Walgreens’ Stephen Ma shares why fewer architects, with wider domain expertise, may close the gap between EA’s ethos and its perceived value proposition.
This article was originally published on CIO.com by Michael Bertha, Partner at Metis Strategy and Duke Dyksterhouse, Senior Associate at Metis Strategy
Skim recent articles about enterprise architecture (EA) and you’ll notice a contradiction. Of them, plenty suggest that, unless a company develops a strong EA muscle, it will limit itself. Yet just as many seem to question the function’s value, or spotlight material that does. A recent report from Forrester, for example, opens: “[While] enterprise architecture remains a critical capability … many digital and IT professionals view enterprise architecture as a roadblock that adds no real value.”
All this contradiction suggests that EA, as a function, may be suffering an identity crisis, but Stephen Ma — acting chief architect at Walgreens — is not about it.
Ma doesn’t object from a place of defensiveness — he knows the function’s value. But he’s frustrated that the discipline’s value hasn’t been communicated as well as it should be, a grave issue in today’s business climate, in which every role of every function is under scrutiny. He also thinks the solution is straightforward.
“We need a full-stack architect,” he says.
That’s right: According to Ma, the solution to EA’s identity crisis is fewer architects, but ones with the ability to traverse multiple architectural domains.
To understand what makes an architect “full stack,” we first need to define EA. Per Gartner:
“Enterprise architecture (EA) is a discipline for proactively and holistically leading enterprise responses to disruptive forces by identifying and analyzing the execution of change toward desired business vision and outcomes. EA delivers value by presenting business and IT leaders with signature-ready recommendations for adjusting policies and projects to achieve targeted business outcomes that capitalize on relevant business disruptions.”
Not all this work gets done by architects of the same type. By Ma’s count, there are at least four major architect types: Business, Solution, Enterprise, and Technical. Each works across at least two of six major domains of expertise: Business, Product, Design, Engineering, Delivery, and Support. None of them works across all six.
And herein lies the problem, says Ma: When business stakeholders seek to understand EA’s value proposition, or even check the status of a project, they may get different answers depending on whom they ask. It’s the three-blind-men-describing-an-elephant problem: The man who feels the tail describes an animal very different from the one described by the man feeling the abdomen, or by the one feeling the ears and tusks. Though the variety in their descriptions may reflect the function’s comprehensiveness, to the uneducated executive, it sounds like misalignment. That executive feels that, to get a complete picture, he or she must piece it together him or herself.
As Ma sees it, this perception has never been more damning than it is today.
“A lot of people, during COVID, really thought COVID was going to live with us for the foreseeable future, so companies made big digital bets on how people work, how customers interact … and they over-hired,” he explains.
Among these digital bets was greater investment in technological functions believed to critically enable strategy and scale in a remote world — functions like enterprise architecture. Ma recalls how difficult it was to attract talent to CVS, where he was leading architecture at the time.
“I would put a job description out there for a really quality principal architect or director position, and I would get one good resume maybe every three weeks,” he says. “It took me six months to even think about finding somebody good.”
Of course, in the end, many of those bets didn’t pan out. The pandemic ended, many customers returned to their usual patterns of behavior, and about a year ago, companies began revisiting hiring decisions they made under different pretenses, asking, “What exactly does this role do?”
And now, with technologies such as AI emerging, they’re asking twice as emphatically. Ma warns all architects that they need to be able to answer this question clearly, consistently, and persuasively.
“I’ve actually heard fellow architects say, in describing their role, that they’re ‘marriage counselors.’ Relationship-building is very important, but it alone is no longer enough. Architects have to know what they are talking about at a deep technical level,” he says.
To solve this problem, Ma sees the emergence of a full-stack architect who can describe the whole elephant — and enhance EA’s service delivery model by several means.
First, the full-stack architect could ensure the function’s other architects are indeed aligned, not only among themselves, but with stakeholders from both the business and engineering.
That last bit shouldn’t be overlooked, Ma says. While much attention gets paid to the notion that architects should be able to work fluently with the business, they should, in fact, work just as fluently with Engineering, meaning that whoever steps into the role should wield deep technical expertise, an attribute vital to earning the respect of engineers, and one that more traditional enterprise architects lack.
For both types of stakeholders, then, the full-stack architect could serve as a single point of contact. Less “telephone,” as it were. And it could clarify the value proposition of EA as a singular function — and with respect to the business it serves. Finally, the role would probably make a few other architects unnecessary, or at least allow them to concentrate more fully on their respective principal responsibilities. No longer would they have to coordinate their peers.
Ma’s inspiration for the role finds its origin in the full-stack engineer, as Ma sees EA today evolving similarly to how software engineering evolved about 15 years ago. During that time, as social media and e-commerce exploded, so too did the variety of software engineers holding the seams together. Those engineers gradually sorted themselves into realms of expertise — front-end, back-end, data layer, and so on — and ultimately came to be coordinated by the full-stack engineer, now quite common in mature organizations, and expected to become only more so over the next decade.
Ma sees this role as analogous to the full-stack architect: “You can’t really have one person, engineer or otherwise, who’s truly a full-blown expert up and down the stack — I’m not suggesting this is a magic bullet — but the idea here is, let’s have full-stack architects who cover all areas from both a business and technical perspective.”
For some readers, this may beg the question: How would the full-stack architect differ from a product owner? Do they both not link the business and the digital execution? They do, but with different priorities. Product owners, explains Ma, even technical ones, tend to never get sufficiently deep into the weeds of the technology itself, always concerned first with the product. Having worked in organizations that leaned on such roles, Ma has never seen it work.
“Maybe it could if your company is clear about what it does and which roles have exactly which responsibilities, but most are not and don’t. You need a role that can help the in-between, that can be the glue holding together some of the areas that fall under several verticals, and who can be the person that anyone — engineers or businesspeople — can go to when they have a need that concerns both the business and the technology teams,” he says.
Another important justification that Ma offers for such a role is that the problem solved by architects is here to stay, even as advanced technologies enter the equation.
“It’s part of the reason I love this space,” he says. “What’s under it is so many different technology domains — integration, data, APIs, and so on — but also multiple business prongs and industries. There is so much to learn.”
The same can be said for most companies today, as they branch out into new opportunities, often by way of digital transformation, he adds.
“Consider Walgreens, people usually think of our pharmacy, but we also have photo, healthcare clinics, supply chain, and many more functions,” Ma says. “You’re always going to need someone who can bridge the gap between business and technology. You’ll always need someone who underpins it all.”
As companies work to adapt to a fast-changing business environment and increasingly complex technology landscape, leaders are taking a closer look at their enterprise architecture strategy to ensure their IT portfolio supports strategic business objectives. Done well, a strong enterprise architecture provides the foundation that enables companies to be more agile, scale new innovations quickly and securely, and ultimately deliver greater value to customers.
Creating a solid enterprise architecture strategy can help take product development organizations to the next level by providing the technological runway they need to create seamless customer experiences and respond quickly to market needs. Inside many organizations, however, we often find that enterprise architecture has not reached the level of maturity needed to deliver on those promises. Often, employees rely on patches and workarounds to get data from one system to another, time that could be spent working on product and system enhancements. In other cases, existing technology architectures no longer align with strategic business objectives. One of the main problems stemming from this lack of alignment is that it limits the capacity to create efficiencies and synergies that support business goals. It can also hamper business agility by making it more difficult to create and share relevant data and insights across the organization.
To overcome these challenges, firms need an enterprise architecture strategy that can adapt to changing market demands. That requires making EA an ongoing and evolving part of any digital transformation initiative.
At its core, enterprise architecture refers to the configuration of IT resources in service of an organization’s business strategy. It creates alignment among a company’s strategic goals, its existing business processes, the data and information created, and the underlying infrastructure that supports it. It forms a blueprint of sorts, noting not only what technology the company currently has, but also how future technology investments will fit into or change what currently exists.
There are four main components of the EA:
We will explore each of these later in the article. These components cascade down from one another, each serving a different purpose (see image).
Having a clear EA does not magically solve business operations issues, nor does it enable a company to generate insights with a single tool. What it does is create vertical alignment of the business and functional objectives, foster collaboration between functions, and help create synergies based on data.
For many companies, the Enterprise Architecture is an afterthought, something only relevant to the architect who needs to give his or her sign-off during product feasibility meetings. But as mentioned above, the EA needs a seat at the table throughout the process to share guidelines and strategies with product development and IT teams that enable key growth levers. Among the reasons a clear EA is essential:
There are four key components of any enterprise architecture strategy:
The first step in creating an enterprise architecture strategy is understanding the overall business outcomes an organization wants to achieve. The Objectives, Goals, Tactics & Metrics (OGTM) framework provides a useful framework for aligning business goals to the mission and vision of the organization, then tying those goals to specific operational tactics. You can read more about the OGTM framework here.
Once there is clarity about the organization’s path and desired outcomes, it is important to partner with business functions to help each understand their role in the company’s strategy. Conversations with functional leaders should focus on objectives, roadmaps and blockers, the functional leader’s needs, and which technologies support and enable their goals.
Discussions with functional leaders should also include how they use data to influence their processes and decisions. This creates a bridge between business strategy and data strategy and leads to understanding about how data will flow across and within the organization. In the age of artificial intelligence, it is important to discuss and set a direction for the use of tools and structures that enable the use of algorithms, automation, machine learning and eventually AI.
With an understanding of the overall strategy and functional objectives, as well as the data needed to execute business processes, technology leaders can determine the tools and applications that will best help the organization achieve its goals.
These tools may be internal, such as an employee lifecycle management tool. At the center may be an application that includes an employee’s personal information and is connected to recruitment and onboarding tools. That data may also connect to a learning management system (LMS) to track training and employee growth paths. Connecting all of these applications can, for example, allow HR team can generate valuable insights used by the management teams.
Applications may also be external, directly related to customer-facing products or digital channels. Say a financial services firm sells an application to help bank branches process customer transactions. If the firm also offers related products, such as mobile or web banking or fraud detection products, it is important that the different products work seamlessly and appear as a single system to the end user. A single application architecture can help influence requirements for user experience, product development, and operations teams.
When creating an application architecture, it is also important to understand the role that Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs, play within the business. APIs are the building blocks that ensure all systems can communicate and share data effectively. This is one of the most important, yet often overlooked, aspects of the product development process that needs to be addressed by your EA strategy.
Organizations first should assess whether the company has all of the technological components necessary to support the business tools and applications. This includes hardware and software that will enable these tools to be deployed, such as on-premise servers or cloud storage, networking, and security. When thinking through technology architecture, it is critical to consider how infrastructure will affect the organization’s agility and ability to grow.
There are different risks and challenges associated with the creation of an enterprise architecture strategy. Due to how quickly technology changes, it is very easy for systems, applications, and even entire methodologies to become obsolete in a short period of time. Combined with an inclination to go after the latest trend, it is particularly easy for the EA model to become outdated or to have changed by the time a standard version is in place. In this scenario, enterprise architects constantly play catch up and the strategy fails to deliver its real value.
Similarly, business teams may perceive architects as people sitting in an ivory tower, not tied to the reality developers face. As a result, developers may not see the value in creating documentation. Technology leaders, then, must constantly communicate the strategic importance of enterprise architecture in achieving both short-term and long-term business goals, and drive operational accountability for documentation across the organization.
With a clear understanding of the business objectives, as well as the data, applications, and infrastructure that will help a company achieve its goals, technology leaders can create a roadmap for transforming the organization. That includes thinking through which frameworks and tools may be used to implement the new enterprise architecture. There are a number of EA management tools in the market that you can use to map all business capabilities to the strategy, as well as to the logical and physical infrastructure. Depending on an organization’s maturity, leaders may also opt to have more informal plans and architecture mapping, but it’s worth noting that this may inhibit the speed and effectiveness of implementation.
At the same time, it is important to frame EA as a light tool rather than an onerous process that only delivers documentation. When creating or improving an enterprise architecture, leaders should think through how EA teams will continue to add value by enabling new product development and creating new opportunities for innovation at scale.
Creating a comprehensive EA strategy is not a linear process, and it takes time and many conversations to go from an idea to full execution. The journey does not stop once the EA has been implemented, but rather is an iterative process that will change and mature over time as technology evolves and priorities shift.
Peter High
08-10-2015
Excerpt from the Article:
The mission of Word & Brown is to simplify access to better health insurance choices. Privately held for 30 years by entrepreneurs John Word and Rusty Brown, the organization connects businesses to industry-leading solutions in every area of health insurance and employee benefits.
When Allen Fazio joined the company in May of 2014, as Fazio tells CIO Insight contributor, Peter High, the team had a lot of talent, but it was not a high performing team. He embarked on a major transformation that continues today, and Fazio has helped technology bring value to the enterprise.
CIO Insight: What role does IT play in driving Word & Brown’s business?
Allen Fazio: As with many successful 30-year-old organizations, at The Word & Brown Companies, IT plays a critical role on several fronts: transforming current operations by providing technology solutions to streamline operations, move traditional products and services to a Web/mobile consumption model, and manage higher transaction volume at marginal cost; modernizing the legacy systems that have been the backbone to the success of the business; reducing technology operating costs; and leveraging the technology portfolio to gain greater levels of value from technology assets.
CIO Insight: You are not a “back-office only” CIO. Across your career, you have focused on delivering customer-facing technologies, as well as helping to run the operation of the company. How have you inspired your teams to follow your lead to become more cognizant of customer needs?
To read the remainder of the article, please visit CIO Insight
Summarizing five ways to drive IT productivity, Peter High references a recent CEB study that suggests how CIOs can get the most out of their teams.
by Peter High, published on Forbes.com
11-19-2012
I recently had a chance to speak with Shvetank Shah, who is the Executive Director, IT Practice at CEB , and he made me aware of a recent study that his team conducted, surveying 23,339 employees at organizations globally regarding how to “Prepare IT to Drive Productivity in the New Work Environment.” (That is the title of a CEB CIO Executive Board analysis that was just released.) I have included the five conclusions in italics below with my own thoughts in regular text:
1. Refocus on Team, Not Individual, Productivity—As opportunities for process automation run low, IT will refocus on enabling teams, not just individuals, to be effective at collaboration and knowledge work.
This is very much in line with where my CIO contacts are focusing a lot of attention these days. As the workforce ages, and key staff retire in greater numbers, and as the market for talented individuals is heating up, effective knowledge management is crucial to ensure that as people leave the corporation, knowledge remains. Moreover, as collaboration across product and service areas, across geographies, and with external partners (vendors or customers) increase, having processes and technologies to facilitate and capture the output from that collaboration will be essential.
2. Shift Support from Tool Usage to Employees Using the Tools—IT and other corporate functions will redefine support, moving away from teaching how to use a tool and instead helping employees build the skills they need to effectively collaborate, apply judgment, and use data for decision making.
In other words, employees need to be taught “skills” in collaboration, analysis, and the like, and to a greater extent centralized functions like IT will play a significant role in these efforts. These will be fundamentally new responsibilities for many IT departments, and will require training and new hiring in some cases in order to meet this imperative.
The remaining three ways are:
3. Separate Flexible Interfaces from Foundational Data
4. Prioritize the IT–Employee Relationship
5. Adopt “Test and Learn” IT Strategy and Budgets
To read the full article, please visit Forbes.com.
To read past pieces in the Technovation Column, please click here.
With Everything as a Service, CIOS need a new recipe for success.
Full article by Tom Fare in: Smart Enterprise, Volume 6, Issue 1, 2012, Page 32
The trend toward Everything as a Service (XaaS) has CIOs scrambling to set the right strategy. To learn more about how CIOs will succeed in a services world, Contributing Editor Tom Farre spoke recently with Peter High, President of CIO advisory firm Metis Strategy and author of World Class IT: Why Businesses Succeed When IT Triumphs (Jossey-Bass, 2009).
SE: In today’s enterprise, how can smart CIOs use XaaS to improvethe IT infrastructure?
PH: Traditional on-premises IT infrastructure is typically capitalintensive.The more of it you have to control and manage, the moredifficult it is to keep current; and as demand changes, you can’teasily ratchet it up and back. But by leveraging a service-basedmodel, you are better positioned with a variable cost structure.In tough economic times, your costs should more closely reflectthe realities of the business environment.
Other questions in the interview:
– But with IT and business services available directly from thecloud, how can CIOs ensure that business users won’t bypass IT? – How about people? What impact will XaaS have on IT personnel? – So in a world-class IT organization, what should this “muscle”be doing? – What else should CIOs know about world-class IT? – So how important are internal communications?
Please visit the interactive digital copy of Smart Enterprise, page 32, for the full interview with Peter High.
Alternatively, you can access the PDF version of the interview here: Peter High, President of Metis Strategy- Smart Enterprise Interview on Everything as a Service, Volume 6. Issue 1. 2012.
Norm Fjeldheim, Qualcomm’s SVP and CIO, shares his views on the company’s approach to “everything as a service” (XaaS), the rationale for choosing this strategy, the challenges he met along the way and the value he has garnered for his company.
by Peter High, in CIO Insight 02-20-2012
IN SUMMARY: WHO: Norm Fjeldheim, SVP and CIO, Qualcomm WHAT: Sharing his views on Qualcomm’s approach to “everything as a service” (XaaS) for its 21,000 employees worldwide WHERE: San Diego WHY: To provide CIOs and other IT leaders with actionable advice and insights about how to optimize the complex infrastructure of today’s IT organizations
Norm Fjeldheim, SVP and CIO of Qualcomm, the $15 billion maker of communication equipment, has had an unusually long tenure as CIO, having taken on that role in early 1999.
A 24-year veteran of the company, Fjeldheim has overseen significant changes to Qualcomm’s IT infrastructure. Roughly 1,400 of Qualcomm’s 21,000 worldwide employees report to Fjeldheim.
San Diego-based Qualcomm, which operates 200 offices worldwide, is engaged in the development, design, manufacture and marketing of digital wireless telecommunications products and services. Its divisions include Qualcomm CDMA Technologies, Qualcomm Enterprise Services and Qualcomm Government Technologies.
In January 2012, the company was named one of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For.
In this one-on-one Q&A, Fjeldheim tells CIO Insight’s Peter High about Qualcomm’s approach to “everything as a service” (XaaS), the rationale for choosing this approach, the challenges he met along the wayand the value he has garnered for his company.
CIO Insight: Norm, you first dipped your toe in the water on cloud computing and the SPI model [software as a service (SaaS), platform as a service (PaaS) and infrastructure as a service (IaaS)] before those terms were well known or widely used eight or nine years ago. What was the impetus for delving into virtualization?
Norm Fjeldheim: We began a little less than a decade ago when members of my team approached me and indicated that they thought virtualizing would add tremendous value to our operations. They indicated that it would render our operation more efficient, and that it would lead to significant cost savings. I asked the team what they needed to begin this journey. They said they needed a modest financial commitment to get started: a couple of hundred thousand dollars. I challenged them, saying that if virtualization was to be such a cost saver, we should expect that these activities would be self-funding after this initial seed investment.
The team began with Windows—and rather conservatively. (In retrospect, I wish I had pursued Windows and Unix together, so that it would not have looked like a Windows-specific effort in the beginning.) However, the efforts quickly built momentum. In the end, the team required significantly less than the initial commitment before these efforts became self-funding.
Our biggest foray into SaaS came by happenstance. We were a big user of Siebel for our CRM solutions. In 2005, a new business unit of ours was ramping up, and as the unit members planned the deployment of their first product, the software requirements did not include any mention of a need to ramp up Siebel in the process. As we found out about this six weeks prior to the launch of this new business unit’s first product, this led to a short time frame to get the functionality up and running and therefore [ramping up Siebel became] a pressing need. We realized we were not going to meet their needs, and it led us to think about alternatives
We pursued Salesforce.com potentially as a one-off instance for us, but discovered that it had as much functionality, more flexibility, and could be implemented and ramped up in a fraction of the time of our solution. We ended up migrating to Salesforce.com completely, and saved 50 to 60 percent in costs as a result, with improved functionality.
To read the remainder of the article, please visit CIO Insight.
To listen to Norm’s podcast interview with us, please visit Metis Strategy’s Forum on World Class IT.
In an industry known for risk aversion, Great American Insurance’s Senior Vice President and CIO Piyush Singh has managed to innovate and transform the company’s entire operative platform, while simultaneously influencing its business philosophy.
by Peter High
09-01-2011
In Summary
Who: Piyush Singh, SVP/CIO of Great American Insurance
What: Singh has transformed the 4,000-employee company’s entire operative platform and influenced the company’s business philosophy.
Where: Cincinnati
Why: Singh’s experiences innovating in a traditionally risk-averse industry provides a recipe for success for any CIO grappling with governance, risk and compliance challenges.
Piyush Singh has been a CIO in the insurance industry for more than a decade, currently holding the title of senior vice president and CIO of Great American Insurance, as well as vice president of its parent company, American Financial Group in Cincinnati. Singh led a large-scale transformation of Great American’s entire operative platform and has had a major influence on its business philosophy. Under his leadership, the company’s IT role changed from that of custodian of a legacy IT environment to respected partner that participates in—and contributes to the success of—the businesses it supports. Great American has implemented a modern technology architecture as a foundation that will adapt for future growth and evolving business needs. CIO Insight contributor and Metis Strategy President Peter High recently spoke with Singh about how he balances his team’s role in innovation with governance, risk management and security—especially in light of the increasing demands of his colleagues and the company’s customers.
To read the remainder of this article, please visit CIO Insight.
