In a recent article, I used this simple visual to describe my approach to architecting enterprises. As you can see, it starts with a vision and ends with a roadmap for realising the vision. This attracted significant comment from a number of colleagues, prompting reflection on my approach, the communication of my approach and the visual aids that I use in explaining my approach to those with whom I engage.

Genesis

Let me start by describing the genesis and motivations for creating and using this visual. In engagement with an enterprise, an early task is to outline to the Executive the journey that we will be jointly undertaking so that they have a sense of how we will realise the intended outcomes of the engagement. This diagram is the result of multiple refinements of that visual and is often customised to reflect the particular language and position of the organisation on this journey.

In a recent assignment, the organisation had done significant work on a “strategy cascade”. As the Executive sponsor and I talked through their cascade, we were able to determine that it encompassed the main elements of vision and business model, such that the “entry point” for this organisation would be with an initial operating model they had developed, seeking to refine it to a point where it would provide input into their annual capital budgeting process.

As it turned out, I became aware during the process that the budgeting process was well in train, even before we started this journey, such that we started describing our activity to those engaged as an assurance process – providing another view on the organisation, the capabilities that they needed to realise their intended business model and their intended differentiated positioning in the markets in which they operated.

In another assignment, the starting point was an “aspirational brief” which had been developed as part of a co-design undertaking by the enterprise and their customers. That is, in fact, how that artefact came to become part of this visual.

In many assignments, the journey ends up being different than indicated by this simple graphic – but that is only known in reflecting back on the journey, which has been an adaptive experience, determining the activities in the course of discovering the new possibilities that might be pursued in iterating through development or refinement of their business model(s) and operating model. It is important, though, to provide a simple representation and to let the journey unfold – any more complex representation becomes confusing and difficult to explain, without greater appreciation of “what is to come”. That is a critical point – my colleagues know “what is to come” because they have been on this journey many times, but often this is the first time for my clients and they need to be afforded the opportunity to discover and shape the most appropriate path for their enterprise.

Disrupted world

In the last forty years (my working life), the world and the working world have changed radically. It was common, in my early working life, to encounter a planning process which essentially entailed forming a vision for where the enterprise wished to be in five to ten years and developing a plan for “getting there”. And to a fair degree, this worked.

Turn the clock forward, and it no longer works! Why not? Because by the time the plan is executed, the world has changed so that the vision is no longer relevant or appropriate. In fact, the vision may entail a range of operating assumptions that are simply no longer valid. This change is reflected in expressions such as market disruption and business model disruption. Markets are changing rapidly, with new entrants bringing new business models and new ways of thinking and operating that can totally undermine the business model of an organisation. I am sure I don’t have to reference the oft-quoted enterprises or industries in which we have seen these changes occur.

Hence, the disrupted world can mean that our visions are no longer relevant or if relevant may be subject to radical disruption within the next five to ten years. In this respect, establishing and creating a vision for our organisation has become an ineffective approach to planning, architecting and designing. This can lead to developing a vision of our organisation as opposed to a vision of the world in which it will be operating. But that, too, might not be reflective of the manner in which our organisation has adapted and evolved in a change world.

Yet, we need some ongoing expression of the enterprise we are pursuing and the motivations underpinning our enterprise. If a vision is not suitable, how do we express our purpose and motivation?

Corporate lifecycle

Taking a slightly different angle, I have found “Managing Corporate Lifecycles” by Ichak Adizes offers a range of valuable insights into the architecting and developing of organisations. Adizes speaks of four key dimensions through the acronym PAEI:

• Purposeful
• Administrative
• Entrepreneurial
• Integrated

He speaks of each of these coming to the fore at different stages in the lifecycle of an organisation and offers an “optimal path”, which takes a balanced approach to each of these dimensions. Elements of this thinking are reflected in several of my articles, including one on enterprise integration and wholeness.

Reflecting on his book takes my mind to thinking about:

• Enterprise integration
• Enterprise and personal integrity
• Enterprise completeness
• Enterprise and personal fulfillment
• Enterprise and personal awareness

All of these require some sense of purpose and may entail some vision of the enterprise and people we aspire to be.

Evolving purpose

Another line of thinking that has been influential for me has been Ackoff’s classification of systems which revolves around the concept of being purposeful. Ackoff defines this as any entity which is able to change either of the means or the ends by which the entity operates. This is a key element of strategic planning and its use of the concept of capability, where exploration occurs in relation to:

• the new markets (ends) which may be pursued with existing capabilities (means)
• the new capabilities (means) which might be required within existing markets (ends)

Ackoff classifies systems in terms of whether their parts are purposeful / non purposeful and the whole is purposeful / non purposeful, naming the systems with purposeful parts and whole as social systems (since it is the people element which brings the social construct of purpose to this purposefulness).

As you would appreciate, when we explore using existing capabilities to pursue new markets, we are exploring new purposes for our existing capabilities. Hence, the need to be flexible (and alert) when exploring strategic directions, seeking to shape our future and potentially change the purposes of our organisation.

Evolving architecture, development and enterprise

It seems to me that the development and sustainment of successful enterprises engages us in evolving our purpose and hence the expression of the enterprise that our organisation is pursuing.

As we evolve our enterprise, we must equally evolve the way in which our enterprise develops, and accordingly, must also evolve the way in which we architect and design our enterprise.

Approaches to architecting enterprises inevitably engage in envisioning the future environment in which they will operate and the way in which they will operate in such environments. It is incumbent on all of us who are involved in leading, architecting, designing, developing and sustaining enterprises that we appreciate the manner in which vision and purpose must evolve and be balanced and adaptable.

As we pursue these activities, we may express our vision and purpose for our enterprise, for our development and for the manner in which we architect and design our enterprise.

Genetics

Hopefully, then, it will come as no surprise to consider that we are genetically wired to be enterprising. I am sure there are authors and thinkers I could reference here! My simplistic view is that being enterprising helped us when we were hunters and gatherers, recognising that collectively we could achieve more than individually. It has helped us through each of the ages – agricultural, industrial, and information / knowledge age. Our enterprising capacity has enhanced our capability to survive and has been further concentrated through our ongoing evolution.

Our enterprising nature has enabled us to develop envision, shape and realise our future, to evolve our visions and our expressions of purpose and to pursue these evolving visions and purposes.

Our enterprising nature enables us to design and realise purposeful organisations, able to give attention to changing the means or changing the ends as we sense and respond to the environment in which we operate.

Conclusion

Perhaps visions and purposes are means and not just ends? Perhaps they are helpful if we appreciate and use them in an adaptive manner as an instrument for conceiving of possible futures and evolving our capacity to realise these futures in a rapidly changing world?

Food for further thought and reflection!

As outlined in my article about enterprise challenges, enterprises experience and effect change. In so doing, they compromise their integration with the environment in which they operate and their internal integration. Ichak Adizes refers to this as dis-integration which then requires re-integration.

Architecture is fundamentally about the design and realisation of integration and wholeness within enterprises. Just as with individuals, the more that a person or an enterprise is “at one with their environment, with others and with themselves”, the richer the life that the person or enterprise leads.

Experiencing dis-integration

If you have been part of a small enterprise, you may well have had the experience of and the need to deal with transitioning from:

• knowing everything about the enterprise to only knowing some things about the enterprise
• doing things yourself to trusting and delegating others to do things
• feeling like a family to feeling less connected and perhaps even lost or ignored

This requires attention to the essential elements necessary for consistent practice to occur in a more distributed fashion across a larger number of teams and staff.

Even in small enterprises, challenges emerge in ensuring that the organisation operates in a manner which is sufficiently consistent to achieve its goals and aspirations. These arise in relation to individual thinking patterns, individual behaviours and individual exercising of key processes – whether they be core value adding, client facing processes or support processes which need to provide internal services consistently.

The issues that arise can be quite simple and include ensuring:

• consistency in the fulfilling of a role or function by two different people that was previously performed by one person or the person to whom a role or function has been delegated
• flexibility to respond to differing circumstances without being overly constrained by structures created to provide the consistency described above

These situations lead to dis-integration as others involved are unable to readily deal with the different behaviour or need to expend greater effort in responding to varying behaviours.

Potential responses

Enterprises have a variety of mechanisms by which they achieve consistency, integration and wholeness within teams, including:

• articulation of a common vision and supporting values
• establishing clear policies, standards and guidelines
• establishing supporting systems

These and other mechanisms need to integrate in a coherent manner across the entire enterprise, such that, in the words of Tom Graves, they describe the architecture of the enterprise, enabling the enterprise to

“work together better”

This entails the enterprise in establishing and sustaining a foundational capability in describing the principles, models, structures and guidance that enables all participants in the enterprise to act in an integrated and coherent manner to realise the enterprise goals and aspirations.

These capabilities are needed in small enterprises and will serve the enterprise well through all facets of growth and development, providing the enterprise with greater flexibilty, agility and scalability.

Optimal path

Doug McDavid introduced me to the book “Managing Corporate Lifecycles” by Ichak Adizes. This explores the different stages of development in the “corporate lifecycle” and outlines four management roles which are critical to this development.

Adizes identifies an optimal path for the growth and development of enterprises which requires that the integration role is given greater attention, earlier in the life of enterprises – as it is often the last of the four roles that is given attention.

In essence, Adizes recommends establishing the integration capability at the outset of establishing an enterprise, ensuring that as each change and development occurs, appropriate capabilities exist and are exercised to address any consequential disintegration and necessary re-integration.

How does an enterprise give attention to integration? This can be done by:

• establishing and sustaining an architecture which provides the guidance for achieving sustained integration
• ensuring that the architecture and integration capabilities are based around a holistic approach to change and a focus on realising enterprise wholeness
• establishing sufficient self-awareness within the enterprise that sounder decisions are made, avoiding the costs associated with rework that would arise once poorer decisions are found to be wanting

Summary

Developing and sustaining an architecture of an enterprise enables the members of the enterprise to operate in a more integrated and coherent manner and to realise greater wholeness across the enterprise – a challenge that all enterprises face.

 

 

All enterprises face challenges (of varying magnitude and complexity). These challenges are either problems to be solved or opportunities to be pursued. One way of considering these challenges is through the following three lenses – those arising due to:

• external change
• internal change
• growth and development

External change

It hardly needs saying these days – change is constant, change is accelerating, living with change is the “new normal”.

For any enterprise, there is a vigilance required in understanding the environment in which they operate. A high performing enterprise can suddenly find that its performance is dipping – not because it is doing anything different, but because it is not doing anything different. The market now expects and values something different to what the enterprise has become excellent at offering and providing, and the enterprise must respond accordingly.

Customers needs may change, competitors may introduce new services which place our own services in a different context, new entrants may shake up the market. Disruption to the market or environment in which enterprises operate require enterprises, whether small or large, to monitor the changes and respond to the changes.

Internal changes

Even if there were no external changes, there is still the challenges that arise from internal changes. Such changes may or may not be initiated by the enterprise.

It only takes one person to leave and be replaced for “things to be different”, requiring the enterprise to take action to ensure that its products and services are offered and delivered in an acceptable manner. Even if there are no personnel changes, there are internal disruptions that can occur, whether that be:

• someone being away sick or on holiday
• someone learning or discovering a different way to complete a task or fulfill their responsibilities
• some change in workplace dynamics, arising from changes in behaviour or interactions between staff

As with external changes, these internal changes demand appropriate attention and response from managers and leaders, whether this is for small or larger enterprises.

Growth and development

As enterprises develop and grow, they face a range of challenges. If you have been part of a small enterprise, you may well have had the experience of and the need to deal with transitioning from:

• knowing everything about the enterprise to only knowing some things about the enterprise
• doing things yourself to trusting and delegating others to do things
• feeling like a family to feeling less connected and perhaps even lost or ignored

Think about the changes that occur in progressively transitioning through the following stages:

• A founding CEO and his / her team of five to seven staff
• An independent CEO with four direct reports being managers, each leading a team of five to seven staff
• A third generation CEO with six direct reports being executives, each leading a team of five managers, each leading a team of eight to ten staff

Think about the changing dynamics across this transition:

• A vision, potentially developed in collaboration with the initial team, being a shared vision through to a vision which may be rarely referenced, which may have tenuous connection with the individual aspirations of each staff member
• A structure which was a simple one line reporting structure and evolved through numerous changes, taking varying account of particular staff strengths and weaknesses, changing market demands and geographical presence
• A consistent set of practices because each were performed by a single individual, but now are undertaken to varying degrees of consistency, potentially extending across multiple teams, with varying touch-points with external entities, whether they be customers, suppliers, partners, regulators, etc
• The challenges of communication within a single team as compared to an enterprise of 250 staff, with four levels in its organisational structure, operating in varying locations and with varying work arrangements

Change and integration

I have found the thinking expressed by Ichak Adizes in his book “Managing Corporate Lifecycles” to be helpful and use it here to draw together a number of different elements.

Adizes speaks of change causing disintegration and requiring re-integration of our enterprises. Each of the elements that I have described entail questions about the degree of internal and external integration of an enterprise.

External integration reflects the degree to which the enterprise understands and operates in harmony with the markets / environments in which it operates. This does not exclude the possibility of being a disruptive force. Such disruption will only be successful where the products and services offer value to prospective customers, consumers and associated stakeholders.

Internal integration reflects the degree to which the enterprise holds a coherent view of its aspirations and their realisation, and the associated structures and practices it develops and sustains to support their realisation.

The challenge that all enterprises face is that of sustaining internal and external enterprise integration. Lest this be treated as technical statement, an alternate expression is that the challenge for enterprises, as living systems, is to develop and sustain themselves as healthy, holistic beings.

 

 

I have lost count of the number of times that I have heard people complain about how IT is undervalued, how the CIO deserves a place at the Executive table or at the Board table.  All too often this is because the proponents are unable to clearly and succinctly articulate the value proposition for the CIO function or for the more effective use of IT by an enterprise.

Combined with this, I also have lost count of the number of times that I have seen Board members eyes glaze over as soon as someone mentions that awful word “IT” or any of the associated technobabble.  Yet, these same people are often worried about the future of their enterprise and the impact of significant changes in the markets in which they operate, sometimes due to the capacity of their competitors to make more effective use of IT than they are able to!!

So, I have taken an interest in exploring and discussing these problems from a different angle, such as whether an organisation needs to be more innovative, and if so, how this might be achieved.

And in doing so, I have found that this brings me back to understanding enterprise performance, staff productivity and enterprise competitiveness.  Often times this then leads to thinking about the capabilities required by the enterprise, their adequacy for current and future demands, and ways in which the performance of particular capabilities can be improved.

Enter process innovation!

That is, here is where enterprise modeling comes and adds some value, by enabling an enterprise view of current and future capabilities and identifying the gaps, whether missing entirely or simply not performing adequately, identifying where the performance gap is and determining innovative ways of addressing this gap, sometimes involving process innovation.

And so, it has become increasingly evident to me that process innovation has a place in contributing to improved enterprise performance, improved productivity and increased competitiveness, and enterprise modeling offers tools, techniques, thinking models which enable an enterprise to tackle these sort of questions, these sorts of demands, these sorts of business change and transformation, most often combined with some commensurate systems transformation!