Strong Enterprise Architecture Stays Ahead of the Curve

Working Before, During, and After

If you work with us, we'll talk about before decision and after decision. Which is simple until you realize portfolio decisions are after strategy and before project. Then it is easy to blur portfolio, project, and solution delivery conversations.

Before turns into after at the critical decision to act. Before deciding to act, everything is aimed at improving that decision. After, well, you know. You own that architecture decision. You must 'own the decision like it was your favourite idea of all time'.

Years ago I had to own a stakeholder decision minutes after the decision. I had to speak with Terry's voice, shutting down work I had passionately argued for. I had to listen to my reasons explaining why it was a mistake. I had to provide Terry’s answer and his reasons why the initiative was shut-down. I had to listen to people who believed I just didn't get it. Then monitored the change to ensure Terry’s unpopular decision was followed. I owned Terry's resolute decision not to do what I passionately believed in, like it was my favourite idea of all time.

When stakeholders follow our advice, owning the decision is easy. The professional bargain requires owning it when you disagree. Especially when you passionately disagree.

Terry had a significant digital transformation. He was betting his career. He has a beautiful portfolio architecture. It was framed as a series of separate value resting points. He had three major divisions. One was the economic center of the company. It had the farthest to go. One was his breakthrough opportunity—with the transformation and sales success, he would remake the economic center. One was his leader, furthest ahead, but with some early mistakes that would limit them.

Once we blew through VRP1, there was a clear opportunity to onboard the leader division to the transformation. They were ready to ditch their mistakes. They were ready for greatness.

It was the obvious thing to do.

So obvious that the leader organization's resources on the transformation were clamouring. So obvious these resources had privately pitched early onboarding to the division. So obvious the division had ponied up its own budget and pulled resources to join the transformation. So obvious that in the afternoon we were kicking off the onboarding.

Just before lunch, Terry said no. Keeping Terry from his lunch, I passionately re-advised. No, advised is too soft. I argued. I was emotionally invested in Terry's success, and it was obvious. Again, Terry said no and shut-down the conversation.

Terry was unwilling to take the risk that the lagging division would bank the modest transformation of VRP1 and coast to a halt. In risk terms, he would abandon the upside of a possible great-leap-forward to eliminate the downside of the laggard, structurally lagging.

I didn't eat lunch. I couldn't. After lunch, I went to the kickoff. Took my spot as transformation-visionary-in-chief, spoke with Terry's authority and told everyone there was no kick-off. There was no project. I thanked the Leading division people who had dropped everything to jump at this chance. They had to wait until VRP4 to be onboarded.

Terry refused to pivot. Terry chose the low-risk path and continued. I learned the value of stripping uncertainty and downside from my VRPs.

Concluding Stay Ahead of the Curve

When it came time to draw a simple graphic explaining the decision cycle, thinking about Terry made us use interlocking circles. At the key junctures—direction to planning and planning to implementation—there is no guarantee the decision maker won't defer.

Defer doesn't mean wait until next quarter. Deferring can simply be a 20-minute re-evaluation of the transformation portfolio before lunch.

At those key-junctures there is no guarantee the decision maker will pivot, stop, or continue. They can easily look at the transformation portfolio in the 20-minutes before lunch and select continue.

TOGAF Phase H lives at the junctures. It is the explicit direction to the enterprise architect to pause, look backward, look forward, and look all around.

Look Backward at the completed projects. Did they deliver on the architecture contract? Did they deliver the expected value? Or more? Or less? Are there architecture non-compliant parts of the delivery that we will have to fix?

Look Forward at the potential next projects. You have the whole dynamic roadmap. The shuffling and juggling. The opportunity to switch out which organizational deficiency we'll get today. The opportunity to stomp on the gas and leap-forward!

Look all Around at the enterprise context and the state-of-the-possible. People invent new things all the time—mainframes, client-server, the internet, low-code, off-shore manufacturing, smartphones, AI, maybe even cold fusion one day. Is there anything that made your brilliant change irrelevant? How about yesterday's news? Or, is it now harmful?

This week I have the hardest challenge of all. Evaluate every one of your architecture roadmaps, VRPs, and inflight projects. If you had the freedom to re-do your brilliant advice, what would it be today? Pivot, Stop, or even Continue?

TOGAF Phase H is a concept, not an administrative activity that closes out a project. It is a living cycle where you do the work to create the information to be ready whenever your stakeholders need change advice. Sometimes they don't know they need it—I stepped into my stakeholder's office to discuss China closing Wuhan. On the last flight out, as I was getting my funky noise-cancelling headset on, Terry sat in the next seat. We had an impromptu project and solution delivery review.

By routinely looking backward, forwards, and all around, I was ready. TOGAF tells us to break our work into architecture projects because it helps us contain the possibilities. It helps us get good guidance.

When Terry sat down, he took the opportunity to think through his bets. Our conversation slid up to strategy, through portfolio, down into solutions. In EA terms, Terry was hunting expected value and uncertainty because Terry worked through others. He wanted to know what calls to make, what guideance to provide, and what questions to ask. He wanted to know what to watch for. He wanted to know his influence on value and uncertainty.

He wanted advance warning, time to think, and time to act before he had to Stop, Pivot, or Continue.

Terry, like all stakeholders, is battling time. They want every advantage in that battle. They want the best company possible. They want to crush the competition and dodge the competition's boots.

Next week we are switching gears. I've been talking about the value-producing work of enterprise architecture. How to guide that change. Over the next few months, we'll talk about the hard work we do to be prepared. The work that creates real explored options and recommendations optimized for your company. To be better than the packaged random 'standard-practices' that are not optimal for our organization, our hopes, dreams, and fears.

Have a great week!

As always, I welcome your feedback and questions.

Regards,

Dave
Dave Hornford
Conexiam

PS. Over the summer, my consulting team is having me take these messages in a different direction. We'll be diving into the developing of an enterprise architect focused on the sweet spots of supporting portfolio and supporting solution delivery. Their objective is a refresh of our practical training program EA with TOGAF and Navigate.