“Business” and “IT” alignment is surely a major concern for every Company.
If not a bottleneck, it can be a consequent hindrance for any Strategy or Program implementation.
Usually, “Business” feels that “IT” doesn’t always provide efficient or accurate response.
Therefore, in order to solve it, in order to mitigate risk of misalignment, Companies ask “Business” to drive “IT”. Or should we say: Companies use “Business” to drive “IT”.
But does it really work ?
“Business” complains about “IT”, lacking of business acumen.
“IT” feels stuck and forced to be a technological “copy/mirror” of the “Business”.
The thing is …
“Business” and “IT” obey rules specific to their domain.
Their perspective angles are different. Their landscapes can not be the same.
Here’s two simple examples:
e.g.:
From a Business viewpoint, we’ll talk about “Customer name”, “Supplier name”, “Partner name”, …
Meanwhile, from an Information viewpoint, we’ll talk only about “Party name” (term commonly adopted in MDM world).
Indeed, a same “Party” can have different roles regarding the Business context.
e.g.:
A same Application may manage and give access to several products/services from different business-lines. (software package, channel interface, …)
Business landscape is defined and structured regarding business scopes considerations. Having a look at it, we can see that some information are not only shared, but common to several business lines. Several business lines can also use some same processing engine.
Therefore, from an Informational or Application viewpoint, the structure of the landscape will be different, as well as the modeled units that compose it.
IT landscape is necessarily different, by essence.
The so-called “alignment”
Companies, getting aware about this distinction, rely on “architecture”.
They’re setting “Business architecture” and “IT architecture” capability teams.
Then, “alignment” doesn’t mean them being the same but means making them able to work together.
However, Companies end-up with a binomial approach.
This means that in conflict situations, respective viewpoints will be opposed.
The search for an understanding can take a long time and, by being about “compromises”, would not satisfy any of the parties.
Usually, final decision is from the “Business” side, business being the purpose.
In some way, this is a return to the starting point.
Arbitration has to be done at a broader level.
A level which is “neutral”, “outside” of any side.
Enterprise Architecture as the enterprise-wide arbitration level
A proper architecture approach of the Enterprise considers “Business” and “IT” as constraints for shaping the Enterprise.
(Not in the sense of pain-points but as constitutive subjects needed to be taken into account).
- “Business” and “IT” as Viewpoints.
Viewpoints are the ways of seeing things from a specific perspective.
They are the lenses through which stakeholders approach things.
They are the lenses used to write documents regarding targeted audience.
While the “Business” point of view approaches an element as a stakeholder of value,
the “IT” point of view approaches an element (even the same one. cf.: cube paradigm) as a technological means.
Viewpoints aren’t limited to “Business” and “IT” though.
Legal viewpoint, Financial viewpoint, etc., have to be considered as-well.
- “Business” and “IT” as Components.
Components are the constitutive elements of the Enterprise.
They describe what the Enterprise is and does.
While the “Business” components describes the activity of the Enterprise,
the “IT” components describes the enablers for that activity.
Components aren’t limited to “Business” and “IT” though.
Human resources is a major enabler of the business. Profiles, capacity, assignments and roles of collaborators have to be managed as-well.
Information/Data is a subject as such. It has business value, while its processing can be automated by technology.
“Applications” itself can be splitted, providing a “functional” overview, while their instantiations and deployments provide a “technical” overview.
This, not to mention production lines and machinery (e.g.: industry sector).
“Business” and “IT” can work together because
Enterprise Architecture provides the required environment that integrates the criteria for alignments.