Enterprise Architecture

18 May, 2009 12:14 PM EST
EA Stats For Fun
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

Our last poll may have seemed a bit arbitrary, asking you as it did to pick the most critical EA practice from a list of valid EA practices (i.e., "which EA element do you believe to be most critical?").

Out of 67 participants, here are the results:

Solid business vision: 51.1%
EA documented and communicated: 24.4%
Demonstrable financial impact: 17.8%
Completed gap analysis: 4.4%
EA measurement and reporting program: 2.2%

I asked this question because I wanted to see how it stacked up against some research I'm working on now. The selections available on the poll corresponded to questions from the enterprise architecture program maturity self assessment (G00150665). "Solid business vision" corresponds to question 17. "EA documented and communicated" corresponds to question 9. "Demonstrable financial impact" corresponds to question 27. "Completed gap analysis" corresponds to question 21 in the maturity assessment. EA measurement and reporting program corresponds to question 26. Granted this is work in process, and comparing a quick poll against data from 500 self-assessment records is a bit of a stretch, so take it with a grain of salt. It is, however, interesting.

The table below shows some of the data from the 500 records we've analyzed, along with some statistical information.

We are running various types of analysis against the data – including regression analysis. Looking at the data serendipitously, we can use regression weight as a way to think about the influence of a question and its response on overall maturity (i.e., a way to consider what matters most). One could conclude that gap analysis is most important because it has the highest regression weight, however, going to the actual questionnaire, most respondents are somewhere between reactively responding to specific requests for gaps and having identified some uncoordinated gaps.

Similarly, an EA measurement and reporting program seems like it should be high on the list as well. It has a fairly high regression weight. Looking a bit deeper, however, most selected the responses that suggested EA reporting was somewhere between ad hoc and exception driven to "some metrics delivered formally." Coupling this information with the lower regression weight of question 27 would lead one to wonder what is being reported formally or ad hoc if it is not financial efficiency metrics? The most probable explanation is that practitioners are getting reasonable traction by sharing success anecdotes or exposing problems in lieu of formal EA metrics programs. One could assert that reporting value, progress against goals, and successes is quite important.

Solid business vision, which clients ranked highest actually appears to be of least significance looking at our data. That said, the average response was 2.69, with a standard deviation of 1.2, we might as well say most people had a documented and agreed to business vision. At 2, business vision exists. At 3, it is documented and agreed to. At 4, it's documented, agreed to, and occasionally revisited and updated. So, because most have it, it probably doesn't influence the overall scores that much. It is table stakes.

I'll save the rest of the details for research notes. As Mark Twain said, "There’s three types of lies . . ."

05 May, 2009 07:00 PM EST
Reminder: Diagnostic Tools
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

Just a friendly reminder IT Leaders clients have access to on-line diagnostic tools. For enterprise architecture, we have:

Toolkit: Maturity Assessment for Enterprise Architecture
"Toolkit: Business Issues for EA and Your Enterprise Personality Assessment"

The maturity assessment is designed to assess the effectiveness of your EA program. The other diagnostic, Business Issues, is designed to provide suggestions to some of the most important EA issues in context (i.e., culturally-aware based upon your response to an enterprise personality profile questionnaire).

Additionally, you have access to the IT Leaders' diagnostics associated with other roles. Enterprise architects, however, are all over the map – they have to address a broad spectrum of opportunities. Thus, the other diagnostics might be very useful. They are listed below for your convenience.

Applications:
"Toolkit: Maturity Assessment for Application Organizations"
"Toolkit: Effectiveness Assessment for Application Development"

Business Intelligence & Information Management:
"Toolkit: Maturity Assessment for Business Intelligence and Performance Management"

Business Process Improvement:Toolkit: Maturity Assessment for Business Process Management
"Toolkit: Maturity Assessment for Process-Driven Organizations"

Infrastructure & Operations Management:
"Toolkit: Infrastructure Evaluation for Servers"
"Toolkit: Vista Migration Cost Assessment"
"Toolkit: Maturity Assessment for Infrastructure and Operations"

Program & Portfolio Management:
"Toolkit: Project Scoring Process and Assessment for PPM"
"Toolkit: Project Portfolio Alignment for PPM and Your Enterprise Personality Assessment"
"Maturity Assessment for Program and Portfolio Management"

Security & Risk Management:
"Toolkit: Security Program: Assessing Initial Obstacles"

Sourcing & Vendor Relationships:
"Toolkit: IT Procurement Maturity Assessment"
"Toolkit: IT Services Sourcing Strategy Assessment"

21 April, 2009 06:44 PM EST
Google Trends and EA
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

I just noticed this tool from Google and decided to try it out. It allows you to compare search trends over time. Here’s what I got when I compared "Enterprise Architecture" (blue) to "SOA" (red), "IT Cost" (green) and "cloud computing" (orange).

EA is flat. SOA went up then down. Cloud is on the rise. IT costs are increasing rapidly in interest. This was in alignment with my expectations. The tool also breaks out trends in search (i.e., search volume index) and trends in news (i.e., news reference volume), so you can see if there might be a relationship. Bottom is news trends. It is plausible that news would drive interest and therefore you could expect a correlation between search volume and news reference. The converse is also plausible. Search interest could trigger increased news coverage.

My less-than-scientific test showed some slight correlation between search volume and news reference, but not much in my opinion.

It also gives this information by region, cities, and languages (see below). In theory, EA is hot in India, Singapore, South Korea, and South Africa. Also, a lot of the searches are done in Dutch. I guess we have a lot of Dutch enterprise architects commuting to India, South Korea, Singapore, and South Africa.(though I'm told "SOA" in the Dutch is an acronym for a sexually transmitted disease) Nonetheless, it might still be a useful tool for enterprise architects. I know I'll be experimenting with it.

09 April, 2009 09:57 AM EST
Does Your CIO Need You?
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

A colleague of mine pointed out a recent article in CIO Magazine entitled "Do You Need an Enterprise Architect?" The author interviews a CIO who, among other things, states that the role is "basically the guy who understands what the business needs, where it is headed and finds technology to match those needs." I certainly wouldn't argue with that working definition. While it's not our formal definition, it's fine for a magazine article. Also, by happenstance or consciousness, the article appears to be written to an Indian audience.

That said, your CIO may read it, so I thought it worthwhile to bring it to your attention. The author makes some good points, like:

- The role of the enterprise architect is needed now more than ever
- Most don't understand what enterprise architecture is
- The value proposition of EA may not resonate (e.g., "I create diagrams")
- It's a role and can be assumed by someone with a different title
- As long as the value proposition and deliverables remain ambiguous, EA is in jeopardy (in India)!
- SOA may eventually force the need for EA.

On another note, another colleague of mine pointed out a site called ITJobsWatch. This site purports to track the IT job market in the United Kingdom. While I cannot vouch for their data or methodology, it is interesting to note that according to them, the demand for architects is not only strong, it's increasing.

19 March, 2009 10:48 AM EST
Enterprise Architecture and the Economy
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

In a recent poll, we asked: "How has the economy impacted your enterprise architecture (EA)?" The responses were:

- EA received additional responsibility and resources - 16%
- EA proactively changed its focus - 24%
- No changes - 24%
- EA resources are being reduced or reallocated - 28%
- EA is at risk - 8%

Stated differently, 36% of efforts appear to be at risk of reduction of resources or elimination entirely and 64% of efforts appear to be OK, possibly even benefiting somewhat. While these polls aren't exactly scientific, and the response rate of this poll is lower than that of prior polls, previous polls taken this way tracked very closely with the polls run by our primary research organization (i.e. our statisticians).

Interpreting these results admittedly is more art than science. For the 16% who stated they received additional responsibility and resources, this is a time for action - a time to prove themselves when their organization probably really needs them. Congratulations to the 24% who proactively changed their focus; the proactive shift demonstrates much needed flexibility. For 24% who experienced no changes, deliver on stated goals and carefully monitor environmental trends, ensuring any impending changes are addressed proactively. For the 28% of EA organizations who are losing resources, do what can be done to ensure that an EA mentality is maintained. Now more than ever, organizations must be creative, efficient, and effective. Ensure that EA content is shared and EA thinking persists. Finally, for the 8% who are at risk, consider a recent article entitled: "Act Now to Gauge and Bolster Enterprise Architecture Viability During the Downturn". Look to aligning EA's value proposition with the organization's current values. That which an organization valued in June 2008 may have shifted in 2009. In fact, all EA efforts should, at a minimum, stop and consider their current applicability.

There may be some good news in this as well. Enterprise architecture, like scientific management, falls in and out of favor. In previous cycles, the number of EA efforts at risk was significantly higher. It was common to see enterprise architecture efforts eliminated during a downturn. It may be that acceptance of EA as a valuable and necessary function has reached mainstream.

04 March, 2009 12:37 PM EST
From Pounding To Cool Head
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

I recently shared my experience in going green. I have not, as of yet, shared the hiccups, nor the eventual completion of the project. Hiccups? Well, one little hiccup. The contractors couldn't find a ground on the electrical system of my 70s house. There was one for sure, but they couldn't find it. It was supposedly my responsibility to correct this in their eyes. I had my father-in-law, a retired real estate attorney check the contract and situation. It really wasn't my problem from a contractual perspective, but I knew I could get a viable ground in and it would be easier and probably less money than strong arming the solar contractor, so I did it. Moral of the story? Choose your battles.

When I contacted the project manager at the solar contractor, I got no response. I left several messages. Seems I contacted him on his last day there. My messages were eventually returned by the operations manager. He apologized and suggested that we were waiting on some parts and it might be awhile, to wit I said "then it might be awhile before I pay that large invoice." He got indignant, suggesting there was something wrong with me for potentially violating the contract. I reminded him that I contracted for a completed solar system - not a payment schedule. He acquiesced. The job was completed three days later. Moral of the story? Choose your battles.

Another moral is the continuation of the opportunity in chaos theme.
Now, it appears as though there may be a carbon tax where I live. That means electricity costs will go up. Mine are fixed. While many forecast the cost of photovoltaic systems plummeting, that prediction was predicated upon increased demand driving an increase in capacity and subsequent cost reductions - not some major innovation. Much has changed. While the incentives for going solar are still there, many are reluctant to embark on this type of capital project. The numbers, however, still add up. No matter how you slice it, we'll need electricity. So, during the day, I take at least one break to go downstairs and watch the meter spin backward. I can and do occasionally access the solar system from an intranet, but it's really not as satisfying as watching a physical meter spin backwards.

It seems like 5 minutes of news is enough to cause a myocardial infarction. It seems the good news that my solar system is completed, works well, and reduces our carbon footprint didn't seem to make the headlines. A lot of other good things don't - but they happen nonetheless. A Darwinian shakeout is occurring. Commerce continues, however, and recoveries are eventual. Be mindful of this and remain focused on the future.

20 January, 2009 11:19 AM EST
My Head Is Pounding
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

Why, you ask, is my head pounding? Maybe it's the three gentlemen above the roof of my home office pounding with hammers as they install a photovoltaic electric system. Yes - I'm going green. While there are many reasons for me to do it, for me the main driver is opportunistic economics. As I see it, my electrical bill is not going down anytime soon. At present, where I live, the State Government is willing to pay for 20% and the Federal Government is willing to pay 30% of the installation cost. That's 50% off. At that price, I'll make my entire electrical bill go away and receive approximately 20% annual return on my investment and a payback period of about 5 years. I cannot think of anything else that will provide a fairly safe 20% return on investment. Are there risks? Sure. Some claim costs of these systems will fall by 50% in the next few years. I don't see what will cause that to happen. If anything, they'll go up. Most are not made locally. There is a relatively good chance we will see inflation where I live, potentially causing prices to go up. Foreign-made goods may go up faster. In addition, the tax credits could potentially disappear - especially the State tax credits. So, this is it. I'll suffer through a few days of pounding on the roof above and have to part with a fairly significant amount of money, but I'm fairly confident that the returns I get will be solid.

What's the point? Well, I think this is a good example of finding the opportunity in chaos. In one fell swoop, I'm flexing my social responsibility and going green, and making what I think is a rock solid investment with fantastic returns. I believe these types of opportunities are rampant. If there are things that needed to get done, now may be the time. Most will negotiate. Prices on most goods are lower than normal in most geographies globally. If you have the capital, now may be a good time for certain types of investments - particularly infrastructure.

21 November, 2008 03:37 PM EST
We Need to Increase Productivity. IT Can Do It. EA Can Make that Happen.
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

Most of the globe is probably in a recession, which is generally defined as two quarters (or more) of negative growth, or contraction. This translates into organizations producing less, consumers purchasing less, and unemployment levels increasing. A cycle often ensues as the reduced consumption and reduced production leads to even more unemployment. Something must happen to break the cycle. Most attribute the end of the Great Depression in the United States to the United States' increased production, supplying supplies and munitions for our allies. One could argue an increase in productivity is needed now, more than ever, to break the current cycle of economic contraction. Where might this productivity come from? IT is a very plausible source of increased productivity. The great "Productivity Paradox" has been debunked. Information technology, intelligently applied, increases productivity. Information technology poorly applied decreases productivity. Thus, we now have two arguments: one for investing in IT to increase productivity and the other for ensuring that IT investments are intelligent to obtain productivity gains - not losses.

We are currently looking at a challenging situation. Simply stated, we are going to have to do more with less. IT can make this happen. In a recent study by Sinan Aral, Eric Brynjolfsson, and Marshall Van Alstyne [1], the authors demonstrated that IT enhances productivity, especially regarding the abilities to collaborate and multitask. Sounds like what we need right now.

Take a proactive position. Consider a technology productivity task force. While seemingly self serving, such a task force coming from enterprise architecture is quite reasonable. Where else are there people in an organization who are tech-savvy and tasked with enterprise optimization.

Shortly, I'll be publishing a research paper providing more explicit guidance for EA teams given the economy; however, consider this for now. We need to increase productivity. IT can do it. EA can make that happen. Enough said?

Reference
1. "Information, Technology and Information Worker Productivity," Aral, Sinan, Eric Brynjolfsson, and Marshall Van Alstyne. Social Science Research Network working paper, November 5, 2006.

04 November, 2008 12:46 PM EST
What Would Markowitz Say?
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

I read a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "The Father of Portfolio Theory on the Crisis," where they interviewed Harry Markowitz, Nobel prize winning father of modern portfolio theory, about the current financial crisis. Markowitz greatly influenced what I put in "IT Portfolio Management: Unlocking The Business Value Of Technology." The article also directed me to an essay by Harry Markowitz posted on the Index Funds Advisors Web site titled "What to Do About the Financial Transparency Crisis." The three main messages I got were:

1. Investments should have uncorrelated risk
2. Transparency of investments is critical to understanding them and will be critical to understanding the magnitude of the recovery and subsequently recover.
3. "Selling people what buyers and sellers don't understand is not a good thing"

Having co-authored a book on IT portfolio management, I wondered if it were possible to apply these three main messages to IT portfolio management. I believe it is and will try to do so in this blog entry.

First, I'm fairly convinced that, on aggregate, we do a horrible job of understanding the risks of our IT investments. Without understanding the risks, we fail to understand the risk correlation. While I'm not suggesting IT organizations run their project portfolios through SPSS to verify correlation, it would be wise to spot check individual and aggregate portfolio risk. Do reasonable risk ratings exist for your IT investments? Are they spread across different investment categories? Different business units? Different "bets" as one client likes to call them? This would be wise to check, now more than ever.

Second, Markowitz advocated transparency, both as a preventative measure and an aid in recovery. Organizations can and should be more transparent with their IT portfolios. What does all of this stuff cost? It's expensive. What's the risk that it won't perform or complete as expected? It might be high or low. Either could be ok, depending upon your investment objectives and risk tolerance. If there is no transparency, however, it is difficult to manage expectations, course correct, and provide quality service.

Finally, Markowitz stated "selling people what buyers and sellers don't understand is not a good thing." I think this is an especially salient point in IT portfolio management. Have you ever heard someone float an idea for an IT project that made absolutely no sense? What is even worse is when groupthink ensues and folks pretend an IT project makes sense even when no one really has a clue what it's about. This should not happen. It does far too often. You should not need rocket scientists to decode business cases - they should be self explanatory and rational. This may, in fact, be the most important point. If a project doesn't make sense, don't do it. If it made sense at one time and no longer does, stop doing it.

So, in a nutshell, when it comes to IT portfolio management being applied to projects, applications, or whatever, it looks like a few basic concepts can be borrowed from the investment world. First, manage risk. Not just individual risk, but aggregate risk - manage dependencies. Second, demand transparency. It will foster understanding and maintain proper expectations, possibly even preventing calamity. Finally, and at all costs, avoid doing things that don't make sense. If they don't make sense to you, they probably don't make sense to others as well. Stand your ground.

31 October, 2008 11:36 AM EST
Attend a Teleconference: Microsoft's PDC Announcements - Impact & Insights
Posted By: Brian Hellauer, Managing Editor, Gartner.com

Microsoft's recent Professional Developer's Conference is arguably Microsoft's most important conference in the past decade, as a number of new offerings and strategies were announced, including Microsoft's unveiling of its cloud services platform and vision and the first distribution of Windows 7 code to developers. Join us, as a team of Gartner analysts assess the impact of the announcements and provide insights into how to address Microsoft's product strategies and road maps in your IT plans. There are two teleconference sessions available to to registered users of gartner.com and Gartner clients, at 10 am and 4 pm EST.

13 October, 2008 04:57 PM EST
The Economy - Don't Forget the Obvious
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

As concerns continue to swirl in the global economic turbulence, it's important not to lose sight of a few common-sense considerations. These include making the most of what you have, focusing on what deserves focus, fixing what's broken and keeping a cool head.

In that vein, here are some time-tested approaches for managing IT during economic corrections:

Identify where automation can reduce overall costs. If there are opportunities to do so, they must be exposed. This is often an uncomfortable topic, but it must be broached.

Identify and optimize suboptimal business processes. Productivity and quality suffer when suboptimal business processes remain automated. Look for opportunities to optimize these processes.

Identify underutilized assets. By some estimates, servers operate at 20% of their available capacity. This underutilized capacity can be applied it to areas in need. Such underutilized assets aren't limited to hardware — many organizations have unused software licenses as well.

Look for opportunities to share assets. Not only can this help reduce costs, but it often leads to better interoperability as well.

Scrutinize projects to see which can be eliminated. Focus on finding projects that are redundant or superfluous — and especially those for which market or risk changes have obviated the original business case used to justify project funding.

Look for ways to embrace the downturn as an opportunity. This "judo strategy," which works best in more aggressive organizations, involves leveraging the momentum of the downturn to strengthen your position when things stabilize. If your organization can leverage such opportunities, consider identifying how much you will invest in growth and transformation and manage those investments carefully.

The overall key is to channel heightened concerns over the economy into increased IT organizational focus and cohesiveness. This includes focusing on what must be done, eliminating that which isn't essential and better leveraging assets.

13 October, 2008 04:55 PM EST
Don't Look - Ignorance Is Bliss
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

Recently, I deposited a check at my local bank. The teller asked how my day was going. I responded by saying "fine as long as I don't pay attention to the news." There is an element of truth to that, however, I have some equities that have lost a lot of their value. Could I have sold them? Yes. Would that have been the prudent thing to do? Maybe. If, however, I don't plan on touch the money associated with those equities for a long time and I expect them to recover, it really doesn't matter. In fact, by not selling, I avoided an income tax implication. I did, however, think it through.

Organizations are starting to retrench and react to the changing economy. While this is the most severe economic correction I've seen and the response by corporations and their respective IT organizations is milder than I'd expect, it could very well be that people are just not watching the news . . . or more likely they are in denial. The economy is correcting. How long it will take and how severe it will be are a mystery to most, however, one cannot deny that it is correcting.

Organizations must take stock in their IT investments, consciously identifying what could be postponed, collapsed, or eliminated. Conversely, organizations must identify the IT investments that must continue – be they projects or assets. Most organizations today have a project portfolio and/or a project office of sorts. Many, however, fail to monitor completed projects, their benefit, and their associated costs. More often than not, these completed projects, or assets as I like to call them, are applications and corresponding infrastructure. They consume a significant amount of the IT budget. If you do sole searching, you'll realize that many of these assets should not exist. They are redundant. They are underutilized. They are past their prime and should be put out to pasture. Consider taking time out to inventory that which you have and that which you are working on, developing an understanding of potential tradeoffs available. It's better to be prepared for a crisis that never occurs than it is to be unprepared for a crisis that does.

05 September, 2008 03:06 PM EST
Mobile Devices Are the Tip of the Iceberg: Think Managed Diversity
Posted By: Betsy Burton and Frederica Troni

For many years, analysts in the client computing group have recommended to Gartner's clients that they standardize their PCs to simplify management and reduce total cost of ownership. Completely homogeneous deployment, however, is often impossible or very expensive to achieve and maintain, regardless of managing mobile devices, servers, applications, processes or services (see "Trends Driving Increasing IT Diversity"). This is particularly true when we consider mobile-client devices, such as smartphones and PDAs, where user preferences play an important role.

Affordable smartphone models are entering the market in increasing numbers. Organizations face difficulties in selecting a standard device that favors most users. End users disregard IT organization standards (if they exist), choosing instead to adopt whichever device they believe has the features that will satisfy their workplace and personal needs. A wide variety of device models is entering the business domain, creating havoc for IT organizations, whose operations are based on standards and stable platforms. Attempts by businesses to ban, discourage and control the use of these devices have been unenforceable. The first offenders are often the executives to whom the IT organization reports.

In "Use Managed Diversity to Support Mobile Devices", we propose a unique approach and some very specific recommendations to deal with these issues. We have outlined the key elements that provide a basis for a support strategy for PDAs and smartphones, implementing the concept of "managed diversity" (see "New IT Mandate: Embrace Managed Diversity"). It helps to balance management, security and cost control, while allowing users a wider choice of devices, including personally owned devices. Architects should read this research to understand how to leverage managed diversity as part of their enterprise architecture (EA) practices and how to define a framework for supporting users' needs and the need to manage diverse systems.

If your EA efforts include mobile devices within your organization, then you may also find the following research helpful:

• "A Strategy for Managing Mobile Communication Expenses"
• "Toolkit: Four TCO Profiles for PDAs and Smartphones Can Help Manage Costs"

29 August, 2008 11:09 AM EST
Get It In Writing
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

After doing quantitative research that suggested that the most critical success factor for enterprise architecture (EA) was that ability to "develop and maintain stakeholder involvement and support," I embarked on a journey to discover scientifically proven methods to "develop and maintain stakeholder involvement and support." I stumbled upon the work of Dr. Robert Cialdini, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University. His publications have incredibly useful techniques to "develop and maintain stakeholder involvement and support" that are backed by science.

I've recently published a note that shows how this material can be applied to "develop and maintain stakeholder involvement and support" for EA; however, I wanted to provide a basic, simple, powerful technique as a blog entry: Get key stakeholders to provide their support for EA in writing and make it public. The simplest way to do that is to get them to sign an EA charter, then scan that signed charter and put it on your organization's intranet. By doing this, at least in seemingly similar situations, the adherence to the commitment almost doubles. The keys are to involve the stakeholders in some form of action while agreeing to support EA (from their physical signature), making the agreement public (by posting it on the intranet) and doing it in an uncoerced manner. Try it out. It can't hurt.

While you are at it, consider putting success criteria (such as milestones that, if attained, will equate to the EA effort being deemed successful) in the charter. People sometimes forget what EA teams are supposed to deliver, but if you can demonstrate that you delivered against that which was agreed to in the charter (in writing, made public, in an uncoerced manner), then you come from a much stronger position. This simple technique may come in handy if your organization embarks on a "cost management" exercise.

25 August, 2008 06:53 PM EST
Don't Modernize IT - Unless You Modernize the Enterprise Too
Posted By: Bruce Robertson, Research VP

"IT modernization" is clearly a hot topic these days (see "IT Modernization: The Changing of the Guard"). Gartner's enterprise architecture analysts are receiving more and more inquiries about what role EA teams should play in IT modernization efforts. My answer? First and foremost, EA's role should be to encourage the organization not to modernize IT – that is, not unless the enterprise itself gets modernized along with IT.

Specifically, EA's role should be to push back against (or at least balance) the techno-centric "let's upgrade everything because we can" mentality that IT modernization efforts too often become. Rather than support such misguided efforts, architects should instead be suggesting when to leave things alone - or when to consider outsourcing to conventional or radically new (cloud) providers. Architects should push to modernize not just technology for existing solutions, but also business and information architecture aspects of those solutions.

Too often, "IT modernizers" consolidate everything only to find that this doesn't help as much as they'd hoped. Meanwhile, they have changed nothing fundamental for the business, other than perhaps slightly lowering the cost and improving the operational quality of what they already have. When this happens, there is no business transformation - no business-driven, architected change to the enterprise. Instead, there is only current-state churn.

The "change for change's sake" push commonly uses a "let’s get out ahead of the business" argument, which often means spending money on a new IT infrastructure capability or capacity that gets minimal use. Yet, if business changes do occur quickly, such capability or capacity must quickly be made available, preferably at modest incremental cost rather than with huge IT modernization capacity jumps. The true agility EA should strive for would be to enable such elasticity just in time for (but not before) the moment when the business transformation actually demands such change.

Only if the enterprise itself is modernizing should IT modernize. If no business changes are defined, IT shouldn't be changing either. Enterprise architects should be front and center in sending this message to any would-be "IT modernizers" within their own organizations.

25 July, 2008 03:28 PM EST
Poll Results: EA Communications Efforts
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

In our last poll, we asked: What percentage of available time/effort does your enterprise architecture (EA) team devote to communication? Here are the responses:

• Less than 10%: 31.8%
• 10% to 15%: 34.1%
• 15% to 20%: 25%
• 20% to 25%: 9.1%

The majority of clients spend 15% of their time/effort or less on communication. This is consistent with a survey done from 2006 through 2007 in North America and Europe, with a sample size of 250.

We performed regression analysis against the data from our EA program maturity self-assessment. If we can accept the hypothesis that higher EA maturity in our model equates to greater success, then the results from our initial analysis suggest that "developing and maintaining stakeholder sponsorship and support" was the most influential dimension of the model with respect to greater overall maturity. We repeated the analysis several times during the past two years and received the same result - developing and maintaining stakeholder involvement and support was the most-influential dimension of the model. Because the EA program maturity model was designed as an assessment and not a survey, we enlisted the help of a well-qualified statistician (Ph.D.) to review our analysis. Our statistician performed structural equation modeling. I won't go into the details, but the results were still consistent.

As a reminder, this dimension covers the following issues/areas:
• Corporate management support
• Business unit support
• IT support
• Architecture community support
• Architecture communication

This is insightful in and of itself; however, other surveys suggest that the average EA effort has waning support from various stakeholder groups and lacks appropriate soft skills in EA teams to address stakeholder support.

Bottom Line: EA success may hinge on how well stakeholders support and are involved with EA. Most EA teams have room for improvement. Re-evaluate the support for EA in your organization. Make changes to the team as needed to ensure that stakeholders maintain support for EA. Potential changes include training existing EA team members in soft skills (such as communication, organization change management, facilitation, persuasion and negotiation) and/or bringing in new team members who possess soft skills.

12 June, 2008 08:19 AM EST
New Thinking on the EBA
Posted By: Betsy Burton, Vice President

Author: Betsy Burton, Research VP

I had the opportunity on Wednesday at the EA Summit to present Gartner's new thinking and new research on enterprise business architecture (EBA). Gartner defines EBA as that part of the EA process that describes - through a set of requirements, principles and models - the future state, the current state, and the guidance necessary to flexibly evolve and optimize business dimensions (the people, processes, financials and organizations) to achieve effective enterprise change. The critical change is the inclusion of the new dimensions.

The goal of defining EBA is to ensure that changes and enhancements to business functions, process, financials, people and organizational structure are fully optimized along with information and technology, in support of the business strategy. During the session, I received several, very interesting questions about the role of business architects, and asking for EBA artifact samples. During this session I referenced several research notes and toolkits that I thought might be interesting to those of you focused on EBA.

"Understand Enterprise Business Architecture to Realize Your Future State"

"Toolkit: Bank XYZ Business Anchor Model"

"Provide Appropriate Support Based on Impact Segmentation"

"Person-to-Process Interaction Emerges as the 'Process of Me'"

"Recognize the New Stakeholder: The Individual"

"CIOs and IT Leaders: Prepare for the 'Pull' Mind-Set of Consumer IT"

"Gartner Enterprise Architecture Framework: Evolution 2005"

06 June, 2008 11:53 AM EST
How We Like to Put New Technology Solutions in Place
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

In our recent IT Leaders poll, which had 125 respondents, we asked: "What is your preferred way of developing technology solutions?" The answers:

* Buying technology and customizing it — 47.4%
* Selecting technology partners to develop solutions — 26.3%
* Building technology in-house — 18.4%
* Outsourcing to a service provider — 7.9%

This was a bit of a trick question. Our primary research organization asked this same question to IT professionals and the responses were:

* Buying technology and customizing it — 45%
* Selecting technology partners to develop solutions — 30%
* Building technology in-house — 15%
* Outsourcing to a service provider — 10%

These results are extremely close. What can we surmise from this? First, the poll we asked of IT Leaders seems to consistently come up with results similar to those obtained by our statisticians. I've asked questions that mirror questions asked by our primary research organization before, and the results are always very similar. Although we cannot rely on them 100%, it gives us some comfort that the information provides utility.

Second, it tells us that Enterprise Architecture (EA) teams might consider focusing on the areas with greater percentages. I worded that sentence carefully, because based on how the question was asked, an organization that does only custom development would have picked "building technology in-house." If its EA team focused solely on "buying technology and customizing it," then the EA team would not be providing much utility to the organization. That being said, the masses are tending toward technology solutions that are purchased and customized, or they are opting to hire service providers to do the work. If you are in line with the masses, then you should consider double-checking the focus of your EA effort, because you should be focusing on "buying technology and customizing it" or "selecting technology partners to develop solutions." That's where a lot of the action will be.

Finally, if your preferred way to develop new technology solutions is neither "buying technology and customizing it" nor "selecting technology partners to develop solutions," it may not be that way for much longer. Consider this possibility and act accordingly.

06 June, 2008 11:48 AM EST
It's the People
Posted By: Robert Handler, Research VP

Recently, we've seen a lot of interest around enterprise architecture (EA) certification and metrics. Although both of these add value, only a modicum of interest surrounds what appears to matter most — gaining and maintaining stakeholder involvement and support.

We've believed for many years that this was the most important component of a successful EA, and we have strong quantitative evidence to prove it. Our database of EA program maturity data continues to grow, and we continue to run regression analysis against it. We also continue to see that the most important dimension statistically, relating to overall higher maturity, is the degree to which an EA team can develop and maintain stakeholder involvement and support.

To that degree, when looking at how far EA teams have gotten with respect to developing and maintaining stakeholder involvement and support, it's not very far. When looking at the EA team makeup, EA teams appear to be woefully deficient with respect to "soft" skills — the type of skills that can be applied to developing and maintaining stakeholder involvement and support.

So, if I had my druthers, although EA certification might be interesting, I think I'd rather send the EA team to the Dale Carnegie course!

08 April, 2008 06:04 PM EST
Cloud Computing Will Force EA Shift
Posted By: Betsy Burton, Vice President

This week, during one of our research community meetings, we discussed the various possible impacts of cloud computing on the management of IT, enterprise architecture and process management. Out of this discussion, we have released three new findings:

"Findings: Cloud Computing Will Force a Massive EA Shift Toward Relationships"
"Findings: Cloud Computing Will Impact IT Budgets and Balance Sheets"
Finding from Business of IT Community: Cloud Computing Will Unleash Opportunities for CIOs

Gartner defines cloud computing as a style of computing where massively scalable IT-enabled capabilities are provided 'as a service' to external customers over the Internet. What we are really talking about is leveraging computing, human, process, services resources that may be off in the internet ether (cloud) somewhere that we don’t manage, control or own. This model of using cloud IT resources raises new challenges around how you should be focusing on in EA, on how you may be managing your IT budget, and on how CIOs balance their investment risks and rewards.

For EA, the move toward cloud computing will force architects to focus less on trying to manage and control specific entities (people, processes, information and systems), and more of the inter-relationships and communications between entities. In the short term, architects should start to evaluate their organizations propensity to leverage cloud resources, and in what areas. Further, understand how to evolve your EA initiative to enable the appropriate use of cloud resources - balancing risks and rewards.

Check out some of our new research in this area, and, if you are planning on being at Symposium in either Las Vegas this week or in Barcelona, look for some of the new presentations.

Highlights From the Enterprise Architecture Track at Symposium/ITxpo
Symposium/ITxpo Trip Report: Enterprise Architecture
A Template for Technical Patterns and Services
Web Platforms: Web-Centric Delivery Models for Infrastructure, Applications, Data and Business Services
Alternative Delivery Models: A Sea of New Opportunities and Threats
Predicts 2008: The Client Computing Market Will Undergo Fundamental, Structural Changes