Organizations are finally beginning to understand that Enterprise Architecture, long the secret art of a select few technology intelligentsia and until recently buried deep in the bowels of an IT function, is now relevant to the Board room, especially because in the era of digitalization, compatibility with industry platforms and ecosystems and exposing business process to the outside world is so critical to their survival.
So let's explore what enterprise architecture is – for the management board audience.
What Is Architecture?
It is the system and design of a thing. But when we talk about architecture, we are generally referring to "good" architecture. So it is the design of a thing in such a way that it is well proportioned and pleasing to humans; in a word: pleasant or beautiful. I put that one first. In my opinion, there is too much engineering activity that is confused with architecture, especially by the IT function. Anyone with an engineering degree can build a railway station, but only a few can build a pleasing train station, such as Calatrava's near my home town of Parma, Italy. And this amazing feat is not an act of pure artistic genius. It is, indeed, a discipline and one too often ignored. There is enough method and systematic approach to user experience design out in the public domain, that anyone not putting this concept first is not engaged in architecture. So, the first mission of Enterprise Architecture is to produce a pleasing enterprise (for humans!). And then (as derivatives), we arrive at the traditional multiple views and perspectives on process, organization, technology and information and with all of their interrelationships that focus on effectiveness, efficiency, environmental sustainability, maintainability, security and many other goals of an organizational strategy that concern the Board.
Architecture Without Strategy Is Meaningless
I wrote "strategy" in my last sentence. There is no Enterprise Architecture or Business Transformation without a clear ruthless strategy. I take the example of the bridge. The structure of the bridge and its entire site are part of an overall regional strategy on mobility and sustainability. The qualities of the bridge cannot be separated from the objectives of the region. So Business Transformation, without Strategy is just so much retch without any sour relief. And Enterprise Architecture without Strategy is, quite literally, beating the proverbial already dead horse.
Now someone has to do the strategic planning… is it a superordinate enterprise such as one filled by the Board and its management consultancy advisors? Is it Finance? A strategic planning team without a direct vertical or horizontal 1-step relation to enterprise architecture? Is it the enterprise architecture team, as an adjunct to the IT function? Or is it a sketch devised by a patriarchal company owner? That is where architecture is applied.
Performance = Process × People × Tools
Business Transformation is most easily captured by the formula:
It is a formula, because the balance of the coefficients matter. 1=1×1×1, but 0=1×1×0, and 0.125=0.5×0.5×0.5 will always beat 0.063=0.7×0.3×0.3. Or even 0.09=0.3×0.3×1!
You must balance the coefficients.
This is the Business Transformation approach… taking a holistic view on all aspects of an organization and strategy to maximize the enterprise performance. The "enterprise" in architecture recognizes the fact that no more than 50% of any effective work in an organization is performed through automation. Process happens outside the software — in the corridors and Zoom or Teams meetings of your organization. But too much of process performance improvement is focused on technology and too little architecture practice is applied to the people and process itself in lieu of the tools. Your organization needs people who are empowered to work and improve their process.
Where Enterprise Architecture Goes Wrong
What's the point here? Most Enterprise Architecture grew out from IT and IT practice. Most architects are still stuck in the IT organization and speak a language the business does not understand. If you have a Business Transformation organization working in the same structure as an Enterprise Architecture organization (like, in most companies, under the CIO), more often than not it is because the Enterprise Architecture is that "1" in the formula above… perfect IT architecture and software, but 0 aligned people skills and mediocre 0.2 process design. Most Enterprise Architecture is still dealing with "business requirements" as if Strategy were someone else's. If your organization is not amongst them then count yourself very fortunate. If bad process is driving the Enterprise Architecture, or if employees with low digital culture and skill are furnishing the very-bad thing called "business requirements" or "strategic plan", then Enterprise Architecture is operating in a vacuum that a Business Transformation approach aims to fill. At some level, these two buzzwords are, in fact, the same practice, which in layman terms is called "Get Better." But in my observation they do not grow from the same historical organizational locale. Whenever I see the word "business requirements" as the input to architecture, I tend to believe that we are dealing with an organization with no effective strategy, poor siloed enterprise architecture, poor business transformation activity, or all three.
Where Architecture Belongs
Where then should an organization organize its enterprise architecture and business transformation capability? I would advise the architecture team be the business transformation team, and I would further argue that this is the core of the strategy team.
Now since the start of the century we have seen this increasingly multi-faceted function shift from Finance and HR or Operations toward IT. But there is a fallacy here! These terms (IT, HR, Finance) are themselves so very 20th century that we should rethink the model and its language. Strategy in the digital era is an activity involving futurists, marketers, technologists and empaths, who are mastering the art of educating and leading an organization toward digital models.
If you are a CIO who has been asked to step up your game to apply Enterprise Architecture to an organization's digital strategy, or if you are the Chairman of the Board wondering how this capability should be deployed in your organizations, then I would advise you to bring it to the top of your organization and to think about the coefficients of business transformation. Your "architects" should be senior leaders, or be mandated with the same authorities. They should be experts in eliciting people's engagement and performance. They must be excellent communicators, able to develop and sell a vision and the wonderful stories that accompany it, and they must be keenly focused on the horizon — the long view.
Your Architecture is your Strategy. At the same time, Architecture is a professional competence, like Accounting and the Law, and it is built on technical expertise which cannot be discounted when you engage in its practice. And since Architecture is Strategy, be cautious when you mandate an "IT professional" (which are many CIOs), but be equally if not more cautious in mandating a senior leader with a more traditional career in the traditional Board-level background in Finance, HR, Sales & Marketing, Legal and Operations.