Industry Perspective: Great Performances, Moderated by George Paras, A&G Editor-in-Chief;
Guest speakers: Mike J. Walker, Principal Architect, Microsoft, Aleks Buterman, Founder, SenseAgility, Tim Westbrock, Managing Director EAdirections, Paul Preiss, CEO, Iasa
Session abstract: “What is it about certain EA teams that makes them great? In this session, a panel of industry experts will share their real-world observations on how and why a few EA teams consistently deliver value to their organizations, while others struggle.
The panelists will explore and debate some of the key attributes of top performing teams, those who have mastered the balancing act required for success; teams that understand the big picture, who gather data, synthesize and analyze, create appropriate recommendations, and provide actionable guidance that informs the rest of their organization. Their influence helps shape how organizations address everything from large scale transformational change to understanding how to optimize their portfolios.
Join our panelists as they discuss their observations, take questions from the audience, and share examples of the people, processes, structures, and approaches that EA teams use to deliver Great Performances.”
George Paras introducing the session: Traits and characteristics of top-performing enterprise architecture teams. Panelists will introduce self, and answer “what does top performing mean to you?”
Mike Walker, Microsoft: High-performance for EA is having business conversation to maximize and amplify business results.
Aleks Buterman, Sense Agility: Quantify value. Not [arm-wave] value, but real discernable value.
Tim Westbrock, EA Directions: Trying to become more proactive, less reactive.
Paul Preiss, IASA: No such thing as a top-performing EA team. There is a top-performing architecture team. ”Semantic gap”. Ability to claim revenue or shareholder value.
Tim: difference between enterprise architecture the thing, including all domain architects, and enterprise architects. There is generally an EA team. The things they do to be top-performing are different from architecture teams.
Aleks: Likens enterprise architects to sabre-tooth tigers. There is such a thing as an EA.
Mike: Challenge. Our industry is really immature. Have done a poor job defining what we do. Mike challenges “Enterprise Architecture” as the brand for what we do. [I agree. I agree. I agree again].
Paul: there is a reason why EA associated with ivory tower. Paul is harping on all the other architects. [Apparently, EAs give all the other architects a bad name.]
Mike: half agree with Paul. We’ve mixed enterprise architecture with IT architecture. We are impeding the end-job. EA within IT becomes about managing IT assets.
Is there enterprise architecture today, really? Perhaps not. Should there be? Yes.
Aleks: Difference between EA and tech architect is competitive advantage. The EA needs to join several domains, and that’s where competitive advantage is found.
Tim: A problem with enterprise architecture is where our deliverables go. They should be directed at executives. However, often directed at solution teams.
The organizations that do the EA the best are actively engaged with the CIO, the board, the executives of the company. Not “through” the CIO. But, in the room.
Questions from the audience:
1. Where should EA function report? Does it matter? Is it CIO, COO, CEO? Should it be federated?
Paul asks audience, how many report outside of IT. About 10 hands of 300 were raised. Paul asks, “what is the value that people come to EA for”?
Tim: Most EAs report to IT, because that is where EA started. In IT, EA is only group with true enterprise view.
Mike: All up, there is a lack of accountability in IT. All up, we haven’t done a good job earning business trust. Great percent of projects fail. Need incremental wins. Need to add value. Think in business context, business terms.
Paul: We’ve earned a seat at the table. We haven’t claimed it. Example, built e-commerce, but only claimed “we enabled marketing”. Then, marketing received more money, and IT less money.
[2. Segue to EA Value question]
Aleks: in a large organization, can’t just claim seat at the table. Need to earn it.
Aleks, need to market your value. That needs to be quantifiable. Use metrics like net present value (NPV).
Tim: Don’t think you quantify the value of enterprise architecture. Don’t think EA has quantifiable value in itself. Thinks EA value is in contribution to other initiatives, impact areas.
[Back to reporting]
Aleks: Board of directors. [I say, no]
Tim: No, information and technology should not report to the business.
Mike: Need to look at maturity of organization. Different industries have different drivers: agility, first-mover, fostering innovation, etc]. Need to be pragmatic. Should not prescribe. Mike calls for a set of patterns for enterprise architecture, patterns that reflect industry.
Aleks: We have those patterns, EA as Strategy book (Ross, Weil).
Paul: Reporting structure is less important to an organization. In most professions, the profession decides the reporting structure. Profession is technology strategy.
[Semantic fight in here.]
Tim brings us back on track. What should enterprise architects do to mature in profession? Assume building models for strategists (Zachman rows 1 & 2). Those models don’t get done in projects. Tim’s advice, if you don’t have those models, build them. Tim notes “model” is used in loose sense.
Mike: Picks up Tim’s thread, need to build and flex our communication muscles. Enterprise architecture is less about IQ and more about EQ (emotional intelligence).
Our success hinges on our ability to communicate and evangelize, both our value prop and what’s best for the business.
Aleks: does your organization have an evidence based management culture?
Tim: (to Aleks) using “models” differently. Tim, need to have conversation with execs on what do we need to change. Hard to have that conversation without models, because the models facilitate conversation.
Paul: missing skills: human dynamics and business-technology strategy.
Aleks: think about environment you are in. Don’t assume what worked at prior organization will work in current.
George: Tell me one thing audience should walk away with:
Mike: IQ to EQ focus. Action-oriented. Constantly focused on value. Maximize and amplify business value for our stakeholders.
Paul: Connect your architect team. All architects connected on skillset level. Give them more than a tool. Give them skills.
Tim: Spend time reading non-technical literature that is relevant to your business.
