Enterprise Architecture 3.0 (EA3.0) - the third wave in Enterprise Architecture approaches
ABODE™ business transformation methodology founded on EA3.0
A3 KAM - Triple A(Architectural, Actionable and Augmented) Knowledge Assets Management
Generalized Enterprise Function Framework (GEFF)
Towards a standard BFM
Netherlands Architecture Forum (NAF) November 1, 2012 In the lustrum edition of the NAF called State-of-the-art Architecture 2012, Paul made a contribution concerning the Business Architecture, specifically the Business Function Framework or BFM. The applicability of such a BFM is discussed and the accessibility based on a good, insightful and clear structure of a BFM is pointed out. As the contents of a BFM can grow rapidly, navigating through a BFM should become intuitive. Based on this, several solutions for intuitive access are discussed and a structure for a standard BFM is given, including the BFM top-level model.
Necessity to embed strategy in the Enterprise Architecture
Some organizations try to transform their organization from a middle-of-the-road into an operational excellent organization and start by modeling their processes based on lean or six sigma methods. Some organizations try to transform their organization from a middle-of-the-road into an operational excellent organization and start by modeling their processes based on lean or six sigma methods. In this document it is explained that when the choice has been made to become an excellent organization, starting in the middle, with changing processes, is not an option. It is necessary to embed strategic choices into a broader scope, namely the enterprise architecture. Operational excellence is a value discipline and needs a thorough operational model (core processes, business structure, management systems and organizational culture). This model must be based on a coherent, and consistent enterprise architecture and not on a process architecture or by directly starting to remodel processes.
Generally speaking, paradigms, even scientific paradigms, form thresholds for change. Adapted organization paradigms in the heads of (top) management make it hard to accept that new concepts from other paradigms could be very useful and help organizations become successful and excellent. For example the Process paradigm, based on which organizations have proven to change dramatically, is still not accepted in all organizations, although the first adaptations towards this paradigm are more than 80 years old.
Strategy Alignment - Value as Discipline and Principle
During a Strategic Reorientation many transformations need to be started. One of the biggest problems concerning the transformation is Strategy Alignment. Strategy Alignment means that strategic choices are fully, consequently, consistently and coherently carried through the business context and next through the information environment (Business Alignment). Because lack of a well-thought Enterprise Architecture at the strategic level it is plausible to say that Strategy Alignment has never been brought about for the full 100%.
Strategy Alignment - Organization and Organization Culture - How to manage Organization Culture Change
Starting with the essence of what organizations are in general, nine Organizational Paradigms that form thresholds for perception, insight and transformation, are discussed. Next, the scientific concepts of organizational culture are presented. How can we change organizational culture? Based on the scientific research model of Lewin, several research type deliver inside into the phases of organizational culture transformation resulting in an intervention model. How can we measure organizational culture change? Using normal statistics result in interpretation errors and repeated surveys using the same questions (items) leads to unwanted learning effects. Therefore a psychometric model (the partial credit model within the Item Response Theory) is necessary. How can we realize transformation? Several different interventions and perseverences (long-term interventions) are given that can be used within the intervention model besides the necessity of good communication, reward and recognition to result in commitment to the transformation by all formal and informal groups and individuals.
Strategy Alignment - Proposition Architecture and Agility I
Strategy Alignment should be optimized. Starting point in this is Value Creation. Because the Proposition Architecture within the Marketing Domain plays an essential role in Value Creation and Agility, the Proposition Architecture as part of the bigger picture (Strategy Architecture) is discussed. The eight essential elements for competitive advantage based on a well-thought Proposition Architecture are discussed in this second publication.
Strategy Alignment - Proposition Architecture and Agility II
In the first part on the Proposition Architecture the marketing components that are important for the Proposition Architecture were discussed, including their influence on the different areas of the organization like Product Lifecycle Management, Promotion and Sales. In this second part on the Proposition Architecture the rest of the processes that are important for the components of the Proposition Architecture and how this delivers a positive contribution for some (not all are discussed) components of the organization, are discussed. Finally, how the Proposition Architecture should be developed and implemented is discussed.
In een Blog van Henry Cheung stelt hij de vraag “Zijn architecten nodig als je agile gaat werken?”, zie https://lnkd.in/eMEwNKa. Hij komt tot de conclusie “Ja, voorlopig wel”. Ik durf te stellen dat “voorlopig” wel weggelaten kan worden en dat er zelfs een uitgebreidere bemoeienis van verschillende architecten op verschillende fronten nodig is. Weliswaar, bij het hanteren van dezelfde architectuur- en ontwerp-omgevingen, in steeds mindere mate omdat veel taken automatisch overgenomen worden naarmate de omgevingen verder automatisch of door ontwerpers ingevuld worden. In het begin is de behoefte aan architecten echter hoog.
In this paper, in which the second part of the Plan to Capability Model is discussed I will explain how capabilities can be derived from strategic plans by using a model that was developed over the years and which now uses Archimate 3.0 for this translation. In other papers the complete model will be used to not only define capabilities, but also business functions, processes, services, resources, principles, etc. necessary to develop a successful capability model.
In the whitepaper “Business Capabilities” TOGAF defines guidelines that should explain how to define business capabilities. In TOGAF the following formal Capability definition is used:
A business capability is a particular ability or capacity that a business may possess or exchange to achieve a specific purpose or outcome.
However, in the document instead of giving guidelines, explaining an approach, methodology, model, or techniques to derive at capabilities the document directly starts with naming capabilities. This naming is done in the confusingly same way as naming Business Service, Business Functions, etc. Also, the components used to define a Business Capability are limited to Roles, Processes, Information and Tools only. The results are not comparable to that what the title promises.