Properly Defining Enterprise-wide Entities: The Critical Step
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Properly Defining Enterprise-wide Entities: The Critical Step






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Properly Defining Enterprise-wide Entities: The Critical Step Properly Defining Enterprise-wide Entities: The Critical Step Presentation Transcript

  • Tom Valva Sr. Director, Internet & Infrastructure ADP, Inc. Retirement Services Analysis: The Critical Step
  • Analysis – The Critical Step
    • Large BPM integration initiatives can be frighteningly complex
      • technology is often the ‘easy’ part of the job
      • Organizational silos (silo-orgs) make integrative BPM initiatives particularly difficult
    • Organizational ‘silos’ – why they exist; why they’re resilient, and why they cannot be ignored
      • Silos often exist for good reason
      • Silos are usually not 100% independent
      • Integrative BPM initiatives often want to ‘break down’ silos, the better approach is to ‘drill-through’
    • Analysis and management techniques that can help
      • Understanding silo-org’s current point in it’s lifecycle is critical
      • Finding the powerful actors and understanding power
      • A key negotiating technique that can make the difference
  • Complexity and Opportunity
    • Identifying organizational entities as complex is not enough
      • We must understand the sources and nature of this complexity
      • As analysts, architects, and software engineers, we are called upon to engineer the illusion of simplicity in these complex environments
      • We must learn to marshal the proper techniques for dealing with silo-orgs
    • Previously, limiting the scope of large BPM projects was a viable technique in complex environments
      • Avoidance or scope limitation may not be a viable strategy in larger integration projects
      • Much of the ‘Low Hanging Fruit’ has been picked
      • Talk of “tearing down” silos premature and uninformed
      • Process Automation within silo-org may be ahead of, or far behind intra-organization BPM initiatives
      • Significant benefits can accrue when the analysis is more comprehensive
      • Simpler designs patterns can result that are more flexible than might otherwise be achieved
    View slide
  • Complexity and Opportunity
    • Margin/Budget pressures
      • Supra organization may push cost reduction initiatives to reduce redundancy
      • Reduction of redundant infrastructure
      • Centralization of staff services, Finance, HR, Procurement
    • Operational efficiencies
      • Service continuity requires single point of entry to CRMs with navigation to silos of expertise
      • Combined billing, reporting, compliance
    • Strategic “bundled” products/services, and operational efficiencies demand integrated solutions
      • Combining product/services “bundling” as a marketing strategy
      • Client portals, common information shares via pub/sub
      • Integrated security – single-sign-on, federation, role management
    View slide
  • Complexity and Opportunity
    • Tremendous pressures occur when intra-silo integration is attempted
      • Organizational infrastructure and routines are threatened, causing political turmoil
      • Architecture groups are often seen as elite outsiders, removed from “real” issues
      • Methodologies might be different; RUP versus Agile, Test Driven, None
      • Technological approaches differ (Java vs. .NET, Mainframe vs. Server)
    • Analysis of silo-organizations cannot be done from afar
      • Isolated Architecture groups with a corporate mandate often fly too high to see the details, and pick the easiest targets to ensure success
      • Avoiding or generalizing silo complexity leads to problems down the road
      • Solutions become too specific to the most significant silo (revenue, P/L)
      • Required flexibility is often sacrificed
    • All organizations (and silo-organizations) have life-cycles
      • Knowing where a silo-organization is in it’s life-cycle can be critically important
      • Organizations have different characteristics depending on their current life-cycle position
      • Life-cycle position can define culture, organizational power patterns, and level of bureaucracy
  • Complexity and Opportunity
    • Level of Funding Differs
      • Supra-organizational integrative BPM initiatives might not be funded by the Supra-organization
      • Unfunded “mandates” conflict with financial planning in the silo
      • Best if funding is provided by supra organization
    • Supra-Organization ability drive integration initiatives
      • Silo-org “strength” and ability to resist can be significant
      • Standards compliance is not enough; too easily ignored
      • Tying BPM initiatives to “hard dollar” measures is best
      • C-Level executive sponsorship is often necessary
    • Focusing on the largest silo skews perception
      • Assuming the largest silo is the most complex, may be simply the most scalable and therefore the largest
      • Organizational routines may be much simpler in the “scaled” business
    • Pressure to deliver can result in non-optimal results
      • Too many assumptions
      • Simplistic design patterns
      • Insufficient flexibility
  • Analyzing Organizational Silos
    • What exactly is a silo-organization?
      • An organizational silo is defined as a distinct entity, with independent characteristics operating within the larger supra-organization
      • Silo-orgs often have distinct operational routines and management
      • Silo-orgs have their own mission, and often are their own profit/loss and budget centers, they are often ‘divisions’
      • Silo-orgs often have independent technical organizations and infrastructures, particularly where those infrastructures are critical to serving their specific market segment
    • Why do silos exist?
      • A silo organization may serve a specific market segment related or completely separate from other markets serviced by other silos
      • Same is true in non-profit and public sector, areas serviced may be distinct from one another, requiring different skills and routines
      • Regulatory coverage may force separation
      • Acquisitions & organic ‘related’ growth in private sector, administrative combinations in public entities can result in siloed organizations
  • Complexity and Opportunity
  • Analyzing Organizational Silos
    • The supra-organization may be a confederacy of silo-orgs
      • Supra-organization might be operationally weak, and cannot exert enough control to sponsor major integrative initiatives
      • Supra-organization may struggle to gain compliance on initiatives because its seen as irrelevant by silo-orgs
      • “ Holding company” mentality: supra-organization is really a reporting entity, a “roll-up”
    • Largest silo-org may “act” as the supra-organization
      • The “bully effect”; One silo attempts to exert it’s control over others
      • Larger silo’s operational routines and systems may not fit the smaller silos
      • Larger silo-orgs will be less likely to agree to modifications their systems or change their routines
      • Lesser silos build resentment, mistrust, go into defensive posture
  • Analyzing Organizational Silos
    • Silo-orgs often do share some routines, technologies, and features
      • Some computing infrastructure (email, networking, security)
      • Financial roll-up reporting
      • Billing may be fully or partially integrated
      • Executive participation in entity-wide committees
    • However, silo-orgs often operate quite independently
      • Related but separate market requires modified focus
      • Completely unrelated market
      • Related market but regulated distinctly
      • Custom systems and operational routines necessary to provide product/service
      • Client may be defined differently
      • Custom development methodologies, metrics
  • Analyzing Organizational Silos
    • Silo-orgs may service the same client
      • Related products/services from the same enterprise, different silos
      • Service infrastructures are often not integrated, CRMs, CTI
    • Client ownership can be a critical issue
      • Does the supra-organization own the client?
      • Cost may be incurred to “globalize” client ownership
      • Not getting client ownership right confuses clients and highlights non-integration
    • Significant value may be identified by “bundling” services
      • Sum of products/services viewed as greater than components
      • Client retention increases, “stickiness”
      • Lifetime total client value increases
      • One-stop shopping often alluring to clients
      • Unified service model
      • Simplified billing and account management
  • Analyzing Organizational Silos
    • Silos can have distinct cultures
      • Retention of previous organizational identity after acquisition
      • Geographic differences
    • Technological culture
      • Varying technologies, Java vs. .NET, Mainframe vs. server
      • Varying methodologies, RUP vs. Agile, Waterfall, None
    • Operational culture
      • Large custom approach versus “in-box” scaling
      • Relative financial strength and performance
      • Relative political strength
  • Helpful Analysis Techniques
    • Understanding organizational life-cycles
      • Putting the organization “on the couch”
      • Where is the organization on the lifecycle curve?
      • How might our experience differ based on the lifecycle curve?
    • Power dynamics
      • Who has the power and why
      • Targeting the right people and processes
      • Working the informal organization
    • Identifying interests versus positions
      • Why organizational conflict is so common and what to do about it
      • Some key techniques
  • Organizational Lifecycles
    • Adize’s work on organizational lifecycles
      • Ichak Adizes, Ph.D. – “ Managing Corporate Lifecycles ”
      • Every organization has a lifecycle
      • Where the organization is on it’s life-cycle curve defines it’s characteristics and behaviors
    • The organizational lifecycle defined
      • Stages of organizational life:
        • Courtship – early conceptual stages
        • Infancy – organization launched
        • Go-go – early organizational success
        • Adolescence – first signs of trouble
        • Prime – well coordinated efforts
        • The Fall – complacency, rigidity, aristocracy, hubris
  • Organizational Lifecycles From “Managing Corporate Lifecycles”, Ichak Adizes, Ph.D © 1999 Prentiss Hall Inc.
  • Organizational Lifecycles
    • Ascendant qualities in different stages, P,A,E,I
      • Performance
      • Administration
      • Entrepreneurial
      • Integration
    • Stages of organizational life – fatal events:
      • Courtship – affair
      • Infancy, Go-Go – infant mortality
      • Adolescence – founders dilemma
      • Prime – divorce
    • Problems at different lifecycle stages
      • Normal versus Pathological problems
      • Pathological problems lead to “death spiral”
      • Solutions are often structural, and move the organization up the curve if successful
  • Organizational Lifecycles
    • BPM, integration initiatives at different lifecycle stages
      • Adolescent and Prime organizations are most probable targets
      • Go-go organizations might be easiest to get a project buy-in, but continued focus could be an issue
      • Adolescent organizations are the most problematic, power shifts, people versus process issues, inadequate methodology and consistent project management are an issue
      • Prime organizations are best because the balance between PAEI is there by definition.
      • Primes have the right mix of process and execution, and management focus.
    • Pick the right targets
      • In prime organizations, the target is a process. Initiatives will be prioritized in an orderly fashion, and executed on in relation to their priority
      • In an adolescent organization, shifts could occur; sponsorship by a founder may be necessary, but a process may exist as well; cover the bases
      • In a Go-go or infant organization, sponsorship by a founder is necessary, process for prioritizing initiatives will not be mature, or will not be rigorously adhered to
  • Power Dynamics
    • Who has power, authority, responsibility
      • Critical to understand who are the stakeholders and “movers”
      • What kind of power? Expert versus Legitimate power
      • Leaders often exercise legitimate power, but often are experts as well
      • Expert power derives from workable knowledge
      • Legitimate power derives from organizational office and position
    • Organizations early in their lifecycles have tighter power structures
      • Lines of communications are shorter, decisions are made quickly
      • Integration among power-holders is high
      • Power holders are often “founders”
    • Organizations in prime often have more “legitimized” power structures
      • Less individual influence
      • More emphasis on process
    • Adolescent organizations shift between legitimized and expert power structures
      • Requires more effort to achieve buy-in
      • Process may exist, but powerful individuals may disparage it
  • Power Dynamics
    • Informal organizations
      • Learning to identify the “informal organization” can be a key to success
      • Usually consists of 2-5 powerful individuals who decide what gets done
      • This structure is usually operative in adolescent organizations, but may also be found in prime ones, though less frequently
      • Members are often the “founders”
      • Informal organizations often operate independently of defined processes and can sanction or stop initiatives
  • Interests versus Positions
    • Integrative initiatives will often run into initial resistance
      • Arguing starts with statements of why integration won’t work
      • Unique nature of the silo-org is frequently stated as a reason to avoid integration
      • These are “positions” that are prepared and defended
      • Positions are a form of “offensive defense”, meant to frustrate and defer outsiders
    • Focusing on common interests
      • Bringing the conversation to a higher-plane is often necessary
      • Focus on client-value of integration
      • Overall supra-organization goals like stock price, which is not tied directly to silo-orgs, but is likely a benefit for them
      • Distributive versus collaborative negotiation techniques
        • Long term relationships
        • Shared supra-goals
        • Assure silo-orgs existence
        • Affirm need to cooperate
  • Summary
    • Integrative BPM initiatives will become more complex
    • Integrative solutions yield key advantages to organizations and their clients
    • Understanding the nature of silo-organizations is essential
    • Analyzing the organization’s position in their corporate life-cycle can assist in understanding organizational dynamics
    • Understanding power dynamics and positions versus interests help prepare architects, project managers for conflict arising from integration initiatives
    • Together, these techniques can form a powerful analytical heuristic for dealing with the “soft-side” of complex BPM initiatives
  • Thank You!
    • Tom Valva
    • Sr. Director, Internet & Infrastructure
    • ADP, Inc. Retirement Services
    • Contact Information:
    • 973-712-2450
    • [email_address]