Blog

Viewpoints of many different disciplines need to be considered in order to implement a holistically designed enterprise. Interests of disciplines closer to purpose and customer value (like service- or UX designers) must be negotiated with disciplines closer to feasibility (like business- or software architects). Designs of those groups can be conflicting, drafts of UX designers, for example, might not be feasible with proper software design or due to limited budgets.

Today those disciplines are having hard times with each other. Designers are often frustrated because their designs are never implemented in the way they envisioned. IT-Architects are frustrated because everybody perceives them as not willing to implement a certain design. Executives are feeling that the money they invest hardly ever leads to the intended outcomes. A lot of misconceptions and conflicts between designers, architects and executives arise that are usually resolved by corporate politics, not the best way to optimize overall enterprise design. Read More

Last fall Tom Graves interviewed me @Intersection Conference in Lisbon. A great opportunity to talk about our vision.

Some statements I made: Read More

“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself“:

Holy Bible, Leviticus 19:18

Today, in the era of digital transformation, customer focus is the mantra of all companies. This consequent focus on customer needs means concentrating on how every interaction helps the customer, rather than how it helps your business. Putting customers at the heart of everything you do as a business places you in a better position to build relationships and increase customer satisfaction (and your revenues, of course!).

But can you focus on your customers too much? Yes, if you live in our reality of limited resources!

Read More

Read More

A recent article by an Austrian newspaper stated that the growth in sales of the ‘Christkindlmarkt’ (Christmas Market) Vienna exceeds the turnover growth of online shops by 30%. At the first instant, I was quite surprised by this fact. Why are traditional business models like of the Christkindlmarkt still competitive? Why are companies of the old economy like large banks still around even if not having radically transformed to innovative business models?

In my opinion, the best answer to these questions is given by the German philosopher Odo Marquard . His famous essay “Zukunft braucht Herkunft” (“Future needs Ancestry”) discusses why every innovation must be based on the capabilities that have evolved over centuries. In other words – if you are an elephant even years of training cannot make you a zebra. If you are the Vienna Opera even hundreds of Agile coaches cannot make you Spotify. If you are a big bank even thousands of consultants cannot make you a fintec.

After some contemplation, I asked myself questions like:

• Could it be that we admire companies like Amazon too much?
• Do we live in an age that believes too much in technology and progress?
• Are companies of the old economy aware of their tremendous strengths that still keep them in front of innovative startups like fintechs?
• Is the hype of digital transformation slowing down because of the reality of real, tangible assets that can not be disrupted by internet companies?

After answering these questions from my point of view I would give the following recommendations: Read More

Let’s look back four years and remember what consultants predicted for the digitally transformed future of companies. Expectations were high, a bright, technology optimistic future was drawn in vivid colors – self-driving cars, disrupted businesses, AI automates all backoffice processes, etc. etc. And now – let’s compare this to the reality of enterprises of the old economy – yes, companies have run punctual innovation initiatives, banks have modernized their mobile payment apps . But substantially? Nothing has “transformed”! Digital transformation of the old economy is happening at a much slower pace than expected. So, the question is: why? Why are big companies still around without having changed their business models substantially? Read More

In nine out of ten companies I worked as an EA, IT implementation projects were used as the key element used in strategic planning. Boards were used to budget and prioritize goals based on project status reports. They had to decide whether to invest in project ‘ABZ’ or ‘Leo New’ (both quite cryptic names for them) – not the best way to keep oversight over their strategic goals.

The Architectural Thinking Framework includes the concept of “Strategic Fields of Action” (SFAs) (introduced in our last blog post) that addresses this problem. SFAs connect the strategic goals of the company with the implementation projects. Thus, they are the link between the operational planning of projects and the architectural skeleton of the company.   Read More

Defining a compelling vision should usually be the first step to start a digital transformation journey. Your executives craft a vision of your transformed company: what your company will stand for, how it will operate, which technology it will use to improve customer value. That vision highlighted some of the major landmarks on your transformation journey.

Derived from this vision, companies should define strategic goals that bring the vision to a more operational level. Read More

To unleash its enormous power, Enterprise Architecture (EA) must be implemented as a management instrument that is the basis for important strategic decisions. In practice, however, EA is still a mystical discipline, ruled by vague frameworks and done by a small EA group far away from executive boards. In most companies, EA has no or very limited impact on strategic business decisions. Enterprise Architecture SHOULD be a management instrument but fails in practice. Read More

The Architectural Thinking Association® celebrates its first birthday! A lot has happened in this year, and plans are getting clearer and clearer, so – let’s have a look at the results we’ve achieved so far and at our next steps:

We’ve built an interdisciplinary Leadership Team

I am happy that we were able to build an active, multidisciplinary ->Leadership Team. It consists of seven renowned people from the fields of Business Strategy, Business Architecture, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Design, and Agile Solution Development. In our monthly calls, we discussed our mission, the conceptual foundations of Architectural Thinking, and future steps. Read More