Where is value created in Enterprise Architecture - Part 2

Changing the game for EA Practice

In Part 1 I discussed the shift in mindset for Enterprise Architecture (EA) Practices from a goods-centered view, considering EA development as a product, to a service-centered view, considering that value is co-created with the client/customer. I also showed this Lean Canvas for Enterprise Architecture Practice as an example of a way to look at an EA Practice as if it were its own company, working to deliver value to its “Customer Segment”. I encourage you to get your own Lean Canvas for free at leancanvas.com and fill it out for yourself. Think about how you can more directly engage those to whom you want to deliver value.

Value is created in the Customer Segments and Early Adopters box, the Problem and Existing Alternatives box, and the Unique Value Proposition box. The key is knowing and validating the problem you solve (jobs-to-be-done) for each of your Customers (people who pay you money). Value is delivered through the Solutions box and the Channels box. The key metric is the Unique Value Proposition box and the Revenue Streams box. Make multiple canvases, maybe one for the whole practice, and then one for each key stakeholder. Lean Canvas is geared toward startups and I believe the EA Practice is just that.

Customers (and employees) are human too

A shift in focus to a service-centric perspective might be a nice thing to do, but at the end of the day does it make an impact? This, and other questions are answered in the culmination of research done by the Gallup organization on managing the customer-employee encounter, Human Sigma (Fleming & Asplund, 2007). This book lays out the case for employee engagement, customer engagement, and the amazing synergy that occurs when you work on both at the same time.

“In a recent study of 89 companies, we found that the companies that built this critical mass of engagement grew earnings per share (EPS) at 2.6 times the rate of companies who do not.” (Fleming & Asplund, 2007) Signaling the move to value creation at the employee-customer encounter, Fleming and Asplund call it the new “factory floor”. Of course their explanation that an emotionally engaged customer spends more with a company than a merely satisfied customer is aimed at the commercial firm in total. However, understanding the difference, and putting to practice the insights from their study can only improve the standing of the EA Practice in an enterprise.

The whole idea of focusing on the customer encounter might not be the forte for the average Enterprise Architect. Common anecdotal evidence suggests that EA Practitioners like to work alone, create elegant solutions with little regard to deadlines, and are in general, a prickly kind of person. Executives like the skills architects have, and often don’t like the way they come across.

The impact of innate preferences on practitioners

Commonly observed frustrations with EA Practitioners may be understood as behavioral expressions of the preferred Jungian personality type of people attracted to EA Practice. These behavioral expressions can tend to alienate the executive champions needed for continued political support of the practice.

As indicated through multiple instances of research, technical professionals tend to cluster as NT types, as indicated via the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Further, David Keirsey (Keirsey, 1998) calls the INTP “The Strategic Architect”. According to their type description, INTPs like to work by themselves, focusing on an inner world of thinking, perceiving the outer world through intuition. Their perceiving preference tends to hold off decision making, while they work on many variations of scenarios in an endless search for a right answer. They value competence and may be irritated by others they do not believe measure up to their standards. They continue to seek elegant solutions while not actually delivering information to decision makers because they haven’t yet covered all the scenarios. They are quick to point out variances from their optimum solution as wrong, even though they may have never communicated that strategic picture.

Understanding these behavioral expressions of preferred type and teaming them with complementary typed people, may make leveraging their value easier socially and politically. Adding the understanding of a focus on the individual strengths of an Enterprise Architect, via the Gallup® CliftonStrengths® assessment and coaching, is the best way to encourage employee engagement. Understanding the psychological type and individual strengths of members of an Enterprise Architecture team will enable a team leader to compose a team of complementary strengths, and supplement missing strengths by sourcing them appropriately. The key to making the team function with a focus on customer engagement is a leader who is type and talent aware.

A move away from the G-D logic based creation of an Enterprise Architecture “product” to a S-D logic, service-centered mode of operation will call for constant conversation and interaction among the EA Practitioners and their stakeholders. It will call for a moderation of the desire on the part of the Enterprise Architect for the solution to be technically optimal, and will lead to a more rapid sub-optimization based on the requirements of the stakeholders who are brought more closely into the architecture development process. The client will take the role of the designer, and the architect will more appropriately support the design. The Enterprise Architect might also have knowledge of other developments or strategies that might impinge or enhance the needs of the client organization. In any case, the Enterprise Architect will need awareness of the behavioral expressions of the perception and decision making preferences that make them so effective as EA practitioners, so that they can moderate them to ease the give and take with their stakeholders.

Conclusion

TOGAF ® (The Open Group, 2011) recommends that the EA Practice in an organization be created and managed as a distinct business entity. Its wording and approach to Stakeholder Management can lead to objectifying stakeholders, rather than encouraging a closer, more engaging relationship. Employing a service-centered mind-set and a customer engagement focus will enhance the brand of the EA Practice in a firm. Understanding that value in Enterprise Architecture Practice is co-created by the architect and the customer will make the transition to a customer engagement focus clearer in the minds of everyone.

Recognition of the shift in locus of value creation should affect the way architects are measured as employees. Creating an environment of employee engagement through Leadership Development and Coaching will enhance the synergy of the architect -customer encounter. Individual Leadership Development and Coaching will help architects in their interactions with executives and enhance their career movement to executive roles as well.

Note: Gallup® and CliftonStrengths® are trademarks of Gallup.

Works Cited

Fleming, P. J., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human Sigma - Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter. New York, NY: Gallup Press.

Keirsey, D. (1998). Please Understand Me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

Lusch, V. a. (2008). Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal , 47 (1), 6.

The Open Group. (2011). The Open Group Architecture Framework (9.1 ed.). Reading, U.K.: The Open Group.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing , 68, 1-17.