sharing insights on innovation in established organisations
Take a minute to think about your latest change project. Did you achieve the goals of the project? Can you actually, honestly tell? If not, you’re not alone. Most projects fail to specify concrete, falsifiable goals. Goals that allow you to check whether you have achieved them or not.
Why is this, and how can we improve?
Often, the trigger for new projects consists of ideas at two levels: very generic and very specific. For example:
- Generic: “We need to improve customer experience.”
- Specific: “We should let customers enter their personal data online before their visit to our branch office.”
Both levels are relevant. Both contain useful information. But something is missing: the link between them. Luckily, the BA is in the perfect position to make that link visible.
It’s been already two weeks after the end of the 2015 edition of the European Business Analysis Conference, but it still feels like yesterday. I’ve finally come around to write up some of the things that stick with me (a good trigger to revive my blog :)). Only some of the things, though: there were plenty other inspiring moments and ideas. But here’s a small sample to give you a taste.
Back home after an inspiring and entertaining co-located EA conference & BPM conference. There was way too much going on to wrap it up in a short blog post, but here are some themes that stick with me after the talks and informal discussions.
Roger L. Martin‘s recent HBR article on adaptive (= reactive) strategy vs proactive strategy got me thinking.
In his article, he disagrees with the VUCA driven school of thought that claims that, due to the increased volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity in today’s world (hence VUCA), strategy is now fast reaction thinking. People that regard strategy as planning are likely to take this approach. However, as Roger also explains in his book, strategy is not about planning. It’s about making difficult choices and organising your company around these choices.
Always inspiring, a seminar by Chris Potts. So I was keen on joining this evening’s EA Café about linking enterprise architecture to enterprise investment. If you haven’t read his books or participated in one of his workshops, I strongly encourage you to do so. Here are some things and questions that stuck with me today.
[Cross-post from the Dutch version for AE.]
The twentieth BAEA Café was once again very inspiring. Koen Knaepen, known from the COSTA model, talked about how your approach to modelling may help or impede business architecture from improving an enterprise. Tom Graves (twitter, blog, Café slides) moved enterprise architecture’s focus away from IT and towards people.
Some take aways from this seminar:
Gartner says by 2016, 70 percent of the most profitable companies will manage their business processes using real-time predictive analytics or extreme collaboration. By making processes “aware” of a wide range of work interactions and their context, these processes can dynamically change their behavior through a feedback loop.
Looking at the clients I have recently worked with, I can see examples where process execution can benefit from such real-time analytics. For example, in the postal sector, the sorting and transporting activities could become more efficient when they are dynamically optimised for the current flow of incoming mail items. This may even improve the customer service and experience: as the logistic process becomes more dynamic, there is less need for planning, which increases the customer’s flexibility. Business process managers and architects should thus assess the trade-of between cost efficiency and customer experience.
IBM misjudged the real impact of desktop computing.
Microsoft repeatedly entered the networking era (too ?) late.
Disney saw 3D animation, turned the other way but in the end had to admit its mistake.
Google+ is live for about a month now, and after the initial set of invites and follows going back and forward, it has been disapointingly silent in my circles. That may be because in Belgium, people typically catch on only slowly when it comes to online stuff, or because I just don’t have enough friends. Whatever the reason, I don’t believe Google+ has what it takes to outperform Facebook when it comes to informal online communication. And I don’t think it should try to.