Enterprise Transformation

A Pragmatic Approach Using POET


◄◄◄ Previous Page         


          Next Page ►►►

In relation to the Transformation of Enterprises, there are many Frameworks (Pragmatic EA is tracking over 900) that have been produced to help Enterprises deal with Enterprise Transformation in a more effective and efficient manner. These things are of various types; “frameworks”, ontologies, methodologies, Notations, Architectures, Theories, Models etc, etc, etc. We use the word Framework to refer to them all.

Each of these Frameworks has been designed and engineered to operate with a specific domain or context, for example; strategic planning, project management, enterprise architecture, software design and development, service management, change management, etc, etc etc. We could categorise these Frameworks in different ways:

¨      Domain - Some Frameworks exist to help with Strategising or Roadmapping, while others exist to help with the design of IT systems, or a particular discipline such as Project Management.

¨      Coverage - Some Frameworks deal only with Structural elements of Transformation (Categories, Ontologies, meta-models) like Zachman or BMM while others deal more with Procedural elements of Transformation (Methods, Practices, Processes) like eTOM. Others encompass both like PEAF.

¨      Depth - Some Frameworks provide only high level concepts and guidance, others contain vast amounts of detail and very prescriptive.

¨      Geography - Some Frameworks exist to serve a particular country or region like The Bank of England Framework, while others are geography independent like BMM.

¨      Industry - Some Frameworks are Industry specific like eTOM, while others are industry agnostic like BMM.

¨      Maturity - How mature the framework is - (can be partly related to its age although that can also be inversely proportional!)

Like many things, these Frameworks have grown and evolved organically and expanded their scope and areas of interest as they themselves have matured. This usually happens when the framework creators realise that the problems being experienced within their domain, are being caused by immaturity in another domain (usually upstream) and therefore grow and seep into that domain to “fix” those problems. ITIL is a prime example of this.

How successful frameworks have been in morphing themselves into areas they were never designed to operate in is largely subjective, and opinion tends to be driven by allegiances and crusades. In addition all of these Frameworks have been designed and built in isolation - to optimise specific parts rather than the whole.

So, the problem is not the lack of frameworks. The problem is the abundance of frameworks. Because of this, there are overlaps, gaps, inconsistencies and clashes. In short, total confusion. So the framework providers, whose primary aim is to provide clarity in their domain, have created confusion in the wider domain.

Consequently, people have adopted these frameworks in a similarly haphazard fashion, optimising specific parts but never considering the whole. Perhaps starting in one area and then finding themselves being subtly pulled into other areas. They have been optimising the parts at the expense of the whole.


Questions to ponder...

How many frameworks have you heard of?

Did you know there were so many (Pragmatic is tracking over 900)?

Is your Enterprise using the ones most applicable to it?

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►


© 2008-2019 Pragmatic EA Ltd