How was Training?


The course taught me what EA is and helped me understand how to take the EA concept and turn it into something real and valuable in the organisation. - Enterprise Architect, Experian, UK, Mar 2013

Recommend PEAF?


Yes - I think it is as it is titled. Also it covers and overlaps differently to TOGAF and both can be used side by side IMHO. It is more "businessy" pardon my neologism. - Enterprise Architect, James Dawson, Australia, Jun 2012

  Introduction   Context   Direction   Operation   Transformation   Support   Adoption  




<< Previous <<

>> Next >>

Plate A

This illustrates the Normal view of how many view an Enterprise.


People who work in "The Business" see their domain as the most important, and "IT" as a separate entity which supports "The Business" and is often shown/thought of as underneath "The Business" and therefore viewed as, in some way, subservient. Yes, IT only exists to support "The Business", but in the 21st Century this Business myopic view is flawed as IT is an integral part of "The Business".


People who work in IT see their domain as the most important, and "The Business" as everything else that is not IT. Yes, IT is a major part of "The Business", but in the 21st Century this IT myopic view is flawed as "The Business" is an integral part of IT.

Plate B

This illustrates the Pragmatic view of how People (especially those that Direct Enterprises) should view their Enterprise. This new way of looking at the fundamental structure of an Enterprise is a Paradigm shift. Instead of looking at the Enterprise from the point of view of its major parts, we look at the enterprise from the point of view of wholes that are made up of parts. What is of strategic importance are these wholes, the end-to-end effectiveness, efficiency, agility and sustainability of these wholes - Direction, Operation, Transformation and Support.

A little history (Yes, there will be exceptions to what is detailed below, but we are talking of the general pattern of what happened over time)....

In the beginning IT did not exist and therefore was not represented in Enterprises. As IT came into being and Enterprises started to see the value in using it, Enterprise started using IT.

Over time, as IT grew, it logically got to a point where the Enterprise required an IT department to handle it, and hence IT departments were born. These IT departments were essentially bolted onto the side of whatever currently existed as the Enterprise.

At first no one on the board knew what to do with this growing IT department or who should oversee it, and so the IT department was often placed under other "support" areas such as HR or Finance.

As the IT department (and IT complexity) grew, it became clear that the HR or Finance Director did not have the knowledge to manage it effectively and hence the birth of the IT Director / CTO / CIO type roles. Initially, although "on the Board", the people appointed to these roles were not seen as "proper" directors most of the time and were tolerated more as a necessary evil.

As time moved forward, and with the ever increasing use (and complexity) of IT, these roles gained prominence and understanding and were made and accepted to be proper board level positions. However, these IT departments are still largely a chunk bolted onto the side of the Enterprise - as they were when IT first came to be used.

This is the state of play today.

So, we are not saying that Enterprises were wrong to think and organise themselves as in plate A. That was a reasonable way of thinking and organising themselves in the past. In fact it was the rational reasonable anf logical way of thinking and organising themselves.

But we have moved from a world where IT didn't exist and was optional, to a world where IT is pervasive and mandatory.

However, this is no longer an IT thing, this is a Transformation thing.

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."


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?



2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd