Beyond | IT : strategy

A few thoughts on business architecture for emergent strategy

john.mullinax — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:34:04 GMT

Note: I originally published a version of this post as a comment on the Forrester blog in response to Gene Leganza’s article here, entitled “Aligning to Emergent Strategy". Gene’s article offers an idea for how to approach Business Architecture when business strategy is emergent – that is, when many different business groups’ actions are only recognizable and rationalized as a collective business strategy after the fact. I thought readers here might find this interesting, as well.

Gene, I think you are on the right track here, and +1 for bringing Mintzberg into the discussion. I like the ending vision of "street level strategy". That said, I think your core recommendation is fatally flawed:

"The solution is to go out and interview all the decision-makers who are making all the short-term decisions that will look two years from now like the strategy of 2009. Yes, all of them."

Two reasons I disagree with this advice:

It's not practically achievable in most cases – the world is littered with strategies that look elegant on paper but can’t be practically executed or utilized… especially in Enterprise Architecture (EA).
It doesn't accommodate for the ontological uncertainty so often in play - whether strategies for business architecture are built top down, bottom up, or middle out, it doesn't really matter – they won’t produce the expected results if the business environment is changing faster than strategies can play out in the real world. (For more on this front, check out my post on Ontological Uncertainty here.)

Instead, I suggest that for large organizations that have a business-IT liaison group and also an Enterprise Architecture group, these be integrated into one organization. The IT people who are responsible for understanding business issues and strategies as they emerge, and also helping business units find innovative ways to apply technology to make the business better, should be the people who drive Enterprise Architecture.

In too many organizations the EA group, even when there is a Business Architecture movement, is isolated from the business within an Application Development or Infrastructure organization, and may only interact with the IT-Business liaison people for project and architecture reviews. That doesn't work well because changes in direction, whether to avoid a cost or capture an opportunity, are often disruptive at that point. Projects may be in flight, egos are on the line, business unit and executive expectations already set, etc.

While people who understand business, technology, AND architecture well enough to flourish in this role are rare, they do exist.

Bottom line: Enterprise Architecture, and business architecture in particular are very valuable organizational capabilities – these resources need to be "pushed out to the organizational edges" where they can best make a positive impact. This optimizes for flexibility and agility to support emerging business strategies in "real time".

My 2 cents. Appreciate hearing other thoughts on this.

Technorati Tags: Business architecture,enterprise architecture,ontological uncertainty,strategy

The purpose of Chrome, and how it may be good for Microsoft

john.mullinax — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:43:00 GMT

Started this as a comment on Larry Digan's blog here, but it ended up so darn long I decided to make it a post on its own right here. A few more thoughts on Chrome. Just my 2 cents. -John

...

More than anything else, Chrome strikes me as a "trojan horse" of sorts to get Google Gears installed on people's computers. Mozilla is already out there for users... the most notable thing about Chrome is that the download forces an install of the Google Gears software alongside the ~~Mozilla/Gecko~~ Webkit rendering engine.

Why would Google do this? Because they realize that marrying installed desktop software and internet content could help them create new kinds of experiences to drive additional usage for their apps by consumers and possibly businesses. Ultimately, the goal is more revenue.

What I find interesting is that this is a very similar to Adobe's vision for computing experiences, as AIR illustrates. At a high level, it's also similar to Microsoft's "Software-plus-Services vision" for computing, that basically says that the web platform and all the other software platforms should work well together.

As a side note, it's interesting that Google is not just copying Microsoft's (and Adobe's) basic strategy here, they are actually copying specific IE features for Chrome... e.g., separate tabs in seperate processes, private browsing (Chrome is limited here -- no cookie blocking, I believe), phishing protection, etc. were released first as IE 8 features (or IE7 in the case of phishing protection).

There are differences, of course, as Google and Microsoft are approaching a similar vision from very different places. Google has been a strong search provider, but may still be learning how to be a software company, with on-premise software products and a software ecosystem to support. Google's ability to execute their flavor of the deployed software + internet services strategy requires getting new apps built to meet all the various computing needs out there with a browser/Gears-based solution. A tall order that will take time - particularly if you think about the business computing market that Google hopes to break into.

For it's part, Microsoft has a great deal of software deployed in the ecosystem, as well a a raft of internet services -- some strong and well-established, some still emerging. For example, think of Mesh and the Windows Live stuff like Messenger, identity, email, contacts, video streaming, etc.). Also, think of new rich, internet-connected smart client capabilities in .NET that lets businesses and partners create superior new experiences, and think of how Office suite itself has become an internet aware platform (one example: FedEx QuickShip lets you ship over the internet from Outlook). Finally, think about how Microsoft is providing choice of deployment models in some of it's "traditional"... software -- letting people choose on premise or cloud hosting (e.g, SharePoint Online, Exchange Online, CRM Online, for mid-market and larger businesses and Office Live for small businesses and individuals). So that's a lot of stuff... and that's the point: in its offerings for both consumers and businesses, Microsoft is combining the power of the internet with the capabilities of software, and doing it across many devices... and in some cases even across platforms.

And very importantly, Microsoft is going down this path with an industry-leading respect for privacy that puts users in control of their data.

So given the similarities in high level strategies, the interesting question isn't who's got the "right" uber-strategy, it's who can most effectively empower users across a broad range of computing needs (that today includes a range of legacy computing environments) with better experiences?

For this reason, I think Chrome may actually help Microsoft. Although multiple companies share a vision for computing that includes the internet and deployed software working well together, it is a change in mindset for consumers and businesses alike. Google's efforts with Chrome should help educate the marketplace about the value of supplementing browser-only experiences with internet-connected software.
That's good for Microsoft, because I believe their flavor of the "Software-plus-Services vision is simultaneously the broadest and the also the most pragmatic/approachable for users who want better experiences.

Technorati Tags: Software-plus-Services,Chrome,Google,Microsoft,strategy,future

Platform vs. Cool? My take on Apple's business strategy...

john.mullinax — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:03:47 GMT

Technorati Tags: Strategy , Apple , innovation , business , software + services , S+S Interesting article about the iPhone here . Although entertaining to read, I disagree with the premise. It did get me thinking about the Apple business strategy,...(read more)