Cloud, big data, and analytics are disruptive technologies that are affecting almost every enterprise across multiple industries.  Companies are trying their best to leverage these new capabilities to gain advantage in a highly competitive market place.  Companies that do not evolve to leverage these capabilities may be left behind and could even become unviable in the near future. Ubiquitous data from consumer smartphone usage can provide valuable insights for companies, but ubiquitous data comes with set of challenges viz., storing, managing, and analyzing the large volumes of data.  Cloud and big data technologies are positioned as the panacea to leverage and analyze ubiquitous consumer data.

Let me start with a provoking question: Business architects create capability roadmaps and product managers create product roadmaps. What is the difference and which is more valuable for my business? If product managers manage all the products of a company, is there a need for business architects and capability roadmaps?

Some of us, who are practicing business architects and familiar with “Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™” (BIZBOK® Guide), may find this question offensive. However, this could be a reasonable question from any senior business leader (particularly unfamiliar with business architecture and product management disciplines).

Business architecture provides a sound foundation for capital planning based on business strategies and goals in any enterprise.  Figure-1 depicts relationship between value business units, value streams and capabilities.  However, applying these concepts for capital planning, when working with stakeholders, could be challenging.  Stakeholders from IT operations, business operations andsales tend to have different priorities & objectives.  Finding a balance between varied priorities is as much an art, as it is science.      

Source: A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge (BIZBOK™) – Release 3.0, Part 5
Figure 1 – Business Architecture Knowledge Base Mapping

Businesses are under constant challenge to deliver growth and profitability.  Business process improvements and other enterprise quality initiatives are vital for the enterprise to do more with less, but they are not sufficient.  When businesses feel there is opportunity for transformation, they may engage a business architect. Many organizations do not have the benefit of established architecture processes and architecture governance for the enterprise, which makes the task of the business architect even more difficult.  It becomes incumbent on the business architect to educate and navigate stakeholders through architectural aspects of business transformation.

David Starr Jordan, founding president of Stanford University, said “Wisdom is knowing what to do next, skill is knowing how to do it, and virtue is doing it.”  It applies to enterprises as much as it does to individuals.  Modern enterprises rely on the capital planning process to determine “what to do next” and “how to do it”, which results in change programs for the enterprise.  These change programs are then implemented via standard portfolio management processes of the enterprise.   Capital planning depends on a clearly defined business strategy and a good understanding of the current state of the enterprise.

In this modern era of business, business architecture as a discrete discipline of business management, has gained substantial traction.  Business architecture approaches and methods are evolving and maturing rapidly.  Capability maps, which establish a comprehensive view of “what” a business does from a consistent, non-redundant and well-defined perspective, are now a part of the foundational aspects of business architecture.  Established business enterprises realize that capability maps are critical for strategic planning and business transformation.  During a capability mapping exercise, business architects sometimes don’t give due importance to the significant financial aspects or considerations of an operational business model.  Business architecture and capability models are not immune to financial constraints, nor should they be handcuffed by them.