Mike Callahan is a recognized business architecture expert and co-founder of AgileLayer, a provider of business architecture methodologies, software and consulting services. Mike and his colleagues have introduced a number of industry-first business architecture methods and tools over the past ten years in the areas of methodology, governance and maturity models, as well as capability modeling, assessment and roadmapping. Mike is based on Boston, and holds a BS in computer science from the Boston College School of Management.
[restrict]
EAPJ: How do you define business architecture?
MC: A business architecture describes and aligns an enterprise’s current and target state capabilities, services, structures, motivations and value streams, as well as internal and external drivers. Business architecture guides and supports planning and execution across company domains and disciplines. The capability element of business architecture is foundational and is instantiated by or composed of people, process, technology, as well as other assets and constructs such as policies, information and skills.
EAPJ: How did you get started in the field?
MC: I was an early practitioner in the service-oriented architecture field, where I hoped that the business services abstraction could be a mechanism to better align business and IT. This, needless to say, proved difficult, but in the process, about six years ago, we understood that business capabilities could be a cornerstone for improved Business-IT collaboration and alignment, and a foundation for business architecture.
EAPJ: What types of organizations should consider doing business architecture?
MC: I believe all organizations can benefit. Clearly, though, with larger, more complex and dynamic enterprises, the potential value increases exponentially.
EAPJ: Could you please give a brief example of an organization that has derived great value from business architecture?
MC: One pharmaceutical customer has driven significant operational streamlining and organizational simplification through business architecture. This was accomplished by working with business leaders on a phased capability rationalization and innovation program that become a core discipline in a newly formed enterprise transformation office.
EAPJ: There are many prominent approaches to organizational improvement. In this issue, Mike Novak compares and integrates the Baldrige approach to organizational performance improvement and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), which includes business architecture as the foundation for application, information and technology architecture. How should organizations integrate business architecture with their approaches to quality and performance management and enterprise and solution architecture?
MC: Regarding quality and performance management, our baseline business architecture metamodel specifies alignment of business performance and quality metrics with business capabilities, describing and tracking type and level of alignment. Also, we recommend, over time, the introduction of capability-specific performance and quality metrics as well as service-level agreements. Metrics in use today don’t typically correlate 1:1 with capabilities since they were based upon other constructs such as processes and value. However, as business architecture practices mature, we’re seeing companies develop and manage capability-specific KPIs while continuing to track and manage how capabilities impact core performance and quality metrics. Regarding business architecture and EA, you could certainly do one without the other, but no business roadmap is devoid of a technology component, and quite often that component is the most substantive and complex element of the roadmap.
Regarding the integration of business architecture with other approaches, the challenge is less with positing an acceptably broad metamodel than with the handoffs and governance Integration involves many stakeholders touching the planning and design pieces, such as business experts, consultants, business analysts, business architects, enterprise architects, program and project managers and solution architects.
A related integration matter pertains to stakeholder deliverables and views. Companies continue to struggle with expressing digestible, informative and actionable views that provide cohesion and clarity across value scenarios, business architecture, planning and EA domains. We spend a lot of time on this: evolving our software, templates and methods.
EAPJ: How should an organization develop a business architecture capability?
MC: Senior sponsorship is required and there needs to be an early win producing and showcasing significant value from the application of the business architecture discipline. Early on, many are reluctant to tackle a significant scenario, but you can’t gain momentum and credibility without taking on a high-profile pain point or program.
EAPJ: What skills are needed?
MC: Most important and lacking are management consulting skills. These skills include: relating emerging industry trends and practices to your organization’s transformation progress; working closing with senior business leaders to identify highly differentiating and innovative approaches to delivering on strategic imperatives; and synthesizing cross-domain business drivers and requirements into unified, aligned capability development programs.
EAPJ: Where in the organization should the business architecture team be located?
MC: In the business; although we do see some successes when it’s housed in IT. I think you’ll see more and more companies incubate business architecture in IT and then move it into the business, using a federated cross-domain model.
EAPJ: When is it time to move the incubated business architecture team from IT into the business?
MC: Generally speaking, when you’ve had two or more strategic successes and have sponsorship from multiple heads of businesses.
EAPJ: And what is a federated cross-domain model?
MC: This model centers on a small central business architecture function to produce and inculcate methods, best practices and frameworks. This function is aligned with business architects practicing management consulting that matrix report into it and directly report into line-of-business leadership.
EAPJ: What motivated you to start Agile Layer?
MC: My colleagues and I saw an opportunity to create a specialist consulting firm that focused heavily on the creation and delivery of intellectual property and related enablement programs instead of providing staff and delivery services. We’ve kept very focused on business architecture for the last six years and continue to refine and extend our intellectual property and approach.
EAPJ: What advice do you have for individuals interested in becoming business architects?
MC: If you don’t have management consulting skills, develop them! You need to be fully focused on solving significant business problems and providing business stakeholders with actionable insights and alternatives. Think in terms of game-changing capabilities, innovations and new business models. Look outside your company and industry. The business side typically lacks this kind of internal advisory service, and business architecture done well can fill the gap and then some!
[/restrict]
