When executives cannot see their way clear to address structural dysfunction within their organization, then attempts to align business architecture and IT architecture will see limited success. This does not imply that BPM, SOA and systems modernization cannot deliver tactical value. It does imply that these initiatives should be coupled with macro level efforts to recognize and address structural weaknesses across organizational infrastructures that impede business architecture and IT architecture alignment.
Consider the case of a telecommunications company that has grown through mergers. The company is running multiple billing systems and has thousands of people performing similar processes across this infrastructure. This has resulted in customer frustration due to the inability of service representatives to deliver timely, coordinated support for everything from billing inquiries to service requests.
In response, management launches BPM projects to retool billing, customer support and related business processes in customer service centers and billing centers. In addition, IT launches systems modernization and SOA deployment projects to integrate and automate front-end access to back-end applications and data structures. Unfortunately, entrenched cultures and management gridlock stymie efforts to synchronize common terminology, processes, data utilization and automation strategies.
Systems and processes are merely reflections of redundant, splintered organizational alignment. Organizations cannot address these symptoms without addressing core organizational weaknesses. In the absence of organizational realignment around core functions, common purpose and shared principles, executives will find that process retooling, SOA and modernization projects simply spin new spider webs around a broken infrastructure. Executives must retool broken governance models.
Synchronizing Organizational Infrastructures
A recent review of a strategic IT plan depicted an ill fated attempt to map the functional areas of the business to the targeted SOA functional model. The mapping was almost impossible to understand and will similarly be as difficult to implement. The reason was simple. The target architecture was services oriented and the governance structure was not.
Most organizations are based on hierarchy charts, just as most legacy systems were built based on those same hierarchies. If executives do not address the core hierarchies, fiefdoms, overlapping functional alignment and cultural infighting as a part of the solution, process, systems and data realignment will see limited success. Further, any successes that do occur are likely to be short-lived given that processes, systems and data will revert back to a redundant, splintered state because an organization is poorly aligned.
An alternative approach tackles the challenge head on by addressing cross-functional collaboration and governance issues as part of the solution. Consider another telecommunications company that launched self-governing teams to retool processes, provide automation, consolidate solutions, deploy reusable services, retire selected legacy applications and deliver hard ROI to the business community.
This organization found that the culture needed to shift and that collaborative governance needed to emerge that provided customer value as a top priority. Taking this approach, these teams embarked on a journey of discovery with the business community and delivered bottom line value along the way. As a result, the organization discovered new ways to work together across business lines and regions.
Success was a result of addressing the cultural issues within the organization that then allowed the team to build upon its successes and create agility across the enterprise. ROI figures actually reached 500%. When this type of approach is used, the boundaries of success have no limits. If, on the other hand, organizations sidestep governance issues and try to force fit technology solutions into a poorly aligned enterprise, business and IT architectures will remain out of step.
