposition’ of business architecture is that it provides a complete and integrated view of the business. This picture allows stakeholders to understand how the business is performing and identify ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the enterprise [Updated on 6/12/2010 4:37 AM]
This is a repost (retweet for tweeters out there) which touches on our value proposition discussion. Here's my response to an article by a Forrester analyst on "How Would You Sell Business Architecture To Your CEO?" === I wrote an article for the Business Architecture Institute (BAI) about the "business of business architecture" where I likened our role, metaphorically speaking to that of a management accountant (see link below). http://www.bpminstitute.org/articles/article/article/what-is-the-busines... CEOs don't need us, the same way that they don't need to hire management accountants to run their business. But CEOs still hire the services of management accountants. Why? It's because they rely on management accountants to help them make better decisions. These are decisions that are based on insights which management accountants synthesize from seemingly disparate facts and information. The article will expound more on this metaphor. In the same manner that CEOs treat management accountants as "trusted advisors" I believe we need to picture ourselves as such when we're in the same room with a CEO. Trust is key. Once we have this mindset, our "elevator pitch" will flow effortlessly -- because friends buy from friends. But how do you gain trust in the first place, you might ask. There's no simple answer. But the fact that you're in the same room with the CEO already says a lot. Cheers! === [Updated on 6/10/2010 3:38 PM] [Updated on 6/10/2010 3:40 PM]
>> The ‘value proposition’ of business architecture is that it provides a complete and integrated view of the business. << Business architecture provides a common business language; combines strategic vision and strategy, business processes, business capabilities, competences, values streams, value chain linkage, and technology usage into a single, coherent picture with associated maps, models, and metrics. From this picture the various stakeholders can determine ways to reduce cost, increase value added, improve quality, and ensure alignment between strategy, processes, and technology.
Andrew, It looks like you are the one that started this thread, but the moderators are Gregg Suddreth and William Ulrich. Based on my own preferences, I thought the moderator(s) is(are) the person(s) that started the thread. Apparently I misunderstood the setting of this thread. If my understanding is correct, then I have to do a 'Howard Roark' ... :)
In reponse to the most recent post, it would be nice if we can determine with candor but in a spirit of collegiality and "primus inter pares" (1) our unique value proposition or elevator pitch, and if time and HDD space allow, (2) whether our strategic positioning, unlike other disciplines should be a "best buy", innovation, "complete solutions", "lock in", or a combination of these value propositions (per M. Porter's definition of these terms).
BA moderators, This is a forum that you moderate, so I will abide by your ruling. However, I'm surprised that you would consider the relationship between the BA and top management and the role of the BA in the organization, off topic. Why won't we start over and first define what is the scope and purpose of this thread. So far, i've been responding to what I've been reading and have been contributing from my own perspective. But I must admit, I've been guessing what is vs what is not on topic. I think we will all benefit from a clear 'mission statement' for this thread.
Guys, You are now all officially off topic. I ask that you cease this discussion, obtain your respective private email addresses and continue your conversation in private. Ken, you can unclick from the main page to stop the thread from showing up in your mailbox if that helps.
I would rather be Howard Roark than Peter Keating
Now I want to add another perspective to this discourse. A discourse that I think has strong psychological overtones, not just professional viewpoints. Let me make one observation to characterize the entire discourse in Ken's entry. Many controversies are not really about professional issues but about the personalities involved, each pushing for what is compatible with their own psychological preferences and SENSE OF COMFORT. If you are familiar with the movie and novel The Fountainhead, (a philosophical novel by Ayn Rand), Ken might agree that he sees the architect as that Garry Cooper figure (the actor playing the rugged individualist and uncompromising brilliant architect), as the archetype of what an architect is. Ayn Rand held in contempt people who use power (“at the point of a gun” in her words) to control and exploit creative geniuses. She saw the users of power as inept bullies. She dramatized a situation based on her experience in the USSR, and her insights into the interpersonal dynamics at play in such situations. I agree that 'the ultimate BA', or any architect, is very competent, very creative, thinks out of the box, is very daring and has no qualms about rocking the boat - or even flipping it over and straightening it up again if that would (IN HIS JUDGMENT) advance the case of his client. In most cases such an architect is invaluable but 'hard to swallow'. In some cases he could be dangerous. And we have to be cognizant of the fact that in reality the relationship between a client and an architect is one of patron and 'hired gun'. Using Ayn Rand’s mode of expression, the gun is in the hands of the architect, not the client. But the client is the one holding the purse strings. [Updated on 6/8/2010 7:49 AM]
Ken, Q1) Why would Obama, per your example, hire an architect? A1) He would hire one because HE DECIDED he WANTED a house or whatever, and for that he NEEDED an architect Q2) I had two custom-built houses. In each case, why did I accept the architect's concepts? A2) I accepted them because I trusted him and liked the CREATIVE work he did for other clients. But had I not liked what he created, I would have kissed my $7K good-bye and hired another architect. THE CLIENT ALWAYS DECIDES. The architect can only propose. If the architect has high integrity, disagreement should lead to the parting of the ways. The architect cannot force the client into agreement. A woman in my life once told me: "Nattan, if you want a different menu, you have to get another woman." Her witty observation applies to BA and any form of creative architecture, as it does in your creative field. Ken, I do not know exactly what you do, although I checked your website. Let me make the following observation: Most people do not have well-developed sense of style and cultural sophistication - and they covet the artistic, stylish work a creative architect would add to their affluence. Yet, THEY WOULD STILL DECIDE whether they do or do not LIKE the work. They would ask themselves: DOES THIS MAKE US LOOK GOOD? WILL OUR NETWORK OF FAMILY AND FRIEND BE IMPRESSED? WILL IT ADVANCE OUR IMAGE? ETC... And so it is with BA work: Top management have their own set of criteria, and "if they do not like the menu, they'll get a different architect". We know very well the arrogance on the part of many experts, including medical experts. As a head nurse at one of my hospital clients told me; "Sooner or later we kill them all." We know of malpractice cases in which mastectomies were performed EVEN THOUGH THE DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING CLEARLY SHOWED, AND THE DIAGNOSTIC REPORTS CLEARLY SAID THE PATIENT WAS HEALTHY AND NO SURGERY WAS INDICATED. We know of many doctors who prescribe antibiotics when the cause of the ailment is viral. And so on. Experts can be dangerous because they often do not understand their client’s situation, goals, considerations and needs. Many also lack good judgment. Ken, I perfectly agree with your second to last paragraph. It is a very articulate expression of what architecture is about. Well done! I would just change one word in the first sentence. You wrote: “Now, some of you just don't seem to understand that "setting the agenda" is what the architectural process is all about”. I AGREE BA IS A PROCESS FOR SETTING THE AGENDA. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE AGENDA SHOULD BE BLINDLY ACCEPTED BY TOP MANAGEMENT. BUT NEITHER DO I MEAN THAT THE AGENDA PROPOSED IS SUBJECT TO ‘NEGOTIATION’. It is a “take it or leave it” proposition. And from this perspective, setting the agenda is accomplished by the architect PROPOSING and THE CLIENT ACCEPTING. But PROPOSING DOES NOT MEAN BEING OPEN TO CLIENT’S INTERFERENCE! CLIENT INTERFERENCE IS AN ISSUE EVEN IN THE LAW. A BUILDER, FOR EXAMPLE, has a strong case in a court of law if they can show that a construction problem resulted from the client’s interference. And you express JD’s and my viewpoint that architecture is “… the prime profession that initiates and enables”. And definitely yes, it “...is what architectural practice is all about. Having a unique and gifted insight into planning dilemmas not shared with non-architects is a cornerstone that gives value and strength to the discipline.” Well put. [Updated on 6/8/2010 7:26 AM]
I recall "signing off" from this session, but my name keeps coming up on every single posting that comes to my mailbox! Originally, I thought I would just listen to the group re-hash old hash. But the responses became so windy and tit-for-tat, that I became stuck on the discussions, but not without a bad taste in my mouth, like that experienced by less than excellent fine food. Tentatively, I hovered my mouse over the unsubscribe button, then suddenly a sense of "what might they say next in this B movie drama?" At last, I find myself making this posting against my aesthetic judgment. I won't respond to any waffling particulars, but I will do the service of reiterating what an architect is, by definition: primarily it is not a profession for hire to be a domestic servant for the upper eschelon. For example, if the President of the United States seeks an architect, he expects to gain by following the directions of the same; why else would he bother commissioning someone who's going to reinforce existing positions and plans which clearly aren't working--hence the need for a professional to redesign an ill-conceived plan. An architect distinguishes him- or herself as having the correct protocol and methods of procedure that are privy only to the discipline to get what would be otherwise daunting tasks for non-designers/planners to comprehend and imagine. This is not an unusual position for architects and the authority is not an overbearing one; rather it is an authority that has been intimately a part of the field for thousands of years, and is shared with kindred fields of endeavor. For example, using my previous presidential illustration, I would also not assume he has had much success (even if attempted) telling the White House physician exactly what to prescribe in regards to his personal health maintenance plans, and an honest observer would see such an attempt by even the president to be disrespectful of the physician's knowledge and professional interests in his patient's long-term wellness. Leadership arrogance should neither lead them to self-destructive behavior by seeming to specify in disregard for his architect's judgment any planning details which are clearly outside their qualifications and competencies. Certainly, the architect would not have been enlisted in the first order, if executives (MBA or otherwise) had it under control within their understanding of goals. Now, some of you just don't seem to understand that "setting the agenda" is what the architectural process is all about. Being the prime profession that initiates and enables is what architectural practice is all about. Having a unique and gifted insight into planning dilemmas not shared with non-architects is a cornerstone that gives value and strength to the discipline. If anyone calling themselves an architect (business or otherwise) is uncomfortable with being in a position subject to the pressures having prime authority in planning directions and initiatives or strategies to be acted upon by others, then I can certainly sympathize with the desire to evade these pressures and responsibilities that can threaten one's immediate security when under fire. However, a great dis-service is done to this "mother of the arts" when people apply or assume for themselves the disciplines of architecture and in the pure interest of self-preservation, they make the grand field subserviant to those they are ethically bound to serve the best interest of. The executive (client or employer) is always too close to the issues at hand to exercise the judgment needed, and any suggestion that their position can enlighten the architect is absolutely correct, but this does not deny the fact that good leadership leans on (depends upon) experts, and in this case, the architect's unique perspectives, vision, giftedness and knowledgebase, chastened by the architectural process and planning competency to design and conduct a successful strategy or campaign. I apologize in advance if I hurt anyone's feelings with my tongue-in-cheek comments about the session's behavior or how I have characterized it. I leave you with one suggestion, don't assume the robes of an architect without respecting its tradition and rights to authority.
William- "Finally... If Millar, JD and Bambimnoti wish to develop a BoK... ...In the mean time, this particular thread has gone way off topic. " I've started a new topic: "BA and the Open Group/OMG BASIG knowledge bases" Frank Millar Millar Consultants, LLC
Oh my...what a lively bunch we've turned out to be! JD- "What is value?" Great job in broaching this subject of relevance and not-little significance. Offline from this column, I would quibble with your word-smithing in the list-of-4, but I suspect we are in significant agreement. Your points there form an important basis for addressing concerns sometimes-voiced by business managers regarding ROI. "a distinction between BA as outside consultant, and BA as an employee" Another point-well-made about the distinguishable role-variations between consultant and employee. (My experience is the former.) Ken Mark- "A good BA just like a professional 'Building/Landscape or Marine Architect' gives his client (project/business manager) what he/she needs not what they want!" The "not what they want" part takes me aback. So much so that I suspect that I shouldn't be reading your words so literally. Some of us see our architecture jobs as opportunities to work as partners with client-executives manifesting business strategic goals into improved operations. On the one hand, the execs keep the BA's priorities straight. On the other hand, we enable them by helping them to be clearer about what is possible, identifying options, documenting details of what has been agreed (future state), and managing expectations, all the while challenging them on the occasionally insufficiently thought-out concepts they might have of their own operations. (There is a tie-in right here about the special aspect of architecture, sometimes neglected, that is governance [see "continuous improvement", above].) If the engagement ends and the sponsoring executive really feels they didn't get what they wanted, the engagement is ending as a failure, by definition. And this is true regardless of any independent score-keeping that might have been done by the consultant team. So, this is the context for the problem I'm having with the perspective you've articulated. That said, I'm presuming that you might be just as comfortable with having your perspective read, "not what they wanted originally" vs "not what they want", and that would do much to align our respective perspectives. Frank Millar Millar Consultants, LLC
William, The BA can only try to persuade top management, not decide for them. A BA that would make business decisions would be a danger to the business... :) The only decisions a BA could make is in HOW to perform his responsibility. The WHAT requires top management approval. Even the HOW might require approval if it affects business positioning or strategy. I agree with Frank that these are governance issues, and from my perspective they would be Management 101 'Best Practices', to protect the business from its experts... :) [Updated on 6/7/2010 2:26 PM]
William, I understand your perspective and I note your point.
JD / Bambimnoti There was a mistatement of my last posting. I simply was saying that Business Architecture is not in and of itself a decision making body. JD - are you saying that Business Architecture has decision making authority? If you do, we can agree to disagree. Bambimnoti - Your most recent posting has again gone off topic. I suggest you take any personal communications offline at this point.
JD, Reviewing the set of views you've been consistently expressing in recent days, I must say I find your views VERY INSIGHTFUL I thought it worthy to exrpess my vote of confidence in your expertise..
Ken Mark Macbean, Jim Rhyne, Bambimnoti There needs to be a distinction between BA as outside consultant, and BA as an employee. In the outside consultant case the BA is likely to be seen as the “hired gun”, in many cases, that is exactly why they are there. In the employee case, BA must have a good working relationship with senior management. Part of that relationship is mutual trust and respect to the degree that senior management seeks the advice of BA in the formulation of strategy. BA, or the BA, should be able to tell senior management that they are wrong and give good business reasons why they belief that is the case. BA must be able to “comment on the emperor’s new clothes”. The ability to act as an “honest broker” is part of the value proposition of business architecture.
Ken Mark Macbean and Jim Rhyne, I interpret Ken's point as commentary about the wisdom of a client's top management. Most top managers would want help with identifying their needs and finding the most appropriate way to meet them. The right BA should be able to do this - if not, then I would question the BA's qualifications. However, there are situations in which top management has already studied their needs to death, and in that case they might choose to limit the scope of possibilities for the BA's work. However, if the BA has a very strong case against the scope limitation, he should be able to persuade top management of the merit of doing otherwise. All this requires extreme sensitivity on the part of the BA to not talk down to top management, and the wisdom to present his case in a persuasive way. A BA with high integrity would part ways with a client that interferes with the quality of his work. In my experience, it is more likely that the BA would have a narrow minded viewpoint, rather than top management. And thus, at all times, the BA must be both a respectful open-minded student and a practitioner of his profession. [Updated on 6/6/2010 1:23 PM] [Updated on 6/6/2010 1:25 PM]
I would add that without executive support, a BA-led initiative will not succeed. The senior business leadership may not always have the right direction. And in this case, the Business Architect has a selling job to do. My experience is that such situations lead to a parting of the ways in a few cases, and a settlement between the businesss leadership position and the BA position in the others. I don't have enough long term observations to determine if there is a correlation between either of the two outcomes and project success or failure. There is a third case that rarely leads to success. In this case, the senior business leadership cannot agree on a direction. IMHO, the Business Architect will not be able to resolve this and is in danger of being seen as a "hired gun" by one or the other of the parties.
I think that covers it! I am done on this topic....Best of all Worlds!
A good BA just like a professional "Building/Landscape or Marine Architect” gives his client (project/business manager) what he/she needs not what they want!...To do otherwise is to let the owner/manager design the direction by default and this approach usurps the knowledgebase and the expertise of a ”Business Architect” in favor of a manager’s/owner’s “personal likes and dislikes” which is not a professional service resultant of any respectable architectural process, in any field of planning!
I’m beginning to see the difference between JD and Williams’ viewpoints. Simplistically speaking, Williams sees BA as the custodian of a knowledge-base and an enabler of improvements. JD sees BA one step beyond, taking charge of initiating improvements. In other words, we are dealing with the question whether BA is an enabler and/or an initiator. With this understanding I think successful BA should be both an enabler and initiator, and probably in reverse order. The advantage the BA would bring to the table is the big-picture perspective, the knowledgebase and the expertise in orchestrating enterprise-wide improvements -- subject, of course, to top management guidance and approval.
"Business Architecture" cannot function on behalf of management when senior leadership strategic plans are isolated from its BA....But the BA must be independent from any "current" derived plans' biases to the degree needed to produce new directions and content outside the box of the normative. One needs to decide if an "architect approach" of professional oversight should be seen as "under" any management when in fact it only works well when the BA is seen as the innovative director for the business direction. To be an "Architect" means to be innovative...some BAs confuse this role with the "standards" mindset of engineering a business direction and this leads to preconceived solutions.
William – We may not be that far apart, but are we reading what is written! You - “Any business architecture work, therefore, must have a direct and traceable link to priority business requirements as determined by senior business management. Me – “Enterprise strategy sets the direction, agenda if you will, for business architecture … BA looks for continuous improvement opportunities within the strategic context set by executive management”; this states a direct and traceable link between business architecture and business requirements as they are articulated by executive management in ‘enterprise strategy’ and within the strategic context set by executive management. The dramatic and interesting insurance folly story does not apply; I was not suggesting a think-tank like BA group; I do of course suggest a BA group that thinks, and as required, can think outside the polygon. I was suggesting a BA group which, WITHIN THE STRATEGIC CONTEXT SET BY EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, look for ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the business. Quite a different situation to the folly you suggest; One of the roles of BA is to comment on the emperor’s new clothes. Also remember that I said”… INTERIM and FINAL results are presented to the appropriate senior management group for review and approval. The decisions are made by senior management …” (emphasis added) [Updated on 6/5/2010 4:19 PM]
JD – We may not be that far apart but allow me some additional clarification. I get a picture from your ad lib / ad hoc description of a think tank-like business architecture team plotting ways in which to improve the business. A quick story illustrates the folly in this approach. An insurance company had dual business infrastructures with significant replication. A well meaning BA and EA team laid out a strategy for phased business unit consolidation that was vehemently shut down by the senior executive committee. The reason was that there was no compelling business reason for such a move. This story demonstrates how the most logical, best intended business architecture team, attempting to align with corporate cost management and customer centric strategies, spent time on an ill advised concept that was out of step with executive goals. Any business architecture work, therefore, must have a direct and traceable link to priority business requirements as determined by senior business management. Again, we are probably not that far apart but wanted to get more clarification on your position.
William Enterprise strategy sets the direction, agenda if you will, for business architecture. BA operates in two modes: Ad Hoc and Ad Lib. In the Ad Lib mode, BA looks for continuous improvement opportunities within the strategic context set by executive management. I would argue that this is the primary role of BA. Operating Ad Hoc, such as in a merger or strategic realignment, BA provides information and support regarding how the business operates, as you put it “…Senior management, in particular, would want to see the cross-functional impacts of plans or strategies, what it would take to implement those strategies and what work is underway that is related to or in direct conflict with those strategies …” It is in the nature of business architecture that, in both modes, interim and final results are presented to the appropriate senior management group for review and approval. The decisions are made by senior management - the approach is neither unrealistic nor problematic.
JD - I have also worked with Wells, as I suspect most consultants this side of the moon have done. We are all saying the same thing as far as helping, focusing on the big picture etc. So I think we are just retreading the same ground. You also said: "Business architecture should have an active not passive role. The business architecture agenda, in part, is to understand how the business operates, find ways of improving its operation, and work with other disciplines who will implement those operational improvements." Again, we are in agreement, but the agenda of "find ways of improving its operation, and work with other disciplines who will implement those operational improvements" is where I question your intent. Are you implying that the BA sets the agenda and hands it off to teams to deploy - because this shifts the BA to decision maker and that is not only unrealistic but problematic? The BA is beholden to management teams, planning teams, etc. and not setting an agenda.
What is Value? Another aspect of the value proposition question is the question of “What is Value?” There are 4 main ‘types’ of Value in Business: 1. Economic value – the monetary value added to goods and services by the ‘manufacturing’ processes 2. Quality value – value based on the quality of a product or service (zero defect) 3. Utility value – the potential or satisfaction provided by good or service 4. Perceived value – psychological perception of value based on reputation, brand, exclusiveness, or association of goods or services Utility value and perceived value might seem similar! In reality they are very different. Duct tape or Swiss army pocket knifes are good examples of utility and perceived value. Economic Value and Quality Value are an integral part of business architecture, and are modeled as value streams, quality streams, cost streams, etc. Utility Value is intrinsic to a product or service and is outside of business architecture except in the case where business architecture or technology plays a significant role in creating or maintaining the utility. Perceived Value is also outside of business architecture except in the case where business architecture or technology plays a significant role in creating or maintaining the perception of value. In order to prosper, an organization must generate economic, quality, utility, and perceived value.
Once again, JD, you've hit the bulls-eye. The global perspective provided by the EA/BA documentation allows all stakeholders to 'see' what "is" happening, and by extension, facilitates ongoing governance as well as envisioning (and selling) the way operations could be happening in the future. The cost savings and reduced risk in this environment (versus change without governance) are measurable. (...the "Value Proposition") And none of this obviates bambimnoti's scenario. On the contrary, managing priorities of BA work with high-value/high-success first is the prescription for buy-in by new, later stakeholders. This scenario is a powerful tactic for "spreading the wealth". Frank Millar Millar Consultants, LLC
Bambimnoti In response to Andrew’s question, the BA Value Proposition is as I stated it. ”The ‘value proposition’ of business architecture is that it provides a complete and integrated view of the business …” Wells Fargo is faced with having to do a massive amount of business and technology architecture synthesis and rationalization: Wells Fargo & Wachovia merger, and synthesizing the somewhat disparate business and technology groups into a single, cost-effective business. I should mention that I spent some time at ‘Wells’. William “The business architect and business architecture team have no agenda of their own, other than to provide the "maps" necessary to allow each of the roles and disciplines you describe to do their jobs more effectively.” I would hope this is never the case. Business architecture should have an active not passive role. The business architecture agenda, in part, is to understand how the business operates, find ways of improving its operation, and work with other disciplines who will implement those operational improvements.
JD, (and c.c. Andrew) I think the difference between what you, JD, say and what William said is not in the role and purpose of BA, but in the EFFECT of BA. If an organization has a successful BA initiative, it may rethink how it goes about the other initiatives. Now, if at Wells Fargo they believe they have a successful BA initiative, and at the same time they have all those other initiatives going on that might be overlapping or following objectives that are not cohesive, then there is probably reason to question if what is done there is truly BA. More likely, Wells is experimenting with BA, waiting to see if it would live up to its 'advertised' benefits.
Andrew, I have the same understanding of BA's special role as William described.
Andrew It would seem that within ‘Wells’ there is an overlap of functions. Business architecture is a sub-set of enterprise architecture; business analysis and process analysis are activities within business architecture. Having discrete teams doing these separate activities seems to indicate a poor understanding of the nature of enterprise architecture, and of business architecture. The ‘value proposition’ of business architecture is that it provides a complete and integrated view of the business. It does this by combining business processes, business capabilities, competences, values streams, value chain linkage, etc. into a single, coherent picture with associated maps and models. From this picture various parties can determine, for example, ways to reduce cost, increase value added, improve quality, ensure alignment between strategy, processes, and technology. The value of business architecture is that it is 'the whole enchilada', process analysis and business analysis are just fillings.
Andrew - Each of the roles and disciplines you mention have a very specific purpose, destination or series of destinations. The business architect and business architecture team have no agenda of their own, other than to provide the "maps" necessary to allow each of the roles and disciplines you describe to do their jobs more effectively. In addition, work product produced or used by each of these teams can be subsumed by the business architecture, holistically integrated into a cohesive knowledgebase and made available to those teams so that they can each see the whole and not just the parts. Senior management, in particular, would want to see the cross-functional impacts of plans or strategies, what it would take to implement those strategies and what work is underway that is related to or in direct conflict with those strategies. You become Google Earth to these many travelers. The power is in the knowledgebase and your ability to communicate in simple, yet direct, ways the information in that knowledgebase.
@Tom - in response to your question, majority of our "customers" are the product managers, senior management teams, program managers, IT architects, business relationship managers, strategists, and process analysts within the organization. As you can imagine for a Fortune 50 company, we have established (though still maturing) project portfolio management, program management, EA, business analysis, strategic planning, process analysis, and systems integration groups that espouse their own unique value propositions. To elaborate on my question, as a business architect, what artifacts (or methods or frameworks or process) can I uniquely offer that are unlike any other that these other groups of disciplines offer today?
Andrew (and anyone else who wants to answer), When I first read your topic I was unclear on which value proposition you were exploring. The value proposition that the role of a business architect delivers to the company employing the business architect or the value proposition that a business architect may offer to that company's customer. In your role as a business architect at Wells Fargo, are you engaged as part of a professional services offering to Wells Fargo customers, or are you focused inwardly to help Wells Fargo improve its internal operations. This answer will help me better understand the original intent of your discussion. I also didn't read a response to your final question - maybe I missed it - which was a good question. You asked, "If we claim, for example, that we help our clients increase their operational effectiveness and efficiency by providing actionable insights, are there other professional disciplines that lay claim to this value proposition? So, what really makes us unique? Tom
JD, Frank Millar, William, With my understanding of everything that has been posted so far I conclude that: (1) My current writing has relevance to the OMG/BASIG but is not in competition with their work (2) It is not appropriate for me to join the OMG/BASIG membership at this time (3) I will be ready for work on a BoK only after I complete my current writing Hence, I do intend, to share my experience in how to position BA in an organization - assuming my understanding of the purpose of this thread is correct.
William, Now that I understand what the OMG/BASIG is doing, I turn my attention to understanding this thread and its companion: BA definition. Is it true that the problem these two threads deal with is: "How to sell the need for BA to an organization?" In that case, the definition, strategy and value proposition for BA, all begin to make sense. And this understanding also helps clarify why an initiative to develop a BoK would require a proposal to Gregg. Right?
JD - The OMG standards are free so that they become implemented. The drafts are not OMG documents (they steward them but do not create them) but are rather owned by the submitting companies of the standard. They are therefore locked down until they are issued. The process is fully transparent but you have to join the team if you want to have access to that transparency. This demonstrates a degree of commitment to the process. JD - IIBA is an older organization representing an older profession - to answer that question. JD / Frank - As to transparency and wiki request, we do have a wiki at the BASIG site at: http://www.omgwiki.org/bawg/doku.php. Posting to it requires OMG membership. You can view, but not post. Finally... If Millar, JD and Bambimnoti wish to develop a BoK outside the scope of a professional membership structure - such as OMG or TOG, the three of you should get together and submit a formal proposal to Gregg Rock at Brainstorm. Gregg and the Business Architecture Institute advisory board will take it under advisement. In the mean time, this particular thread has gone way off topic. [Updated on 6/3/2010 1:33 PM]
Bambimnoti, My interest, as you correctly perceive, is in business architecture as a discipline. I applaud the work the standards people do to ensure information interchange and interoperation between tools. My point was about what business architecture is, or is not. If find the lack of any real attempt at producing a business architecture BoK to be extraordinary. Any person can call themselves a business architects and the appellation cannot be challenged. Because, we seem to take the view that business architecture means whatever any individual wants it to mean. I’m not going to mention certification because, without a BoK, certification has little meaning. I agree with William on the question of methodology “… which is left to enterprising individuals and companies that plan to use methods and processes as part of their business model.” I see methodologies as a means of competitive differentiation. Not a fan of Togaf9, nor of the BA component of Togaf9. [Updated on 6/4/2010 10:15 AM]
William, I did make a point of saying NOT methodology “Not methodology, that is a way of doing BA. BoK as the basic body of knowledge an individual must know in order to be considered a professional business architect.” As you post was addressed to Bambimnoti and JD, I assume that the methodology comment was intended for Bambimnoti. On the matter of standards, I believe that the standards setting process should exhibit a high degree of transparency; drafts should be published for public review and critique. That includes the charters for the various SIGs and working groups. It is reasonable that standards bodies charge a fee for copies of published standards. This should not negate the transparency requirement for standards development. On the matter of BoK, it is interesting to note that the IIBA (International Institute of Business Analysts) has BABOK (Business Analysis Body of Knowledge) AND a Business Analysis Competency model. Why does Business Architecture not have similar? Frank Millar, who posted as I was writing this, makes an excellent point, we should have an accessible BoK wiki. Then perhaps we might actually try to develop a business architecture BoK.
Going with the evolved topic here- William- References to a broad BoK (as the term is being used colloquially) would be particularly useful if there was an accessible wiki that was fully populated. I'm not sure that (emphasis on the term, "accessible") exists. The Brainstorm wiki on this site probably doesn't yet qualify. Frank Millar Millar Consultants, LLC
JD / Bambimnoti It has never been a secret that the OMG produces metamodel based exchange standards for vendors and does not produce methodologies. The BASIG, however, is not a standards producing OMG Task Force, but rather was created to assess market realities, produce white papers, sponsor practitioner information day forums, coordinate with other bodies (e.g. TOG, EA Advisory Board, etc.), produce case studies and help coordinate an overarching ecosystem for the Task Force bodies that do create the standards. There is no methodological goal, however, which is left to enterprising individuals and companies that plan to use methods and processes as part of their business model. JD - Regarding your other points, yes business architecture belongs in the business and regarding OMG document access, the OMG (not me) has a policy of locking down certain documents to members only, just as any club has an entry fee, OMG must find a way to finance its standards operations.
JD I appreciate the fact that you understand my concerns. Regarding the rest of the blog, my new understanding is that the OMG/BASIG is not really about the practice of BA, but about producing standards for products that would assist practitioners in whatever way they do or intend to perform their BA role. It seems to me that the evolving standards are influenced primarily by what the collective experience of the members of the OMG/BASIG suggests they would like to have, as tools for BA. And given the size of the membership, vendors would be assured of a market ready to buy. I do not mean this in a negative way but as a recognition of a fact of life: If you want someone to invest in developing a product, then make sure there is a market for it. I think that what both you and I are talking about is the BA discipline. That is why you expect a framework, a methodology, a BoK and certification based on it. But that is not what the OMG/BASIG is apparently aiming to accomplish. The result of consensus on standards will essentially provide vendors with ‘Requirements Specifications’ for tools for BA 'as BA is understood and practiced today by the members of the OMG/BASIG'. There is a Big Diff... between what you and I thought the OMG/BASIG was aiming for and what the group’s immediate goal actually is. My work has been in developing a foundation in theory, methodology and process for creating successful organizations and their enterprise solutions. This, apparently, is not the immediate scope of the OMG/BASIG. However, I can see how I could add my own requirements to the standards – to help those who will like and would want to apply my theory, methodology and process to BA. This places my collaboration in a totally new light and makes my participation possibly practical. I have to think about this. I assume William will correct me where he thinks the facts are different from what I understand them to be.
William, Thank you for your positive reply. What are the OMG documents besides the one on BA standards, that I should be able to download and read? I am perfectly willing to provide constructive input to the work the OMG is doing even before I'm ready to collaborate.
William Not methodology, that is a way of doing BA. BoK as the basic body of knowledge an individual must know in order to be considered a professional business architect. Conceptually similar to the idea of the BoK a lawyer must demonstrate in order to join the state bar. The BA BoK might also form the basis for BA education and training. At a minimum, each of us should have the same basic knowledge regarding the concepts, and techniques associated with business architecture.
|
||
|
