How was Training?

more

I am full of theory. - Senior consultant, AutoCont, Czech Republic, Mar 2011

Recommend PEAF?

more

Yes - Because it contains a few interesting elements which I do not find in other frameworks like TOGAF. - Business Architect, Gfi, Belgium, Jan 2015

  Introduction   Context   Methods   Artefacts   Culture   Environment   Adoption  

Desktop

Mobile

 

<< Previous <<

>> Next >>

Plate A

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

      Business

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".

      IT

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 at all, but eventually IT came into being and Enterprises started to see the value in 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 in 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 often not seen as "proper" Directors most of the time, and instead were tolerated, more as a necessary evil.

As time moved on, 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 generally 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 and 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.

So, this is no longer an IT thing, this is a Transformation thing... We need a paradigm shift from thinking in terms of "The Business" and IT, to thinking in terms of Direction, Operation, Transformation and Support.

 

2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd