EA: The ability to manage change

In a recent article at Computing SA, they look at how architecture is just as important for an enterprise as it is for other things, such as bridges and skyscrapers. Many organizations failed to recognize this as their enterprises grew, and as a result, they were poorly structured. This particular article looks at how HR departments can grow and adapt enterprise architecture.

They look at how employees roles can be defined:

* Role accountability matrix: Showing where each person is responsible, accountable, consulted or informed. Such an approach allows management to determine ideal staffing levels with 100% precision. This aligns departmental and divisional staffing requirements with budgets, allowing absolute precision and accountability.
* Deriving and associating all supporting documents electronically and automatically with the person’s role, including job description, performance appraisal and performance against balanced scorecard.

Acquisition system of federal government in need of EA

According to Jim Williams, the acting GSA Administrator, the current acquisition system needs structure and a common way of looking at processes. Enterprise architecture would provide these things. It needs to have a standardized process, to be able to join various parts of the process and provide consistency.

With his vision, enterprise architecture would: change how the government looks at a system comprised of people, the complex processes, and how the technology fits in.

Models and Leadership in Enterprise Architecture

What matters most in enterprise architecture? Is it the business model, or the people who lead the organization? Chris Potts reviews this question in his latest post on CIO. One of the points Chris brings up relates to the Economist’s article "No Size Fits All", which explores whether the business model or the people managing it were responsible for the credit crunch.

According to Chris, replicating a business model within organizations does not guarantee success or failure. Only people, ex: customers, suppliers, partners, and employees are able to make a model work. Chris states that business instead, should start on the right hand side like the Zachman Framework for EA (Who, When, Why), not the left (What, How, Where).

Is your organization more concerned with its structure than management?

Enterprise Architecture constantly leads to a competitive advantage

Paul van der Merwe, consulting manager at Real IRM recently took the time to talk about the Harvard Business study and the benefits of strong enterprise architecture. Enterprise architecture can lead to much more than a competitive advantage when it comes to your business. Along with the competitive advantage, EA can bring profits, market leadership and a sustainable business model.

The Harvard Business report showed that these were the effects of having a strong business structure:

* More competitive, especially in terms of entering new markets and launching new products and services.

* More profitable, both through increasing revenues and slashing costs.

* More easily able to embrace change, including regulatory change.

* Able to remove duplicate and redundant processes, including the IT systems which support these processes.

* Able to cut IT costs (by up to 25%), identify payback on IT and more easily merge the goals of business and IT.

* Able to manage their data more easily, with less manual rekeying of data, and reduced data error and redundancy.