SIMposium 2013, November 10 12, 2013 • Sheraton
(c) 2013 SIM International, Leon Kappelman, PhD,-Primary InvestigatorBosto...
SIM Enterprise Architecture Working Group - SIMEAWG
Leon Kappelman
L
K
l
Professor of IT, University of North Texas
Alex P...
Bottom line – Remember this:
Business-IT Alignment is a p
g
partnership with at least two critical
p
dimensions: (1) Get A...
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•

The “Problem” of IT Alignment with the Business
What is the Essence of the Problem?
SIMEAWG Survey Resul...
SIM’s IT Trends Survey
Top IT Management Concerns 2004-2013
2004 2013
Organization’s Top IT Management
Concerns/Issues

20...
The Problem of Alignment
g
 Alignment of IT with the Business consistently
at the top of the list of IT executives’ key
c...
The Problem of Alignment (part 2)
g
(p
)
 Three issues are at the root cause of this problem:
1. Communicating effectivel...
The Cost of an Error

(Hay, 2003)
ISDLC
Strategic
Planning

$5

Requirements
Analysis

$20

Design

$100

KNOWING

$1

Con...
y
( q
)
Why Focus on the Essence (requirements)?
No matter how perfect the technology you deliver or how
deliver,
well you...
Two Types of Requirements Activities (RA)?
SIM EA Working Group Study
We separately measured both SA&D (RA in small) & EA ...
y
p
g
SIMEAWG Survey Results: ISD Improving
 Latest survey conducted in Fall 2012
 ISD (Information Services Development...
q
p
p
g
Results: Requirements Capabilities Improving
SA&D capabilities improved since ‘07 [accident, small]
Means of self-...
p
Results: EA Capabilities are Less Mature
EA capabilities are less mature than SA&D [essence, large]
2012
Question
Number...
y
g
Summary of SIMEAWG’s Research Findings
 ISD capabilities maturing
 SA&D and EA capabilities can be separately measur...
SIM’s IT Trends Survey
Top IT Management Concerns 2004-2013
2004 2013
Organization’s Top IT Management
Concerns/Issues

20...
A 3rd Dimension to the Alignment Problem?
The P bl
Th Problem of Alignment ( t 3?)
f Ali
t (part
 SIMEAWG study data show...
Discussion: What Should Be Done
 Align requirements activities with business objectives
•K
Know they will change: D i and...
Are we really aligning requirements with
business objectives?
For each context (SA&D and EA), my organization’s requiremen...
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 ...
Bottom line – Remember this:
Business-IT Alignment is a p
g
partnership with at least two critical
p
dimensions: (1) Get A...
Conclusion

Thank You!
Questions?
Q
ti
?
Discussion?

SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA

21
pp
Appendix 1
Self Reported
Self-Reported CMM Responses
Survey Year

CMM L
Level
l

1996

2007

2012

Level 1 (Initial/Cha...
pp
Appendix 2
Specific ISD capabilities generally improving too [accident]
Software Development C
S f
Capabilities: 200 & ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Business-IT Alignment: Getting IT AND Keeping IT - Kappelman & Pettit

1,499 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,499
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
96
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Business-IT Alignment: Getting IT AND Keeping IT - Kappelman & Pettit

  1. 1. SIMposium 2013, November 10 12, 2013 • Sheraton (c) 2013 SIM International, Leon Kappelman, PhD,-Primary InvestigatorBoston, MA
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 21. Conclusion Thank You! Questions? Q ti ? Discussion? SIMposium 2013, November 10 - 12, 2013 • Sheraton Boston, MA 21
  22. 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. 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

×