This blog has moved!

My fellow classmates and other readers,

This blog has moved to the following site to better facilitate leaving comments:

https://eaisnotez.wordpress.com/

Apologies for any inconvenience.

EA is in the eye of the beholder

I've started a new project recently with a government entity. I'm joining a team in progress, and this team has already prepared an EA approach for this department ("the client"). The client likes what they see so much that they want to slowly deploy it across all lines of business.  What I'm finding interesting is that the scope of EA in this context differs significantly than the scope of EA in other environments.  This goes back to the Foundations I course and getting alignment on what is EA anyway.  It seems that any environment is going to fall prey to once of Gartner’s “Thirteen Worst EA Practices”:

1. No Link to Business Strategic Planning and Budget Process
2. Confusing "IT Architecture" With "Enterprise Architecture"
3.  Lack of Governance
4.  Overstandardization
5. Focusing on the Art or Language of EA Rather Than Outcomes
6. Strict Following of EA Frameworks
7. "Ivory Tower" Approach
8. Lack of Communication and Feedback
9. Limiting the EA Team to IT Resources
10. Lack of Performance Measures
11. Picking a Tool Before Understanding Your Business Needs
12. Focusing on the Current State First and Primarily
13. "We're Done"

The previous client focused heavily on IT architecture, had limited communication, and lacked performance measures.  So far, this new client is focused on a more robust definition of EA but we already have a sense that they will lean to overstandardization (there are many lines of business and a very large number of employees) and also educating the new users on how to tie EA to outcomes will be a great challenge.  A third organization is allowing for me to facilitate their EA structure, which hopefully will mean a holistic EA, but I get a sense that once the current state and future initiatives are mapped, they’re may think “we’re done.”  For them, EA is just strategic planning, and that once the direction is set, then it’s value is minimal. Each client had a different need, perspective, and future expected use of EA.  These are just examples from client perspective.  Even training and readings, based on the provider, present slightly different slants on what EA is.

So with this in mind, when viewing the template presentation posted for Discussion 1, it seemed curious that the template was framework neutral.  Does it follow an EA framework or is this a template for any type of IT-relevant strategic plan?  What makes it “EA” versus any other CIO planning brief?  All of this leads to the final question: What is EA and who defines it?  I don’t have an answer, unfortunately, but as a future practitioner, I would find it helpful to see and use material that concisely and accurately defines EA in a way that breaks myths and tells the story in an easy-to-understand manner.

“Give us back the eye!” -The Stygian Witches from Clash of the Titans (Harryhausen, 1981), 

a sentiment which resembles how I currently feel about EA as discipline.

--

References:

Burton, B. (2011). Thirteen Worst EA Practices. Gartner. G00214881.

Harryhausen, R. (Producer), & Davis, D. (Director). (1981). Clash of the Titans [Motion picture]. USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Retrieved 1/24/2016 from https:www.pinterest.com/pin/176695985354643392

Developing the "Enterprise Context"...while my kitchen's on fire!

While reading the Gartner research paper "Q&A: Why EA Needs an Enterprise Context," a concern implementing this process across different companies/organizations. To start, I do not disagree with any of the process and believe it provides some of the best academic information on the topic.  However, I feel there are two factors that confound implementing this process: 1) organizational maturity, and 2) business motivators.

This Gartner paper presents a process for establishing the "enterprise context" of an organization or business entity, meaning:

"The enterprise context is the process of: 

• Identifying internal and external environmental trends 
• Articulating the business strategy
• Identifying requirements 
• Creating principles 
• Developing anchor models of the business"

The six-step process is a key initial process once the EA program is in place and contain straight-forward steps with logical flow. What gave me pause is the fact that my experience tells me these six steps will vary widely in terms of time and resources required based on the level of organization maturity.  As a basis of experiential support, two current efforts come to mind which differ significantly in terms of IT and organization maturity.  

The first organization is a government organization that has a defined EA framework and hundreds (if not thousands) of IT resources and programs. Some resources are in “steady state,” an unchanging “as-is” environment, while some resources are in transition, with that transition being managed through funded programs of different resource sizes and time horizons.  Obviously, this organization is mature with a lot of moving part.  However it's EA program is still new, and the complexity of getting a handle on this context will be tremendous.

The second organization is a new, for-profit entity, a fledgling enterprise with minimal resources and three primary IT programs, two still in their initiation stage.  This organization is very immature with few moving parts. The EA context is minimal, excepting the need to understand external, competitive forces to gain insight on where more mature competitors are in terms of resources and past/on-going programs (current products).

The process set in the article can work for both.  However, the time horizon for completing the information will greatly differ, and that is the issue: will the more mature organization have the patience to wait through the process?  My experience tells me that mature organizations are less patient because they are trying to balance operational crises while also trying to handle the “distraction” of strategic planning.  The younger company is willing to go through the process because they see it makes sense and they have fewer resources (which makes it faster). They also see tangible early value faster, meaning each discovery has a much greater ROI for this organization.  Whereas the more established organization, an analogy I heard is, “So, you are asking me to help plan for a new roof while the kitchen and living room are on fire?”  

This issue leads to the question: how do we (as EA practitioners) handle the need to support the operational requirements of a business leader while also trying to coax them to be more strategic?  It is easy to write an article saying, “Business leaders need to think and act more strategically.” It’s disingenuous to do so without providing proven tools to help balance managing operational crises during the effort to plan the long-term environment, including getting a richer understanding of their enterprise context. I am hoping to find out what current research and EA experts have found regarding this issue.