Original thread - start EA Discussion at Different Point

Original Thread – summary of Linked in Thread
EA Discussion - a different Starting Point
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.Chief Architect and CEO @ iCareQuality Inc.Top Contributor
Most of Enterprise Architecture discussions on the LinkedIn start with what EAs do. If we start the
conversation with what problem enterprise architecture can help solve, will we have a different
discussion? Hopefully a different conclusion?
Input from LinkedIn Members -
My analysis of what I read in member comments
Problem Enterprise Architecture can solve :
 Help improve the utilization of current enterprise capabilities
 When required help transform capabilities to capitalize on opportunities presented by
Discontinuities in primary and/or secondary industries
Why is this important to the organization?
 Get most out of current assets and with pin point precision transform them when required
Hypothesis
 Enterprise Architecture is a capability – that means it can be decomposed into people, process and
technology, its performance can be explicitly measured and the performance can be linked to
enterprise outcomes.
 Capability is staffed by enterprise architecture professional with varying degree pf skills and
expertise as required by demand of the business . Skills could vary from Open CA Level 3 or
equivalent to TOGAF Foundations. Note the reference here is not to certifications but skills
identified in the certifications.
 Enterprise architecture team could be virtual, one physical team that depends on the organization
design. The org design has no impact on the performance of enterprise architecture capability
Enterprise Architecture Capability Model
Sub capabilities:

 Improve utilization of current Enterprise Capabilities
o Map value chain and define enterprise capabilities
o Help define operations strategy
o Continuous improvement and support
o Monitor capability performance and enterprise outcomes
 Transform capabilities with pinpoint precision
o Strategic change plan
o Architecture roadmap
o Transition plan and business case
o Execute Transition Plan
 Build and Run EA Capability
o Build EA Capability
o Operate EA Capability
o Educate and Train Staff
Performance Measures
Key performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of EA Capability and by proxy measure
effectiveness of EA professional services :
 Employee Engagement – number of suggestions and comments per employee. This is an objective
way to continuously elicit architecture requirements
 Time and Cost to Plan each Opportunity – time and cost to study each suggestion and manage it
to the start of the formal initiative
 Project Plan Efficiency – number of change projects delivered on time, on budget and planned
capability transitioned to target level of performance
 Capabilities Effectiveness – number of capabilities performing at desired level of performance and
outcomes gaps (from expected to actual)
 Decision Information Quality – quality of information provided by EA professional at each stage
gate to help make the right investment choices

Details you can find at – Download
Challenges:
Once we recognize Enterprise Architecture as a Capability, then there are real challenges to overcome
 Skills Shortage -
 Lack of Transparency and Accountability – in most organizations rarely is anybody held to
capabilities performance, or ROI in new systems
Path Forward
 We have methods to do enterprise architecture (TOGAF® is not perfect, but it is good enough)
 Professional Development Path ( TOGAF Foundations to Open CA level 3)
 Now it is just hard work ahead -- sooner we start doing it sooner we start making difference.
Feedback from LinkedIn Members – my comments in red font
Howard Wiener, MSIA, PMP
President and CEO at Evolution Path Associates, Inc.
Jason:
I have little question that perseverating on EA process is analogous to being a hammer and looking for a
nail. I definitely buy into the notion that we should be focused on the goal and not necessarily the journey,
at least, initially.
I think that with a goal in mind [goal is to improve utilization of capabilities and transform when
required ] , an appropriate process will be easier to identify. It's also likely that working with the interested
parties to come to common agreement on goals will produce an environment that will facilitate the
collaboration needed to reach them.
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Chief Architect and CEO @ iCareQuality Inc.
Top Contributor

Howard, see if i understand you point of view -- if we start with problem to solve - engage wide range of
stakeholders to identify the problem, then we may have an opportunity to get there . did i get that right ?
Jason:
Well, sort of. The point I was making is identifying a GOAL focuses everyone on the path that should be
taken to achieve it.
In a lot of our discussions in EA groups, my impression is that the focus is often on process with the
underlying notion that a good process will lead to the right endpoint. Any consistent process will lead to an
endpoint but whether it is the right one is open to question.
EA is a highly abstract discipline [unless we make it physical, EA will not get the required respect – EA has
many similarities to Industrial Engineering ] and while most executives probably agree in principle with
many of its goals avoiding redundancy, saving costs, increasing agility –[ these needs to be measured and
attributed ] I am sure that the vision of how the results will look when they come about are different for
every group of senior managers.
So, working with the people directly responsible for the business outcomes that EA is intended to facilitate,
enable, enhance should help to establish a shared vision and appreciation for what is required, thereby
creating acceptance for and willingness to participate in and support EA in its efforts.
It may well make sense, then, to start with the desired outcome and work backward to establish the correct
point of origin and trajectory for the EA effort. [approach is how we solve wicked problems – abductive
thinking ]
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
well said . . i agree ..
Lisa Marie Martinez
Enterprise and Business Architect - Wicked Problem Solver
I agree.
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
thanks Lisa,
by approaching this question from the results end, i am hoping we can come up with a broader consensus
on what is that EA professional do or should do?

Peter Murchland
Business Synthesist
A different starting point ...
Being clear about the end point and how to get there ...
That's all EA is about - the greater challenge is that it is not the only means by which this is done, so it is
also about being clear about how EA adds value to something that all organisations should be engaged in
already! [leverage what they own, transform to capitalize new opportunities – all organizations do this ,
some do better than the other]
Ulf Larsson
Enterprise Business Architect | Principal Architect at Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken
I agree with Peter - how to 'get there' is the main thing about EA. – [first we need to agree to where to ,
then how to get there could vary ]I also believe EA is not just 'a thing' - it is something you have to choose
to 'live with' for love to identify sustainable solutions of problems being identified as well as understanding
the constant needs by the business. To outline the work streams going forward is very much where we can
leverage from EA and our skills being EAs for many years. One other thing is the ability to describe the
benefits for the 'senior management' - getting them involved in EA. Describe things in a easy and clear way
- simple taxonomy with the possibility to drive that into different levels of abstractions - with increased
level of information. Have the senior management to make prioritization and ensure coherent prioritization
cross the organization / teams, in work streams to successively solve problems - preferable in a agile
approach where we - EAers can see the 'whole picture' and the end-points - there will be several in our
journey.
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Peter and Ulf, - sincere thanks for joining us on this discussion.
agree that EA professionals are or should be good at - being very clear about starting point, ending point
and transition stages to get the end point. Would it not be prudent for us to first be very clear about
starting and ending point for role of an EA in an Organization. here is two cents and look forward to some
feedback
Starting Point: EA professionals work in various organizations and industries with focus of their work being
- providing expertise based leadership to leverage current enterprise capabilities and when required
transform the capabilities to help capitalize on new opportunities.
Ending Point: measure of performance - capabilities utilization and transformation.
if we as a professionals can agree to two end points, then we can define numerous transition plans. each
transition plan will be valid as long as it helps achieve the end point.

Graham Berrisford
Enterprise/Solution Architecture Consultancy and Training
Top Contributor
The EA goals below were posted during discussion of the "EA manifesto" proposed a month or two back.
Surely these EA goals are widely agreed?
"The EA team is concerned with the enterprise-wide optimisation of business systems.
· To improve business system integrity - improve business data quality, relevance and use
· To help management understanding and impact analysis - maintain an abstract description of business
roles and processes and the systems they use - [having map of enterprise capabilities]
· To minimise business risks and maximise opportunities - keep an eye on system & technology evolution,
and produce road maps where needed.
· To reduce TCO and complexity through reuse - tidy up the mess of systems by standardisation and
integration.
· To increase agility and reduce time to market."
[these area all good measures ]
Quoted from "What is EA? BA? SA?" at avancier.co.uk
Venkat Balakumar
Independent IS/IT Consultant
Excellent discussion started, rather than what EA do, I have seen lot of fights and discussions about what
EA is.
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Graham ..thanks for joining the dialogue .. excellent description end points. lets leverage the previously
agreed upon knowledge base.
next step -- how do we then measure if an EA is actually helping achieve these goals. without the ability to
measure performance explicitly - we place ourselves into "Trust me, it is good for you " situation?
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Venkat -- thanks for joining in. my hope with this thread is to come to a broad consensus -- what
problem EA can help solve -- i want to have discussion on starting, ending point and explicit performance
measures .
Alexander SAMARIN
Architect for Achieving the Synergy between Strategy, Good Business Practices and Disruptive
Digital Technologies

My list:
1) technology-enabled transformation of healthcare
2) technology-enabled implementation of smart-cities
3) e-government which should reduce corruption
4) introduction of shared services
5) decentralisaiton of an enterprise
6) modernisation of application architecture
7) modernisation of a legacy ERP
[for given set of enterprise capabilities, these are perfectly good measures ]
Thanks,
AS
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Alex .. great start ... can you measure these ,,, if yes, can you share your measurement architecture - such
as data required, data collection, data validation, computation, sharing and feedback and corrective action
..
Ed Harrington
CEO and Chief Transformation Officer at EPH Associates LLC
Hi Jason...and all...
Concern here is that the "end-point", the architect's target is constantly changing...being driven by new
competition, new business models, new partners, new regulation, etc. I have moved away from looking at
EA as a singular discipline but as a multi-faceted approach to managing (controlling/leveraging?) change,
much of which is generated internally in response to recognized opportunities/threats and some of which is
totally uncontrollable and unforseen from the outside. The dynamics of EA require a holistic
business/organization perspective that has strong influence capability and the confidence of senior business
management.
By holistic, I really mean the business/organization as a whole with all the formal and informal organization
and processes.
So, as to your initial question...I agree that the focus needs to be on the outcomes but the reality is that
those proposed outcomes are in constant flux and require constant monitoring. [EA capability measures I
proposed, different organizations could place emphasis on different measures that is perfectly healthy thing
to do ]
To me, the role of the EA (which is a title/designation I have gotten away from using) is that of
Transformation Management Orchestrator. What is it that we do: we envision a Target (may be long term
or - in today's environment - is usually relatively short term), we asses where we are and determine the
most effective/efficient methods to get from here to there - Change Management!
Howard Wiener, MSIA, PMP likes this

Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Ed, agree with everything you said above, lets focus on your last sentence -- "we asses where we are and
determine the most effective/efficient methods to get from here to there - Change Management!"
in that case, should we then measure the professionals performance by the magnitude of change delivered -
- the change can be quantified by many relevant measures, For example; Toyota measure the performance
of their chief engineer by - market share and margins from the car program, as well as new learning.
thanks for joining this discussion .. i think we are making progress towards the initial question
Graham Berrisford
Enterprise/Solution Architecture Consultancy and Training
Top Contributor
Measuring EA goals is mostly nonsense.
There is a 49 slide presentation explaining why at
<http://grahamberrisford.com/AM%201%20Methods/2%20INITIATE/AM%20115%20Agree%20EA%20fundi
ng%20model%20and%20metrics%2045.pdf>
[it is view that I don’t share]
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Graham -- if measuring EA performance is mostly non sense, you are entitled to that opinion, not that I
agree. , then via similar definition, the work of EA must be non sense too. I profess to the school that if it
cant me measured in meaningful way, then it is not worth doing.
through this discussion we will continue to look for meaningful way to measure the contribution an EA
should and can make.
thanks for your contribution to this discussion.
Ulf Larsson
If EA cannot be measured EA should not exist. I have never ever done any EA or allowed EA to be done if it
is not measurable.
Ed Harrington
@ Ulf @ Jason Agree totally...there must be some measure or there is no credibility. Without credibility
there is no EA

Peter Murchland
Business Synthesist
Jason
What we are building here is the business model for EA. There is significant material that can be drawn
upon in terms of:
a) outcomes (benefits / value / value proposition)
b) customers
c) outputs (deliverables)
d) capabilities
e) partners
etc
The outcomes are primarily
a) improved enterprise performance
b) more effective change managment
[I think we are on same page]
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Peter, correct .
what i am trying to do here is to synthesize the answer to this question into a one 81/2 by 11 page and be
able to put on a tshirt>? that is the goal of this thread . ... looking for broad input from members . thanks
for staying engaged ..
Bob Muma
Helping Business Managers to maximize the value of their information resources
Jason why don't we try and be a little more realistic in talking about the problems that enterprise
architecture could deal with.
In the Canadian Federal government there's an agency called The Treasurery Board Secretariat, amongst
other responsibilities the Board acts a management board that "promotes prudent and effective
management of the Government of Canada’s assets and its financial, information, and technology
resources."
Here's a scenario, let's say the Board decides that SAP is to be the platform for enabling the government's
procurement, financial and accounting capabilities. This means that agencies and departments will
transform many front and back office processes and services to the SAP platform. [standardization ]
From a practical perspective, what will Enterprise Architecture bring to the table? What problems will

Senior Managers expect EA to address during the transformation? [effective implementation, minimize
number of interfaces, .. a lot for architect to do ]
Jack Fujieda
founder & ceo at regis inc.,,Chairman, The Open Group Japan;CEO of CRMA ,visiting Prof. Shinshu
& Kyoto univ.
Bob,
Very interesting case of question on " The Treasury Board of Government decision case",
my practical EA architect answer in two fold;
① Before that decision made by the board,what kind of discussions were made with evidences that
decision were right among right stakeholders engagement for consensus ?
② If ① were not done, I , as a professional Architect ask the secretariat, "should I conduct the
retroactive quick validation task with additional time & cost estimate".
A case, He accepted the proposal, we do that task in agile way to find any big problem to be additionally
solved .
B-case, Not accepted; then , give a guidance to the solution architect to execute strong attention to produce
documented confirmation of end user's agreement for the function , or mandatory change needed in
documentation . This case has to be reported back to the Secretariat with propose the solution including
the risk of additional cost and time to cut over. If Secretariat did not fund or convince the end user, all
management accountability should be taken by the ① decision maker, not by Chief Architect. Is this too
bureaucratic ? Or some Vendor like? Ha ha ha ! Jack Fujieda < a 53 years experience Architect>
Peter Murchland
Business Synthesist
Jason
Considering the question of outputs and outcomes of EA further, I think we need to recognise that EA
provides a service with multiple touchpoints along the change management lifecycle which bridges strategy
and execution, so we may wish to consider intermediate outcomes as well as end cycle outcomes. For
example, EA provides outputs to inform business transformation investment decisions, so there are
outcomes at the time of the investment decision, as well as the longer term outcomes arising from
execution of the change program.
[yes if we think in terms of services EA professionals provide then we can standardize services and measure
performance – I measure that using quality of information # 5 measure in my list]
Are you contemplating outcomes at both of these points?
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Peter - yes, the end game performance ( which could be perceived lagging) as well as sub capabilities
performance indicators which will be leading .... if i use lagging and leading indicators methods .

Ammar Abdallah, M.Eng
Quality Assurance, Six Sigma, Lean Enterprise, Supply Chain Management, Quality Analysis, ISO
9000, Project Management
I guess you mean EA benefits.
Kevin (INTJ) Smith
www.PragmaticEA.com
The question has been answered since 2008.
It always amazes me when people continue to ask the same questions even when they have the answer 6
years ago.
http://www.pragmaticea.com/peaf-models.asp?ModelName=context.vision
[Kevin, I did not see measurable performance measure in this deck of slides, perhaps you can pull it out and
lay t down next to what I proposed]
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@Kevin, .. the goal of this thread is to create one 81/2 by 11 page that describes the starting point, ending
point, performance measures that are measurable ..
if it has been done for the six years, can you share with the group some case studies or evidence that the
your proposed answers are accepted in the market place.. i am looking to reinvent the wheel, all help from
you will be appreciated
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
meant not looking to reinvent the wheel
Lisa Marie Martinez
Enterprise and Business Architect - Wicked Problem Solver
Kevin supplied one response, not reinventing.
Prior to Kevin's approach we've measured performance on business processes, outcomes and quality
between functional handshakes. Are you looking for more or excluding the business process?

Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
Lisa, here is the context of my thinking . for many years, i worked as an Industrial Engineer, i was our plant
managers right hand person. i understood and communicated to all - our throughput in real time,
performance of bottle neck capabilities and performance of supporting capabilities etc. . Work i did either
was to continuously improve under performing capabilities or seek investments to improve capacity of
bottleneck capabilities.
I view the enterprise architecture work the same way - instead of being industrial engineer, i see them as
enterprise engineers .. enterprise could be a factory, plant, bank, insurance hospital etc. methods are the
same just business domain expertise are different. as well drivers of improvement are different ..
so the purpose of this thread is to create a one page document could clearly define the problems the EA can
help solve!..
any help from you will be greatly appreciated thanks
Peter Murchland
Business Synthesist
Key enterprise problem towards which EA can make a contribution ...
Failure in executing business strategy (claimed to be as high as 80%)
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Peter -- we can use this as one of the measure for EA Performance - successfully execute business strategy
.. we know how to measure this? ...good start .. thanks
EA is a service to the enterprise and, IMHO, its role is to facilitate and enable capabilities mandated by
whoever sets business strategy. So, when EA helps to implement enablement for a busted strategy (doing
the wrong thing right,) how should we evaluate its performance? Also, I think we are mainly in agreement
that EA should not be solely responsible for implementation; therefore, its responsibility for poor
implementation (doing the right thing wrong) should be tempered by the degree of its actual participation.
A quick qualifier of terminology (my usage)--Capabilities are what an enterprise presents externally. For
instance, a car dealership can sell you a car, finance the purchase, lease you a car, maintain a car, etc.
Services are what enables delivery of the capabilities. For the car dealership, acquiring cars to sell, having

relationships with financing companies and lenders, having a garage and mechanics, etc.
In my view, EA is all about enabling and optimizing the ability to execute an organization's strategy, by
which I mean positioning operations to deliver the current set of capabilities for both products and services
efficiently and facilitating the evolution of services to enable new or evolving capabilities. Therefore,
assessing EA performance must include the degree to which it contributes to incremental improvement of
steady-state lines of business and the degree to which it contributes to agility to address changes in the
business environment or organization strategy.
Both of these goals are supported by EA's having accumulated information about an enterprise's current
state and developed a base of relevant knowledge and expertise. So, the first evaluation criterion I would
suggest is how well EA has equipped itself and the enterprise to assess conditions, formulate responses and
facilitate the enterprise's undertaking transformation initiatives. The second criterion I would suggest is the
quality of the decisions EA helps to make and the third is how well EA is positioned and integrated into the
enterprise's decision-making structures.
Hopefully, the first criteria is self-evident. An EA group just starting now to assess the potential value of
cloud architectures and services is woefully behind and providing questionable service to its organization.
On the other hand, assessing decision quality and organizational positioning are more difficult. It has been
said that success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. Other than outright errors in judgement foisted
on the organization by EA fiat (were it even possible,) it's pretty difficult to tease apart the contributions of
various parties to many decisions. Needless to say, revisionist history is likely in the wake of a bad error and
it's equally likely that whoever approves a successful initiative will take credit for having made the decision
to implement it.
Positioning may have a significant impact on EA's ability to gain the attention of executives with the
authority to green-light initiatives and obtain the funding necessary to meet its first criterion.
Unfortunately, positioning is not something that EA will necessarily have control of. So, how can we assess
the efficacy of an EA group that is stuck reporting too far down the decision chain to truly have an impact?
How can we assess the efficacy of an EA group that is underfunded or under-supported?
Ultimately, EA must serve the people that fund it and support it. While some objective measures are
observable, many others are not so easily discerned. In many cases, EA performance is constrained by
funding, staffing or management support limitations. I have opined before that one of the most legitimate
measures of success is sponsor satisfaction, possibly evidenced by continued funding and support. Outside
of real performance outliers--disastrous, expensive initiatives or disruptive strategic coups--it's a case-by-
case job to really evaluate EA performance or quantify its incremental value. It would be nice to be able to
measure increases in capacity, throughput or financial results to assess how EA is doing, but it's simply not
a valid approach to something that as abstract and case-specific as EA.
I guess, then, that I would evaluate EA on (a) the foundation it has built to participate in execution design
decisions , (b) the historical quality of the decisions to which it has contributed and (c) a measure of
management satisfaction with its services.

Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Howard - thanks
I want to thank everybody who provided input into this thread .. one of the most effective threads, i have
been part of lately. it is time for me to summarize and create one page as promised ...that is the task for this
weekend... stay tuned ...
Ulf Larsson
Jason - please have us sharing your summary. I'm interested to see how you conclude the input and what
you will underline. This might be either just another confirmation of the known practices or something new
or updated. I strongly believe and strive for that EA must add value - but this can and will be expressed
differently from one case to another, even within the same organization or company. EA gives us a
foundation from which it is possible to identify KPI etc to be measured against and compare with a 'as-is'
state with an 'improved state' towards a 'to-be' state. It is very important to understand the stakeholder
expectations too. How are they served today with figures and numbers and what do they miss. We should
not spend time creating something that can be absolutely fantastic from a cost / benefit aspect but not well
received by the stakeholders. Getting to the real numbers must include several aspects too. EA wide has a
broad view and perhaps a range for the goal to be achieved. When initiatives are identified preferable
within a long-term strategic (EA transformation takes time) you must be able to track cost on Agile
development 'points', you need to consider cost for daily operation, maintenance and external, e.g. licenses
too. Just to be aware of the complexity of showing the real numbers. Some stakeholders, I have found out,
are looking for trends and expect that to be presented - decreasing / increasing cost and why. It is often
used to address efficiency across several areas. From the idea that was described as a business cases to the
project execution phase and to the steady state when the solution is launched in production. I strongly
believe EA is something you chose to have or not. I cannot see EA as a 'initiative' or a 'project'. Therefore
EA, budget wise, needs to express what the goals are - e.g. 1, 3, 5 and 10 year horizon. This takes time -
especially in companies believing they 'have EA' ongoing but it turns out not be the case. So there are a
some fundamental EA cornerstones to leverage from with more granular details for the project initiatives.
But it all needs to be managed and controlled via a well defined governance process, principles and
guidelines.
Charles Edwards
Architect - Actively seeking next contract role in Business Architecture or Enterprise Architecture
I hope this is not too late - great thread by the way...
One thing is have not seen mentioned here (I scanned this may have missed it) is the end point goal and
even principle that:
1. EA must be sustainable:- on-going, continuously enhanced so that an inventory of architecture is built up
over time, which can be used to govern and avoid re-gathering of information all the time.
2. EA must be embedded within the Enterprise (as opposed to inside the brains of people that work there -

and leave)
I my mind that means just as you have some sort of Application in the business that measures and controls
Finances, or HR, there should be a single central Application in the enterprise that measures, controls and
persists on-going state of the Enterprise Architecture. It should become the enterprise owned DNA around
which the enterprise depends upon to exist and make decisions.
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Charles, thanks for the input .. very well put .. yes, i will cover these points ..
Ed Harrington
@ Charles, agree with Jason...well put. But I would take your initial point a step further and include the
broader definition of Sustainability: yes, on-going and continually enhanced but with responsible and
proactive decision-making and innovation that minimizes negative impact and maintains balance between
ecological resilience, economic prosperity, political justice and cultural vibrancy to ensure a desirable
ecosystem for all participating species now and in the future.
Jason Uppal, P.Eng.
Top Contributor
@ Ed --- did you too had 50 something revelation.

Original thread - start EA Discussion at Different Point

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Original thread - start EA Discussion at Different Point

Similaire à Original thread - start EA Discussion at Different Point (20)

Plus de Million Innovators Group

Plus de Million Innovators Group (15)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Original thread - start EA Discussion at Different Point