Strategy execution a hot topic at Strategy Leaders Forum in Dubai

Last week QPR and QPR’s Strategic VAR in the Middle-East region IYCON sponsored Strategy Leaders Forum that took place on 13-17 of April 2014 in Dubai. 

 Dr. Robert Kaplan with the team from QPR and IYCON

 

One of the highlights of the Forum was Dr. Robert Kaplan’s (co-creator of balanced scorecard methodology) Master class session on strategy execution. Dr. Kaplan started his presentation by emphasizing the importance of leading change as part of strategy execution and pointed out that in today’s dynamic environment business leaders should always be prepared for change - even if business is currently running smoothly. To ensure business success also in the future, companies should proactively look for strategic level change. He brilliantly brought home the message by quoting the legendary former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch: “Change before you have to”.

Another interesting topic of the Master Class was a thorough and pragmatic presentation of Kaplan-Norton six stage management system for strategy execution. It is a comprehensive tool for strategy execution that creates a link between strategy and operations. Dr. Kaplan then ended his session by bringing in risk management and talking about the significance of integrating it into the Strategy execution process.

Overall, as a company that develops software tools that support organizations in strategy execution and in strategic level change, is was great to listen to his message. QPR’s offering gives means not only to plan and monitor strategic change but also manage risk, in addition to fully supporting the framework developed by Kaplan & Norton. So we can really help organizations who are looking for management system for strategy execution, and it was great to see that our comprehensive approach was validated by Dr. Kaplan who is a leading authority in this field. The event included also many other excellent presentations and we’re proud to mention that the presented case studies also included a couple of QPR customers.

And as usual, the discussions outside of the presentation rooms proved to be interesting. One of the key findings was that organizations DO regard strategy planning and execution as an essential ingredient for a company’s success, and most companies have established a dedicated organizational function, Strategy Management Office, to manage strategy planning and execution. Furthermore, many organizations also seek for software tools to automate the strategy execution process and to improve communication and collaboration around strategy execution.

It seems that the above approach has brought companies great results in the Middle-East.

So, as a take away from the event we can say that successful strategy execution requires real dedication and commitment from the organization, and the right framework with right tools. 

Tero Aspinen

Director, Partner Management

fi.linkedin.com/pub/tero-aspinen/2a/592/344/

Who stole Enterprise Architecture?

Dear friends,

The term Enterprise Architecture (EA) appeared in the literature for the first time some 25 years ago. Enterprise architecture pioneers like John Zachman and Stephen Spewak linked the concept with a multidimensional and layered structuring of an enterprise, intended to satisfy the needs of the business. Since then, various frameworks have been introduced by different individuals and organizations, ranging from military and government to private sector. Practically all of them contain the basic elements in some shape or form: business drivers and requirements, information architecture, process architecture, application architecture, and technical architecture. The practitioners and standardization bodies are in violent agreement that these are all in the heart of enterprise architecture.

Given the above, one would assume that the concept and the term Enterprise Architecture would  be a stable part of common knowledge. I wish this was true, but the EA culture is suffering from unnecessary turbulence. There are individuals and organizations, acting out of ignorance or commercial interest, trying to introduce definitions and interpetations that are not adding value but rather distorting the picture and confusing those that are new to the topic. For example, some companies having a significant interest in the technology side of IT have advertised enterprise architecture as a big IT architecture. Having strong marketing muscles and excellent access to enterprises through their IT departments, they have created the confusion among their customers that EA is about IT only. If this is the first message that the CEO hears from the CIO about EA, the damage has been done and is difficult to repair.

The above is an example of twisting the meaning of an existing term. Another type of confusion arises from inventing completely new terms. This has been the core competence of marketing departments throughout the history. Marketing is seeking novelty, defining niches which then can be occupied, claiming to be the first or biggest in the recently invented niche. You can always define your own terms and concepts, and distract your customers from the competition. There is no need to have true novelty in your products or services, playing with words is enough. This is an old strategy: if you can't win on a level playground, try tilting the playground. Who cares if you do damage to your customers and to the enterprise architecture community.

Education, science, and language are part of our culture. As such, they are subject to the natural laws governing the eternal evolution of culture. Despite of this unavoidable evolution, we need to keep in mind that it is not random but is influenced by people. It does matter, where the evolution takes us and that we do influence it, when it matters. Concepts like business capability and enterprise architecture are purely abstract and artifical, but they are serving an important purpose for the enterprise management and should be engineered to serve that purpose effectively. Whether we can or cannot, is determined by the strength of the global community of scientists and practitioners driving the ontological process for enterprise architecture. New terms and concepts should be introduced cautiously, weighing their value and linkage to existing ones. New knowledge has value only if it can be put in the context of some existing knowledge. This way we can make sure that climbing the stairs of knowledge is not followed by falling down on our noses.

Enterprise architecture is not something completely new and isolated from other parts of management science. It derives from systems thinking for its philosophical part, and from systems engineering and economics for the methodological part. We need to protect it as the broad conceptual framework and foundation for defining, scoping, and positioning other disciplines like Business Modeling (BM), Operational Development (OD), Business Process Analysis (BPA), Business Process Management (BPM), Enterprise Business Process Management (EBPM), Capability Maturity Model (CMM), Six Sigma, Business Intelligence (BI), and Corporate Performance Management (CPM). None of these disciplines has the richness of semantics and structure to be used as a reference framework for the others. Enterprise architecture as a concept and discipline has these properties for the most part, and as for the remaining properties, let's make sure EA evolves to cover them as well. Starting from the scratch, with a completely new term and concept, is not feasible nor necessary.

Together we can catch and stop the term thieves!

Jaakko Riihinen
Senior Vice President
Products and Technology
QPR Software Plc

fi.linkedin.com/in/jaakkoriihinen/