To answer this question, we ask a related question that Len Fehskens (former Chief Editor of the Journal of Enterprise Architecture) often asked:
“Why would anyone build the wrong thing?”
Or, why would an enterprise architect build the wrong system?
According to an article in CIO magazine, the first of seven enterprise architecture mistakes to avoid is “Misaligning EA efforts to business needs.”[1] So how does this happen?
Let’s start with Enterprise Architecture (EA). Fundamentally, EA describes the current and potential future enterprise systems, which must be both feasible and desirable. To do this, architects must be aware of where the enterprise is headed (or where it is struggling). But how would the enterprise architect get this information? No strategy group would create a requirements document that included details about how they struggled, had serious disagreements, and eventually reached compromises.
The problem is a lack of communication and understanding in two directions:
- Strategy group to Enterprise Architect: The enterprise architect has often no idea what was really discussed in the strategy meeting because they weren’t there. They really don’t know what the stakeholders actually wanted or needed. The architect might have been called in after important discussions had already taken place and thus critical information was never conveyed to the architect. Sometimes the stakeholders didn’t really know what they wanted (“I’ll know it when I see it”), or were unable to articulate their needs clearly.
- Enterprise Architect to Strategy group. The strategic stakeholders might have clear wants and needs, but they can’t tell which options would be viable for systems based on available and emerging technology. They might create strategies that are infeasible or seriously deficient in some dimension(s).
Let’s explore the first direction, strategy group to Enterprise Architect. Even being a silent observer in those initial strategy meetings would be highly instructive to an architect, e.g., in knowing what would delight or turn off some stakeholders, what flexibility might be needed to adapt to uncertain future conditions, etc. Without having heard the strategic stakeholder discussions of an emerging disruption, it would be much harder for an architect to do the right kind of adaptation. They wouldn’t know which improvements would best align with key stakeholder sentiments.
In summary, a high-level enterprise architect has a much better chance of building and guiding the right system operation if they are given a chance to truly grasp the nature of the difficulties, concerns, disruptions, desires, etc., that they must address. This information is usually not documented, so unless the enterprise architect is present during those deliberations, they can only guess at the optimal adaptations when encountering disruptions in the context. So however elegant and robust a system they create, without this information, it might be the wrong system.
Now let’s explore the Enterprise Architect to strategy group communication. Why should enterprise architects participate in strategy formation (the strategic conversation), not just strategy execution? The answer is that they not only can listen, they can have a lot to contribute. With disruptive change, there are often critical branching points in strategy, that is, points where one possible future scenario may no longer be plausible while another one becomes more likely.
In a strategy meeting architects can help make sense of potential enterprise system changes (adaptations) and suggest or advocate promising ways to proceed—if they are aware of the system structures and underlying mental models shared by the strategic stakeholders. For example, the prevailing mental model might be based on a particular paradigm that shifts when the disruption changes the context. The architect may be able to come up with compelling examples that can reveal the weaknesses of those mental models, especially when there are technology components in the overall system.
As an example, in the recent Covid-19 pandemic, some food delivery services quickly recognized that there would be minimal demand from shuttered restaurants, but the public would still need to eat. Those who were able to recognize how the delivery paradigm had changed, redesigned their systems to integrate with grocery stores. Some businesses quickly recognized that a curbside pickup paradigm was replacing the standard shopping model for many customers. To be successful these systems needed to integrate with online systems, providing the ability to order items that were normally just picked up at the store.
While some of these enterprises may not have had individuals called enterprise architects to help with the system design, the survival of many businesses depended on an understanding of the strategic needs (the new or adapted capabilities) together with knowledge of how to quickly and effectively architect, design, and guide the building of a system that could realize those capabilities. Knowing the strategic needs and how to integrate with the available systems, they could build the “right” thing, or at least a good enough system.
Finally, we need to consider the case in which no currently feasible solution exists in the current context, perhaps due to a major disruption. Perhaps there is an inadequate infrastructure (or some other resource is lacking). Perhaps there is red tape, a lack of key incentives, or unworkable politics. Perhaps there is a need for a new technology or a change in the way a technology is delivered and paid for. Under these circumstances, there may be no better approach than to create a system that initially appears to lack some needed capability but can be readily adapted.
That sounds good, but how does the enterprise architect decide on what kinds of adaptation the system might need? (As the saying goes, “if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.”) The answer is that the built-in flexibility to adapt must be based on a true understanding the strategic stakeholder wants and needs, and a range of plausible future conditions. That understanding enables the architect to limit adaptation to what would be necessary to realize those capabilities. In summary, to avoid building the wrong system, the enterprise architect needs deep insight into the strategic stakeholder discussions in order to understand what a successful system would look like. And with the expertise of the enterprise architect guiding the strategic discussions toward feasible, good-enough solutions, they can help constrain the wants and needs to feasible, effective systems, that is, the “right thing.”
[1] https://www.cio.com/article/302043/7-enterprise-architecture-mistakes-to-avoid.html, by John Edwards, 12/23/2021.