In the ”Stable area” we aim for: (”future proofing the situation”)

1. Stable architecture building blocks so we ease change management by the use of target architectures that span years and multiple initiatives. This enables us to be in control of an agile future.
2. Stable solutions building blocks so we can assure that the solutions build upon the SBB we have decided. This enables us to run many solution projects concurrently and still be able to have complete control over the outcome.

In the ”Dynamic area” we aim for: (”adaptability to any situation”)

1. Dynamic behaviour in our architecture buildingblocks so that we easily can reconcider the use and re-use of our ABBs to match the needs of the business.
2. Dynamic behaviour in our solution buildningblocks so that we easily can bundle SBBs in innovative ways that maximize the potentials within our Enterprise architecture and Business situation

In the ”Agile area” we aim for: (”simple to work with”)

1. Agility in the selection, configuration and lifecycle of ABBs such that the design of composite ABBs can be done as fast as possible
2. Agility in the SBBs such that the design of SBBs from the specification of ABBs can be done as fast as possible

The Great Master Lea was sitting on his mountain top basking in the sun. Earlier this morning a young man and an old woman had come before him to ask a question. This is what they asked: “Oh great master Lea, which EA methodology should we use?” The great master Lea looked at the man and the woman then turned his head towards the sky and said: “A man without a method is either a fool or a master.”

2009 is gaining ground on me and it has become time to sit down and deal with this “me” thing again. This time I’ve used the methodology of Osterwalder to map out my personal business model. To get it in a slightly more architectural flavour, I have used the Zachman enterprise framework to sort out the  primitives and then mapped everything into the composites made up of Osterwalders nine building blocks.

Key findings are that Osterwalders business modelling framework (OBMF) transcends the Zachman Enterprise Framework (ZEF). If used on other things than “me” then it sometimes actually extends into all four frameworks identified by John Zachman which are the Enterprise Framework, Professions Framework, the Classifications Framework and the Product Framework. Another finding is that the OBMF covers much ground on the top two rows of ZEF as it should, but it is probably not complete. More work on clarifying this issue is needed..

If I can find the time I’ll update this post with a visual of my business model and I’t would be nice to do the business model assessment step and the business model innovation and improvement step.

So here are the composites I created as they map to the business model model of Osterwalder

Partner Network
is part of -> Infrastructure
links to -> Key activities, Key resources, Cost structure, Value proposition
links from -> n/a

My partner network consist mainly of the people I connect with through work and my friends and family and so on. So if I add some groupings it would be Work (partners, suppliers), Family, Friends, Other (like the woman in the kiosk selling wired).

To be more work specific I list the following;

• Partners: Family, Biner Consulting
• Suppliers: Friends, Zachman International, Swedish Rail, Stockholm Public Transport, Ford, Lenovo, Microsoft, DF Kompetens, Amazon.com, Other

As a model in the Zachman enterprise framework the groupings would be Row 1, Col 1 and the specific organisations would be Row 6, Col 1.

Key Activities
is part of -> Infrastructure
links to -> Key resources, Value proposition
links from -> Partner network

My key activities are to attain new knowledge, reconstitute old knowledge, transmit knowledge, travel to and from places, sustain my energy levels, communicate with man and machine.

As models in the Zachman enterprise framework the models would be Row 1, Col 2 and the specific activities would be Row 6, Col 2.

Key Resources
is part of -> Infrastructure
links to -> Cost structure, Value proposition
links from -> Partner network, Key Activities

As it is written by Dr Osterwalder most often the key resources are divided into tangible and intangible assets. My key resources are my person, the tools I use (tangible) and my skills (intangible)

As models in the Zachman enterprise framework my person as a tangible would be Row 2, Col 1, the tools I use would be Row #, Col #. The skills are harder, normally you’d put these in the Zachman Professions Framework.

Cost Structures
is part of -> Finance
links to ->Value proposition
links from -> Partner network, Key resources

Here I look at the cost structure from my position setting including some of the costs affecting my employer. I do not extend this into the customer and supplier domains as I probably should if I wanted a complete picture of the customer structure.

• Marketing (mostly made up of time spent writing blogs and managing online presence…)
• Travel (I use shoes, bikes, planes, cars and trains to commute)
• Clothing (I use shirts, shoes, pants and suits…)
• Hardware (computers, phones, and I’d love to have an Ipod)
• Software (EA modelling tools, Office packages…)
• Physical space (Office rental, network…)

Since this gets down to the accounts it belongs in Row 1-2, Col 1 of the Zachman enterprise framework. I’ve seen discussions on the net where they extend the ZEF with a seventh column named “cost” or something like it. This is not necessary since you can work these things into the first column by using traditional accounting techniques.

Value Propositions
is part of -> Offer
links to -> Client relationships, Distribution channels, Revenue flows, Client segments
links from -> Partner network, Key activities, Key resources, Cost structure

Question #1, I offer the market consulting services regarding enterprise architecture.

Question #2, The bundle of services I provide each customer segment are all contained within the field of Enterprise architecture. It can however be broken down into a couple of larger bundles Coaching, Seminars, Workshops, Auditing, Facilitation and Executive Briefings. I also do consulting work such as support organisations i selecting, procuring and implementing framework, methodology, tools and consultants.

Question #3, The customer needs supported by the services I provide through my employer are in direct match to the services them selves.

• Coaching <=> Empowering people of all positions
• Seminars <= > Briefings on new and changing ideas
• Workshops <=> Subject focused teamwork directed by a specific methodology
• Auditing <=> Establishing context and baselines
• Facilitation <=> Enable groups and organizations to work more effectively by solving problems and devising strategies together
• Executive Briefings <=> Deliver high level actionable information
• Consulting work <=> Knowledge and resource

Question #4, All customers has access to the same service levels.

As for mapping services to the Zachman enterprise framework I say that is a composite of at least six different columns and a couple of rows. It will take  another post to break down services to the Zachman enterprise framework, so I won’t do that here. The definition of service levels I see as a composite which is an agreement between parties. The definition of customer needs I’d probably put in the Row 1-2, Col 6.

Client Relationships
is part of -> Customer
links to -> Distribution channels, Client segments
links from -> Value proposition

The objective here is to identify which types of relationships I have developed and which customer is served by which relationship.

So lets start with the relationships themselves:

• Texting on different blogs
• Communication via email and phone approximately once a month
• Daily communication eye to eye
• Delivering expert advice on a case by case service
• Empowering clients to ensure a high degree of self sufficiency
• Partnerships where I work together with a supplier or customer to enhance our strengths

The above list is by no means exhaustive and the items in italic is probably not a relationship, more of a channel I’d say.

So where do one put the client relationships in the Zachman enterprise framework. I’d put it in the Row 2, Col 3 square since I view it as “the” connection between two business locations. 

Distribution Channels
is part of -> Customer
links to ->Client segments, Revenue flows
links from -> Value proposition

According to Dr. Osterwalder the distribution channels represent the interface between a company’s value propositions and its customers. In my case it is simply:

• Peer networking (not connected)
• Direct sales (not connected)
• Advertising (not connected)
• Email marketing (not connected)
• Professional networks (not connected)
• Conferences
• Seminars
• Off site (in a location not controlled by the client)
• On site (this is probably the most common channel)
• Email
• Chat (video and text)

As I have identified the distribution channels it is now time to connect the main value propositions with a channel and  the channel with a customer segment.

I use the format [CS#n] as reference into the client segments.

• Coaching => On site, Email, Chat => [CS#1]
• Seminars = > On site, Conferences => [CS#6]
• Workshops => On site, Off site, Conferences => [CS#3], [CS#1]
• Auditing => On site => [CS#4], [CS#2]
• Facilitation => On site, Off site => [CS#3], [CS#4]
• Executive Briefings => On site, Off site => [CS#2]
• Consulting work => On site, Off site, Email, Chat => [CS#3], [CS#4]

Note: I have not connected the sales related distribution channels, since they are more related to the employer I work for than my own work.

In my use of distribution channels above they are at the highest level defined as locations. Mapping the distribution channels model to the Zachman enterprise framework would put it at Row 2, Col 3.

Client Segments
is part of -> Customer
links to -> n/a
links from -> Value proposition, Client relationships, Distribution channels, Revenue flows

Following the methodology this part is a four step process where one (1) start by identifying customer segments then goes on to (2) describe those identified in more detail. Digging deeper in to your own territory you will (3) classify existing customers according to the identified segments and end up with (4) adding some statistical information for each customer segment.

Shown below is only step one.

The list of client segments I serve can be described as

• [CS#1] People responsible of enterprise architecture in need of someone to help them grow their knowledge boundary
• [CS#2] Management who needs to understand what enterprise architecture is and how to deal with it
• [CS#3] Teams in charge of developing enterprise architecture
• [CS#4] Organisations in need of implementing structured methods of change management
• [CS#5] People with an interest of promoting enterprise architecture inside or outside of its own organisation
• [CS#6] Anyone who have a general interest in knowing more about enterprise architecture

Above I view client segments as a specific piece of an organisation and as such mapping it into Zachman enterprise framework would place it at Row 4, Col 2.

A short and sweet overview on customer segmentation can be read by reading the editorial “Have you defined your customer segments?” at CRM Today  

Revenue Flows
is part of -> Finance
links to -> Client segments
links from -> Value proposition, Distribution channels

 The revenue streams that affects me as mapped to client segments

• Consulting => [CS#1-5]
• Teaching => [CS#6]

Placing the revenue streams model into Zachman enterprise framework is not a given one. Perhaps one could put it in Row 2, Col 2 since it is a kind of transformation.

The methodology specify that you should go into each of these revenue streams and work more on specifying how much they cover the total revenues. I’ll skip this part here since it is not necessary to understand the business model of me.

Aside:
I haven’t done a complete business model of me, but it’s a hint on how one can do it. It is also a hint on how one can map the business model framework by Dr. Alex Osterwalder to the Zachman frameworks.

I hope I’ve got things right, if I’m wrong then point it out and I’ll correct it.

References:
Osterwalders business model manual - Go there
John Zachmans Enterprise Framework – Go there

I’ve been pondering this simple question “what do I do?”. Not the simple what do I do question, but the really hard what do I do with a super capital “I“. It’s so easy to throw out something saying I’m an enterprise architect, or I work in IT and information architecture or I map processes and strategy so I must be a business architect with an IT twist. Sure I hold certificates in the fields of IT-architecture and business architecture, I’ve served under good and bad leadership and I’ve created great and not so great architectures. But does all this put me in any special architect role and is this what I do.

Most of the time I function as a pathfinder, scouting out the best strategy, the most suitable method or a really great service. How does that tie in to being in the field of Enterprise architecture? Am I an architect or have I become an Internet native, a nomad roaming the fields of the web looking for greatness. It sure sounds more exciting being a pathfinder, an ea-nomad an internet native. Maybe I’ll get to put pathfinder on my next business card instead of enterprise architect.

Ugh!

I’ve been actively pursuing what I’d like to see in an offering related to the practice of enterprise architecture. Below is a fictive offering made to the community and all other stakeholders in EA, about a great service that would cater to most of the common needs.

• What if I exposed a service to you that gave you the ability to maintain all of your EA artifacts on any meta model you like
• What if the service could visualize all the relations and even some things you haven’t thought of yet
• What if this service came with ready made samples and explanations for most concepts in EA space
• What if the service I exposed was a true in the cloud application
• What if this service was localized for your usage
• What if this service could build upon your present material by importing, converting and exporting
• What if the service I exposed was more secure to use than your present service
• What if you and your users could have a say in how the user experience of this service would feel like
• What if this service had all the features of social computing and they where built in from start
• What if this service had awesome search built in to it
• What if this service had an open API attached to it
• What if the service I exposed guaranteed a drop in EA tools licensing cost with more than 90%
• What if this service was globally available
• What if the support for this service was better than what you get at your mommas house
• What if I could guarantee delivery of all this by 2009-12-31

Would you buy in to it?

I came across a piece of software that allows you to map out relations between search results from Google and Amazon. So I decided to map out the prominent terms of the enterprise architecture field, namely “enterprise architecture”, “method”, “framework”, “tool” and “Books”.

I’ll leave it up to you to draw any conclusions from these maps.

Map of Enterprise Architecture (Using the Google tool)

Map of Enterprise Architecture and Method (Using the Google tool)

Map of Enterprise Architecture and Framework (Using the Google tool)

Map of Enterprise Architecture and Tool (Using the Google tool)

Map of Enterprise Architecture and Books (Using the Amazon tool)

The tool came from Touchgraph and I found it by reading an interesting article from Business Week.