Enterprise Architecture Summer School presentation about the difference between orthodox theories about organisational changes, scientific mangement and transformations and then an approach based on process theory, sociology of human and non-human actors and complexity science.

1. Architecting the Enterprise
Doctor of Management
(Ph.D) Mikkel H Brahm
Head of Personal Banking
& One Digital
Architecture | Nordea
Slides available at SlideShare
https://www.slideshare.net/mikkelbrahm
Doctoral (PhD) Thesis available at UH
Seeking to Control Enterprise with Architecture
the limits and value of an engineering approach
from the perspective of an Enterprise Architect
http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/17596

2. There is a difference between Theory and Practice
2
We favour Theories that are easy to explain / sell / trust…
… over those that are Correct but Difficult to Apply

3. 3. AS-IS MODEL 2. TO-BE MODEL
0. AS-IS REALITY 1. TO-BE REALITY
4. GAPS
• A
• B
• C
5. ROAD MAP
A B C
Orthodox / commonly used Theory is easy to Apply
The objectives of transformational changes are rarely achieved fully
Not everything that counts can be counted
( & modelled ) =>
list of gaps is typically incomplete
Our organization / markets may
not be able or willing to do
their part in closing the gaps
and may do other changes
Our objectives may not be realistic
and may also not be ideal

4. Organization is Process
People are Predictably Unpredictable
Global Patterning emerges Chaotically
Organisation
is a System

5. Mutual interdependence
Enable and Constrain our Actions
Leaders are in Charge
Leaders
have Control

6. People have Secret Desires
and Public Agendas
Web of Intentionality is in Flux
Organization
has Goals

7. Builders build Buildings
Occupants build Homes
Architects build Alliances (with Respect & Trust)
Architects
build Buildings

8. We can only have Partial Knowledge
of that which is in Process of Becoming
which is Politics (and War)
More Modelling
is More

9. Deferred Decision Making
Partial Knowledge

10. Selective Strict Models,
Models as Sketch, Rich Pictures & Text,
and Gemba (Direct Observation)
Frameworks:
Too much &
Insufficient

11. Respect Boundaries,
Choose “when to Play and Pass”,
and form “Coalition of the Willing”
Public and Hidden
Transcripts

12. Iterative Delivery Cadence,
and Continuous Learning
Ambitions
may be Unrealistic

13. Reflective and Reflexive
Practice
Leaders
are not in Control

14. In relation to others,
you are who they see you as
Recognition
Architects who have struggled to achieve practical proficiency without an education
have not been able to achieve recognition commensurate with their efforts;
by contrast, those who have relied only on theory and book-learning
were evidently chasing shadows rather than reality.
But those who have mastered both, like men supplied with all the necessary weapons,
have achieved recognition and fulfilled their ambitions more quickly.
Vitruvius ~50BC
Owner Builder
Architect
Scientific
explanation
Practical
know-how

15. How able?
How willing?
How fragile?
Charter / Terms of Reference
Personal and Corporate Branding
Networking and Alliance building
Perception of Person and Role
Mandate to Act and Decide
Access to Stakeholders
Training
Teambuilding
Reflectivity and Reflexivity
Architect
Architecture
Situation Levers
Politicking and Power Base
Practice

16. Culture eats Strategy and Execution eats Visions for breakfast
Summary: Architects who want Transformational Success must master Politics & Corrective Actions
https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/magic-quadrants-research 16
Completeness
of Vision
Architectural
Targets
Ability
to Execute
Architectural
Governance
How will new non-human actors
change our organisation?
Who must be willing and able
to change for that to succeed?
Who must you ally with
to execute successfully?
Did I trust the right people?
Are we able and willing?
Which plans come to fruition?
What unplanned happens?
How should we adjust?