Today I saw on one of the Linked-In Architecture Forums a variation on the classic question of measuring Enterprise Architecture value and effectiveness. The member wrote: “……..So what are the most useful ways in which you have measured the effectiveness of architecture efforts/outcomes in organisations you have worked for”?. Of course this elicited a stream of predictable responses and suggestions relating to levels of compliance, investment alignment, productivity improvement, sourcing effectiveness, blah, blah, blah.
I often get asked this question and I’ve taken to offering this slightly tongue in cheek advice: Publish a notice across the business and technology organisations advising that the enterprise architecture team is being dismissed imminently and will not be replaced. Then stand back and see what response you get.
No response? Well that would be very bad. If responses predominantly take the form “that’s a shame, they were nice guys”, and or “pity, they seemed pretty good architects”, then that’s still pretty bad. Basically, if there is no uproar from disaffected business and technology stakeholders then your EA effort has to all intents and purposes been ineffective.
If there are no business stakeholders demanding to know who will provide them with their business technology roadmap, no business strategy execs demanding to know who will maintain their business architecture and capability models, no project managers complaining that their projects will not have clear guidance on technology to reduce project risk and cost, no one in the IT Leadership Team concerned at lack of strategic guidance then I’m sorry – but it’s a fail. Bottom line, if there is no-one prepared to argue a case for the retention of you and your team then the unfortunate truth is you may as well start looking for a new position.
The point I make is that for all the metrics and measures we might collect and use in an attempt to substantiate our own perceived view of value, the reality is that if the value is not felt by business and technology stakeholders outside the architecture practice then the value is not really there. This goes to the heart of good enterprise architecture. For every artefact you create, ask the question: Who will use the artefact, do they expect to use it, in what processes will it be consumed and what questions will it inform? If you can’t answer these questions positively then I suggest you question the worth of the effort to produce it.
I challenge you to test yourself. No need to publish a report of your demise – just ask yourself “who would really care if my team was terminated – and why would they care”! If you’ve convinced yourself that there are stakeholders that would care, take the extra step and go and actually ask them “just how much”.
For more information on developing high-performance architecture teams visit our EA Capability Development or:
I definitely, agree that WHY question is the most important to answer before doing any (private, business, hobby, etc. ) activity.
However, I really do not see any discrepancy in SMART goals and providing value for business…
If I fly from point A to B I need from time to time to check if I am on steady direction otherwise I loose fuel . Even for one degree deviation I might pay lot of money and such things accumulate.
@Mac: Scoping is really a challenge, how deep shall data for supporting views be granular. In other words the recurring Einstein question about modelling “good enough”.
I agree Mac and Richard. Yet in spite of this the practice, discipline, and job market seems to grow and mature. Why? Are others seeing a type of value we have neglected to define? I’ve observed that many look to EA for plug and play leadership on ambiguous but important efforts. That we have smart guys that seem to know what’s important – who cares why or what tools we use … Thoughts?
Anthony – good observation mate. I would never suggest that EA was losing traction or relevance – quite the opposite in fact. Twenty years ago (yes I’ve been at it that long) EA in any state of maturity (and it was very low) was the sole domain of the tier one corporates. The trend was to build quite sizable practices where every capability and architecture service existed – but the value and impact was often questionable. Now every corporation large and not so large has some EA function, albeit the size and focus has become far more targeted. What drives that? I can’t tell you how much we thank IT Audit – independent or otherwise. Take a spin through COBIT 5 (or 4 before it) and have a look at how many of the controls and functions of sound IT Governance are dependent upon the functions to be found in your Architecture Service Catalogue. A few years ago we saw a trend where CIO’s of some reasonable size companies would literally ring us and say: “We’ve just had an independent IT Risk Audit and they have identified our lack of Enterprise Architecture and supporting function as a major risk and impediment to effective IT controls. I don’t really know what enterprise architecture is – but figure you can tell us”. We don’t hear that anymore. Enterprise Architecture is understood to be a fundamental requirement. The question we get asked these days is: “How much is enough”, which speaks to the theme of this blog.
health warning – do not try this at work
On your team there Richard. I have been known to invite execs to look into the rear-vision mirror to see the retrospective value of EA – but for many EA is still like recommending an aspirin to avoid a headache.
I was with the CIO of a global oil corp today and I offered that at the end of the day our professional services teams are rarely engaged to deliver architecture to our clients; rather they are in the business of addressing very important questions – and use enterprise architecture to reveal the answers. Presuming we are entitled to advise the business of the direction they should take is – ahh – presumptuous, but to offer views and viewpoints that allow the insights to be revealed and business stakeholders to conclude the answers is just the way it should be.
I agree. I’ve long since wondered why EA spends so much time worrying about KPIs, and measuring last months non compliance etc etc when no-one challenges that a project needs a plan and a project manager to look after it, or a dull, flat list of requirements and a business analyst to look after it (depending on the project), or an army of people delivering the monthly portfolio governance figures.
We’ve been doing this stuff for almost a couple of decades now and show be considered part of that organisational infrastructure, but time and time again I find organisations that struggle with that as an idea and consider it an indulgent luxury.
Why is this…. because of the millions of man hours of EA effort expended on producing stuff that no-one is interested in…. because it is not communicated in the right way, because it doesn’t answer the questions being asked, because it is just irrelevant.
You mention the sadness at the loss of the capability model…. i’ve just sorted EA onto the board at a global company and with it went the capability model that had languished in the back office for two years that was projected onto the agenda as a tool for them to use to understand and plan their business better.
Anyway…. I agree with all you say…. and it annoys me that we are still in the situation of having to justify the discipline and I have to point the finger at the failed indulgences of the past as a contributor to that situation.