Aligning IT with the business is about knowing your customer, the business. In IT we call this "knowing their requirements." Based on research sponsored by the Society for Information Management's Enterprise Architecture Working Group, this presentation provides performance measures to determine and improve your capabilities to do Requirements Analysis: specifically to assess your capabilities to effectively do Systems Analysis and Design and Enterprise Architecture. A software development capabilities measure is also provided.

1. SIMposium 2013, November 10 12, 2013 • Sheraton
(c) 2013 SIM International, Leon Kappelman, PhD,-Primary InvestigatorBoston, MA

2. SIM Enterprise Architecture Working Group - SIMEAWG
Leon Kappelman
L
K
l
Professor of IT, University of North Texas
Alex Pettit
Chief information Officer, State of Oklahoma
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
2
(c) 2013 SIM International, Leon Kappelman, Primary Investigator

3. Bottom line – Remember this:
Business-IT Alignment is a p
g
partnership with at least two critical
p
dimensions: (1) Get Aligned and (2) Stay Aligned
To achieve business-IT alignment you must:
business IT
1) KNOW the business’ requirements (from strategy to technical minutia)
2) DO - Deliver systems that meet the requirements and are agile
(quickly and cost-effectively adaptable)
3) ADAPT – Change quickly and cheaply [depends on 1&2]]
C a ge qu c y a d c eap y [depe ds o &
• Keep knowing the requirements! The business is constantly changing, so its
requirements are too => Agile/adaptable requirements
• Adapt the systems accordingly => Agile/adaptable systems
4) ???
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
11/12/2013
3

4. Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
The “Problem” of IT Alignment with the Business
What is the Essence of the Problem?
SIMEAWG Survey Results
Improve Your Ability to Get and Stay Aligned
I
Y
Abilit t G t d St Ali
d
Questions? Discussion?
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
4

5. SIM’s IT Trends Survey
Top IT Management Concerns 2004-2013
2004 2013
Organization’s Top IT Management
Concerns/Issues
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Aligning IT with Business
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
Business Agility
Business Productivity
Business Cost Reduction & Controls
2
3
2
2
3
13
17
7
3
1
4
1
1
7
4
4
Combined with “Business Productivity” in prior years
IT Cost Reduction & Controls
5
5
Time To Market / Velocity Of Change
6
Combined with “Business Agility” in prior years
Security
7
9
IT Service Delivery
8
New
IT Efficiency
y
9
Revenue Generating IT Innovations
10
10
8
5
7
1
1
5
4
8
9
9
8
6
3
2
3
10
6
3
6
Previously combined with
IT Reliability”
“IT Reliability
4
9
6
8
17
Most of the Top 10 (1 to 6, 10) are business concerns first.
Nearly all are about the alignment of IT with the business.
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
5

6. The Problem of Alignment
g
 Alignment of IT with the Business consistently
at the top of the list of IT executives’ key
concerns:
o Other priorities, technologies, issues come and go
o For almost four decades “practitioners, academics,
consultants and research organizations have identified
“attaining li
“ tt i i alignment between IT and businesses as a
tb t
db i
pervasive problem” (Luftman & Kempaiah, MISQE Sep 2007)
o E
Essence (knowing) vs. A id t (d i ) - Brooks
(k
i )
Accidents (doing)
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA

7. The Problem of Alignment (part 2)
g
(p
)
 Three issues are at the root cause of this problem:
1. Communicating effectively enough to partner with the business.
We call this “requirements g
q
gathering” or “requirements
g
q
engineering”, but service-oriented professionals call this “knowing
your customer and their needs.” Essence = Knowing
2. Building the
2 B ildi th IT solution in such a way that it is adaptable and agile
l ti i
h
th t i d t bl
d il
enough to stay aligned with the ever-changing organization of
which it is a part. This is the result of effective architecture and
engineering. Accident = Doing
3. Performance measurement and incentives: People do what you
inspect,
inspect not what you expect Measuring the results affects the
expect.
results,
results. (“Hawthorne Effect” & “Heizenberg uncertainty principle”)
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
7
7
11/12/2013

8. The Cost of an Error
(Hay, 2003)
ISDLC
Strategic
Planning
$5
Requirements
Analysis
$20
Design
$100
KNOWING
$1
Construction
PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS
READY, AIM
DOING
BUILD & RUN
EXECUTION
Essence
Accident
$500
Transition
$1000
Production
FIRE!
Both are essential. Focus of
SIMEAWG and this research is essence
essence.
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
8

9. y
( q
)
Why Focus on the Essence (requirements)?
No matter how perfect the technology you deliver or how
deliver,
well you managed the project, if you fail to build a system
that actually meets the users’ requirements, then you fail.
“The hardest single part of building a software system is deciding
precisely what to build. No other part of the conceptual work is as
difficult…. No other part of the work so cripples the resulting system
if done wrong. No other part is more difficult to rectify later. The
most important function that the software builder performs for the
client is the iterative extraction and refinement of the product
requirements.” – Fred Brooks (1986)
“Delivering the wrong software is often worse than delivering no
software at all.” (Gerush 2010)
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
11/12/2013
9
9

10. Two Types of Requirements Activities (RA)?
SIM EA Working Group Study
We separately measured both SA&D (RA in small) & EA (RA in large)
1. Systems Analysis & Design (SA&D) focuses on parts of organization:
• Primary concern is optimizing a part of the enterprise, e.g., a specific software
system, application, organizational process, activity, f
t
li ti
i ti
l
ti it function, or di i i
ti
division.
• SA&D typically involves the application of software and hardware to the business.
2. Enterprise Architecture (EA) is concerned with whole organization:
p
( )
g
•
•
•
•
Primary concern is optimizing the whole of the enterprise.
How all the software systems, applications, hardware and networks fit together.
How the IT assets and the rest of the organization work together interdependently.
An EA includes and serves as the holistic context for SA&D.
   We did it!! They are different!!   
“If you are only trying to write a program, you don't need Enterprise
Architecture.… However, if you are trying to create … an Enterprise, ... now
you are going t h
i to have t h
to have A hit t
Architecture.” – J h A Z h
” John A. Zachman (1997)
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
10

11. y
p
g
SIMEAWG Survey Results: ISD Improving
 Latest survey conducted in Fall 2012
 ISD (Information Services Development) Capabilities steadily
improving since 1996 [accident]
 Self Reported CMMI Maturity Levels
100%
90%
80%
70%
Level 3
60%
50%
Level 2
40%
Level 1
30%
20%
10%
0%
1996
2007
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
2012
11

12. q
p
p
g
Results: Requirements Capabilities Improving
SA&D capabilities improved since ‘07 [accident, small]
Means of self-reported requirements capabilities: 2007 & 2012 studies compared
2012
My organizations requirements capabilities
2007
2012
Percent
Change
are measured
are benchmarked against other organizations
are aligned with the organization’s objectives
organization s
are highly disciplined
are valued by non-IT leadership
have non-IT leadership buy-in and support
are characterized by effective communication between stakeholders
and the requirements team
describe our present ‘as-is’ or current environment
describe our ‘to be or desired environment
to be’
improve our ability to manage risk
contribute directly to the goals and objectives of our business plan
are well prioritized by non-IT leadership
have IT leadership buy-in and support
2.99
2.36
3.90
3 90
3.00
3.34
3.57
3.00
2.56
4.01
4 01
3.07
3.58
3.37
0.3%
8.4%
2.8%
2 8%
2.3%
7.2%
-5.6%
3.21
3.52
3.60
3 60
3.61
3.78
3.34
4.18
3.65
3.61
3.64
3 64
3.75
3.98
3.99
4.29
13.7%
2.6%
1.1%
1 1%
3.9%
5.3%
18.0%
2.6%
Overall Means (average of the question means)
3.42
3.58
4.7%
Question
and practices …
Number
7a
7b
7c
7d
7e
7f
7g
7h
7i
7l
7m
7n
7p
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
12

13. p
Results: EA Capabilities are Less Mature
EA capabilities are less mature than SA&D [essence, large]
2012
Question
Number
7a/8a
7b/8b
7c/8c
7d/8d
7e/8e
7f/8f
7g/8g
7h/8h
7i/8i
7l/8l
7m/8m
7n/8n
7p/8p
My organizations requirements capabilities and practices …
are measured
are benchmarked against other organizations
are aligned with the organization’s objectives
are highly disciplined
are valued by non-IT leadership
have non-IT leadership buy-in and support
are characterized by effective communication between
stakeholders and the requirements team
describe our present ‘as-is’ or current environment
describe our ‘to be’ or desired environment
improve our ability to manage risk
contribute directly to the goals & objectives of our business plan
are well prioritized by non-IT leadership
have IT leadership buy in and support
buy-in
Overall Means (average of the question means)
Q #7
2012
SA&D
Q #8
2012
EA
Percent
Difference
3.00
2.56
4.01
3.07
3.58
3.37
2.61
2.38
3.53
2.73
2.81
3.01
14.94%
7.56%
13.60%
12.45%
27.40%
11.96%
3.65
3.61
3.64
3.75
3.98
3.99
4.29
4 29
3.08
3.33
3.29
3.45
3.48
2.62
3.87
3 87
18.51%
8.41%
10.64%
8.70%
14.37%
52.29%
10.85%
10 85%
3.58
3.09
15.90%
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
13

14. y
g
Summary of SIMEAWG’s Research Findings
 ISD capabilities maturing
 SA&D and EA capabilities can be separately measured
– this is huge!
 SA&D capabilities maturing
 SA&D capabilities more mature than EA capabilities
 We’re better at accident (ISD) than essence (SA&D)
 EA capabilities are weakest of all
o This is key to the agility and adaptability of what we build/buy
o This is key to staying aligned
 Does this mean the alignment problem is being solved?
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
14

15. SIM’s IT Trends Survey
Top IT Management Concerns 2004-2013
2004 2013
Organization’s Top IT Management
Concerns/Issues
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Aligning IT with Business
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
Business Agility
Business Productivity
Business Cost Reduction & Controls
2
3
2
2
3
13
17
7
3
1
4
1
1
7
4
4
Combined with “Business Productivity” in prior years
IT Cost Reduction & Controls
5
5
Time To Market / Velocity Of Change
6
Combined with “Business Agility” in prior years
Security
7
9
IT Service Delivery
8
New
IT Efficiency
y
9
Revenue Generating IT Innovations
10
1
5
NOT ACCORDING
TO THE DATA
10
8
5
7
1
4
8
9
9
8
6
3
2
3
10
6
3
6
Previously combined with
IT Reliability”
“IT Reliability
4
9
6
8
17
Most of the Top 10 (1 to 6, 10) are business concerns first.
Nearly all are about the alignment of IT with the business.
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
15

16. A 3rd Dimension to the Alignment Problem?
The P bl
Th Problem of Alignment ( t 3?)
f Ali
t (part
 SIMEAWG study data shows almost no use of performance measures for
y
p
S&AD or EA activities – a sign of immaturity
 IT understands the business objectives (SIM IT Trends Key Issues 2013)
2.
2
3.
4.
5.
5
Business A ilit
B i
Agility
Business Productivity
Business Cost Reduction
IT Cost Reduction
 But IT is measured by IT objectives (SIM IT Trends CIO’s Concerns 2013):
These get CIOs fired, not IT-Business Alignment
IT Business
2.
3.
4.
5.
Security
Skill/Talent Shortage
Extended Services Outages (
g (Disaster/Recovery)
y)
Implementation Failures (Project Prioritization)
 Is this a sign that IT-Business Alignment capabilities are also immature?
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
16

17. Discussion: What Should Be Done
 Align requirements activities with business objectives
•K
Know they will change: D i and b ild t accommodate change.
th
ill h
Design d build to
d t h
• Ideally, one set of requirements artifacts [digital and integrated]: The
“architecture of the enterprise” is the holistic set of artifacts describing an
enterprise o er time incl ding the strateg objecti es b siness entities
over time, including
strategy, objectives, business entities,
technologies, procedures, business rules, purpose, jobs and positions,
processes, timings, policies, and data model(s).
 Design/build/buy for change – adaptability and agility
• ‘SA&D’ is about describing the parts
• ‘EA’ is about describing how all those parts fit together in an overall, enterprisewide context.
id
t t
 Align incentives with business objectives
• On-Time and On-Budget but built to an out-of-context requirement does not
g
q
lead to alignment or help you stay aligned.
• The road to hell may be paved with good requirements. Requirements must fit
to architecture, if agility and adaptability and staying aligned matter.
• This is the essence of what we as IT professionals do!!
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
17

18. Are we really aligning requirements with
business objectives?
For each context (SA&D and EA), my organization’s requirements,
capabilities, and practices are viewed strictly as an IT initiative.
30.5%
20.8%
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
18

19. p
g
y
y g
Improving Your Ability to Get & Stay Aligned
 Practices a e improving, but more needs to be do e
act ces are p o g,
o e eeds
done
 Build your strengths, strengthen your weakness
• Assess and improve requirements practices and capabilities
• Learn from and incorporate the organization’s stovepipes of EArelated knowledge (e.g., strategy, continuity plans, HR, DRPs,
cybersecurity, audit
cybersecurity audit, policies & rules data etc ) into the requirements
rules, data, etc.)
repository (i.e., the SA&D and EA knowledge base)
 Never forget that Internal IT is a not-for-profit services
g
p
organization that should:
• Help the value creators create value through innovation
• Enhance business collaboration
• Help management see/understand what was/is happening and the
implications of specific actions so they can make better decisions and
use of resources
f
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
19

20. Bottom line – Remember this:
Business-IT Alignment is a p
g
partnership with at least two critical
p
dimensions: (1) Get Aligned and (2) Stay Aligned
To achieve business-IT alignment you must:
g
y
1) KNOW the business’ requirements (from strategy to technical minutia)
2) DO - Deliver systems that meet the requirements and are agile
(quickly and cost-effectively adaptable)
3) ADAPT – Change quickly and cheaply [depends on 1&2]
• Keep knowing the requirements! The business is constantly changing, so its
requirements are too => Agile/adaptable requirements
• Adapt the systems accordingly => Agile/adaptable systems
p
y
gy
g /
p
y
4) METRICS & INCENTIVES matter a great deal – you get what
you measure, you get what you pay for.
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
11/12/2013
20 20

21. Conclusion
Thank You!
Questions?
Q
ti
?
Discussion?
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
21

22. pp
Appendix 1
Self Reported
Self-Reported CMM Responses
Survey Year
CMM L
Level
l
1996
2007
2012
Level 1 (Initial/Chaotic)
50.5%
29.9%
24.4%
Level 2 (Repeatable)
L
l (R
t bl )
18.2%
38.1%
39.5%
Level 3 (Defined)
18.2%
19.6%
25.6%
Level 4 (Managed)
10.1%
10 1%
11.3%
11 3%
8.1%
8 1%
3.0%
1.0%
2.3%
Total 2&3
36.4%
36 4%
57.7%
57 7%
65.1%
65 1%
Total 2,3,&4
46.5%
69.1%
73.3%
Total 2,3,4,&5
, , ,
49 5%
49.5%
70 1%
70.1%
75 6%
75.6%
Level 5 (Optimizing)
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
22

23. pp
Appendix 2
Specific ISD capabilities generally improving too [accident]
Software Development C
S f
Capabilities: 200 & 2012 studies compared
2007
2012
Question
Number
5b-1
5b-2
5b-3
5b-4
5b-5
5b-6
5b-7
5b 7
5b-8
5b-9
5b-10
5b-11
5b-12
For software development and/or maintenance, our IS
department specifies and uses a comprehensive set of
processes and/or procedures for …
establishing stakeholder agreement on requirements
identifying the training needs of IS professionals
establishing quality goals with stakeholders
estimating all resource needs
tracking progress and resource use
software quality assurance
continuous process improvement
coordination and communication among stakeholders
selecting, contracting, tracking and reviewing software
contractors/outsourcers
analyzing problems and preventing reoccurrence
tailoring the process to project specific needs
continuous productivity improvements
2007
2012
3.83
3.42
3.55
3.55
3.82
3.68
3.51
3 51
3.90
3.97
3.29
3.71
3.76
3.83
3.82
3.47
3 47
4.02
Change
From
2007
0.14
-0.13
0.16
0.21
0.01
0.14
-0.04
0 04
0.12
3.83
3.86
0.03
0.8%
3.75
3.76
3.47
3.72
3.91
3.44
-0.03
0.15
-0.03
-0.8%
4.0%
-0.9%
Overall Means (
O
ll M
(mean of th means) 3 67 3 73
f the
) 3.67 3.73
0.06
0 06
1.6%
1 6%
SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA
Percent
Change
3.7%
-3.8%
4.5%
5.9%
0.3%
3.9%
-1.1%
1 1%
3.1%
23