• Blog
  • About
  • Archives

elemental links

brenda michelson's technology advisory practice

Archives for August 2010

Goal-Driven Business Measurement Workshop in Cambridge MA, September 23, 2010

August 24, 2010 By brenda michelson

My friends at ShareDynamics, Joe and Gail Raynus, are conducting a full-day workshop on Goal-Driven Business Measurements, on September 23 in Cambridge MA. 

“This collaborative workshop will examine the concepts of Management Scorecards, Innovation Curve and Measurement Framework and introduce a clear, concise methodology that will help better understand, monitor and measure  critical processes, analyze challenges and proactively take action.”

Learning Objectives:

  • Gain understanding of key components of Quantitative Business Performance Measurement
  • Introduce Logic Model for business strategy planning
  • Learn Goal-Question-Metric Methodology to define effective Key Process Indicators and Metrics
  • Develop understanding of management dashboards and their structure
  • Learn how to develop a top-down measurement scorecard/dashboard structure for monitoring and control of your key processes and indicators
  • Establish a measurement program that is aligned with the organization’s business processes
  • Enhance ability to analyze quantitative information for decision making and analysis

 

The workshop is based on material from Joe’s forthcoming book, Improving Business Process Performance.  If, like me, you are a firm believer in the criticality of business visibility and responsiveness, you should check out this seminar.

Filed Under: analytics, bpm

You’re not really an enterprise architect if…

August 19, 2010 By brenda michelson

Yesterday afternoon, I fired off a series of "You aren’t really an enterprise architect if…" tweets. The tweets were inspired by real-life encounters. However, I won’t be revealing my muses. That would be rude.

So, without further ado, my  "You aren’t really an enterprise architect if…" tweet mini-rant follows:

you’re not really an enterprise architect if… change scares you #entarch #posers

you’re not really an enterprise architect if… you can’t envision and speak at conceptual level #entarch #posers

you’re not really an enterprise architect if… you get wigged out by ambiguity (dragons) #entarch #posers

you’re not really an enterprise architect if… you can only speak to one business or technical domain #entarch #posers

you’re not really an enterprise architect if… your stuff never gets off the whiteboard or out of the slide deck #entarch #posers

The fear change, conceptual level, and ambiguity ones garnered good retweet buzz from the enterprise architect community. Additionally, a few real enterprise architects chimed in with their own observations.

Sally Bean offered the following:

You’re not really an enterprise architect if the whiteboard is still blank at the end of the meeting #entarch #posers

EricStephens added a corollary:

You might be an enterprise architect if you hoard all the dry erase markers at the beginning of a meeting #entarch

[Each so true. I can’t think without a marker in my hand. My three whiteboards here are always full.]

Bob McIlree added two related to presentations:

You’re not really an enterprise architect if [business people] are checking Blackberrys, watches, or sleeping 5 min. into presentation. #entarch #posers

You’re not really an enterprise architect if IT/developers have you deep in the weeds 5 min. into your presentation #entarch #posers

How about you?  Have you observed any enterprise architect poser characteristics you’d like to share?  Please leave the muses out of it, they have enough challenges already. 😉

Filed Under: enterprise architecture Tagged With: entarch

Enterprise Architecture Re-Think: What are your outcomes?

August 10, 2010 By brenda michelson

On his excellent blog, Nick Malik asks if we need a canonical definition of enterprise architecture?  Nick opens with a definition from the EARF, continues with the compromise definition from the 160-character LinkedIn discussion, shares his own and asks for input. 

Certainly, a canonical definition of enterprise architecture would be valuable.  But, what exactly should it convey?  And how would it vary from traditional definitions?  What follows is the comment I submitted.

Hi Nick,

So, I participated in that LinkedIn thread as well.  I shared a prior tweet of mine, “The ultimate outcome of Enterprise Architecture is change-friendly capability delivery”.

Interestingly, most replies in that thread interpreted “purpose” as describing the function, rather than the outcome.  I find this problematic. 

I think the number one question Enterprise Architects and Enterprise Architecture Practices need to answer is “What do we contribute to the business”.  What is the ultimate outcome of Enterprise Architecture?  And therefore, what would be missing (or more difficult) without Enterprise Architecture.

For me, it’s getting to “change-friendly”.  If I’m reading correctly, your definition and the EARF contain a similar theme.  So, it seems purpose-wise, we coalesce on enabling change. 

Additionally, I agree with the EARF purpose of reducing complexity, and as Aleks Buterman often calls out, EA plays a large role in technology investment management.

So, I propose we think of EA as a business and work backwards from the desired outcomes — ease of change, reduction of complexity, and better technology investment return.

To achieve those outcomes, what capabilities, policies, people and tools are required.  And then, how would we describe (classify) that? 

Would it be a rev of Enterprise Architecture?  Something else?  I know it’s not the Linkedin Group output.

Your comrade in the EA revolution,

Brenda

So, assuming my approach on thinking of EA as a business is a good starting point, what do you believe is the ultimate outcome of enterprise architecture?  Is it ease of change, reduction of complexity, and better technology investment return?  More?  Less?  Different?

And, (bonus question) if your enterprise architecture practice didn’t exist, what (if anything) would be more difficult?

Filed Under: enterprise architecture

Brenda M. Michelson

Brenda Michelson

Technology Architect.

Trusted Advisor.

(BIO)

  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • Experts Sketch
  • PEW Research: Tech Saturation, Well-Being and (my) Remedies
  • technology knowledge premise
  • The Curse of Knowledge
  • better problems and technology knowledge transfer

Recent Tweets

  • “…where the process of drawing itself can take us. We can follow a suggestion, a squiggle, shadow, or smudge, and s… https://t.co/oRg0x2LoXG November 30, 2022 5:05 pm
  • On the waiting list for Post, join me (on the waitlist) via https://t.co/U8wYK707f6 November 24, 2022 4:17 pm
  • Meet the longtime librarian being honored at the National Book Awards : NPR https://t.co/S44VQeJg83 November 13, 2022 2:51 pm
© 2004-2022 Elemental Links, Inc.