Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Practical Goal Modeling for Enterprise Change
Context: A Problem Statement
Sagar Sunkle, Hemant Rathod, and Vinay Kulkarni
Motivation
Business Change Drivers
1. Cost reduction/revenue increment
2. Mergers/acquisitions/divestitures
3. New regulat...
Motivation
• Effective and efficient response requires coordinated
treatment of what, how, and why
Business Change Drivers...
GORE Techniques
• Examples- KAOS, GBRAM, i*, Tropos, GRL
• Advantages:
– Enable representation of stakeholder goals, relat...
SR+SD For All M&A Problems under Consideration
Products and
Services
Rationalization
Branch
Consolidation
Workforce
Integr...
Practical Exemplar Details
SR+SD For All M&A Problems under Consideration
Products and
Services
Rationalization
Branch
Con...
Observation I- Goals in Organizational Hierarchy
What to Model
Top
management
Middle
management
Operations
Strategic
Goals...
Observation II- Ownership of and Contributions to Goals
CFO
BU
Head(s)
FAs
SR
SD
Rationalize
portfolio
CIO
COO
AIT
CIO’s
R...
Observation III- Distinguishing Current Goals from Future Goals
• Organizations exist, specific units and roles are doing ...
Observation III- Assumptions and Course Corrections
What to Model
• Merger change initiative for 5 years
• In retrospect, ...
Observation IV- Who Models the Goals and how to Keep Track?
Who Models Goals?
• Who/where are the domain experts?
• For pr...
Conclusion
• To make GORE techniques practically applicable-
– Intuitive and useful but require further research in severa...
Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Practical Goal Modeling for Enterprise Change Context: A Problem Statement

495 views

Published on

Modern enterprise need to rapidly respond to changes. Goal modeling techniques are intuitive mechanisms that help in modeling and analyzing rationale behind enterprise's response to change. In spite of their intuitiveness, there are several challenges that need to be addressed for their practical adoption and application. We present a problem statement based on real world case study and possible ways in which these challenges can be addressed.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Practical Goal Modeling for Enterprise Change Context: A Problem Statement

  1. 1. Practical Goal Modeling for Enterprise Change Context: A Problem Statement Sagar Sunkle, Hemant Rathod, and Vinay Kulkarni
  2. 2. Motivation Business Change Drivers 1. Cost reduction/revenue increment 2. Mergers/acquisitions/divestitures 3. New regulations 4. Audit findings Changes due to Business Drivers 1. Process changes 2. Product offerings 3. New functionality needs 4. New data needs Technology Drivers 1. Vendor-driven upgrades 2. Technology consolidation mandates 3. Mobile/cloud presence Changes due toTechnology Drivers 1. Process changes 2. Product offerings 3. New functionality needs 4. New data needs • Multiple change drivers in enterprise context Enterprise
  3. 3. Motivation • Effective and efficient response requires coordinated treatment of what, how, and why Business Change Drivers 1. Cost reduction/revenue increment 2. Mergers/acquisitions/divestitures 3. New regulations 4. Audit findings Changes due to Business Drivers 1. Process changes 2. Product offerings 3. New functionality needs 4. New data needs Technology Drivers 1. Vendor-driven upgrades 2. Technology consolidation mandates 3. Mobile/cloud presence Changes due toTechnology Drivers 1. Process changes 2. Product offerings 3. New functionality needs 4. New data needs Enterprise
  4. 4. GORE Techniques • Examples- KAOS, GBRAM, i*, Tropos, GRL • Advantages: – Enable representation of stakeholder goals, relationships to other goals, alternate ways to achieve them, and consequences of choosing specific alternatives – Analyze satisfaction or denial of goals- what-if or bottom-up analysis and if- what or top-down analysis – Other analyses- ability, workability, viability related with a course of action to achieve goals, criticality of depending on network of actors for achieving a goal and so on – Initial applications of planning (best sequence of actions leading to achievement of goals), simulation (goal achievement over time), and more… • Key issue is- while intuitive and clearly useful, how to practically apply GORE techniques?
  5. 5. SR+SD For All M&A Problems under Consideration Products and Services Rationalization Branch Consolidation Workforce Integration Application Rationalization Data Migration Capacity Enhancement Business Layer Application Layer Infrastructure Layer • Merger of Two Wealth Management Banks – Real world engagement for our organization – Merger as a change driver – Could we capture rationale of merger, and subsequent integration, albeit in retrospect – Use i* – Large problem, broken down into multiple sub-problems – One key strategic goal in solving each sub-problem – Set of rationale and dependency models for each problem Practical Exemplar Details
  6. 6. Practical Exemplar Details SR+SD For All M&A Problems under Consideration Products and Services Rationalization Branch Consolidation Workforce Integration Application Rationalization Data Migration Capacity Enhancement Business Layer Application Layer Infrastructure Layer • Restricting to 3 or 4 actors [mainly at the top level of org hierarchy with only representative actors at operational levels] • Several gotchas upfront- – How to represent two organizations themselves that merged; how to differentiate actors from either organization? what about the merged entity? – How to capture external drivers like market condition that led to merger? – How to represent inside and outside of organization- essentially self + environment? – Main problem divided into 6 sub-problems; how to put best alternatives together as an optimum solution to merger? – Merger initiative for 5 years- how to represent course of actions over this duration-If we really want to use Why models!! – Merger is often driven by existing context and ongoing goals- how to represent merger goals as not being detrimental to existing goals? • Several hacks applied- modeling effort led to following observations
  7. 7. Observation I- Goals in Organizational Hierarchy What to Model Top management Middle management Operations Strategic Goals Unit Goals Unit Execution Operational Execution Actors from different levels of organization hierarchy Strategy Modeling and Execution in Practice Strategy Modeling with Intentional Modeling • Actor/agent orientation quickly identifies involved roles but the ensuing model far from reality- mainly because: – Identified roles were at arbitrary levels in organizational hierarchy- no guidelines on who to really include and where to stop – Tough to separate out dependencies from delegation – Roles belong to specific units- this context is often lost; should there be unit-specific rationale and dependency models? Is a specific unit an actor?
  8. 8. Observation II- Ownership of and Contributions to Goals CFO BU Head(s) FAs SR SD Rationalize portfolio CIO COO AIT CIO’s Responsibility CIO’s Contribution Rationalize Application portfolio Application Rationalization Products and Services Rationalization What to Model • Due to breaking down of large problem, several roles/actors owning as well as contributing to several goals – Do courses of action for owned and contributed goals affect each other? If they do, how to model this situation? How to evaluate it? – Particularly when sub-problems are part of larger problem
  9. 9. Observation III- Distinguishing Current Goals from Future Goals • Organizations exist, specific units and roles are doing whatever is required to achieve ongoing goals- business as usual (AS-IS or BAU) goals • Merger is one change driver • What about other concomitant change drivers? Regulatory compliance for one- organizations in the exemplar are banks with presence in multiple geographies • Existence of several change drivers is the norm • Must distinguish goals in response to change drivers (transformation goals) from BAU goals – BAU goals in fact need to be prioritized- often the reason for merger failure is not taking into consideration the context of BAU goals when adopting merger goals – How to ensure that actions for transformation goals do not jeopardize BAU goals? – How to distinguish goals resulting from different change drivers? How to balance them or model tradeoff? What does it mean to balance them? • This apart from several realities of real world: uncertainty within and in environment of organizations, negotiations-again quite prominent in merger context- to name a few What to Model
  10. 10. Observation III- Assumptions and Course Corrections What to Model • Merger change initiative for 5 years • In retrospect, over the duration of 5 years, several assumptions changed- there were several course corrections • What changes between courses of actions when assumptions change? • How to make use of knowledge that certain assumption(s) led to wrong/sub- optimal course of action?
  11. 11. Observation IV- Who Models the Goals and how to Keep Track? Who Models Goals? • Who/where are the domain experts? • For practical use, do we need to enable several modelers with knowledge of GORE techniques? • Will CXOs help in defining the goals- ideally they should but in reality many difficulties • Adoption is difficult in general – The results of using GORE models will show after time- how to convince anyone to help modeling goals? – How to keep track of all the modeled goals and synchronize suggested and real courses of action? – How to create modeling and operationalization infrastructure suitable for entire duration of change initiative? How to Apply the Models?
  12. 12. Conclusion • To make GORE techniques practically applicable- – Intuitive and useful but require further research in several dimensions – Ongoing modeling efforts for large case study revealed some of these; possibly more- depending on specifics of change drivers in enterprise context
  13. 13. Questions?

×