• Blog
  • About
  • Archives

elemental links

brenda michelson's technology advisory practice

Its Not What You Sell, Its What You Believe – Bill Taylor – Harvard Business Review

April 5, 2012 By brenda michelson

“Cook did not respond with a detailed review of the products Apple made or the retail environments in which it sold them. Instead, he offered an impromptu, unscripted statement of what he and everyone at Apple believed — “as if reciting a creed he had learned as a child” in Sunday School.

“We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products, and thats not changing,” Cook declared.”We believe in the simple not the complex…We believe in saying no to thousands of products, so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us,” he added.

“We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in ways other cannot…And I think that regardless of who is in what job those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well,” he concluded.Its not what you sell its what you believe.”

…

“In a provocative and saucy book, It’s Not What You Sell, It’s What You Stand For, Spence explains the unique beliefs behind many of the one-of-a-kind organizations he has studied or worked with over the years, from BMW to Whole Foods Market to Southwest Airlines. Sure, these and other organizations are built around strong business models, stellar products and services, and (of course) clever advertising. But Spence is adamant that behind every great company is an authentic sense of purpose — “a definitive statement about the difference you are trying to make in the world” — and a workplace with the “energy and vitality” to bring that purpose to life.”

via Its Not What You Sell, Its What You Believe – Bill Taylor – Harvard Business Review.

Filed Under: business architecture, innovation, leadership

Active Info: Data Dirt & Business Architecture

February 23, 2012 By brenda michelson

Posts by Om Malik and Brad Feld inspired me to write (rant) my thoughts on business architecture and its meta role as digital business image. The post link with official excerpt:

Combat data (and decision) dirt with meta business architecture

If we are to classify contextless data dirt, this first case illustrates superfluous, distracting data. I posit that an equally insidious type of data dirt forms when data is analyzed without regard to origin, business-system and business goal contexts.

 

Filed Under: active information, business architecture

Enterprise Architecture Rant #4,892

March 14, 2011 By brenda michelson

Last week was primarily about Cloud Connect for me. However, I did fit in a few other things, including a short rant inspired by enterprise architecture pundits.

As you all know, I believe in the value of enterprise architecture, and even more strongly, I recognize the unique talents and contributions of real-world (‘street-smart’) enterprise architects.

At the same time, I’m increasingly concerned about the macro-direction of our field, as we continue to suffer ivory tower enterprise architecture punditry, rigid frameworks and endless philosophical waxing.

A couple of weeks ago, I attempted to inject a little action / purpose / outcome orientation in the enterprise architecture conversation with the following tweet:

“Today’s word for Enterprise Architects: Utilitarian [u-til-i-tar-i-an]: designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive. #entarch“

Well, as you might expect, I got nit-picked parsed. That architecture by definition is attractive. [Aargh!] My intended point was “useful or practical”. Not easily defeated, I restated as follows:

“better stated, i think every #entarch needs to have a utilitarian perspective”

If you can’t answer “what is the purpose?”, that is an early warning indicator of folly, or worse. This “utilitarian” aspect is something I find myself circling back to more and more, especially in my work on business architecture.

Anyway, on Friday, after witnessing yet another definitional discussion on enterprise architecture, I tried to inject the utilitarian perspective again with the following on twitter:

“Ok, last time: It’s not what enterprise architecture IS that matters. It’s what enterprise architecture DOES that matters. #entarch“

This “pithy” missive hit the mark with real-world enterprise architects and pundits alike.

So remember, next time someone tries to drag you down a “what & how” conversation on enterprise architecture, steer them to “why & outcomes“. It’ll be more productive, in the moment, and for your long-term practice.

 

Filed Under: business architecture, enterprise architecture Tagged With: #ruckus, entarch

Thought for the New Year: Before you can Create, you must Forget

January 3, 2011 By brenda michelson

Thinking I might find some fodder for my business architecture research, I read The CEO’s role in Business Model Reinvention in the current issue of Harvard Business Review.  While I didn’t find my “CEOs are the Business Architects” smoking gun, the article’s central point stuck with me:  “Before you can create, you must forget”. 

In the article, co-authors Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble discuss three equally important areas of responsibility for CEOs to ensure business success in the immediate term and relevance over time. 

“For companies to endure, they must get the forces of preservation (box 1), destruction (box 2), and creation (box 3) in the right balance. Striking that balance is the CEO’s most important task, but most companies overwhelmingly favor box 1. Forces of preservation reign supreme. Forces of destruction and creation are overshadowed, outmatched, and out of luck.

To be sure, the work of preservation—the day-to-day execution of the existing business model—is vitally important. CEOs must get box 1 right or their tenures will be short. They must concentrate daily on performance excellence and continuous improvement, as companies such as Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines have done for years. The best box 1 companies are sleek and efficient, like a well-designed automobile. They coordinate an astonishingly complex array of human actions like so many gears, pistons, and camshafts.

But CEOs are not just responsible for box 1 [preservation]. They must also get boxes 2 [destruction] and 3 [creation] right. Sadly, most chief executives ignore destruction and creation until it is too late. They bow to a myriad of short-term pressures: intense demands for quarterly earnings, risk aversion, discomfort with uncertainty, resistance to change, linear extrapolation from past experience, and unwillingness to cannibalize established businesses. As a result, many companies fail to transform themselves.”

This tendency to win-the-day at the expense of tomorrow isn’t unique to CEOs.  It’s a common trait across professions and roles.  And while it might not be your trait, as a forward-thinker, it certainly becomes your obstacle as you navigate an organization.

What’s the answer?  As the authors share, CEOs (and everyone else) need to operate in all three boxes simultaneously.  More importantly,

“They must recognize that boxes 2 and 3 are not about what the business will be doing in 20 years; they are about the preparations it must make today…The CEO must also know exactly what to destroy and what to create.”

In regards to destruction (box 2) the authors emphasize the need to go beyond product, line-of-business and general portfolio pruning.  An even greater inhibitor of creation is organizational memory:

“It’s harder to take a knife to a less-evident box 2 menace: organizational memory. As managers run the core business, they develop biases, assumptions, and entrenched mind-sets. These become further embedded in planning processes, performance evaluation systems, organizational structures, and human resources policies. Organizational memory is particularly powerful in companies that tend to promote from within and to have homogeneous cultures, strong socialization mechanisms, and long track records of success. Such deeply rooted memory may be great for preservation (box 1), but if it is not tamed sufficiently (box 2), it gets in the way of creation (box 3). That’s why all box 3 initiatives must start in box 2. Bottom line: Before you can create, you must forget.”

As the new year starts — and you contemplate the flood of (additive) predictions and watch lists — ask yourself the following:

  1. What am I willing to forget, in order to create long-term value and success?
  2. What preparations do I need to make today, to achieve the longer view?
  3. How can I free up organizational memory to embrace creation and change?

Filed Under: business architecture, change, creativity, innovation

Business Architect, circa 1925

September 24, 2010 By brenda michelson

 As many people know, I find the term "business architect" problematic.  Does a business architect truly design the business? If so, does that start with ideation?

Or, is the business architect more of an assessor? Analyzing the current design to suggest, or apply changes?

Or, is the business architect more of a recorder (archivist)?  Capturing the current, future and transitional design aspects for use in operations, measurement, analysis and change initiatives?

Or, yes one more, is the business architect the "matcher" of business and technology capability?  Discovering new opportunities or solutions to hard problems?

I know, "it depends". Thus, my problem with the term.  The activities described above vary from high-level strategy to information management.  Each is important. But, are they all done by Business Architects?  I’ll skip the "are they all business architecture activities" question for now.

Instead, I’ll return to this post’s title: Business Architect circa 1925.  In his book,  The Prize, The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, Daniel Yergin recounts a 1925 conversation between Calouste Gulberkian and Walter Teagle on royalty compensation.  During the exchange, Gulberkian takes offense at being called an "oil merchant":

"…Surely, Mr. Gulbenkian, you’re too good an oil merchant not to know that the property won’t stand any such rate as that."

"Gulbenkian’s face went red, and he furiously banged the table.  "Young man! Young man!" he shouted. "Don’t you ever call me an oil merchant! I’m not an oil merchant and I’ll have you distinctly understand that!"

"Teagle was taken aback. "Well, Mr. Gulbenkian," he began again, "I apologize if I have offended you. I don’t know what to call you or how to classify you if you aren’t an oil merchant."

"I’ll tell you how I classify myself," the Armenian replied hotly. "I classify myself as a business architect. I design this company and that company. I designed this Turkish Petroleum Company and I made room for Deterding and I made a room for the French and I made a room for you." His fury was unabated. "Now, the three for you are trying to throw me out on my ass."

If Gulbenkian worked in your organization today, would he — the business designer — be right in his fury? Or, would he be an oil merchant, who is assisted by business architects, who record, analyze and/or help execute his design?

Me, I’m with Gulbenkian. Table pounding and all.

Filed Under: business, business architecture Tagged With: archive_0

Next Page »

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

  • Harshest editorial feedback I ever received “stultified and like death”… (wildly popular paper, as it turned out):… https://t.co/qWNwBCOS5i February 28, 2023 2:16 pm
  • “…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
© 2004-2022 Elemental Links, Inc.