Ariba CMO Tim Minahan on How Networked Economy Benefits Spring From Improved Business Commerce and Cloud Processes

Transcript of a sponsored podcast on the upcoming Ariba LIVE Conference and how the networked economy is enabling business success.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Download the transcript. Sponsor: Ariba. Register for Arive LIVE.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you're listening to BriefingsDirect.

Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion in conjunction with the upcoming Ariba LIVE Conference in Las Vegas, which kicks off April 10, 2012. We're here with Ariba’s Chief Marketing Officer to discuss the networked economy and some of the major developments that Ariba will unveil at LIVE to help companies plug in.

As we consider not only the major business and IT trends of the day -- those being cloud computing, mobile, social, and big data -- we also need to examine the confluence of these developments and how together they impact businesses and business ecosystems.

We need to consider the impacts at a higher abstraction, at the business-process level, but not just inside of companies. We must factor how previously internal processes are now becoming externalized and that we need to do that in a safe and managed way across many enterprises and even service provider partners.

Cloud computing, the force behind a lot of this thinking, has let loose the imagination of businesses to consider anew how to outsource at this business-process level. Mobility advances the thinking of bringing processes to anyone, anywhere, with rich two-way interaction. [Disclosure: Ariba is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Social media is driving more participation by more people into more aspects of commerce, providing in many cases, an explosive viral value to formerly linear or closed workflows. The result is a large-scale rearrangement of the constituent parts of business processes and extended enterprise functions.

The good news is that shaking up the status quo is enabling massive efficiencies with more active market benefits, shared by more participants, as they cooperate and collaborate in entirely new ways.

A large part of this intermingling of shared business processes is enabled by data-driven decisions across advanced business networks, imbuing business decisions with ongoing, real-time visibility and analytics, and making mastery of relationships between buyers and sellers less an art and more of a science.

Register now for the April 10 conference in Las Vegas.

It may not be as romantic as hatching a business plan on a cocktail napkin, but in order to manage the scale, complexity, and required automation of these expansive new business processes, mastery of network processes with control and governance is critical.

Fly by the seat of your pants, manual, and paper-based processes simply can't keep up. As a leader in cloud-based collaborative commerce, Ariba has a unique observation of where this is going, calling it the networked economy.

Networked enterprise

Let's get a better idea of what it means to be a “networked enterprise” and how business networks will drive the future of commerce over the next few years. Let's welcome our guest, Tim Minahan, the Chief Marketing Officer at Ariba. Welcome back to BriefingsDirect, Tim.

Tim Minahan: Hi, Dana. Thanks for having me.

Gardner: Tim, it’s no longer a stretch to say that business is changing more rapidly than ever. Change is not just an exception It’s the norm, and you need to master it. I've been surprised by how dramatically this cloud-computing wave has taken off and has seemingly captured the imagination of business leaders.

How did we get here? What’s the lead up to this interesting position that you're finding yourself with your conference?

Minahan: Absolutely, Dana. You did a great job of summarizing it at the beginning of this podcast. If you look throughout history, step-change advances in productivity and business productivity have been driven by previous changes and enhancements in IT infrastructure, such as in the '80s, where you had the advent of client/server technology, desktop applications. That drove employee productivity some limited degree and allowed them to collaborate with other peers within the company.

And then in the '90s and in the 2000s, the World Wide Web spawned a slew of applications. That automated functional-specific information flows and streamlined processes for specific functions, whether it be human capital management (HCM), finance, and even purchasing, into some limited degree allowed collaboration within the enterprise.

The forces that you mentioned are conspiring with this combination of cloud computing, mobility, and collaboration through communities or social networks. We're experiencing another major shift in IT-generated productivity.

The next wave of productivity is going to allow companies to begin to extend those processes, extend that information, and extend alignment of their processes with their external partners.

Today, the next wave of productivity is going to allow companies to begin to extend those processes, extend that information, and extend alignment of their processes with their external partners, whether they be customers that they want to collaborate with more closely, or suppliers that they want to align with better and drive efficiencies with, or other partners, financial partners, logistics partners, etc., that take part in a process that the company needs to collaborate around.

We think this convergence of companies collaborating more efficiently over extended information networks is one that's going to drive this next wave of productivity.

Gardner: It seems that we're at the culmination of 30 years of IT development and advancement and maybe 100 years of business activities and advancements and they're coming together in this networked economy sense. How lofty a goal is this? Is this something that you think is years out? Is this something that we are going to always see on the horizon, but never attain, or are we on the cusp of actually doing a networked economy marketplace?

Minahan: Think about it. It’s here today. We still may be in our infancy, but you've got to think about what’s happening today. Think about it in your personal lives. That’s probably the best example. The magic of Facebook is not in its clean interface or in its news feed feature. The magic of Facebook is that it has created the world’s largest network of personal connections.

Register now for the April 10 Ariba LIVE conference in Las Vegas.

Similarly, the beauty of Amazon.com is not that it offers the best prices on books. It’s that it offers the world’s largest and most convenient network for personal shopping.

Enterprise phenomenon

This is not just a consumer phenomenon. It’s an enterprise one. More and more businesses are looking beyond the four walls of the enterprise to extend their processes and systems, to connect and collaborate more efficiently with their customers, with their suppliers, and other trading partners, whether they're across the street or around the world.

Gardner: What's fascinating to me about that, Tim, is we had Metcalfe’s Law, where the more participants on a network, the more valuable it becomes. We certainly see that with Facebook. But what’s happening in addition is that the amount of activity that these folks do, the commerce, their actions, their priorities, is all data that could be captured and analyzed, not just data individually, but collectively.

So we're not just getting value from the network on participation. We're getting insights that filters back to how we can conduct business. How important is this notion of captured analytics along the way in this networked environment?

Minahan: It’s absolutely critical. We'll go back to those models. If you look at any of the personal networks that we rely on everyday, whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, Google, Netflix, or Amazon, they have three things in common.

Number one, as you stated earlier, they're in the cloud. These are cloud-based applications. You don’t need to install hardware or custom-configure it. You don’t need to install or manage or maintain software. It is all accessible through a web browser, whether you are in Peoria or Paris.

That gives you an additional level of trust in the purchase decision you're about to make.

The second component, as we just stated, is that all of these are ultimately networks. They are large communities of individuals, and oftentimes companies, that are digitally connected.

Think about Amazon. You don’t think about connecting to each individual merchant. Whether you want to buy a book or a blender, the merchants are all connected for you. You don’t think about settling out with Visa or MasterCard and how to integrate to them. They're all connected in there for you.

And to your last part, you have cloud-based technology, communities, and then capabilities. That's where the intelligence in the community comes in.

Again, think about Amazon. You want to buy something and you get expert opinions on "folks who have bought this product have also bought this product." That's community intelligence that helps you make a more informed decision.

Secondly, you get peer opinions, other participants in the community that rate the product that you are considering buying. That gives you an additional level of trust in the purchase decision you're about to make.

These are the types of things that are only available in a network-based model. These are the types of things that are also available to businesses in a business network-type model.

Behavioral shift

Gardner: Well, we've certainly seen a behavioral shift in people’s adoption, and even enthusiasm for these sorts of activities. We're seeing it in their personal lives. When we now apply this to enterprises, to B2B activities, to commerce, we can find that the processes are uniquely actionable and automated in the cloud, even more so than in an enterprise system of record, which could be fairly brittle.

But we're also seeing -- I think it's fairly unique -- is the ability to adjust on the fly. So we have automation and governance, but we also have exception management. We have a confluence of actionable automation that's governed and managed with insight, but we also can adjust these things on the go. I think that's something also that's fairly new to this networked environment.

Minahan: Absolutely. The power of a network using Metcalfe's Law is that each new member delivers incremental value to every existing member. Part of that is it does allow you as a business to be far more responsive. It allows you to make more informed decisions, as we talked about. You're not just making decisions based on your own input, but you're making decisions based on relationship and transaction history, as well as community opinion of a particular trading partner.

In a networked environment, you can quickly find new peers or partners that can help you execute a process. You can get informed community decision on how that partner or peer has performed in the past, so you can make a educated decision as to when and how to find alternative sources of supply, for example, or find new employees or potential employees that you could be matched with through this network.

Those are the types of things that a network model allows you to do, to make more informed decisions, to be much more responsive, and ultimately, have far greater transparency and visibility into the process.

Ariba is facilitating collaborative business commerce, allowing buyers, sellers, and other parties involved in the commerce process to reach outside their four walls.

Gardner: So we have gone into at least the business level, beyond this notion of individual networks to systems of record and core business functions being networked, being loosely coupled, and therefore part of a larger business process.

Ariba has, I think, some of the critical business functions in its sights to extend further into this networked value. Tell me a little bit about some of the core themes at Ariba LIVE and why networking -- taking advantage of some of these larger trends that we have talked about -- applies to business processes and some of the core business functions that all companies share?

Register now for Ariba LIVE.

Minahan: At the end of the day, Ariba is facilitating collaborative business commerce, allowing buyers, sellers, and other parties involved in the commerce process to reach outside their four walls, to connect their systems and their processes to get greater transparency into that. That's a theme that's carrying through to Ariba LIVE.

Ariba LIVE’s theme will be around this networked enterprise, and how you enable a networked enterprise and what it means for you as a buyer, as a seller, or as a chief financial officer.

Industry leading

When you look across the agenda for Ariba LIVE, it's filled with industry-leading companies that have already embraced this network approach. Whether it's Anglo American, one of the largest mining companies, talking about how they are leveraging a networked model to identify, develop, and collaborate with sources of supply and new suppliers in the most remote regions of the world, driving a sustainable supply chain.

Whether it's Sodexo, one of the largest food-service companies that's creating some innovative ways in which they are using the network to support their highly perishable, fast-churn supply chain, and gain insight, both for them and for their trading partners. Procurement and IT have worked together to develop a networked model that allows them to be highly responsive in a very perishable supply-chain type environment.

Or whether it's GlaxoSmithKline that's leveraging a network-based environment to not only automate its invoicing process, but to help optimize cash flow, both for them and their partners.

In addition, you have a host of other companies, that are driving this network supply chain model.

We have a spotlight keynote that has driven some innovation into the federal sector. The first CIO of the United States, Vivek Kundra, is going to talk about how he developed the Cloud First Policy within the Federal Government.

You have a host of other companies, that are driving this network supply chain model.

That means, not just lowering the TCO of deploying technology to automate existing processes, but creating a new community, a new interface, a new way for the US Federal Government to connect and share information, and big data with their constituents. And that's the type of thing that's going on in the public sector, as well as in the private sector.

Gardner: That's interesting. So we are not going to just talk at the abstraction, we've got people who are putting this into practice, who have metrics of success, that can show how it's done, how this is aiding their businesses, and also supporting their supply chain and sales, marketing, and other ecosystem leveled activity. That's terrific.

Are you going to be on stage again this year, Tim. Are you the MC?

Minahan: I have the honor of being the MC this year, and it is an honor when you look out across the keynotes that we have and see what they've been able to accomplish by adopting this networked model and how it has allowed them to drive not just their supply chain strategy, but their business strategy. We think it's going to be a phenomenal show.

High-profile innovations

In addition to that content, obviously because it is Ariba LIVE, we'll be launching some very interesting and high-profile innovations, as well as partnerships that will help buyers and sellers simplify their commerce process and get more easily connected to their trading partners.

Gardner: So we will see some leading-edge adopters tell the story of what's working for them and how they got there, and some major news and announcements, as well as alliances with more network partners, right? You have to network in order to allow the network to be valuable to your clients?

Minahan: Exactly. And because it's in Las Vegas, there will be a little fun along the way as well. So we are very excited about Ariba LIVE. We encourage any of your audience members that want to attend to register at aribalive.com.

You have to network in order to allow the network to be valuable to your clients.

Gardner: You have been listening to a sponsored podcast discussion in conjunction with the upcoming Ariba LIVE Conference in Las Vegas, the week of April 9. Now, this starts April 10 right, Tim?

Minahan: Yes, it's April 10-12 at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

Gardner: Thanks, I enjoyed exploring some of these concepts around the networked economy.

So thank you to our guest, Tim Minahan, the Chief Marketing Officer at Ariba.

Minahan: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks to you also, our audience, for joining, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Download the transcript. Sponsor: Ariba. Register for Arive LIVE.

Transcript of a sponsored podcast on the upcoming Ariba LIVE Conference and how the networked economy is enabling business success. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2012. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Ariba Dynamic Discounting Gives Companies New Visibility into Cash Flow to Improve the Buying Process
• Ariba, IBM Deal Shows Emerging Prominence of Cloud Ecosystem-Based Collaboration and Commerce
• Ariba Steps Up Cloud Efforts with StartContracts, On-Demand Contract Management for SMBs
• Ariba Live Discussion: How Cloud Alters Landscape for eCommerce, Procurement, and Supply Chain Management
• Cloud-Based Commerce Network Helps Florida Manufacturer MarkMaster Reach New Markets, Streamline Transactions
• Ariba's Jason Kurtz on How IT Financial Trends are Maturing Technology Procurement and Management Needs

Embarcadero Technologies' AppWave Modernizes PC Desktops with App Store Convenience

A sponsored podcast discussion of how enterprise app stores can bridge the gap between software development and improved PC software distribution and maintenance. Learn more about AppWave.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Download the transcript. Get free AppWave download. Sponsor: Embarcadero Technologies.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you're listening to BriefingsDirect.

Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion on the productivity gap between modern software and the aging manner in which most enterprises still distribute and manage applications on personal computers.

At a time when business models and whole industries are being upended by improved use of software, we're also seeing mobility, cloud services, and data analytics. IT providers inside of enterprises are still painstakingly provisioning and maintaining PC applications in much the same way they did in the 1990s.

Furthermore, with using these older models, most enterprises don’t even know what PC apps they have in use on their networks and even across thousands, in many cases, of notebook computers. That means they're also lacking that visibility into how, or even if, these apps are being used, and they may even be paying for licenses that they don’t need to pay for.

So while the software inventory and business service management initiatives are helping along these lines, there's a general lack of control over PC applications. I don’t think you can solve that without including new ways to engage the PC users directly. This is really a function about the use and the users, not just the applications and the PC.

To learn more about how things can be done better, I recently interviewed the President and CEO of Embarcadero Technologies, Wayne Williams, to examine the ongoing problems around archaic PC apps management and how new models -- taking a page from the popular app store model -- can rapidly boost the management of PC applications. [Disclosure: Embarcadero Technologies is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Wayne has more than 15 years of experience in founding and leading companies. He was appointed CEO of Embarcadero Technologies in 2007 and he is a former COO, Senior Vice President of Products and CTO at Embarcadero.

I want to welcome you to BriefingsDirect, Wayne. It’s good to have you with us.

Wayne Williams: Good morning. Thanks for having me, Dana.

Gardner: As I said, it’s kind of ironic that, on one hand, we have software taking over in a larger sense how businesses are run and how industries are being innovative in reaching customers in new ways. This has been highlighted recently by Marc Andreessen in some of his writings. At the same time, the corporate PC, also driven by software, is still sort of stodgy and moribund, at least in the perception of how it’s being used productively.

So let’s unpack this a little bit, Wayne. How is it that software is advancing generally, but PCs remain, in a sense, unchanged?

Williams: I've been asking myself that question for many years. I've spent most of my life in software, and I'm embarrassed to say that the industry has really done a poor job at making software available to the users, which is the fundamental issue.

Windows is clearly the dominant PC platform but it has fundamental design flaws, which sowed the seeds for the problem.

Part of the story

But that’s only a small part of the story. Software vendors are so focused on building the next great application and on features and functions in that application that they've lost sight of what really matters, which is making sure that the application that you build gets used, gets in the hands of the users, and that they get their work done.

When I look at the PC industry and where it has come, the applications themselves have improved dramatically. I can’t imagine being as productive as I am without Microsoft Outlook, for example, for email and calendaring. And Adobe Photoshop. I don’t think you can find a photo anywhere that has not been edited with Photoshop. It’s incredibly powerful.

But unfortunately, a lot of the gains that really could be made have been wasted, because it’s very, very tough to get an application from a vendor into a user's hands.

Gardner: It seems to me that while the technology is somewhat unchanged since the '90s, the users are a different breed nowadays. We have different behaviors and different levels of anticipation and expectation around what productivity is all about. We used to call these productivity apps, but now productivity comes from being able to innovate, self-start, even learn from your peers -- that social fabric type of an interplay.

Are these some of the core problems? We're at a dissonance between expectations and behaviors on one hand and the same old local area network (LAN) level of management on the other.

At the end of the day, all technology is about productivity. Software certainly is about productivity.

Williams: Absolutely. That’s a great point. At the end of the day, all technology is about productivity. Software certainly is about productivity. And if you're going to radically increase the productivity of a team, the knowledge that team can share about what tools are used for what job is critical knowledge. That’s why we’ve built in the ability to rate and review apps into AppWave. Team members can find the best tool for the job based on peer feedback.

Gardner: What about this as it applies to application development and deployment? I know that Embarcadero has been involved with that for an awfully long time. Is there something of a disconnect between development, gathering requirements, creating an application, and then the operations, thinking about operations through that adoption pattern, and user expectation and behaviors?

It seems as if we're still stuck in this era, where there's a wall between the two, but some of the activities that you have been up to strike me as trying to close that, or at least create a feedback loop, or a life cycle benefit, between apps, how they're developed, how they're used, and then how they are iterated on.

Williams: There are a few ways to look at it from a development perspective. One way is that software developers are probably the most aggressive in terms of the need for productivity, the most aggressive users of applications and tools and all the issues that surround that.

At the end of the day, software developers, whether at a garage start-up or one of the large software vendors, are passionate about solving a problem, creating software that solves a problem, and getting it into the hands of their users. That’s what really drives developers.

Important disconnect

The problem is that there's a disconnect between creating your software and getting it into the hands of the users. You very rarely are talking about this happening in seconds, which it should. It’s something that happens more on the order of months or quarters in a large company.

Gardner: I have to imagine that this contributes also to the security problems. So many organizations now are really doubling down on what they need to do for security, recognizing that it’s not something you buy out of a box, that it’s really part and parcel of process, methodology, standards, and governance.

There must be some benefits by closing this loop, as you pointed out, when it comes to bringing better security and then making automated changes that bring even better security on an ongoing basis.

Williams: There's a whole host of problems that emanate from the root problem, the root problem that we're talking about, and security is one of them.

You have an environment which is high-friction. It reminds me really of a state of manufacturing before the Industrial Revolution, where you had processes that were slow, expensive, unpredictable, and error-prone. That’s how PC software has operated over the last 20-plus years.

When you have an environment that is so high friction, users will go around it.

When you have an environment that is so high-friction, users will go around it. So you have this process with the PC, where IT tries to get more control and locks down the environment more, and the business users that need to get the work done find ways to get it done.

We have large customers that have a policy: When somebody is hired, all controls are turned off so that they can get their desktop together and get the apps that they need for the first three days. Then they'll lock it down. That’s not a good environment for security.

Gardner: That’s begging for trouble. You mentioned the core problem or the root problem. I wonder if you wouldn’t mind fleshing that out a bit for us. What do you think the real root problem is here?

Williams: The root problem is that software should move at the speed of light, yet it moves at the speed of a glacier.

Let me give you an example. In a mid- to large-sized company, if an employee is looking for a special pen for a new project, they can go to a catalog, take out a pen, and they can usually have it the next day, and that’s a physical good.

Software is virtual. So it could and should move at the speed of light, but for many of our large customers it takes quarters to get software into the user’s hand.

Looking for productivity

Gardner: So we've identified the problem internally. As I said, it's ironic, because when we look to the larger landscape of business, we're still in a tough economic situation around the globe. People are looking for productivity.

Marc Andreessen wrote recently that software is really revolutionizing how we procure things like entertainment and books and how we discover new products and services online. We can do this as a consumer. Doesn’t it seem almost absurd that, at a time when individuals using some of the tools that are available on a retail basis, are leaps and bounds ahead of someone who is just trying to get some basic work done in a large corporation?

Williams: Yes, you can take a fairly simple device like a smartphone from Apple or an Android device and find and run applications literally in seconds. Yet you have this sophisticated environment with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of software sold every year, powerful hardware and processing power, but it's like pulling teeth for a user to get the applications she or he needs.

Gardner: Wayne, you and I have been around long enough to know that the way to instigate change in an enterprise environment is not necessarily to attempt wholesale radical shifts. You need to work with what's in place and recognize that investments have been made and that those investments are going to continue to be leveraged.

So let's start defining the solution at a high level here. We want the applications that have been developed. We want the interfaces and data that folks are used to to continue to benefit them. But we also want to start energizing this new sense of empowerment that people have through their personal lives and their consumer roles and bring some of these things together.

What I see from our big customers is that for every commercial app that they license they will have 10 that are built internally.

Craft for me, if you could, the vision about retaining what's good about the enterprise and what's been invested in and brought to the daily grind, but at the same time start to bring innovation and allow people to exercise their behaviors and their empowerment.

Williams: As far as what's good and what can be retained, there's a great footprint of hardware out there, PC hardware. A massive investment has been made.

It's the same with software. There are tons of software, both licensed and built internally. And the internal part is really important. What I see from our big customers is that for every commercial app that they license they will have 10 that are built internally. And while there is very little visibility into how commercial licenses are used, there is some, but it's little. And there's zero visibility into who’s using internally built software, for the most part.

There have been massive investments made in software, and unfortunately, a lot of the productivity that could have been realized hasn’t been. But the good news is that it can be.

When I look at the opportunities, it's really two constituents, which you described. You talked about the user for a second and then you talked about the investment and what can be reused, and that’s really management, typically IT management, which is centralized. AppWave is about bringing these two stakeholders together.

Gardner: How can we do that? I'm familiar with what you've been doing with developers. Developers have unique requirements, but it seems like you've gained some insight and some technology in serving their needs in a fast-paced, agile environment, and can now bring that to the larger group of consumers within the enterprise.

Removing friction

Williams: If you look at mobile software, the friction between the user and the app is removed, and the results are fantastic. For us, that was a great proof point, because we started on AppWave before anybody had heard of the Apple App Store.

For PCs, the problem is much more difficult and it's much larger. Mobile software is about a $10 billion industry, and PC is somewhere around $300 billion. So the opportunity for productivity gains and overall results is much, much bigger, and the problem is much more difficult. Now, with AppWave the mobile experience -- find, run, rate, review -- comes to the PC. So the agile enterprise has tools to support it.

Gardner: So bringing that mentality of search, discover, share your experience, ease of access when you want to then act on that kind of information, almost instant gratification when the app comes down, being able to run it, and then upgrade it along the way with very little oversight, very little maintenance, certainly very little disruption, you have to ask yourself -- why would I want to do it any other way?

How do we bring these together? How do we bring the app store experience to IT? How do we enable them to bring that to their own constituents, their own users?

Williams: The key is the system. With the enterprise app store we bring two constituents together: users and management.

For users, there are really three principles that drive everything that we do. One of them is self-service, the next is socialization, and the third is instant gratification.

You mentioned a few things that are core principles. For users, there are really three principles that drive everything that we do. One of them is self-service, the next is socialization, and the third is instant gratification.

As a user, when I have a problem to solve and I'm looking for an app to help me solve it, I want to be able to find it myself, quickly. I want to understand what my peers are saying about that app. When I decide I want to try it, I click a button and run it. Everything we do goes through one of those filters. It’s about the user experience.

From a management perspective, for IT they need centralized control and visibility into real usage. So those are two principles that really drive everything we do with AppWave from a management perspective.

People talk about the consumerization of IT now, and initiatives like "bring your own device." The key for IT is to put an environment in place that draws users in and gives them what they're looking for, but you can still maintain overall control and have real visibility into who is using software and when.

Gardner: I'm curious. With AppWave, is there the opportunity to bring down apps fresh, or more frequently than the typical install, lockdown, patch process that we're familiar with now? Is there a hybrid model that incorporates some of the goodness from other trends like software as a service (SaaS) or virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), but allows the same PC apps, the rich graphical user interfaces (GUIs), the investments that have been made in the code and logic to remain?

Results is conflict

Williams: This is one of the difficult engineering challenges we had, and it goes back to my first point about Windows sowing the seeds of some of the problems. If you look at Windows, it's designed around the concept of sharing and sort of a utopian view, where applications could all share parts, and typically those are called DLLs in Windows. Unfortunately, the end result of that is conflict.

When a user wants to try a new application, that application is installed and will typically conflict with other applications that were previously installed. The problem gets worse when you get into new versions.

In the PC market, most vendors update their software multiple times a year. For example, we put out new release of every major product once a year and then we will have point releases typically quarterly. You have an awful lot of change, and every time there is a change, you stand to break other things that are already installed on your computer.

That was one of the things we had to tackle, and we did with AppWave. That folds into instant gratification. If I'm a user who has an existing version of a particular application, and I need either the older version or the newer version, I should be able to click a button and be productive. I should be using it in seconds.

Gardner: Well, we've defined our problem. We recognize that it's severe. We recognize that the environment is propelling people for change. We know that people have alternatives in the market for at least some apps, and we have been describing some of what is required of a solution, at least at a high level. So I guess it's time now to really dig in a little bit. Describe for us what AppWave is, what it does, and how it came to be?

At the heart of it, we removed the dependencies that applications would have with other applications and with the environment in general.

Williams: AppWave is an enterprise app store for PCs that provides self-service. Users can very easily type in a search term and get a result. The result is a set of applications. Then they can click and run those applications, read ratings and reviews from their peers, and they can be assured that when they do run those applications, they're not going to disrupt anything else that they have on their PC.

Gardner: Tell me a little bit about that problem you mentioned a moment ago, that ability to bring down new or quickly upgrade or change apps, but without losing the config, the importance of the legacy, the use and trail of what that application has done for the user. How did you solve that?

Williams: Years and years of engineering, but at the heart of it, we removed the dependencies that applications would have with other applications and with the environment in general. Each of these applications is able to stand on its own, which means you can have multiple versions of a particular app and move between them painlessly with no concerns.

I think that’s important for just about any knowledge worker. I've seen company after company -- and ours is no different -- afraid to move, for example, to the newest version of Office, because they're not sure if documents from the old version are going to work properly. Problems like that are gone, because you can easily move from version to version with the click of a button.

This is particularly important in R&D,where a tremendous amount of time is spent retooling to go from one configuration of applications for a particular system.

Prior to having AppWave, developers had multiple PCs, one for working on the new release that’s going to come out this year and then one for going back and fixing bugs on last year’s release.

What are the metrics?

Gardner: As you pointed out, Wayne, you've been doing this for some time. A lot of R&D, starting with tools, is probably the hardest category to crack. And you've seen how organizations have adopted and used your AppWave approach, creating this storefront, making those apps available to solve some of these issues that plague PC software distribution.

What have people gained from this? Do we have some metrics? Can we look at some examples? What do you get if you do this properly? How impactful is the shift when you go from say a traditional distribution to an AppWave and an app store distribution model?

Williams: I can give you a few examples. It's been amazing for us certainly. We drink our own champagne. We've made incredible gains, with the biggest gains being in two areas.

One is in R&D, where teams generally produce a daily build of most of the products. Those apps, when they come off the build machine, are now immediately available to all of R&D. It's particularly important for QA, because the downtime that you would have retooling and getting a new app is gone. It’s literally seconds. So we've seen some great gains internally with R&D.

We've also seen it with sales. We've got roughly 20 products. We put out a minor release once a quarter and majors once a year. So if you just looked at the explosion of that set of apps that a salesperson would have to have on their PC, just in two years, it’s 160. That historically has been a problem. It’s just a productivity drain and it’s error prone. Now that problem is gone.

What’s most exciting is when a customer really sees that this can help them get to market quicker.

There are certainly metrics out there as far as productivity and under-utilization of software and over-utilization of software, but I think what’s most exciting is when a customer really sees that this can help them get to market quicker.

A large financial services company had a nine-month rollout cycle for of a new version of a PC app. They had a really pressing business need to get this done before the holidays, their biggest season. It was impossible using their current methods for PC software distribution. With AppWave, users were upgraded to the right version of software in minutes.

The thing that they loved about that whole experience wasn't really the metrics. Certainly they put together their ROIs and they were impressive, but what that really did for them was that it allowed them to move quickly, to solve the business need in a time that would really make a difference.

Gardner: And at a time when software is more important than ever, they're going to gain an advantage by being able to deliver that software, put it in the hands of their employees, and also put it in the hands in the market, learn from that market and adjust, it just seems like you get generally better business agility, particularly when you are in a software intensive field which, as I said, most companies are nowadays.

Williams: One of the things that's frustrating for me, seeing how the software industry has matured and grown over the years, is that everybody talks about ROI. There's nothing wrong with the concept of ROI, but what I see often is a forest-and-trees problem, where people will lose sight of what the real goal is.

Losing sight of the goal

They will get so buried in a metric here and a metric there to build up an ROI, that they will lose sight of the goal. What’s the goal? The goal is to get my product or service to market sooner, better, and with better quality than the competition. That ROI is almost immeasurable.

Apple is a great example. This is a company that was in serious trouble for a number of years. It's the most incredible turnaround success story than any of us have ever seen. And all of that may not have happened if the iPod was a year late. Sony wasn't totally sleeping. They owned consumer electronics, and given a little more time, they probably could have stopped that move.

It’s so important for people to remember that software is going to help you get your product or service to market sooner and better, which is going to help you beat your competition.

Gardner: I'm afraid we are about out of time, Wayne, but I wanted to look just at a couple of the building trends now that point to the future. We're seeing tremendous uptake in mobile devices and tablets. We're seeing people who want to be able to combine their roles as consumers and individuals at home with what they do at work.

This is blurring the lines between on-premises, doing work within a corporate environment, or over a VPN even. But they need this. This is how they're going to be productive. It's putting an onus now, a different level of requirements, on IT, on developers.

It's all about getting the right app in the hands of the user as quickly as possible and that should happen on all relevant platforms.

Is there something about AppWave and what we've been talking about that can be brought into the mobile and even cloud spheres, these trends being sort of locomotives in the market right now, that brings together them and what we have been talking about?

Williams: Absolutely. Our view is that, at the end of the day, it's all about getting the right app in the hands of the users as quickly as possible and that should happen on all relevant platforms. So certainly mobile tablets, Android tablets, and iOS, iPads, are very cool and powerful devices that we are certainly going to support.

The important thing to remember is about getting the app to the user, regardless of what device they're using. So whether it's a tablet, a PC, or it's their own PC, as opposed to the company PC, they should still have access to all the apps that matter, with all the same kind of principles we've talked about, instant gratification, very easy to find. Those are all things that we're covering in AppWave.

Our initial focus was all about solving the PC problem, because in my view that’s the big problem. That’s where so much productivity has been locked away. We've solved that for the PC now and we certainly will support other popular platforms as they emerge.

Gardner: Well, very good. I hate to say we will have to leave it there.

You've been listening to a sponsored podcast discussion on how enterprise app stores are quickly creating productivity improvements and speed the value benefits for those PC users and across the applications that they are accustomed to. This is something that’s been of interest to IT departments and those users as well.

I'd like to thank our guest. It's been a very intriguing discussion. We've been with Wayne Williams, President and CEO of Embarcadero Technologies. Thanks so much, Wayne.

Williams: Thank you, Dana. Have a good day.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, as always, thanks for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Download the transcript. Get free AppWave download. Sponsor: Embarcadero Technologies.

A sponsored podcast discussion of how enterprise app stores can bridge the gap between software development and improved PC software distribution and maintenance. Learn more about AppWave. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2012. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Take a Deep Dive on How Enterprise App Stores Help Drive Productivity
• Enterprise App Store Trends Point to Need for Better Applications Marketplace for ISVs, Service Providers, Mobile Business Ecosystems
• App Stores -- They're Not Just for Consumer Any More, as More Enterprises Adopt the Model To Support Mobile Applications
• Embarcadero Brings Self-Service App Store Model to Enterprises to Target PCs and Their Universe of Software

Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Transformation: Related But Distinct Concepts That Can Change the World

Transcript of a sponsored podcast discussion on the respective roles of enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation and the danger --and opportunity -- of conflating the two.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you're listening to BriefingsDirect.

Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion in conjunction with The Open Group Conference held in San Francisco the week of January 30, 2012.

We've assembled a panel from among the conference speakers and contributors to examine the fascinating relationship between enterprise architecture (EA) and enterprise transformation. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

For some, the role and impact of an information technology and the organizing benefits of enterprise architecture make them larger than life, when it comes to enterprise transformation. In other words, if you really want enterprise transformation, you really need enterprise architecture to succeed in the modern enterprise.

For others, the elevation of enterprise architecture as a tag team to enterprise transformation improperly conflates the role of enterprise architecture and, as such, waters down enterprise architecture and risks obscuring its unique contribution.

So how should we view these roles and functions? How high into the enterprise transformation firmament should enterprise architecture rise? And will rising too high, in effect, melt its wings and cause it to crash back to earth and perhaps become irrelevant?

Or is enterprise transformation nowadays significantly dependent upon enterprise architecture, and therefore, we should make enterprise architecture a critical aspect for any business moving forward?

We'll pose these and other questions to our panel here to deeply examine the relationship between enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation. So with that, let me now introduce our guests.

We're here with Len Fehskens, Vice President of Skills and Capabilities at The Open Group. Welcome, Len.

Len Fehskens: Hi, Dana. Great to be here.

Gardner: We're also here with Madhav Naidu, Lead Enterprise Architect at Ciena Corp. Welcome to the show, Madhav.

Madhav Naidu: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: We're also here with Bill Rouse, Professor in the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering and the College of Computing, as well as Executive Director of the Tennenbaum Institute, all at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He's also the Principal at Rouse Associates. Welcome to our show, Bill.

Bill Rouse: It's great to be here, Dana. Thank you.

Gardner: And Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research, join us. Welcome back, Jeanne.

Jeanne Ross: Good morning, Dana.

Architecture and transformation

Gardner: Let's start with you Len. You’ve been tracking enterprise architecture for quite some time. You’ve been a practitioner of this. You’ve been involved with The Open Group for some time. Why is enterprise transformation not significantly dependent upon enterprise architecture, and why would it be a disservice to bring enterprise architecture into the same category?

Fehskens: I don't think that's quite what I believe. My biggest concern is the identification of enterprise architecture with enterprise transformation.

First of all, these two disciplines have different names, and there's a reason for that. Architecture is a means to transformation, but it is not the same as transformation. Architecture enables transformation, but by itself is not enough to effect successful transformation. There are a whole bunch of other things that you have to do.

My second concern is that right now, the discipline of enterprise architecture is sort of undergoing -- I wouldn’t call it an identity crisis -- but certainly, it's the case that we still really haven't come to a widespread, universally shared understanding of what enterprise architecture really means.

Just go onto any Internet discussion group about enterprise architecture, open up the discussion about the definition of enterprise architecture, and I guarantee that you will get hundreds and hundreds of posts all arguing about what enterprise architecture is. To make that problem worse by trying to fold enterprise transformation into the function of enterprise architecture is just not a good idea at this point.

To make that problem worse by trying to fold enterprise transformation into the function of enterprise architecture is just not a good idea at this point.

My position is that they're two separate disciplines. Enterprise architecture is a valuable contributor to enterprise transformation, but the fact of the matter is that people have been transforming enterprises reasonably successfully for a long time without using enterprise architecture. So it's not necessary, but it certainly helps. It's just like having power tools makes it easier to build a house, but people have been building houses for a long time without power tools.

I'm concerned about making bigger promises than we can actually keep by falling into the trap of believing that enterprise architecture, by itself, is sufficient to make enterprise transformation successful. I don’t think that’s the case. There are other things that you need to be able to do besides developing architectures in order to successfully transform an enterprise.

Gardner: Okay, Len, if the concept, the notion, or the definition of enterprise architect is changing, I suppose we also have to recognize that enterprise transformation, as it's defined, is changing as well. To borrow from your analogy, the power tools to build a house are not necessary, but you might be able to build a better house a lot faster. And building things better and faster seem to be much more a part of enterprise transformation now than they used to be.

Fehskens: No argument, but again, to use that analogy, you can do more with power tools than build just houses. You can build all kinds of other stuff as well. So, no argument at all that enterprise architecture is not a powerful means to effecting enterprise transformation, but they are distinct disciplines. The means to an end doesn’t mean the means is the end and doesn’t make them synonymous. They are still, as I said, distinct.

Gardner: I think we’re getting close to understanding the relationship. Madhav, as a practitioner of enterprise architecture at Ciena Corp., are you finding that your role, the value that you’re bringing to your company as an enterprise architect, is transformative? Do you agree with Len? Do you think that there's really a confluence between these different disciplines at this time?

Means and ends

Naidu: Definitely. What Len mentioned, it rhymes very well with me. The means and the end, kind of blending it down. Transformation itself is more like a wedding and EA is more like a wedding planner. I know we have seen many weddings without a wedding planner, but it makes it easier if you have a wedding planner, because they have gone through certain steps (as part of their experience). They walk us through those processes, those methods, and those approaches. It makes it easier.

That’s why, definitely, I agree with what Len said. Enterprise transformation is different. It's a huge task and it is the actual end. Enterprise architecture is a profession that can help lead the transformation successfully.

One another point Len brought up in this discussion is that, it is not just the enterprise architects who will be doing the whole thing. Almost everybody in the enterprise is engaged in one way or another. The enterprise architect plays more like a facilitator role. They are bringing the folks together, aligning them with the transformation, the vision of it, and then driving the transformation and building the capabilities. Those are the roles I will look at EA handling, but definitely, these two are two different aspects.

Gardner: Is there something about the state of affairs right now that makes enterprise architecture specifically important or particularly important for enterprise transformation? I believe I'm getting more towards this idea that IT is more important and that the complexity of the relationship between IT and business necessitates EA and therefore transformation really can't happen without it.

There is a lot of discussion about what really constitutes an EA and where are the boundaries for EA.

Naidu: We know many organizations that have successfully transformed without really calling a function EA and without really using help from a team called EA. But indirectly they are using the same processes, methods, and best practices. They may not be calling those things out, but they are using the best practices. When they do that, the transformations have been successful, but then when they don’t apply those best practices and standards, there are many organizations that fail.

That’s why, now, like Len brought up earlier, there is a lot of discussion about what really constitutes an EA and where are the boundaries for EA, because it is part IT, there are different roles, and part business, and a lot of people are engaged.

So there's a lot of churn going on over what should be the part of EA. But going back to your question, I definitely see the critical role EA is playing. Hopefully, in the next few years, EA will form its appropriate objectives, processes, and methods so that we can say this is what we mean by EA.

Gardner: Bill Rouse, how do you come down on this? Clearly there's an impact that EA has on enterprise transformation. We seem to grasp for analogies when we try to define this relationship. Are you finding in your research and through the organizations you're working with that the role of architecture creeps in? Even if people don’t know they’re doing architecture, when they get to transformation and a complex setting in today’s world, architecture is almost a necessity.

Rouse: There are two distinctions I’d like to draw. First of all, in the many transformation experiences we've studied, you can simplistically say there are three key issues: people, organizations, and technology, and the technology is the easy part. The people and organizations are the hard part.

The other thing is I think you’re talking about is the enterprise IT architecture. If I draw an enterprise architecture, I actually map out organizations and relationships among organizations and work and how it gets done by people and view that as the architecture of the enterprise.

Important enabler

Sometimes, we think of an enterprise quite broadly, like the architecture of the healthcare enterprise is not synonymous with IT. In fact, if you were to magically overnight have a wonderful IT architecture throughout our healthcare system in United States, it would be quite helpful but we would still have a problem with our system because the incentives aren’t right. The whole incentive system is messed up.

So I do think that the enterprise IT architecture, as I see it -- and others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what you’re talking about -- is an important enabler, a crucial enabler, to many aspects of enterprise transformation. But I don’t see them as close at all in terms of thinking of them as synonymous.

Gardner: Len Fehskens, are we actually talking about IT architecture or enterprise architecture and what's the key difference?

Fehskens: Well, again that’s this part of the problem, and there's a big debate going on within the enterprise architecture community whether enterprise architecture is really about IT, in which case it probably ought to be called enterprise IT architecture or whether it’s about the enterprise as a whole.

For example, when you look at the commitment of resources to the IT function in most organizations, depending on how you count, whether you count by headcount or dollars invested or whatever, the numbers typically run about 5-10 percent. So there's 90 percent of most organizations that is not about IT, and in the true enterprise transformation, that other 90 percent has to transform itself as well.

There's a big debate going on within the enterprise architecture community whether enterprise architecture is really about IT.

So part of it is just glib naming of the discipline. Certainly, what most people mean when they say enterprise architecture and what is actually practiced under the rubric of enterprise architecture is mostly about IT. That is, the implementation of the architecture, the effects of the architecture occurs primarily in the IT domain.

Gardner: But, Len, don't TOGAF at The Open Group and ArchiMate really step far beyond IT? Isn’t that sort of the trend?

Fehskens: It certainly is a trend, but I think we've still got a long way to go. Just look at the language that’s used in the architecture development method (ADM) for TOGAF, for example, and the model of an enterprise architecture. There's business, information, application, and technology.

Well, three of those concepts are very much related to IT and only one of them is really about business. And mostly, the business part is about that part of the business that IT can provide support for. Yes, we do know organizations that are using TOGAF to do architecture outside of the IT realm, but the way it's described, the way it was originally intended, is largely focused on IT.

The TOGAF standard was developed almost entirely by the IT community. But it is clear to people who step back far enough from the details of where the implementation happens that architectural thinking is a very generally applicable discipline and certainly can be applied to that other 90 percent of the enterprise that I talked about.

Not a lot going on

It's just that there's not a whole lot of that going on, and as Madhav pointed out, what is going on is generally not called architecture. It's called organizational design or management or it goes under a whole bunch of other stuff. And it's not referred to as enterprise architecture, but there is a lot of that stuff happening. As I said earlier, it is essential to making enterprise transformation successful.

My personal opinion is that virtually all forms of design involve doing some architectural thinking. Whether you call it that or not, architecture is a particular aspect of the design process, and people do it without recognizing it, and therefore are probably not doing it explicitly.

But Bill made a really important observation, which is that it can't be solely about IT. There's lots of other stuff in the enterprise that needs to transform.

Gardner: To that point, let's go to Jeanne Ross. Jeanne, in your presentation at The Open Group Conference, you mentioned data management and that the ability of leveraging analytics and presenting that to more people with good data in real time is an essential ingredient for transformation and for just doing things better, faster, cheaper, more impactful in the market, and so on.

Now wouldn’t the data management as a category sort of crossover. It's got parts of IT, parts of architectures, and parts of organizational management. When we think about making data management essential, doesn’t this in a sense bring about more recognition that an architectural approach that helps foster something at that level at that category becomes really important in today’s world?

Ross: I actually would discourage people from focusing on data management first. We've had a number of companies we studied who thought, "All I care about is the data. I'm just going to get that cleaned up." What they learned was that if they didn’t clean up their processes, they didn’t need to be thinking about data. It was going nowhere.

Analytics has been over-hyped as something that we can do a lot of in IT, while we're waiting for the rest of the organization to get its act together around architecture. Similarly, that has led to a lot of IT efforts that haven’t added real value to organizations.

So I wouldn't emphasize data management as a priority, even though we'll get there eventually. It is actually essential at some point. I think a lot of efforts around data management have been around the idea "Data makes this organization run. Let's get data fixed," as if we could just do that in isolation from everything else. That is a really frustrating approach.

I'd go back to the challenge we have here of enterprise architecture being buried in the IT unit. Enterprise architecture is an enterprise effort, initiative, and impact. Because enterprise architecture is so often buried in IT, IT people are trying to do things and accomplish things that cannot be done within IT.

We've got to continue to push that enterprise architecture is about designing the way this company will do it business, and that it's far beyond the scope of IT alone. I take it back to the transformation discussion. What we find is that when a company really understands enterprise architecture and embraces it, it will go through a transformation, because it's not used to thinking that way and it's not used to acting that way.

Disciplined processes

If management says we're going to start using IT strategically, we're going to start designing ourselves so that we have disciplined business processes and that we use data well. The company is embracing enterprise architecture and that will lead to a transformation.

Data management will be a crucial element of this, but the big mistake I see out there is thinking that IT will fix up data, and that is going to have some big impact on either enterprise architecture or enterprise transformation, or both. The ‘I’ is simply a critical element. It's not something that we can just fix.

Gardner: You also said that someday CIOs are going to report to the enterprise architects, and that’s the way it ought to be. Does that get closer to this notion that IT can't do this alone, that a different level of thinking across disciplines and functions needs to occur?

Ross: I certainly think so. Look at companies that have really embraced and gotten benefits from enterprise architecture like Procter & Gamble, Tetra Pak, and Maersk. At P&G’s, IT is reporting to the CIO but he is also the President of Shared Services. At Maersk and Tetra Pak, it's the Head of Global Business Processes.

Once we get CIOs either in charge with more of a business role and they are in charge of process, and of the technology, or are reporting to a COO or head of business process, head of business transformation, or head of shared services, then we know what it is we’re architecting, and the whole organization is designed so that architecture is a critical element.

But in practice, what we’re seeing is more CIOs reporting to someone who is, in fact, in charge of designing the architecture of the organization.

I don’t think that title-wise, this is ever going to happen. I don’t think we’re ever going to see a CIO report to chief enterprise architect. But in practice, what we’re seeing is more CIOs reporting to someone who is, in fact, in charge of designing the architecture of the organization. By that, I mean business processes and its use of data. When we get there, first of all, we will transform to get to that point and secondly, we’ll really start seeing some benefits and real strategic impact of enterprise architecture.

Gardner: Madhav, at Ciena, do you see that this process-level capability around enterprise architecture is what's occurring, even if the titles are not aligned that way or the org chart doesn’t point to the CIO reporting to an architect. Is architecture in practice elevating a process orientation to this capability set that therefore fosters better transformation?

Naidu: Definitely. Some progress has been happening, especially what Jeanne was mentioning about the business process changes itself, rather than just bringing the systems and customizing it to our needs, and rather than transforming our business processes so that they match industry standard.

That’s definitely happening, and the architecture team has engaged and is influencing that process. But that said, the maturity level takes quite a few years, not only at Ciena, but in other places too. It will take some time but this is happening.

Gardner: Len Fehskens, we have a mentality in our organizations that architecture isn't that important, and there's some cynicism and skepticism around architecture, and yet, what we’re hearing is it's not in name only. It is important, and it's increasingly important, even at higher and higher abstractions in the organization.

How to evangelize?

How then do you evangelize or propel architectural thinking into companies? You may have been concerned that advancement of architectural thinking would have been impelled when we conflate enterprise architecture into transformation, but until then, what should you do? How do you get the thinking around an architectural approach more deeply engrained in these companies?

Fehskens: Dana, I think that’s the $64,000 question. The fundamental way to get architectural thinking accepted is to demonstrate value. I mean to show that it really brings something to the party. That’s part of my concern about the conflation of enterprise transformation with enterprise architecture and making even bigger promises that probably can't be kept.

The reason that in organizations who’ve tried enterprise architecture and decided that it didn’t taste good, it was because the effort didn’t actually deliver any value. Certainly the advice that I hear over and over again, and that I myself give over and over again, is: “Don’t try to boil the ocean.” Start small and demonstrate success. And again, there's that old saw that nothing succeeds like success.

The way to get architectural thinking integrated into an organization is to use it in places where it can deliver obvious, readily apparent value in the short-term and then grow out from that nucleus. Trying to bite off more than you can chew only results in you choking. That's the big problem we’ve had historically. There are all these clichés and the reason of clichés is because there's certain amount of truth to them about your reach exceeding your grasp, for example.

It’s about making promises that you can actually keep. Once you've done that, and done that consistently and repeatedly, then people will say that there's really something to this. There's some reason why these guys are actually delivering on a big promise.

Trying to bite off more than you can chew only results in you choking. That's the big problem we’ve had historically.

Rouse: Can I offer something, another perspective?

Fehskens: Yeah, please do go.

Rouse: We ran a study recently about what competencies you need to transform an organization based on a series of successful case studies and we did a survey with hundreds of top executives in the industry.

The number one and two things you need are the top leader has to have a vision of where you’re going and they have to be committed to making that happen. Without those two things, it seldom happens at all. From that perspective, I'd argue that the CIO probably already does report to the chief architect. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs architected Microsoft and Apple. Carnegie and Rockefeller architected the steel and oil industries.

If you look at the business histories of people with these very successful companies, often they had a really keen architectural sense of what the pieces were and how they needed to fit together. So if we’re going to really be in the transformation business with TOGAF and stuff, we need to be talking to the CEO, not the CIO.

Gardner: Jeanne Ross, let’s focus on what Bill just said in terms of the architecture function really being at the core and therefore at the highest level of the organization.

Corporate strategy

Ross: I totally agree. The industries and companies that you cited, Bill, instinctively did what every company is going to need to do in the digital economy, which is think about corporate strategy not just in terms of what products do we offer, what markets are we in, what companies do we acquire, and what things do we sell up.

At the highest level, we have to get our arms around it. Success is dependent on understanding how we are fundamentally going to operate. A lot of CEOs have deferred that responsibility to others and when that mandate is not clear, it gets very murky.

What does happen in a lot of companies, because CEOs have a lot of things to pay attention to, is that once they have stated the very high-level vision, they absolutely can put a head of business process or a head of shared services or a COO type in charge of providing the clarification, providing the day-to-day oversight, establishing the relationships in the organizations so everybody really understands how this vision is going to work. I totally agree that this goes nowhere if the CEO isn’t at least responsible for a very high-level vision.

Gardner: So if what I think I'm hearing is correct, how you do things is just as important as what you do. Because we’re in such a dynamic environment, when it comes to supply chains and communications and the way in which technology influences more and more aspects of business, it needs to be architected, rather than be left to a fiat or a linear or older organizational functioning.

So Bill Rouse, the COO, the chief operating officer, wouldn’t this person be perhaps more aligned with enterprise architecture in the way that we’re discussing?

We can't find a single instance of a major enterprise transformation in a major company happening successfully without total commitment of top leadership.

Rouse: Jeanne makes a good point. Let's start with the basic data. We can't find a single instance of a major enterprise transformation in a major company happening successfully without total commitment of top leadership. Organizations just don’t spontaneously transform on their own.

A lot of the ideas and a lot of the insights can come from elsewhere in the organization, but, given that the CEO is totally committed to making this happen, certainly the COO can play a crucial role in how it's then pursued, and the COO of course will be keenly aware of a whole notion of processes and the need to understand processes.

One of the companies I work very closely with tried to merge three companies by putting in ERP. After $300 million, they walked away from the investment, because they realized they had no idea of what the processes were. So the COO is a critical function here.

Just to go back to original point, you want total commitment by the CEO. You can't just launch the visionary message and walk away. At the same time, you need people who are actually dealing with the business processes to do a lot of the work.

Gardner: Madhav, at the Ciena, how do you view the relationship between what you do as a lead enterprise architect and what your operations officer does? It might not be that title, but the function of operations management and oversight. How do they come together?

Not role, but involvement

Naidu: Not by role, but by involvement. There are quite a few business executives engaged in the business process identification and changes. Many of them report to the top executives in the business line. That’s what the current setting right now. We're pretty happy that that kind of support is coming from many of the executives and business teams. That said, there is no formal relationship in terms of reporting and all.

Gardner: Len Fehskens, you mentioned a while ago that finding success and demonstrating value are instrumental to promulgating the use of architecture and understanding the benefits of architecture. Would operations, rather than just technology, be a target than for how you can demonstrate that? The architecture processes might be the sweet spot in some of the thinking now about where to demonstrate that enterprise architecture is the way to go.

Fehskens: Absolutely. And this ties into another thing we need to be aware of, which is that the need to transform, the motivation for enterprise transformation, doesn’t always come from disruptive technologies. There was a really interesting talk last week at the conference on sustainable enterprise architecture, and they made the point that there are lots of major disruptions that have nothing to do with technology.

In particular, in a world where resources are becoming increasingly scarce, and impact on the environment is a significant concern, the drive to transform an enterprise will often come from other places than the appearance of disruptive technologies. There will be disruptions of all sorts that have to be dealt with. The transformation in response to those isn't going to come out of the IT organization. It's going to have to come from other organizations.

The idea that we talked about at the beginning of the discussion was that architecture is a very powerful means for figuring out what kind of transformation is necessary, and how to effect it, means that we need architectures that aren’t about IT, we need to understand driving architectural approach to the other considerations that an enterprise deals with.

Architecture is a very powerful means for figuring out what kind of transformation is necessary, and how to effect it.

As Bill said, historically it's been the case that the lead architects in the most successful organizations were the guys who had the vision and the guys who were at the very top of the organizational structure who created this organization in the very first place. And they weren’t IT guys. Bill Gates, in particular, didn’t build Microsoft around its IT capability. He built it around a whole bunch of other ideas that were really business ideas, not IT concepts. So, yeah, absolutely.

Gardner: I'm afraid we'll have to wrap it up. I’d like to go once around the panel with a pretty direct question and if you could perhaps provide your succinct thoughts. What is the relationship between enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation? Let's start with you first, Jeanne.

Ross: I'd say the relationship between enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation is two-way. If an organization feels the need for a transformation -- in other words, if it feels it needs to do something -- it will absolutely need enterprise architecture as one of the tools for accomplishing that.

It will provide the clarity the organization needs in a time of mass change. People need to know where they're headed, and that is true in how they do their processes, how they design their data, and then how they implement IT.

It works just as well in reverse. If a company hasn't had a clear vision of how they want to operate, then they might introduce architecture to provide some of that discipline and clarity and it will inevitably lead to a transformation. When you go from just doing what every individual thought was best or every business unit thought was best to an enterprise vision of how a company will operate, you're imposing a transformation. So I think we are going to see these two hand-in-hand.

What's the relationship?

Gardner: Bill Rouse, same question, what in your view is the relationship between enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation?

Rouse: I think enterprise transformation often involves a significant fundamental change of the enterprise architecture, broadly defined, which can then be enabled by the enterprise IT architecture.

Gardner: Madhav, also to you the same question, relationship between EA and enterprise transformation?

Naidu: Like I mentioned in the beginning, one is end, another one is means. I look at the enterprise transformation as an end and enterprise architecture providing the kind of means. In one way it's like reaching the destination using some kind of transportation mechanism. That’s how I look at the difference between EA and ET?

Gardner: Len, I know you’ve gone out at some length about this, but perhaps the elevator version. How do you view the relationship between EA and enterprise transformation?

Enterprise transformation often involves a significant fundamental change of the enterprise architecture, broadly defined, which can then be enabled by the enterprise IT architecture.

Fehskens: One of the fundamental principles of architecture is taking advantage of reuse when it's appropriate. So I'm just going to reuse what everybody just said. I can't say it better. Enterprise architecture is a powerful tool for effecting enterprise transformation. Jeanne is right. It's a symmetric or bidirectional back-and-forth kind of relationship, and what Bill and Madhav said applies as well. So I really don't have anything to add.

Gardner: Well, I found it very interesting. I have a newfound appreciation for architecting how you do something better enables you to decide what it is that you're going to do in the future, and there is an interesting relationship between how and what that perhaps escape some folks. I hope they recognize that a little bit more deeply.

You’ve been listening to a sponsored podcast discussion in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in San Francisco, the week of January 30th, 2012. We've enjoyed our discussion with our guests and I’d like to thank them and call them out individually one more time.

Len Fehskens, the Vice President of Skills and Capabilities at The Open Group. Thank you, Len.

Fehskens: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: Madhav Naidu, Lead Enterprise Architect at Ciena Corporation. Thanks so much.

Naidu: It's been my pleasure.

Gardner: Bill Rouse, Professor in the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering as well as the College of Computing and also Executive Director at The Tennenbaum Institute, all at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Principal at Rouse Associates. Thank you, Bill.

Rouse: Thank you. I enjoyed it.

Gardner: And Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research. Thanks so much for your input.

Ross: Thank you. Great talking with you all.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks to our audience for joining us, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Transcript of a sponsored podcast discussion on the respective roles of enterprise architecture and enterprise transformation and the danger --and opportunity -- of conflating the two. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2012. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Open Group Conference Speakers Discuss the Cloud: Higher Risk or Better Security?
• Capgemini's CTO on Why Cloud Computing Exposes the Duality Between IT and Business
• San Francisco Conference observations: Enterprise transformation, enterprise architecture, SOA and a splash of cloud computing
  
• MIT's Ross on how enterprise architecture and IT more than ever lead to business transformation
• Overlapping criminal and state threats pose growing cyber security threat to global Internet commerce, says Open Group speaker
• Enterprise architects play key role in transformation, data analytics value -- but they need to act fast, say Open Group speakers
  
• Exploring Business-IT Alignment: A 20-Year Struggle Culminating in the Role and Impact of Business Architecture