Introduction
In modern organizations, emerging technologies play a crucial role in development of the corporation and its competitive position of the market. The task of the enterprise architect is to communicate benefits and goals, strategic priorities and advantages of the new structure to organizational stakeholders. Technology frequently becomes a driving force if it is developed and implemented without consideration of the social system, which is usually “adjusted” after technology has been introduced. Yet, technology does not have to be a fixed factor; it offers choices and options (Lankhorst, p. 12). While this is no revolutionary insight, in the context of presently emerging technologies the choices made have far-reaching consequences. In our judgment the key to the continued innovation success rates these companies enjoy is to be found in their careful management of structure.
Main body
Communication process will be based on oral and written communication in the form of reports and newsletters, budgets and financial statements which will help operations managers and stakeholders to understand the importance of enterprise architecture and its main elements (Spewak, p.98). At the first stage, strategic interventions have to be guided by a clear understanding of the organization’s mission and purpose. Such a mission statement, based on explicit values, provides the basis for analyzing organizational strengths and weaknesses in light of environmental threats and opportunities (Bernard, p. 33). The analysis of these opportunities and threats as related to each of the three areas of change, needs to be more specific than the above general discussion of trends. By carefully assessing these factors, one can formulate specific strategic as well as tactical objectives and identify the innovations required to achieve these goals. Innovation here is defined as any kind of future-oriented and mission-based strategic change, including product, process, and structural organizational change (Lankhorst 17). High technology workers are “knowledge workers.” Many are highly educated and trained in specialized fields of knowledge and belong to professional groups that have norms and standards and are defined not only by the content of their knowledge but by accepted practices and approaches to solving problems or conducting investigations; They arrive in the firm already “socialized” with a strong internalized set of expectations and values. They have internalized standards, expect to be able to exert professional autonomy within the narrow bounds of their expertise, and experience collegial influence and control as more legitimate than hierarchical control (Spewak, p. 99).
The task of the enterprise architect is to explain that manufacturing-oriented product design is increasingly coupled with process innovations aimed at reducing of long lead times and freeing capital tied up in large in-process inventories. Group technology concepts such as cell manufacturing linked with quality systems are transforming job shops into continuous process systems. The focus on product and process design only means that implications for organizational innovation are often neglected and considered last. Linking product and process innovations with organizational redesign aimed at integration and self-regulation is crucial, particularly in the service industry (Lankhorst, p. 76). One way in which architecture elements are different from formal structure is that they change with an even greater frequency than the formal structure, as problems are resolved or new problems appear. Another difference is that these groups are relevance-based and problem-focused and typically transcend whatever formal structural boundaries that might otherwise impede problem solving. Thus, structure serves as an important organizational facilitator, enabling explicit formal structures to work, amid the urgent need to solve frequently changing technical and competitive problems. The new structure augments the formal structure and bridges the gap between the skeleton of the organization and the informal mechanisms for doing things (Armour, p. 31).
The stakeholders will need analysis and explanation of their jobs, responsibilities and possible changes in the workplace, The new structure also saves companies from simply becoming adhocracies, paradoxically because it makes change and adaptation to problems much easier (Lankhorst, p.72). The organization need not move to a “structure du jour, ” and continuous, formal reorganization need not be a constant problem, with structure losing its clarity or people constantly working in a high readjustment mode as a consequence of continuous change. The new structure augments the formal structure: it demonstrates the utility of forming problem-focused groups across internal boundaries and thus helps create a norm of helpful interaction and organization need not move to a “structure du jour, ” and continuous, formal reorganization constraining (Bernard, p. 63).
The enterprise architect will need to explain benefits and advantages of the new design. This information will be directed to operations managers and sponsors. More often than not, a dotted line relationship in these companies designated a “for information only” relationship, in which it was considered important for two positions on different levels, existing diagonally across organizational lines, to communicate with regularity (Spewak, p. 91). In such a case, a dotted line was used to characterize the relationship. In another case a project supervisor explained that he was “matrixed” to several other groups and divisions; this, too, was revealed to be an information-sharing relationship characterized by committees or meetings to report on and solve problems with other disciplines and departments. A structure of dual-reporting relationships was clearly not the meaning when the term “matrix” was encountered in our research; rather, a number of organizational units were involved in sharing information, in the typical case. More to the point, structures are both more formal in their recognized status as problem-solving groups and less formal in their authority relationships. These are colleague-based, problem-focused entities that exist for the duration of the problem (Lankhorst 31). They are also far more pervasive, more deliberate, and more explicitly used than “informal” relationships or “cultural” linkages. The use of multiple reporting relationships on Intel’s technical projects efficiently allocates scarce human talent to needed technical projects. However, some complications are associated with dotted-line relationships, examples of other corporations will help to illustrate the case and describe advantages of the enterprise architecture (Bernard, p. 65).
Financial predictions and budget will be the main arguments for sponsors. Another cost of maintaining innovation in a large corporation is that considerable time must be spent integrating across organizational boundaries. This is another aspect of structure: it simply takes time, even if that time is invisible at first glance. While Hewlett-Packard executives consciously strive to keep its organizational units small with divisions of approximately 1000 participants, it is nonetheless clear that coordination across some 50 such divisions is not a trivial task (Spewak, p. 98). Task forces, dotted-line relationships, and teams are omnipresent within H-P, as indeed they are in all the firms we studied. These formal elements of structure are an absolutely essential mechanism of organizing for innovation. Task forces and dotted-line relationships are part of the solution. The latent value of task forces, committees, and councils is that they present opportunities for lower-level engineers and managers to begin developing their leadership and group skills–both essential components for future managerial success in an innovative company (Lankhorst, p. 54).
The result: technology is the starting point. Work activity and job design are afterthoughts. People then have to make up for the flaws in the technology by supervising, maintaining, and fixing the equipment (Bernard 54). Thus human capacity is underutilized and undervalued, based on the assumption that the functioning of the whole system is dependent on how well the technology works. Production systems can be optimized only if both the technical and the social systems are jointly optimized. Only then can technology be viewed as the product of design choices rather as a fait accompli. This includes much thoughtful reexamination of existing formal structures, in light of changing technology and market needs. Sustained enthusiasm for constant improvement in the organization’s structure through reorganization, as necessary, provides a consistent signal to employees that change is neither undesirable nor to be resisted. Instead, structure is to be managed and adapted to changed conditions (Lankhorst, p. 87).
Meetings and conferences will help to persuade stakeholders that enterprise architecture will help to create a competitive advantage and improve organizational performance. This, in turn, requires a willingness to invest valuable time in structure per se. the new -structural elements like cross0disciplinary, multilevel committees, task forces, and teams require fostering, attention, and support. Thus, formal relationships to coordinate and exchange information are legitimated in these firms by widespread investment of sanctioned time. This includes senior management time, given to participating in these as needed and supporting structure on behalf of the organization at large. Senior management commitment to the essential importance of structure is clearly not lip service. The interpersonal skills essential for working within organizations with extensive structural elements, like teamwork and cooperative ability, are increasingly used to assess managers’ behavior (Lankhorst, p. 83). For instance, that Hewlett-Packard now includes cooperation and team skills as variables by which its managers are evaluated is among the most fundamental indicators of how important these issues are to the survival of the companies we have studied (Spewak, p. 99). These firms show a consistent pattern of structure–formal, formal, and informal–that actively facilitates both innovative ideas and task-relevant cooperation. While they have thousands of employees, these companies clearly organize for innovation, they reorganize for innovation, and they retain the small company flavor by carefully fostering patterns of interaction usually associated with small companies. These behaviors are clearly encouraged by structure, but they are also an expected part of the cultures of these companies. Informal interaction and coordination were found everywhere: in the hallways, cafeterias, and even in the men’s and women’s rooms. The dynamic tension among all these elements is an important component of the management of innovation (Bernard, p. 11).
In conferences, a special attention should be given to long-term outcomes and benefits for the corporation. From the organization’s viewpoint, a performance management problem arises because of natural clashes between the orientations of professional scientists and engineers and the business needs of the firm. The knowledge workers’ concern for creative freedom, furtherance of the technology, and their own position in a professional community can conflict with the business concern for targeted investment in strategic areas, planning and control, and cost and budget. Interest in elegant solutions and autonomy clash with the business needs for a planned way to manage complex projects with many interrelated parts in a cost-effective manner that enhances competitiveness, and in a timely manner that brings the product to market before that of the competition (Lankhorst, p. 73). Because of these potential clashes between the professional and individualistic orientation of many high technology workers and the business and technological demands, the challenge of performance management is significant. It is not sufficient to simply hire employees with the requisite professional background and set them loose to use their talents, although this is frequently done. In fact, our interviews suggested that such an approach was quite common in these organizations, where little attention was paid to clearly defining needed performance, or to providing feedback and development plans. It is not uncommon to find managers who believe it unnecessary to help employees define their roles; in fact, they look upon such a need as a sign of lack of capability in the employee. Many scientists and engineers, in particular, reported that they knew what they were supposed to do and how they were to go about it by virtue of experience, modeling of others, and using their training and education. As a result, they were frequently unsure of how their activities fit into a larger set of business priorities (Bernard, p. 76).
Traditional performance management mechanisms are based on the assumption that jobs and the organizational situation are relatively constant and stable, allowing for formalization of practices such as job definitions, job evaluations, written goals and standards, and other relatively permanent mechanisms of performance management (Spewak, p. 98). The characteristics of high technology settings dilute the effectiveness of these static mechanisms that violate the systemic nature of the work. Constant change coupled with the need to innovate and high interdependence mean that specifications and goals are quickly eroded (Lankhorst 94). Static job evaluation systems as the basis for compensation practices can work against the need for employees to continually update skills, perform new tasks, and be flexible in their contributions. In rapidly changing conditions, job definitions and goals have to be frequently updated. Organization A, for example, was spending thousands of hours updating job descriptions that the managers said would be obsolete within two years (Bernard, p. 43).
It is crucial for the enterprise architect to communicate the effectiveness of the proposed solutions and their positive impact on organization. It is possible to obtain survey measures of six aspects of performance: individual performance; work group effectiveness; project effectiveness; on schedule performance; on-cost performance, and human affective outcomes (satisfaction, pay equity, and trust) (Lankhorst, p. 72). Next, the managers discuss the paths by which the performance is not presented because in each company less than 10 percent of the variance was explained by the performance management variables, and no clear paths emerged. The process has since undergone a number of changes, but now it effectively deals with objectives, strategic issues, agency priorities, and resource allocations (Bernard, p. 76).
The goal is to solve as many problems as possible where they occur. In contrast to traditional hierarchies, designed to maximize managerial control at all levels, integrative organizations promote ongoing learning, synthesize members’ interests, and promote a two-way flow of information and knowledge. The past division of labor is replaced by a division of learning, predicated on the flattening of existing organizational hierarchies. Both aspects of integrative rationalization are aimed at supporting and maximizing self-regulation, thus increasing overall organizational flexibility and adaptability (Ross, p. 82). Unfortunately, the design of the organizational process itself is mostly undervalued and insufficiently understood. Training and competence development are often treated as issues of secondary importance. As a result, training and development budgets are often the first to be cut when cash flow problems arise. Successful integrative rationalization and innovation will depend on the degree to which employee competence is being developed on a timely, adequate, and continuing basis. Integrative rationalization and organizational innovations are likely to fail in static organizations and structures that inhibit workforce skill utilization and further development after an initial training period (Bernard, p. 44). The development of a “competent” organization involves much more than narrow skill training of the existing workforce or the recruitment of new employees able to meet these competence requirements. Much of the knowledge and many of the skills required at the four levels outlined above are best acquired within the organization (Ross, p. 61).
A complementary human resource policy would determine medium- and long-range competence development profiles, and assess employees’ qualification potential in light of these requirements. Personnel recruitment then becomes an internal as well as an external function. Employees already part of the organization are “recruited” and encouraged to take on new tasks, with training, education, and work design matching the goals of continuous competence development. This requires an organizational philosophy with a developmental and learning orientation that is convincingly communicated externally as well as internally (Ross, p. 63). The first is low tech marketing, the application of known technology to meet well-established needs. Examples include a variety of mature, frequently purchased products ranging from milk and coffee to toothpaste and toilet paper. The second is better mousetrap marketing, in which new technology is introduced to solve an age-old problem. An example of this situation is a new drug, administered in familiar tablet form, that cures cancer or helps the buyer lose weight. The needs to be satisfied are clear. Whether the new mousetrap will do a better job is uncertain in the early stages. The third situation is high-fashion marketing, in which the technology changes relatively slowly, but consumer tastes are difficult to predict. Examples include designer jeans, running shoes, and motion pictures (Ross, p. 101).
Conclusion
In sum, enterprise architecture is a complex task–more complex than the practice of marketing in other settings. In order to communicate the befits and outcomes of the new design, it is crucial to illustrate them with real life examples and case studies. There is a statistically significant difference between high tech marketing and its counterparts in other settings. One glaring weakness of the existing empirical research is that few attempts have been made to verify the assumption that high tech marketing is unique (Spewak, p. 98). Despite the scarcity of objective data, most practitioners and academic observers believe that marketing semiconductor test equipment or monoclonal antibodies is more complex than selling soap, sleeping pills, or stylish clothing. Fourth, there is a risk of unanticipated side effects from the technology. Numerous press reports have discussed the resulting threats to businesses (e.g., embezzlement and computer fraud) by individual consumers, including violations of privacy and confidentiality and threats to the national defense (e.g., penetration of top-secret computer systems to learn about new weapons systems).
Works Cited
- Armour, F., Kaisler, S., and S. Liu. “Building an Enterprise Architecture Step-by- Step.” IEEE IT Professional, 1(3), 1999 , 31-39.
- Bernard, S. A. An Introduction To Enterprise Architecture: Second Edition. AuthorHouse; 2 edition, 2005.
- Lankhorst, M. J. Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modelling, Communication and Analysis. pringer; 1 edition, 2005.
- Ross, J.W., Weill, B., Robertson, D. Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution. Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
- Spewak, S. H. Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology. Wiley, 1993.