How was Training?

more

“It gave me a greater understanding of EA and its principles” - Enterprise Architect, Hasbro, USA, Dec 2012

Recommend PEAF?

more

“Yes - PEAF has helped me apply Zachman EA Framework.” - Committee Volunteer, Four Seasons at Historic Virginia, USA, Feb 2015

Here we suggest the Executive Structure required for an Enterprise based on DOTS.

The three fundamental parts of IT are split up and put under the direction of an appropriate CxO. IT Operations goes under the control of the COO, IT Support goes under the control of the CSO and IT Change goes under the control of the CXO.

The CTO role would still exist but only have a dotted line to orchestrate the different parts of IT, in the same way, that the COO has a dotted line to orchestrate the parts of the business.

It is not anticipated than an Enterprise would implement this, as-is. It is provided more as a suggestion to how an Enterprise may begin to organise itself differently in response to the strategic drivers of the 21st Century, namely Transformation and Support.

Bearing in mind the premise that the Pragmatic Operating model for Enterprise Transformation (POET) is based on:

“How an Enterprise effects Transformation is becoming a Strategic Strength or a Strategic Weakness, where massive business opportunities can be gained or massive business problems will result.”

- POET

It is critical that someone is accountable for Transformation at board level. A Chief Transformation Officer.

It is unfortunate that the CTO acronym is already taken and so we use CXO (as distinct from CxO (which means any Chief Officer).

Note that the CXO role is distinct from the Ordinary Transformation Officer (OXO) role which is largely concerned with Stock!

While whatever the role is ultimately called is largely unimportant (Chief Change Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, etc) what is important is that the role exists with an appropriate focus.

Just as there is a COO (because the Operation part of the Enterprise is critical to its success), in the 21st century the same is true for the CXO. There needs to be someone, at board/CxO level who is accountable for this strategically important part of the Enterprise, and to bang the boardroom table for resources to improve it.

If the CXO role does not exist, who will champion the holistic and coherent increase in maturity of Transformation?

Who might be best placed to move into the CXO role?

If you accept that the role is important and mandatory for strategic success then the next obvious question is - who should you employ to do it?

Whilst recruitment from outside the Enterprise is a possibility, it is difficult because the role doesn’t really exist yet and therefore there is no pool to choose from.

Recruitment to the post from inside the Enterprise is possible from an interim and permanent point of view and from an expediency point of view, may be the most Pragmatic approach.

So, if you were to appoint the role to an existing employee, who would that be?

You would probably want to choose someone who already spends an appreciable amount of time involved in Enterprise Transformation at a senior level, and since a large part of Transformation happening within Enterprises today is IT related it might seem reasonable to ask the CIO to expand his remit from just dealing with IT Transformation to dealing with Transformation as a whole. To be accountable for the Entire Transformation domain - Transforming the Methods, Artefacts, Culture and Environment used for Transformation not just its IT (which is a sub part of the Technology domain, which is a sub part of the Environment domain, which is a sub part of the Enterprise Transformation domain).

The other important adjustment is to make this person accountable not only for the running of Transformation but for its improvement. This is a very very important point. Most CIO’s today do not have that remit in their current role (or if they do, are rarely provided with the resources to do so) and therefore the move from CIO to CXO is not only a change from an IT focus to a Transformation focus, but also a change from one that is only accountable for running Transformation to one that also includes its improvement - The Transformation of Transformation. This will require the CXO to relinquish accountability for IT Operations and IT Support to someone else.

The COO has someone he can call on who is accountable for transforming Operations - the CXO, but the CXO has no one to call on who is accountable for transforming Transformation except himself, and he can only do that if he is given an explicit remit and mandate from the CEO to do so.

 

Do you have a CXO?

Who in your Enterprise will drive the holistic and coherent improvement of how Transformation is effected?

Who in your Enterprise will bang the boardroom table to resources to improve how Transformation is effected?

Who in your Enterprise would be best placed to move into that role?

Are Transformation and Support represented at the CxO level in your Enterprise?

If not, does this cause any problems?

What are the impact of these problems?

What needs to happen to alleviate these problems?

 

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►


 

© 2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd