Monthly Archives: June 2014

Strategic Alignment Survey

These days organizations operate in a dynamic and fast changing environment which makes formulating a consistent strategy a challenging task and executing that strategy even more difficult. More than half of organizations surveyed in previous economic studies indicated that they have not been successful at executing strategic initiatives. Moreover, a majority of organizations face problems when executing their strategic vision.

In an environment where competition and globalization of markets is intensifying, managing and surviving change becomes increasingly important. A business strategy determines the decisions and course of action that businesses take to achieve competitive advantage and is therefore crucial to survive change. Nonetheless, several economic studies indicated that many organizations fail to implement strategic alternatives. Therefore, it is important to know more about the reasons underlying the difficulties of organizations to reach strategic alignment.

Strategic alignment
Organizations develop and implement strategies to achieve (strategic) goals. The development of a strategy is about formulating what should be changed to evolve from the current situation to the desired future state. Strategy implementation is about translating the strategic plans into clear actions to execute the strategy. Strategic alignment is the ability to create a fit or synergy between the position of the organization within the environment (business) and the design of the appropriate business processes, resources and capabilities (IT) to support the execution. Strategic alignment cannot be reached when strategy development is considered to be a separate process from strategy implementation. Strategy development and strategy implementation are intertwined processes which both need to be successful for superior firm performance.

Strategy1

The way how organizations move from strategy development to strategy implementation is influenced by many factors. Consequently, strategic alignment is influenced by several factors which all contribute to the successful development and implementation of a strategy. We distinguish three categories in which several factors are combined that influence strategic alignment. How organizations manage the factors within these three categories determine whether they are able to reach strategic alignment or not. These three categories are:

  • Culture and shared beliefs: the collective thoughts and actions of employees towards the strategic orientation of the organization determine whether strategy implementation will be successful or not. Consequently, all the employees must be clear on the what, why, when and how of the strategy. According to previous studies the inability of management to overcome resistance to change is an important obstacle to strategy execution.
  • Organizational capabilities: capabilities, resources, systems and processes should be aligned with the strategy to be able to execute the strategy properly. An organization needs to consider their existing and needed capabilities and resources during strategy development and implementation. Strategic change gets obstructed when long-term strategic goals are not translated to short-term objectives or actions.
  • Communication: creating understanding throughout the organization about the strategy, like why it is developed and how it is implemented, is essential for developing and implementing a strategy. There should be a clear definition of purpose, values and behaviors to guide the implementation process. A poor or vague strategy makes it nearly impossible to successfully execute a strategy which makes it a killer of strategy implementation.strategy2

Strategic Alignment Survey

In order to gain a better understanding of the strategic alignment efforts of individual organizations, BiZZdesign has created a Strategic Alignment survey. We want to understand more about the way in which organizations move from strategy development to strategy implementation. The information gathered from this survey contributes to the work done on improving strategic alignment within organizations. We would like to learn from your organization’s experiences regarding strategy development and implementation and its efforts towards strategic alignment. For this reason we kindly ask you to fill in the survey: http://alignment-eng.enquete.com/.

BiZZdesign (along with our partners The Open Group, NAF and the University of Twente) would be grateful if you could complete this Strategic Alignment survey to help us get a better understanding of the strategic alignment efforts of organizations.

The survey will be available on-line until the end of June 2014. All results will be analysed and reported in an anonymous way.

The results of this survey will then be published in a White Paper by The Open Group. If you leave us your contact email, then you will also receive the e-book ‘Strategizer – The Method’, in which initial results on strategic alignment are documented, and you have a chance to win a book voucher worth €200.

We really appreciate your time and effort. Thank you in advance.

franken_henryHenry Franken M.Sc. Ph.D, is CEO of BiZZdesign and chair of The ArchiMate Forum at The Open Group. Henry is a speaker at many conferences. Henry has co-authored several international journal and conference publications and Open Group whitepapers.

At BiZZdesign, Henry is also responsible for research and innovation. Alignment with and contribution to open standards are key. BiZZdesign has contributed to and edited the ArchiMate 2 specification. BiZZdesign is involved in the workgroup working towards the next version of TOGAF® and its further hand-in-pocket alignment with ArchiMate®.

BiZZdesign offers native tooling, certification training and consultancy for TOGAF® and ArchiMate®, both standards of The Open Group. BiZZdesign offers complete and integrated solutions (tools, methods, consultancy and training) to design and improve organizations. Business models, enterprise architecture, business requirements management and process business analysis and management are important ingredients in the solutions.

3 Comments

Filed under Strategy

Brand Marketing of Standards

By Allen Brown, President and CEO, The Open Group

Today everyone is familiar with the power of brands. Managed well, they can develop strong biases amongst customers for the product or service, resulting in greatly increased revenues and profits. Managed badly, they can destroy a product or an organization.

I was sitting in San Francisco International Airport one day. A very loud couple was looking for somewhere to get coffee. The wife said, “There’s a Peet’s right here.” Angrily the husband replied, “I don’t want Peet’s, I want Starbucks!”

A jewelry retailer in the UK had grown, in six years, from having 150 stores to more than 2,000, with 25,000 staff and annual sales of £1.2 billion. Then at the Institute of Directors conference at the Royal Albert Hall in 1991, he told an audience of 5,000 business leaders the secret of his success. Describing his company’s products, he said: ‘We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, for £4.95. People say “How can you sell this for such a low price?”  I say, because it’s total crap.’  As if that were not enough, he added that his stores’ earrings were ‘cheaper than a prawn sandwich, but probably wouldn’t last as long’.

It was a joke that he had told before but this time it got into the press. Hordes of people queued at his stores, immediately that word got out, to return everything from earrings to engagement rings. The company was destroyed.

The identity of a brand emerges through communication backed up by a promise to customers. That promise can be a promise of quality or service or innovation or style. Or it can be much less tangible: “people like you buy this product”, for example.

Early in my career, I worked for a company that was in the business of manufacturing and marketing edible oils and fats – margarines, cooking oils and cooking fat.   When first developed, margarine was simply a substitute for the butter that was in short supply in the UK during wartime. But when butter once again became plentiful, the product needed to offer other advantages to the consumer. Research focused on methods to improve the quality of margarine–such as making it easier to spread, more flavorful and more nutritious.

At the time there were many brands all focused on a specific niche which together amounted to something like a 95% market share. Stork Margarine was promoted as a low cost butter substitute for working class households, Blue Band Margarine was positioned slightly up-market, Tomor Margarine for the kosher community, Flora Margarine was marketed as recommended by doctors as being good for the heart and so on. Today, Unilever continues to market these brands, amongst many others, successfully although the positioning may be a little different.

Creating, managing and communicating brands is not inexpensive but the rewards can be significant. There are three critical activities that must be done well. The brand must be protected, policed and promoted.

Protection starts with ensuring that the brand is trademarked but it does not end there. Consistent and correct usage of the brand is essential – without that, a trademark can be challenged and the value of the brand and all that has been invested in it can be lost.

Policing is about identifying and preventing unauthorized or incorrect usage of the mark by others. Unauthorized usage can range from organizations using the brand to market their own products or services, all the way up to counterfeit copies of the branded products. Cellophane is a registered trademark in the UK and other countries, and the property of Innovia Films. However, in many countries “cellophane” has become a generic term, often used informally to refer to a wide variety of plastic film products, even those not made of cellulose,such as plastic wrap, thereby diminishing the value of the brand to its owner. There are several other well-known and valuable marks that have been lost through becoming generic – mostly due to the brand owner not insisting on correct usage.

Promotion begins with identifying the target market, articulating the brand promise and the key purchase factors and benefits. The target market can be consumers or organizations but at the end of the day, people buy products or services or vote for candidates seeking election and it is important to segment and profile the target customers sufficiently and develop key messages for each segment.

Profiling has been around for a long time: the margarine example shows how it was used in the past.   But today consumers, organization buyers and voters have a plethora of messages targeted at them and through a broader than ever variety of media, so it is critical to be as precise as possible. Some of the best examples of profiling, such as soccer moms and NASCAR dads have been popularized as a result of their usage in US presidential election campaigns.

In the mid-1990’s X/Open (now part of The Open Group) started using branding to promote the market adoption of open standards. The members of X/Open had developed a set of specifications aimed at enabling portability of applications between the UNIX® systems of competing vendors, which was called the X/Open Portability Guide, or XPG for short.

The target market was the buyers of UNIX systems. The brand promise was that any product that was supplied by the vendors that carried the X/Open brand conformed to the specification, would always conform and, in the event of any non-conformance being found, the vendor would, at their own cost, rectify the non-conformance for the customer within a prescribed period of time. To this day, there has only ever been one report of non-conformance, an obscure mathematical result, reported by an academic. The vendor concerned quickly rectified the issue, even though it was extremely unlikely that any customer would ever be affected by it.

The trademark license agreement signed by all vendors who used the X/Open brand carried the words “warrant and represent” in support of the brand promise. It was a significant commitment on the part of the vendors as it also carried with it significant risk and potential liability.   For these reasons, the vendors pooled their resources to fund the development of test suite software, so they could better understand the commitment they had entered into. These test suites were developed in stages and, over time, their coverage of the set of specifications grew.

It was only later that products had to be tested and certified before they could carry the X/Open brand.

The trademark was, of course protected, policed and promoted. Procurements that could be identified, which were mostly government procurements, were recorded and totaled in excess of $50bn in a short period of time. Procurements by commerce and industry were more difficult to track, but were clearly significant.

The XPG brand program was enormously successful and has evolved to become the UNIX® brand program and, in spite of challenges from open source software, continues to deliver revenues for the vendors in excess of $30bn per annum.

When new brand programs are contemplated, an early concern of both vendors and customers is the cost. Customers worry that the vendors will pass the cost on to them; vendors worry that they will have to absorb the cost. In the case of XPG and UNIX, both sides looked not at the cost but at the benefits. For customers, even if the vendors had passed on the cost, the savings that could be achieved as a result of portability in a heterogeneous environment were orders of magnitude greater. For vendors, in a competitive environment, the price that they can charge customers, for their products, is dictated by the market, so their ability to pass on the costs of the branding program, directly to the customer, is limited. However, the reality is that the cost of the branding program pales into insignificance when spread over the revenue of related products. For one vendor we estimate the cost to be less than 100th of 1% of related revenue. Combine that with a preference from customers for branded products and everybody wins.

So the big question for vendors is: Do you see certification as a necessary cost to be kept as low as possible or do you see brand marketing of open standards, of which certification is a part, as a means to grow the market and your share of that market?

The big question for customers is: Do you want to negotiate and enforce a warranty with every vendor and in every contract or do you want the industry to do that for you and spread the cost over billions of dollars of procurements?

brown-smallAllen Brown is President and CEO of The Open Group – a global consortium that enables the achievement of business objectives through IT standards.  For over 15 years, Allen has been responsible for driving The Open Group’s strategic plan and day-to-day operations, including extending its reach into new global markets, such as China, the Middle East, South Africa and India. In addition, he was instrumental in the creation of the Association of Enterprise Architects (AEA)., which was formed to increase job opportunities for all of its members and elevate their market value by advancing professional excellence.

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Brand Marketing, Certifications, Standards, Uncategorized, UNIX

The Open Group Open Platform 3.0™ Starts to Take Shape

By Dr. Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability, The Open Group

The Open Group published a White Paper on Open Platform 3.0™ at the start of its conference in Amsterdam in May 2014. This article, based on a presentation given at the conference, explains how the definition of the platform is beginning to emerge.

Introduction

Amsterdam is a beautiful place. Walking along the canals is like moving through a set of picture postcards. But as you look up at the houses beside the canals, and you see the cargo hoists that many of them have, you are reminded that the purpose of the arrangement was not to give pleasure to tourists. Amsterdam is a great trading city, and the canals were built as a very efficient way of moving goods around.

This is also a reminder that the primary purpose of architecture is not to look beautiful, but to deliver business value, though surprisingly, the two often seem to go together quite well.

When those canals were first thought of, it might not have been obvious that this was the right thing to do for Amsterdam. Certainly the right layout for the canal network would not be obvious. The beginning of a project is always a little uncertain, and seeing the idea begin to take shape is exciting. That is where we are with Open Platform 3.0 right now.

We started with the intention to define a platform to enable enterprises to get value from new technologies including cloud computing, social computing, mobile computing, big data, the Internet of Things, and perhaps others. We developed an Open Group business scenario to capture the business requirements. We developed a set of business use-cases to show how people are using and wanting to use those technologies. And that leads to the next step, which is to define the platform. All these new technologies and their applications sound wonderful, but what actually is Open Platform 3.0?

The Third Platform

Looking historically, the first platform was the computer operating system. A vendor-independent operating system interface was defined by the UNIX® standard. The X/Open Company and the Open Software Foundation (OSF), which later combined to form The Open Group, were created because companies everywhere were complaining that they were locked into proprietary operating systems. They wanted applications portability. X/Open specified the UNIX® operating system as a common application environment, and the value that it delivered was to prevent vendor lock-in.

The second platform is the World Wide Web. It is a common services environment, for services used by people browsing web pages or for web services used by programs. The value delivered is universal deployment and access. Any person or company anywhere can create a services-based solution and deploy it on the web, and every person or company throughout the world can access that solution.

Open Platform 3.0 is developing as a common architecture environment. This does not mean it is a replacement for TOGAF®. TOGAF is about how you do architecture and will continue to be used with Open Platform 3.0. Open Platform 3.0 is about what kind of architecture you will create. It will be a common environment in which enterprises can do architecture. The big business benefit that it will deliver is integrated solutions.

ChrisBlog1

Figure 1: The Third Platform

With the second platform, you can develop solutions. Anyone can develop a solution based on services accessible over the World Wide Web. But independently-developed web service solutions will very rarely work together “out of the box”.

There is an increasing need for such solutions to work together. We see this need when looking at The Open Platform 3.0 technologies. People want to use these technologies together. There are solutions that use them, but they have been developed independently of each other and have to be integrated. That is why Open Platform 3.0 has to deliver a way of integrating solutions that have been developed independently.

Common Architecture Environment

The Open Group has recently published its first thoughts on Open Platform 3.0 in the Open Platform 3.0 White Paper. This lists a number of things that will eventually be in the Open Platform 3.0 standard. Many of these are common architecture artifacts that can be used in solution development. They will form a common architecture environment. They are:

  • Statement of need, objectives, and principles – this is not part of that environment of course; it says why we are creating it.
  • Definitions of key terms – clearly you must share an understanding of the key terms if you are going to develop common solutions or integrable solutions.
  • Stakeholders and their concerns – an understanding of these is an important aspect of an architecture development, and something that we need in the standard.
  • Capabilities map – this shows what the products and services that are in the platform do.
  • Basic models – these show how the platform components work with each other and with other products and services.
  • Explanation of how the models can be combined to realize solutions – this is an important point and one that the white paper does not yet start to address.
  • Standards and guidelines that govern how the products and services interoperate – these are not standards that The Open Group is likely to produce, they will almost certainly be produced by other bodies, but we need to identify the appropriate ones and probably in some cases coordinate with the appropriate bodies to see that they are developed.

The Open Platform 3.0 White Paper contains an initial statement of needs, objectives and principles, definitions of some key terms, a first-pass list of stakeholders and their concerns, and half a dozen basic models. The basic models are in an analysis of the business use-cases for Open Platform 3.0 that were developed earlier.

These are just starting points. The white paper is incomplete: each of the sections is incomplete in itself, and of course the white paper does not contain all the sections that will be in the standard. And it is all subject to change.

An Example Basic Model

The figure shows a basic model that could be part of the Open Platform 3.0 common architecture environment.

ChrisBlog 2

Figure 2: Mobile Connected Device Model

This is the Mobile Connected Device Model: one of the basic models that we identified in the snapshot. It comes up quite often in the use-cases.

The stack on the left is a mobile device. It has a user, it has apps, it has a platform which would probably be Android or iOS, it has infrastructure that supports the platform, and it is connected to the World Wide Web, because that’s part of the definition of mobile computing.

On the right you see, and this is a frequently encountered pattern, that you don’t just use your mobile device for running apps. Maybe you connect it to a printer, maybe you connect it to your headphones, maybe you connect it to somebody’s payment terminal, you can connect it to many things. You might do this through a Universal Serial Bus (USB). You might do it through Bluetooth. You might do it by Near Field Communications (NFC). You might use other kinds of local connection.

The device you connect to may be operated by yourself (e.g. if it is headphones), or by another organization (e.g. if it is a payment terminal). In the latter case you typically have a business relationship with the operator of the connected device.

That is an example of the basic models that came up in the analysis of the use-cases. It is captured in the White Paper. It is fundamental to mobile computing and is also relevant to the Internet of Things.

Access to Technologies

This figure captures our understanding of the need to obtain information from the new technologies, social media, mobile devices, sensors and so on, the need to process that information, maybe on the cloud, to manage it and, ultimately, to deliver it in a form where there is analysis and reasoning that enables enterprises to take business decisions.

ChrisBlog 3

Figure 3: Access to Technologies

The delivery of information to improve the quality of decisions is the source of real business value.

User-Driven IT

The next figure captures a requirement that we picked up in the development of the business scenario.

ChrisBlog 4

Figure 4: User-Driven IT

Traditionally, you would have had the business use in the business departments of an enterprise, and pretty much everything else in the IT department. But we are seeing two big changes. One is that the business users are getting smarter, more able to use technology. The other is they want to use technology themselves, or to have business technologists closely working with them, rather than accessing it indirectly through the IT department.

The systems provisioning and management is now often done by cloud service providers, and the programming and integration and helpdesk by cloud brokers, or by an IT department that plays a broker role, rather than working in the traditional way.

The business still needs to retain responsibility for the overall architecture and for compliance. If you do something against your company’s principles, your customers will hold you responsible. It is no defense to say, “Our broker did it that way.” Similarly, if you break the law, your broker does not go to jail, you do. So those things will continue to be more associated with the business departments, even as the rest is devolved.

In short, businesses have a new way of using IT that Open Platform 3.0 must and will accommodate.

Integration of Independently-Developed Solutions

The next figure illustrates how the integration of independently developed solutions can be achieved.

ChrisBlog 5

Figure 5: Architecture Integration

It shows two solutions, which come from the analysis of different business use-cases. They share a common model, which makes it much easier to integrate them. That is why the Open Platform 3.0 standard will define common models for access to the new technologies.

The Open Platform 3.0 standard will have other common artifacts: architectural principles, stakeholder definitions and descriptions, and so on. Independently-developed architectures that use them can be integrated more easily.

Enterprises develop their architectures independently, but engage with other enterprises in business ecosystems that require shared solutions. Increasingly, business relationships are dynamic, and there is no time to develop an agreed ecosystem architecture from scratch. Use of the same architecture platform, with a common architecture environment including elements such as principles, stakeholder concerns, and basic models, enables the enterprise architectures to be integrated, and shared solutions to be developed quickly.

Completing the Definition

How will we complete the definition of Open Platform 3.0?

The Open Platform 3.0 Forum recently published a set of 22 business use-cases – the Nexus of Forces in Action. These use-cases show the application of Social, Mobile and Cloud Computing, Big Data, and the Internet of Things in a wide variety of business areas.

ChrisBlog 6

Figure 6: Business Use-Cases

The figure comes from that White Paper and shows some of those areas: multimedia, social networks, building energy management, smart appliances, financial services, medical research, and so on.

Use-Case Analysis

We have started to analyze those use-cases. This is an ArchiMate model showing how our first business use-case, The Mobile Smart Store, could be realized.

ChrisBlog 7

Figure 7: Use-Case Analysis

As you look at it you see common models. Outlined on the left is a basic model that is pretty much the same as the original TOGAF Technical Reference Model. The main difference is the addition of a business layer (which shows how enterprise architecture has moved in the business direction since the TRM was defined).

But you also see that the same model appears in the use-case in a different place, as outlined on the right. It appears many times throughout the business use-cases.

Finally, you can see that the Mobile Connected Device Model has appeared in this use-case (outlined in the center). It appears in other use-cases too.

As we analyze the use-cases, we find common models, as well as common principles, common stakeholders, and other artifacts.

The Development Cycle

We have a development cycle: understanding the value of the platform by considering use-cases, analyzing those use-cases to derive common features, and documenting the common features in a specification.

ChrisBlog 8

Figure 8: The Development Cycle

The Open Platform 3.0 White Paper represents the very first pass through that cycle, further passes will result in further White Papers, a snapshot, and ultimately The Open Platform 3.0 standard, and no doubt more than one version of that standard.

Conclusions

Open Platform 3.0 provides a common architecture environment. This enables enterprises to derive business value from social computing, mobile computing, big data, the Internet-of-Things, and potentially other new technologies.

Cognitive computing, for example, has been suggested as another technology that Open Platform 3.0 might in due course accommodate. What would that lead to? There would be additional use-cases, which would lead to further analysis, which would no doubt identify some basic models for cognitive computing, which would be added to the platform.

Open Platform 3.0 enables enterprise IT to be user-driven. There is a revolution in the way that businesses use IT. Users are becoming smarter and more able to use technology, and want to do so directly, rather than through a separate IT department. Business departments are taking in business technologists who understand how to use technology for business purposes. Some companies are closing their IT departments and using cloud brokers instead. In other companies, the IT department is taking on a broker role, sourcing technology that business people use directly.Open Platform 3.0 will be part of that revolution.

Open Platform 3.0 will deliver the ability to integrate solutions that have been independently developed. Businesses typically exist within one or more business ecosystems. Those ecosystems are dynamic: partners join, partners leave, and businesses cannot standardize the whole architecture across the ecosystem; it would be nice to do so but, by the time it was done, the business opportunity would be gone. Integration of independently developed architectures is crucial to the world of business ecosystems and delivering value within them.

Call for Input

The platform will deliver a common architecture environment, user-driven enterprise IT, and the ability to integrate solutions that have been independently developed. The Open Platform 3.0 Forum is defining it through an iterative process of understanding the content, analyzing the use-cases, and documenting the common features. We welcome input and comments from other individuals within and outside The Open Group and from other industry bodies.

If you have comments on the way Open Platform 3.0 is developing or input on the way it should develop, please tell us! You can do so by sending mail to platform3-input@opengroup.org or share your comments on our blog.

References

The Open Platform 3.0 White Paper: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/W147

The Nexus of Forces in Action: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/W145

TOGAF®: http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/

harding

Dr. Chris Harding is Director for Interoperability at The Open Group. He has been with The Open Group for more than ten years, and is currently responsible for managing and supporting its work on interoperability, including SOA and interoperability aspects of Cloud Computing, and the Open Platform 3.0™ Forum. He is a member of the BCS, the IEEE and the AEA, and is a certified TOGAF® practitioner.

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under architecture, Boundaryless Information Flow™, Cloud, Cloud/SOA, digital technologies, Open Platform 3.0, Service Oriented Architecture, Standards, TOGAF®, Uncategorized

The Digital Ecosystem Paradox – Learning to Move to Better Digital Design Outcomes

By Mark Skilton, Professor of Practice, Information Systems Management, Warwick Business School

Does digital technologies raise quality and improve efficiencies but at the same time drive higher costs of service as more advanced solutions and capabilities become available demanding higher entry investment and maintenance costs?

Many new digital technologies introduce step change in performance that would have been cost prohibitive in the previous technology generations. But in some industries the technology cost per outcome have be steadily rising in some industries.

In the healthcare market the cost per treatment of health care technology was highlighted in a MIT Technology Review article (1). In areas such as new drugs for treating depression, left-ventricular assistance devices, or implantable defibrillators may be raising the overall cost of health, yet how do we value this if patient quality of life is improving and life extending. While lower cost drugs and vaccines may be enabling better overall patient outcomes

In the smart city a similar story is unfolding where governments and organizations are seeking paths to use digitization to drive improvements in jobs productivity, better lifestyles and support of environmental sustainability. While there are several opportunities to reduce energy bills, improve transport and office spaces exist with savings of 40% to 60% consumption and efficiencies complexity costs of connecting different residential, corporate offices, transport and other living spaces requires digital initiatives that are coordinated and managed. (U-city experience in South Korea (2)).

These digital paradoxes represent the digital ecosystem challenge to maximise what these new digital technologies can do to augment every objects, services, places and spaces while taking account of the size and addressable market that all these solutions can serve.

Skilton1

What we see is that technology can be both a driver of the physical and digital economy through lowering of price per function in computer storage, compute, access and application technology and creating new value; conversely the issues around driving new value is having different degrees of success in industries.

Creating value in the digital economy

The digital economy is at a tipping point, a growing 30% of business is shifting online to search and engage with consumers, markets and transactions taking account of retail , mobile and impact on supply channels (3);  80% of transport, real estate and hotelier activity is processed through websites (4); over 70% of companies and consumers are experiencing cyber-privacy challenges (5), (6) yet the digital media in social, networks, mobile devices, sensors and the explosion of big data and cloud computing networks is interconnecting potentially everything everywhere – amounting to a new digital “ecosystem.

Disruptive business models across industries and new consumer innovation are increasingly built around new digital technologies such as social media, mobility, big data, cloud computing and the emerging internet of things sensors, networks and machine intelligence. (MISQ Digital Strategy Special Issue (7)).

These trends have significantly enhanced the relevance and significance of IT in its role and impact on business and market value at local, regional and global scale.

With IT budgets increasing shifting more towards the marketing functions and business users of these digital services from traditional IT, there is a growing role for technology to be able to work together in new connected ways.

Driving better digital design outcomes

The age of new digital technologies are combining in new ways to drive new value for individuals, enterprise, communities and societies. The key is in understanding the value that each of these technologies can bring individually and in the mechanisms to creating additive value when used appropriately and cost effectively to drive brand, manage cyber risk, and build consumer engagement and economic growth.

Skilton2

Value-in-use, value in contextualization

Each digital technology has the potential to enable better contextualization of the consumer experience and the value added by providers.   Each industry market has emerging combinations of technologies that can be developed to enable focused value.

Examples of these include.

  • Social media networks

o   Creating enhanced co-presence

  • Big data

o   Providing uniqueness profiling , targeting advice and preferences in context

  • Mobility

o   Creating location context services and awareness

  • Cloud

o   Enabling access to resources and services

  • Sensors

o   Creating real time feedback responsiveness

  • Machine intelligence

o   Enabling insight and higher decision quality

Together these digital technologies can build generative effects that when in context can enable higher value outcomes in digital workspaces.

Skilton3

Value in Contextualization

The value is not in whether these technologies, objects, consumers or provider inside or outside the enterprise or market. These distinctions are out-of-context from relating them to the situation and the consumer needs and wants. The issue is how to apply and put into context the user experience and enterprise and social environment to best use and maximise the outcomes in a specific setting context rom the role perspective.

With the medical roles of patient and clinician, the aim in digitization is how mobile devices, wearable monitoring can be used most efficiently and effectively to raise patient outcome quality and manage health service costs. Especially in the developing countries and remote areas where infrastructure and investment costs, how can technologies reach and improve the quality of health and at an effective cost price point.

This phenomena is wide spread and growing across all industry sectors such as: the connected automobile with in-car entertainment, route planning services; to tele-health that offers remote patient care monitoring and personalized responses; to smart buildings and smart cities that are optimizing energy consumption and work environments; to smart retail where interactive product tags for instant customer mobile information feedback and in-store promotions and automated supply chains. The convergence of these technologies requires a response from all businesses.

These issues are not going to go away, the statistics from analysts describe a new era of a digital industrial economy (8). What is common is the prediction in the next twenty to fifty years suggest double or triple growth in demand for new digital technologies and their adoption.

Skilton4

Platforming and designing better digital outcomes

Developing efective digital workspaces will be fundamental to the value and use of these technologies. There will be not absolute winners and losers as a result of the digital paradox. What is at state is in how the cost and inovation of these technologies can be leveraged to fit specific outcomes.

Understanding the architecting practices will be essentuial in realizing the digitel enterprise. Central to this is how to develop ways to contextualize digital technologies to enable this value for consumers and customers (Value and Worth – creating new markets in the digital economy (9)).Skilton5Platforming will be a central IT strategy that we see already emerging in early generations of digital marketplaces, mobile app ecosystems and emerging cross connecting services in health, automotive, retail and others seeking to create joined up value.

Digital technologies will enable new forms of digital workspaces to support new outcomes. By driving contextualized offers that meet and stimulate consumer behaviors and demand , a richer and more effective value experience and growth potential is possible.

Skilton6The challenge ahead

The evolution of digital technologies will enable many new types of architect and platforms. How these are constructed into meaningful solutions is both the opportunity and the task ahead.

The challenge for both business and IT practitioners is how to understand the practical use and advantages as well as the pitfalls and challenges from these digital technologies

  • What can be done using digital technologies to enhance customer experience, employee productivity and sell more products and services
  • Where to position in a digital market, create generative reinforcing positive behavior and feedback for better market branding
  • Who are the beneficiaries of the digital economy and the impact on the roles and jobs of business and IT professionals
  • Why do enterprises and industry marketplaces need to understand the disruptive effects of these digital technologies and how to leverage these for competitive advantage.
  • How to architect and design robust digital solutions that support the enterprise, its supply chain and extended consumers, customers and providers

References

  1. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518876/the-costly-paradox-of-health-care-technology/.
  2. http://www.kyoto-smartcity.com/result_pdf/ksce2014_hwang.pdf.
  3. http://www.smartinsights.com/digital-marketing-strategy/online-retail-sales-growth/
  4. http://www.statisticbrain.com/internet-travel-hotel-booking-statistics/
  5. http://www.fastcompany.com/3019097/fast-feed/63-of-americans-70-of-milennials-are-cybercrime-victims
  6. https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/cyber-crime.pdf
  7. http://www.misq.org/contents-37-2
  8. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2602817
  9. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/mediacentre/wmgnews/?newsItem=094d43a23d3fbe05013d835d6d5d05c6

 

Skilton7Digital Health

As the cost of health care, the increasing aging population and the rise of medical advances enable people to live longer and improved quality of life; the health sector together with governments and private industry are increasingly using digital technologies to manage the rising costs of health care while improve patient survival and quality outcomes.

Digital Health Technologies

mHealth, TeleHealth and Translation-to-Bench Health services are just some of the innovative medical technology practices creating new Connected Health Digital Ecosystems.

These systems connect Mobile phones, wearable health monitoring devices, remote emergency alerts to clinician respond and back to big data research for new generation health care.

The case for digital change

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

“World population projected to reach 8.92 billion for 2050 and 9.22 Million in 2075. Life expectance is expected to range from 66 to 97 years by 2100.”

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

The cost of Health care in developing countries is 8 to 17% of GDP in developed countries. But overall Health car e spending is falling while population growth and life expectancy and aging is increasing.

 

Skilton8Smart cities

The desire to improve buildings, reduce pollution and crime, improve transport, create employment, better education and ways to launch new business start-ups through the use of digital technologies are at the core of important outcomes to drive city growth from “Smart Cities” digital Ecosystem.

Smart city digital technologies

Embedded sensors in building energy management, smart ID badges, and mobile apps for location based advice and services supporting social media communities, enabling improved traffic planning and citizen service response are just some of the ways digital technologies are changing the physical city in the new digital metropolis hubs of tomorrow.

The case for digital change

WHO World Health Organization

“By the middle of the 21st century, the urban population will almost double globally, By 2030, 6 out of every 10 people will live in a city, and by 2050, this proportion will increase to 7 out of 10 people.”

UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC

“In 2010, the building sector accounted for around 32% final energy use with energy demand projected to approximately double and CO2 emissions to increase by 50–150% by mid-century”

IATA International Air Transport Association

“Airline Industry Forecast 2013-2017 show that airlines expect to see a 31% increase in passenger numbers between 2012 and 2017. By 2017 total passenger numbers are expected to rise to 3.91 billion—an increase of 930 million passengers over the 2.98 billion carried in 2012.”

Mark Skilton 2 Oct 2013Professor Mark Skilton,  Professor of Practice in Information Systems Management , Warwick Business School has over twenty years’ experience in Information Technology and Business consulting to many of the top fortune 1000 companies across many industry sectors and working in over 25 countries at C level board level to transform their operations and IT value.  Mark’s career has included CIO, CTO  Director roles for several FMCG, Telecoms Media and Engineering organizations and recently working in Global Strategic Office roles in the big 5 consulting organizations focusing on digital strategy and new multi-sourcing innovation models for public and private sectors. He is currently a part-time Professor of practice at Warwick Business School, UK where he teaches outsourcing and the intervention of new digital business models and CIO Excellence practices with leading Industry practitioners.

Mark’s current research and industry leadership engagement interests are in Digital Ecosystems and the convergence of social media networks, big data, mobility, cloud computing and M2M Internet of things to enable digital workspaces. This has focused on define new value models digitizing products, workplaces, transport and consumer and provider contextual services. He has spoken and published internationally on these subjects and is currently writing a book on the Digital Economy Series.

Since 2010 Mark has held International standards body roles in The Open Group co-chair of Cloud Computing and leading Open Platform 3.0™ initiatives and standards publications. Mark is active in the ISO JC38 distributed architecture standards and in the Hubs-of-all-things HAT a multi-disciplinary project funded by the Research Council’s UK Digital Economy Programme. Mark is also active in Cyber security forums at Warwick University, Ovum Security Summits and INFOSEC. He has spoken at the EU Commission on Digital Ecosystems Agenda and is currently an EU Commission Competition Judge on Smart Outsourcing Innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Data management, digital technologies, Enterprise Architecture, Future Technologies, Healthcare, Open Platform 3.0, Uncategorized

Business Capabilities – Taking Your Organization into the Next Dimension

By Stuart Macgregor, Chief Executive, Real IRM Solutions

Decision-makers in large enterprises today face a number of paradoxes when it comes to implementing a business operating model and deploying Enterprise Architecture:

- How to stabilize and embed concrete systems that ensure control and predictability, but at the same time remain flexible and open to new innovations?

- How to employ new technology to improve the productivity of the enterprise and its staff in the face of continual pressures on the IT budget?

- How to ensure that Enterprise Architecture delivers tangible results today, but remains relevant in an uncertain future environment.

Answering these tough questions requires an enterprise to elevate its thinking beyond ‘business processes’ and develop a thorough understanding of its ‘business capabilities’. It demands that the enterprise optimizes and leverages these capabilities to improve every aspect of the business – from coal-face operations to blue-sky strategy.

Business capabilities articulate an organization’s inner-workings: the people, process, technology, tools, and content (information). Capabilities map the ways in which each component interfaces with each other, developing an intricate line-drawing of the entire organizational ecosystem at a technical and social level.  By understanding one’s current business capabilities, an organization is armed with a strategic planning tool. We refer to what is known as the BIDAT framework – which addresses the business, information, data, applications and technology architecture domains.

From this analysis, the journey to addressing the organization’s Enterprise Architecture estate begins. This culminates in the organization being able to dynamically optimize, add and improve on its capabilities as the external environment shifts and evolves. A BIDAT approach provides a permanent bridge between the two islands of business architecture and technology architecture.

Put another way, business capability management utilizes the right architectural solutions to deliver the business strategy. In this way, Enterprise Architecture is inextricably linked to capability management. It is the integrated architecture (combined with effective organizational change leadership) that develops the business capabilities and unleashes their power.

This can at times feel very conceptual and hard to apply to real-world environments. Perhaps the best recent example of tangible widespread implementations of a capability-based Enterprise Architecture approach is in South Africa’s minerals and mining sector.

Known as the Exploration and Mining Business Capability Reference Map, and published as part of a set of standards, this framework was developed by The Open Group Exploration, Mining, Metals and Minerals (EMMM™) Forum.  Focusing on all levels of mining operations, from strategic planning, portfolio planning, program enablement and project enablement – and based on the principles of open standards – this framework provides miners with a capability-based approach to information, processes, technology, and people.

The Reference Map isolates specific capabilities within mining organizations, analyzes them from multiple dimensions, and shows their various relationships to other parts of the organization. In the context of increased automation in the mining sector, this becomes an invaluable tool in determining those functions that are ripe for automation.

In this new dimension, this new era of business, there is no reason why achievements from the EMMM’s Business Capability Reference Map cannot be repeated in every industry, and in every mid- to large-scale enterprise throughout the globe.

For more information on joining The Open Group, please visit:  http://www.opengroup.org/getinvolved/becomeamember

For more information on joining The Open Group EMMM™ Forum, please visit:  http://opengroup.co.za/emmm

Photo - Stuart #2Stuart Macgregor is the Chief Executive of the South African company, Real IRM Solutions. Through his personal achievements, he has gained the reputation of an Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance specialist, both in South Africa and internationally.

Macgregor participated in the development of the Microsoft Enterprise Computing Roadmap in Seattle. He was then invited by John Zachman to Scottsdale Arizona to present a paper on using the Zachman framework to implement ERP systems. In addition, Macgregor was selected as a member of both the SAP AG Global Customer Council for Knowledge Management, and of the panel that developed COBIT 3rd Edition Management Guidelines. He has also assisted a global Life Sciences manufacturer to define their IT Governance framework, a major financial institution to define their global, regional and local IT organizational designs and strategy. He was also selected as a core member of the team that developed the South African Breweries (SABMiller) plc global IT strategy.

Stuart, as the lead researcher, assisted the IT Governance Institute map CobiT 4.0 to TOGAF® This mapping document was published by ISACA and The Open Group. More recently, he participated in the COBIT 5 development workshop held in London during May 2010.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under EMMMv™, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Transformation, Standards, Uncategorized