Enterprise Architecture as Strategy

Executive Summary This report is an examination of switch over deal prompted by meg International, a titanic and reputable Finnish IT plaque. This report explains endeavor computer computer computer architecture and how it stool be applied as a outline. It explains Coachmans modeling for endeavour architecture (Coachman, 1987) and the comp unrivallednts of its cardinal placeal matrix.Criticism that Coachman mannequin is all a taxonomy surveils on accounting next frame control The idle assembly architecture Frame determine ( cognise as TOGA) and its criticism that seat act as architectural sue quite a than a frame model, this report recommends to apply Coachman Frame utilisation for miserliness and TOGA as architectural suffice for billion to lend starself-importance endeavour architecture as schema. This report at that placefore follows on delineate Re- engine room mould from the key organisational channel sight.The report follows on the ne xt scratch explaining the critical risks to re-engineer an scheme and how to give way real the re- engine room hacekroutine has been enforced undefeatedly. term analyzing the execution of instrument of re-engineering border this report introduces Muckinesss s unconstipateder S (Systems, Structures, Staff, Skills, dodging, Style, Sh atomic government issue 18d Values). The next section f the report consequently depicts the vindication that shift is inevitable in an establishment and identifies intravenous feeding main reasons for it.Although near lot said gazillion international is made, its sad profit results, poor worry utilisation and lack of intercourse and group defecate contrasted those statements. 1. 1 Enterprise Architecture as strategy Enterprise architecture is the practice of applying a encyclopedic and blind drunk method for describing a present-day(prenominal) and future structure and behaviour for an governings actes, reading gover nances, personnel and organisational sub- units, so that they dress with the organizations core goals and strategic direction (Shaw, 2007).a equal, Coachman (1987) describes green light architecture as it is to pep the duty from disintegrating the creation of information systems architecture is sightly slight of an option and more of a necessity. Enterprise is an independent, standal mavin entity comprising restrain of seam sector sector functions and architecture is the underlying frame field that provides the ground for the go-ahead to operate efficiently to achieve organisational goals.The primary purpose of creating enterprisingness architecture is to ensure that transmission line strategy and IT investments be aligned and provide long-term visible horizon of a comp eachs adjoines, systems and technologies (Ross, Well &038 Robertson, 2006). Enterprise architecture is authoritative because organizations need to adapt more and more fast to maturationd competit ion, changing customer requirements, and short letter goals. Since MEG international was present signs of reduction in sales and cloggy mart position by irrelevant competition were perfect examples that MEG was non adapting to rapidly changing purlieus.This need for sufferance has influence over the entire line of accomplishment demonstratees transplant in one profession surgical procedure may influence early(a) trade trade. To detect enterprise architecture coherent, sort should be managed accordingly in all architectures, and the relations amidst several(predicate) architecture just be relieve oneself so it is life-sustaining for MEG to implement enterprise architecture as a strategy to be able to light up competitive returns. Main difficulty in adopting enterprise architecture as strategy is to discipline business architectural conjunction and IT alignment because of the differences in architectural example methods. note analysts build mixed busines s dish models similarly IT architects throne design complex applications. These deuce groups of people may be best at what they do provided they lack common language to visit each opposites design. Mona Lisa although being Information Systems advisor didnt founder he leadership capacitance or vision on how she is discharge to approach the let go of of aligning these two processes, or what frame manoeuver to use for the enterprise architecture and what IT strategy to choose to bear on forward towards the counter potpourri process.Some of the well surviven examples of enterprise architecture frameworks that stomach do to build the strategies around enterprise architecture in MEG be Coachmans framework for enterprise architecture (Coachman, 1987) (Figure 1) This framework is a logical structure for classifying the different emplacements gnarled in enterprise architecture in a two dimensional matrix that argon significant to TTS stakeh nonagenarianers.The matrix consist s of directs or player military position (scope or planner, business model or business owner, system model or designer, technology or builder, detailed representations or subcontractor and Functioning Enterprise) and cardinal columns or facial gestures ( information, function, network, people, time, motivation). From the Business owner perspective data represents information close customers, products, suppliers and races between these entities (Session, 2007).On the other hand data from the perspective of technical person implementing the database is rows and columns in tables which argon linked together by Joins (Session, 007). If we bear upon left to right on the power system we see different system descriptions from one player view whereas if we move from give to bottom it changes the different player perspective of viewing the system descriptions. Both perspectives be therefore critical for assureing the systems architecture that Coachman tries to address in his archi tecture. there ar whatever criticisms about this framework that it itself doesnt define the methodological analysis of the framework and is a complex process and can be applicable for large organizations only. This framework mainly acts as a template where goals, ales, processes, materials, enjoyments, locations and events that organizations require must be filled in. Session (2007) argues that the Coachman Framework is very taxonomy for organizing architectural artifacts (I. E. Design documents, specifications, models) that takes into account both(prenominal) who the artifact targets (e. G. Business owner, builder) and what crabby issue (e. G. , data, functionality) is being addressed. The Open Group Architecture Framework (k immediatelyn as TOGA) (Figure 2) This framework mainly has four components such as business architecture, application architecture, data architecture and technical architecture. Business architecture explains how business processes argon aligned to gib e the organizational goals.Application architecture describes how the applications be designed and explains the relationship between industry wide applications. Similarly Data architecture explains how the enterprise data argon stored and accessed and finally technical architecture is responsible for explaining the interactions between softwargon and ironw ar infrastructure. It mainly relies on already existing, proven technologies and products and tries to give a well-tested overall head start model which can be march on extended.Although TOGA describes itself as framework, Session (2007) categorize TOGA as architectural process rather than an architectural framework. Session (2007) further extends Coachman explains how to categories the artifacts and TOGA gives the process to seduce them. So for an organization like MEG international Togas Architecture cultivation Method (ADAM) (Figure 3) provides a strategic process for miserable from generic to specific enterprise archit ecture.Therefore taxonomy like Coachman and an architectural process like TOGA seem very lots book for MEG to adapt Enterprise Architecture as strategy. . 2 Re-engineering Re-engineering could also be interpreted as reverse engineering or radical plan of a business process which disregards all the traditions and assumptions of the departed business processes or procedures and dilates sweet one aiming to leap forward in writ of execution and this seems indispensable for MEG International.Reengineering process involves in identifying the characteristics of an already engineered product or run and the processes involved in developing those, and then redesigning all the processes from the scratch to correct rate of flow productiveness or customer comfort. tool &038 Champs (1993) describe business re-engineering as the unplumbed believeing and radical redesign of an entire business system to achieve melodramatic improvements in critical measures of runance. Reengineering is most frequently called business process reengineering which is aimed to accomplish tremendous changes indoors an organization and underpins all the possible out acquires to carry on a true competitive advantage among the competitors. Reengineering focuses on identifying and abandoning outdated blueprints and assumptions and creating young rules, work methods and workflow to achieve organizational goals aiming to gain productivity, product spiriting and customer satisfaction forcefulally. firstbornly familiarity need to identify the problems and what can be the solutions to fix them.If that cannot be fixed by some other meaner or change process then a basic re engineering model must be essential, then comp boths core processes should be redesigned and final exemplify is to adopt the sweet design. Re-engineering is not a simple task to accomplish, it requires fundamental rethink and radical redesign of business processes. For strength it requires structured and anal ytic approach to puzzle aromatic improvements in cost reduction, property improvements, customer satisfaction, speed etc. Epic Reengineering (pounding &038 Champs, 2003, p. 2) Companies that argon in deep competitive differences with t replacement competitors, companies who go for omnibuss who can see problems arising like MEG and start on re-engineer the business forrader all their competitive advantage ar wiped off. Hammer and Champs (1993)gs rhetorical question of reengineering is that If I were re-creating this company today, given what I know and the trustworthy level of technology, what would it look liker.Focus on fundamentals, radical redesign element, the potential for dramatic results and business process orientation must be addressed while reply the question. Fundamentals like what the organization does, why it is done that way, what ar the tactical aspects, should be addressed while designing re-engineered process what should be. Superficial changes and quantum leap in performance is the must while re-engineering not only marginal enhancements and improvements. These changes should address on-going business process, plus implement ameliorate and simplified processes that improve apprize to he customer. . Critical risks to re-engineer organization and successful change implementation Re-engineering the organization processes or business process reengineering (BPR) can produce drastic change and improvement in the organizational processes if implemented successfully. However if it is not implemented correctly it will not work as advertised and fail to meet the noble expectations. Recent surveys show that about 70% BPR fail and some organizations that cast off put massive effort in BPR argon only able to amplification marginal benefits (Davenport, 1993).These figures indicate that re- engineering has exalted risk barely also organizations are ready to take the risk because the make when executed efficiently can be astounding. Some o f the risk that could derail BPR process can be no co- croakrence from senior directors, focusing on automating catamenia processes before reengineering process is identified, making technology alone dependent on change process and not identifying the limitation of the on-line(prenominal) Information technology infrastructure.Other directly impacting difficulties that BPR can face involves employee resistance to change, not addressing employee concerns, heresiarch of strategy &038 goals, lack of leadership worry and commitment. Including all these risks main critical means is that organization must be actually committed to change in the re-engineering process with full back off of senior level management. At Meg international even though Latino thought that everyone would be excited by the prospects of organizational change, only few expressed any ecstasy for understanding general management.Most of the divisional heads were not clear on what re-engineering process is and were misinterpreting the concept in their own words which created an solicitude among most of the employees which resulted in loss of number of good technical provide. These were clear signs that most of the divisional heads were not ready to suffice in the re-engineering process that was very mediocre sign for Mona Lisa to start with. Since the BPR is a high risk process and involves high level of tasks to achieve, it can never be one man Job it stresses the use of group throughout the process.Lisa however didnt show any initiative in having a team as a result her rigorous efforts were wasted and finally lead to her resignation. If I was in her position then my premier priority of this project could be to create team of experts from different parts of organization to understand the business processes and technical infrastructure, and get hold of few members in the team from out of doors who wealthy person unwrap understanding of re-engineering process who will be respons ible for explaining the management team what re-engineering actually is and what we are proviso to achieve.It is unlikely that an organization can usher out the existing infrastructure and implement a process from scratch. It is more realistic to bang the resources forthcoming and any real constraints and develop fundamental understanding of their implications on the process redesign (Davenport, 1993). After the process is redesigned, available Information Technology should be utilize to facilitate the implementation of invigorated process that rules out the possibility of technology to be the limited factor.While process re-engineering is not a technology endeavourer, IT is recognized as having a critical reference to play in re- engineering efforts, primarily as an enabler of radical operational and management processes (Davenport and Short 1990 Hammer and Champs 1993 Davenport 1993). However, IT in itself cannot be held responsible for the ultimate success or failure of t he business strategy. When skillfully applied, IT can provide support for the intermediate processes that taken together represent the execution of an organizations strategy.Since organizations nicety is an important aspect and cannot be ignored in the change process, the framework that I will be using during re-engineering process is Muckinesss seven S diagram (Figure 4) because it encapsulates the key components of an organization and has divided up Values (or Culture) at its centre. 2. 1 Systems- These are the processes, methods, procedures, rules, techniques, technology, manuals, etc. That ensures that work is undertaken efficiently and accurately. These are the intrinsic part of an organization to turn tail the management and staff.Therefore key to BPR process is to understand current systems and redesign them, often as Davenport (1993) highlights, stark naked processes are enabled by untested technology which ultimately engages employees to learn new techniques. 2. 2 Str uctures- After the key processes are redefined, the next step would be to restructure the organization to match along these processes. The new form of organizational structure that aims to displacement the traditional types of structure, particularly bureaucratic and divisional structures is postulate.Hammer &038 Champs (2003) recommend a move to much flatter structures organized around the processes, whereas Davenport (1993) recommends a multidimensional matrix structure, with process province as a key dimension (p 160). To achieve this, Johansson et al (1993) states the new organization must accommodate a symmetry between functional expertise and process involvement and goes on to say it is essential to remove functional barriers (IPPP). 3 staff- As per Henley (1991) Staff is the quality and measuring rod of people employed and manager has the role of motivation, reward systems, the structure of Jobs and team work (pop). Davenport (1993) expresses gain-sharing (Pl 10), later al promotion, upgrade from role title to process title (Pl 1 1), and interesting and challenging through work role rotation, he believes encourages employees to redesign the processes to eliminate their own Job. In contrast to Davenports expression BPR to some extent will be involved in down-sizing and right-sizing the workforce. 2. Skills- Henley (1991) defines skills as The debatences the organization involve in its people in order to perform difficult tasks to a high exemplification (pop). The BPR redefines the roles that should enhance and provide space for skills evolution where Hammer &038 Champs (1993) add New human race of Work where Jobs change from simple tasks to multi-dimensional work. This meaner Job preparation changes from dressing to education, from rule following to exercising Judgment and managers change from supervisors to coaches and executives change from scorekeepers to leaders(p 169). . 5 Strategy- The main task in BPR is to intermit the organizations strategy and of what drives competitive advantage in a particular industry the industrys value chain and the basis for competition, and how a particular company seeks to gain competitive butt against Monsoon et al 1993, pop). BPR decisions and strategic decisions involving new processes new structure and new staff expectation is extremely difficult to achieve but managers should be trained to articulate their operation vision driven by Business Strategy Davenport (1993, Pl 27). 2. Style- By direction Henley (1991) meaner the philosophy, set and shared stamps adopted y managers in their use of power (pop). BPR should be able to change the way things are done in the organization and behavioural changes. Process innovation involves massive change, not only in process flows and the culture surrounding them, but also in organizational power and controls (Davenport, 1993, Pl 3). 2. 7 dual-lane Values- Andrews &038 Stack (1994) state that in successful reengineering business operati ons, mortal belief systems become aligned with the stated beliefs of the organization (Pl 15).Reengineering will definitely have a big impact on the heathen specs of an organization under new processes, structure, staff role, management strategy and ardour but re-engineering demands that employees deeply believe they work for their customers, not for their bosses(Hammer &038 Champs, 1993, pop). BPR should establish new process teams linked by common values where employees must believe in self empowerment, self management and rewards based on skills must be used.Following this structure would provide me path to develop perfect strategy that would enable me to lead my team to successful re-engineering process at MEG international that would significantly improve the performance of the equines processes. careen is inevitable in an organization, the organizations unable to keep up with the change cannot match up with the fast changing market and their option will be in question. Th ere are many things, events, or situations that occur in an organization or its outside environment that affect the way a business operates, either that can be positive or negative.To cope with these occurrences, situations or events every organization has to fundamentally variegate the way they do business. Thus we can say the statement Change is an present feature of organizational life, both at an operational and strategic level. Therefore, there should be no doubt regarding the importance to any organization of its ability to identify where it needfully to be in the future, and how to manage the changes required getting there. Consequently, organizational change cannot be separated from organizational strategy, or wickedness versa is very true.There are mainly four reasons that organizations need to changes that can be market changes, change magnitude competition, external forces, and internal forces. 3. 1 Market changes The international demand for quality products, low p rices, better service and increased level of client satisfaction are the key for the organizations change the way they do business in current worldwide economy. To match these ever changing needs companies are forced to form collaborative arrangements, cooperative ventures and even alliances.Social and political pressures have eternally been there for the organizations. Employee values, needs, priorities and their motivations are always influenced by the political and social events. To match up with their needs its essential for managers to plant their management styles and arrange comfortable environment for employees. . 2 Increased competition In past where there were technology was not advance enough and there was less global competition with slower moving business environment where change occurred incrementally and infrequently.But now challenges organizations face is different, globalization has created both opportunities and challenges forcing firms to make drastic changes not only to compete but to survive in the market. globalization is basically driven by technological advances, international economic integration and internal market maturation (cotter 1996). Even companies operate in small entries can feel the impact of global competition. 3. 3 foreign forces External driving forces are those kinds of situations or events that occur outside of the company and they are beyond the control of an organization.External forces can be expressed under these sub-classifications Demographic Characteristics The change in population and their density come under this classification that can foundation organizational changes. This mainly includes changes in age, gender, race, and increase in diversity. Technological developments In current business environment technology plays vital role in any organization. The internet has revolutionized the way in which information is exchanged, communication facilitated and commerce conducted.Technology is rapidly chan ging and in force(p) management demands more knowledge in these areas in order for companies to manage their resources and develop, obtain or keep their competitive edge. It is essential for organizations to adapt technology to improve productivity and market battle. Since technology is fastest changing entity, any business missing to follow the technological changes might loose their competitiveness or wiped off completely from the market. . 4 Internal Forces Internal driving forces are those kinds of situations or events that occur inside the company and they controlled if there is proper initiative taken.Internal forces can be expressed under these sub Human resource factors -classifications People change more frequently and they bring in their changed perceptions in the organizations. Their perceptions about the work and work environment, their expectations from their managers and colleagues, flexibility and balance between work and their life etc could act as important factor for organizational change. To increase employee motivation, and improve their commitment and education towards work, their stresses, sources of conflict, work overload, and equivocalness need to be identified and eliminated.Managerial behavior/decisions Excessive interpersonal conflict is often a clear sign that change is needed. Due to the important role of the manager in introducing and managing change in the organization, skills training and capacity building programmed for both manager and employee might be necessary. It is suggested that a better strategic approach to change is where organizations and heir people continually monitor, sense and suffice to external and internal environment in small steps as an ongoing process (Burners, 2004).Early model of change was developed by Lenin (cited in Burners 2004, p. 985) consisting of three- gift process. First stage is unfreezing which is mainly aimed at overcoming or dismantling the existing mind set that are resisting change. S econdly the change implementation which can be of lot of confusions where old ways are challenged and new ideas have not been fully stable. Final stage he called is refreezing stabilizing hanged within organizational culture, norms, policies and practices in order to ensure the new behavior is sustained in individuals.The unfreezing process is extremely important when introducing new technology with most failures occurring at this stage overdue to two factors a lack of trenchant communication at the beginning and a failure to involve affected individuals in the change process. Therefore Cotter (1996) identifies that successful transformational change requires all of the steps in (Figure 5) and that the total time for the change is considerable. Skipping a step never reduces a copacetic result and critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a crushing impact (Cotter, 199, p. 7). 4. Re-engineering Implementation In an organization there are various business processes which are usually fragmented into sub-processes and tasks. Re-engineering should identify these individual fragmented processes and tasks. Re-engineering should start with assessment of the organizations mission, strategic goals, and customer requirements main questions to be asked are who are the customers? What are our strategic goals and are they aligned with our mission? . According to (Hall, et al, 1993) quintuple keys to re-