If you'd like to connect at the show, I'll be at the Sunday evening ESOA Community Networking Session, and taking in sessions and wandering around the expo floor on Monday.  Drop me an email at bmichelson at gmail dot com.

Now, I just need to fit in my reading assignment from Paul Kurchina, Mashup Corporations, The End of Business as Usual. 

[Disclosure: SAP is not a client of Elemental Links, however they are a sponsor of the SOA Consortium, which is a client of Elemental Links]

"The goal of the SOA case study contest is to highlight business success stories and lessons learned to provide proof points and insights for other organizations considering or pursuing SOA adoption.

Case study submissions must be for completed projects that used a SOA approach to deliver business value.   In keeping with our charter, we are not looking for dissertations on the technical beauty of the architecture and implementation. Rather, we are interested in the business story, the business value generated, the degree of cross-organizational collaboration, and the usages of SOA approaches and supporting technology.

For more information on the contest and participation, please go here."

[Disclosure: The SOA Consortium is a client of my company, Elemental Links]

The Initiative

The best way to describe the work, is to excerpt from Jack's post and show his picture in progress.

"It is not always easy for an enterprise IT architect to keep scope and hold the complete picture. As we have several architects with different competences I felt the urge to develop an IT Services Stack. The IT Services Stack is a picture of a layered view on all aspects of IT from a component perspective."

"I would like to make this premature IT Services Stack more consistent and supply an extended view on every component mentioned in the picture. The model should be defined one level deeper, with the following attributes:

• Function of the component
• Relationship with other components
• Sub-level components and models
• Related open standards
• Innovative products in the market"

Jack then asks for community help, that's us.  So, if you are inclined, jump over to Jack's blog and offer your comments.  Or, as I'm about to do, post your comments and link to Jack.

My Three Cents

I suggest the addition of a new (leftmost) column, IT Business Management.  This column would contain components related to the 'business of IT'.  Top of mind components are:

• Business & IT Collaboration: Strategy, Architecture, Planning
• IT Offerings - the products and services IT provides to the business.  The supplier might be a third party.
• Demand and Supply Management
• Portfolio Management - Budget, Project and Asset
• Talent Development

The Hardware section caught my eye, only because I wonder how much hardware will continue to be under direct management of IT.  Beyond interaction devices (laptops, keyboards, mice, pdas) and networking equipment, does hardware ownership and management by IT organizations become obsolete?  Do we care about the hardware?  Or, just the technical infrastructure services at the next layer up?

In respect to the SOA box, the SOA Consortium's community of practice is working on a planning framework.  I sense some sharing in our future.

[Disclosure: The SOA Consortium is a client of my company, Elemental Links]

I’ve always wondered if there was a green opportunity in data centers. Instead of expending all that energy cooling down data centers, couldn’t the generated heat be redirected for good, such as heating the building? Maybe not the best idea in Florida, but certainly applicable here in the Northeastern US.

Now, not being an engineer, I wasn’t sure if this was a really good question, or a really dumb one. But, since I’m more interested in learning than being right, when people talk of Green IT, I ask my question. This morning, on Twitter, I asked it of James Governor (RedMonk, GreenMonk). In response, James sent a link to a post about Tom Raftery’s data center redesign at Cork Internet Exchange. An excerpt follows, is mine.

“What was the design decision that makes all the difference at Cork? Well you see a normal data center has hot aisles (backs of servers) and cold aisles (fronts of servers), but the data center has an average ambient temperature based on convection and flows of these air streams. Indeed most data centers are pretty much designed and run with the ambient temperature in mind. So what did Tom and team do? They put a cork in it. They sealed the cold aisles, which means that when you walk into the data center you’re hit with a blast of 30 degree celsius air. For humans the temperature is very high, but where it has to be cold, it is. Which is pretty smart if you ask me. Of course this idea would never fly in America where humans can only stand a very small ambient temperate range between 65 and 70 degrees F. But in Europe I can certainly see some organisations trying something similar. To be clear- the data center heat is also used to warm the offices and hot water at cix. Says Tom: “Our central heating is powered by Intel”. The crack about Americans and air-conditioning above is a little unfair- after all- Cork has the native advantage of not being as hot as California, or locations where many US data centers are located. But still- it surely makes sense to concentrate on cooling machines rather than people when you’re designing a data center.”

For readers who are engineers, check out the details here. Perhaps my brother (an engineer) will explain it to me!

So, I’m (continually) curious. Are other organizations redirecting generated data center energy? What other creative Green IT initiatives are folks undertaking? Are these initiatives adding environmental and business value? Or, do you feel greenwashed?

If you bear with me for a moment more, I’d say that business-IT integration will naturally evolve to a business-IT fusion of sorts, at least in the strategy and innovation arenas, but now I’ve gone well beyond the intent of my post…

My intent was to amplify a key message from a MIT Sloan Article on Avoiding the Alignment Trap in IT.  The authors, from Bain & Company, share their “growing realization … that the usual diagnoses of IT’s troubles – and the usual prescriptions for fixing those troubles – are often misguided”. In particular, they call out companies “seeking to deliver higher business value performance by harnessing IT have focused on alignment… the degree to which the IT group understands the priorities of the business and expends its resources, pursues projects and provides information consistent with them”.

The authors believe the following is true "A lack of alignment can doom IT either to irrelevance or to failure”. However, they raise an important flag that every IT leader should take to heart “a narrow focus on alignment reflects a fundamental misconception about the nature of IT. Underperforming capabilities are often rooted not just in misalignment but in the complexity of systems, applications and other infrastructure.”

They go on to describe situations in which business alignment run amok actually drives up IT complexity – silo-ed data centers, customized packaged applications, bolting on legacy applications, lack of standards and shared infrastructure – therefore driving down IT performance.

The authors quote Richard F. Connell, senior executive vice president and CIO of Selective Insurance Group “Aligning a poorly performing IT organization to the right business objectives still won’t get the objectives accomplished”. That, the authors say “is the alignment trap”.

For those in the alignment trap, the authors recommend a return to basics “temporarily focusing on effectiveness at the expense of alignment”. And of course, effectiveness requires simplification. Quoting Leonardo da Vinci, the authors remind us “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”.

The article has good insights on diagnosing IT pain and shares company anecdotes. If you have access to MIT Sloan Review, I recommend reading the article.

As for the big takeaway – in pursuing business-driven IT, don’t lose sight of the fundamentals, effectiveness, simplicity (to the degree possible), and constant communication. Host cross project/initiative forums with key players (project managers, architects and business analysts). Open lines of communication and collaboration to help your organization “balance well the needs of the entire organization with those of individual businesses”. And always, beware the alignment trap!

In a recent post on her Harvard Business Discussion Leader blog, Tammy Erickson calls for a different approach, one that recognizes the unpredictability of the current business climate and emphasizes investing in collaboration, improvisation, and yes -- people:

"A lot of senior managers are now readying their team for Recession 2008. Most are thinking in ways that are completely understandable -- and in my view -- very likely to be dangerously wrong. Most standard wisdom advises caution and control -- review your costs, tighten your approval criteria, pull key decisions and sign offs up to higher levels, make sure everyone in the organization is as fully busy as possible, narrow the business scope.

That approach might work, if the nature of the recessionary environment were known or easy to predict. But it’s not. Rather than trying to tighten control and hunker down, I’d suggest that you think about ways to make your team better able to improvise given whatever comes along. Four things will help your organization become more spontaneous, innovative and reflexive:

(1) Increase your firm’s “collaborative capacity” through relationships, trust, and knowledge exchange. Don’t cut out meetings, intensify the competition among internal teams, or reduce investments in learning. (For more, see our November 2007 HBR article “Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams”).

(2) Articulate a compelling “innovation intent” -- something that, in the language of complexity theory, will serve as a “strange attractor” to rally your team around goals that are intriguing, complex and important. Don’t narrow the focus to the mundane or over-specify the way teams should approach their challenges. Keep them engaged.

(3) Ensure that your team has regular on-going exposure to disruptive insights through diversity and external forays. Don’t cut travel or fall back on the old “tried and true” team. Bring in new people and new ideas and take them seriously. Get outside your business sphere.

(4) Provide everyone in your organization with some specific tools to help with innovative thought processes -- teach people how to brainstorm, use scenario analysis, or create ideas through attribute reduction. Don’t cut training -- invest in your people. Teach your employees how to be a business innovator so they can improvise in motion."

Makes sense to me.  Seems like you'd want to give your organization a fighting chance, and innovation takes innovators...

"The core business motivation is business agility"

"Organizations suffer from the business inflexibility trap.  As a result of years of dragging stuff (new technology) in and bolting it on, IT is impeding business change"

"IT practices (quick hits and bolting on) is like hardening of the arteries.... trouble builds over time and eventually requires  major surgery"

"SOA is not about connecting things, it is about enabling business processes and continual change"

"SOA is also known as good architecture"

"BPM and SOA were never unlinked.  Can't have SOA without process.  Process is more efficient with SOA"

"rather than 'rip and replace' old systems - make them work better together"

"SOA is not about technology, integration or middleware"

"Many perspectives on SOA: Business Processes, Services, Technology and Data"

"SOA is not something you buy, it is something you do"

[Disclosure: The OMG, as manager of the SOA Consortium, is a client of my company, Elemental Links]

“What does the ensuing (or on-going) economic downturn mean for SOA in 2008? Will the economic downturn and associated budget cutbacks drive organizations to, or away from, SOA in 2008?”

We had a good discussion, the results of which are here.  I'm curious, what does this community think?  Will SOA be employed as a strategy to cope with, and prosper in, tumultuous times?.  Or, will SOA be seen as a budget line to cut?  Let me know, via a comment or trackback, here or there.

[Disclosure: The SOA Consortium is a client of my company, Elemental Links]

Continuing on the business-focused technology innovation theme, now I'm wondering what impedes business-focused technology innovation.  Essentially, what (or who) holds innovation hostage in organizations?  Or, are there no impediments? 

Please take a minute to answer the quick poll below.  For feed subscribers, the direct poll link is here.

Thanks!

The other night I was chatting with a friend about the archetype of business-focused technology innovator – creative, business-smart, technology-savvy, dot-connector, influencer, and transformation leader.  You know, the type of person every organization needs, but doesn’t always know how to find one, or (worse) what to do with. 

Anyway, during our conversation, we were chatting about this archetype versus org chart positions or hiring reqs.  Depending on the organization, a person of this ilk might be found in (or qualified for) one of several slots, from CIO to senior technician.

So, I’m curious, in respect to enterprise or government IT, what role in your organization is the primary source of business-focused technology innovation?  Please note your response on the following poll.  Thanks!

Anyway, during my session I'll be talking about Business, Service-Orientation, Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architects.  With luck, at the end folks should be able to answer the "SOA or Business Architecture Who's on First" question.  (My other option was "SOA and Business Architecture: Chicken or Egg".  Given it's playoff time in Red Sox Nation, I went with the baseball theme.)

If you are attending the EAC conference, please drop into my session or look me up. 

In preparation for this release, I sat down with the EA2010 working group leaders, Ashok Kumar and Yogish Pai, to discuss their working group’s motivation, findings and next steps. That conversation is available to the public as an on-demand webcast or podcast.

During our conversation, Ashok and Yogish touched on a wide range of enterprise architecture concerns, including catalyzing business change, gaining business-smarts, shifting focus to business architecture, managing enterprise architecture, participating in strategy and delivery, and winning enterprise constituents.

If you have comments after viewing the webcast, please leave them here, or jump over to the SOA Consortium Insights blog.  The working group members are real enterprise architecture practitioners, and they are very interested in feedback from the broader community. 

2. Believe positional authority trumps ability to influence

3. Practice methodology without anthropology

4. Hire an innovator and proceed to micromanage him/her

5. Utilize crowd wisdom for decision making rather than intelligence collection

6. View your architecture as an end, rather than a means

First, the opportunity: the shift to a services economy, the innovation edge, and the tie to information technology:

"The fundamental shift of the U.S. economy from one based on industry to one based on services has been covered in this column and elsewhere. While some companies—and indeed industries—still resist the trend, the innovators have recognized that the production of value lies in the creation of services, and have adapted accordingly.

Even product-based companies have shifted their focus from the production of physical goods to the delivery of device-enabled services products. But here's the related innovation trend that no one is talking about: Increasingly, those services are being driven by scalable technologies. The information technology departments once seen as back-room cost centers are becoming key players in the execution of innovation, and hence, the creation of value in the new marketplace."

Next, the absence of information technology personnel in the innovation discussion:

"Where is IT in the innovation conversation? With IT being so essential to the innovation equation, and with so much riding on the IT department's ability to build and maintain the systems that will drive customer delight, you'd think there would be more talk about the role of IT in innovation strategy.

But let me ask, how engaged are chief information officers in innovation initiatives? Are members of your IT department full-time members of innovation project teams? Or do they exhibit a "call me when you need me" approach? Or worse still, a "Put your request in the queue, I'll get to it when I can" attitude?

Based on my research, the majority of IT departments sit on the sidelines of innovation discussions when they should be central players. Systems consultants as well as corporate representatives say that, typically, IT departments are tactical rather than strategic, reactive rather that proactive, and isolated rather than integrated. Few in the IT ranks speak "business model," which is unfortunate given that so much customer and shareholder value is dependent on IT solutions to facilitate critical network connections.

...many corporate innovation executives I know no longer consult their IT departments. Despite the risk of exposing new business strategies to potentially untrustworthy third parties during the "fuzzy front end" stage, they simply go outside. "You get tired of hearing, 'no, we can't do that' all the time," said one practitioner at a Peer Insight forum recently."

Lastly, a prescription, or continuation of the Business-IT Integration theme:

"In order to support the robust innovation pipelines that many corporations aim to build, we have to rethink how we integrate IT into our organizations, particularly as it relates to driving innovation. Start with the IT leadership team, where more executive bench strength will be needed. IT managers should be well-versed on managing cross-functional initiatives, and should understand the company's business end-to-end. These managers will need to guide innovation teams in regular technology road mapping and system architecting sessions. Interaction design and rapid prototyping of customer touchpoints will be the standard, not the exception. Iteration and user testing of new software concepts will be a core capability. Likewise, IT must be engaged and mentored by business managers as the opportunities to learn and collaborate go both ways."

Questions:

1. How does IT participate in Innovation at your company?  Are IT personnel at the Innovation table?  If so, which roles?  CIO, CTO, Chief Architect, Business Relationship Manager, other?

2. Are technology capabilities/advancements input to Business Innovation Ideation?  (how's that for a management buzzword?)

3. How integrated are business and IT at your company? 

(a) IT is an order taker

(b) IT aligns with business (IT takes and supports business lead)

(c) IT and Business are integrated: collaborate on Innovation, Strategy, Architecture and/or Portfolio Planning?

On Monday, I read an article in the online WSJ, What's Next for IT, that echoed many of these themes, and provided some additional insights into the question Phil Gilbert posed "How are organizations injecting business smarts into IT professionals?"

The article is an excerpt of an interview between WSJ editor Francesca Donner and three CIO's -- Meg McCarthy of Aetna Inc., Frank Modruson of Accenture Ltd. and Steve Squeri of American Express Co.

While the entire article is worth the read, I wanted to excerpt some of the excerpt, particulary on the topics I mentioned above. My categorization has caused some selections to be ordered differently than the article.

On the changing role of IT: "Strategic" and "At the Table"

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Analysts have written that IT departments are becoming more strategy- and business-oriented. Do you agree?

MS. MCCARTHY: I totally agree. At Aetna, the IT organization is critical to enabling the implementation of our business strategy. I report to the chairman of our company and I am a member of the executive committee. In that capacity, I participate in all of the key business conversations/decisions that impact the company strategy and the technology strategy.

MR. SQUERI: I believe that over the next 10 years, the CIO will get more involved in the overall business strategy of the company and see their role expand in importance. The CIO will be increasingly called upon not only to translate business strategies into capabilities but to become even more forward-looking to determine what capabilities the business will need in the future.

The days of tech leaders as relationship managers and "order takers" will go by the wayside and they will be called upon to create and drive technology strategies that drive business capabilities.

On bridging the Business-IT divide... "Business-IT Integration" (my term)

MR. SQUERI: I agree that technology organizations are getting closer to the business. It's a must.

This doesn't happen overnight, though. We need to help the business better understand technology. We need to help our technology employees better understand the business strategies.

One way we are doing this is by moving people across the organization, from the business to tech and vice versa. Alignment with our senior leaders helps build the connection at all levels within the organization -- we're all at the table together.

MS. MCCARTHY: Steve's note is very consistent with some of the strategies we are employing [at Aetna] to bring greater alignment with our business partners.

Transitioning people from the business into IT and rotating IT people to the business brings a greater understanding to the broader organization.

MR. SQUERI: For businesses that leverage information or use technology as a competitive advantage, it is important that business leaders know how to leverage the technology groups to enable their strategies. This means that just as technology groups are learning to translate business strategies into technology capabilities, business leaders will have to think about their strategies in terms of long-term capabilities.

The only way that can really take place is by deepening the working relationship and ensuring that IT has a seat at the table.

MS. MCCARTHY: Our current CEO and chairman has a technology background which has been invaluable to our business at Aetna. He encourages all our non-IT leaders to have a good working understanding of technology and to understand the systems that enable their business areas. He also has the business leaders report on all the "systems" projects/programs for their business areas -- a recognition that this work is not just systems work but business and systems work.

I would encourage all non-IT managers to get an orientation to their systems organization. I would also encourage non-IT leaders to spend time with their IT partners, particularly the architecture team during their strategic planning process. Have the architecture team look out three years and identify technologies that could be applied to the business to improve productivity or increase revenue. Working together on these things can generate creativity on both sides.

On SOA, Service Definition and Business Process, "Bi-directional Business-IT Understanding"

MS. MCCARTHY: ...The other important aspect associated with Steve's comment and his business background is the focus that most of us have on building a services-oriented architecture.

The analogy that I'll use here is Legos. In a services architecture, we build discrete services that are individually tested and certified, versus a more traditional programming method. These services can be used and reused very efficiently, i.e., the Lego concept of taking Legos apart and reusing them to build something new. The promise of this approach is significantly reduced costs and speed to market. The ability of the IT organization to do this work efficiently is a function of how well we work with our business partners to define our business processes at the right level...

... The big challenges for most companies will be the continued work on building an adaptable architecture that provides for seamless interoperability with other companies, i.e., ease of communications and transaction processing with business partners and customers.

The CIO in this work will be an important strategic partner who can educate and vision with their business partners. [As CIOs] we need to understand the business, the technologies that are evolving and work closely with our business partners to identify opportunities for the company and our customers to exploit these technologies to achieve market leadership and competitive advantage.

On Next Generation Technology Leaders:

MR. SQUERI: I believe that finding the right talent is a key priority and challenge we're facing.

We all talked about the need to align technology and business strategies. Part of getting there is bringing in and developing people with technical, business and management skills. Our technology leaders need all of these skills to be successful and make our businesses successful.