April 17, 2015
When you decide, or are involved, in an evolution project regarding your Organization division, perhaps your Company is willing to transform it in an Enterprise Architecture Capability, in other words a set of resources dedicated to design and support change management using comprehensive frameworks, like TOGAF.
It’s a good moment to think carefully about your objectives, and you can use TOGAF itself as a supporting framework for this project (TOGAF manual describes this task in the “preliminary” phase).
The core of this activity will be synthesized by:
- you “as-is” practice, that is your baseline Architecture Capability;
- the desired target Architecture Capability.
The differences between those two situations will be described using a list of gaps, that will be the starting point for your project definition.
Using Archimate – the modeling language that integrates very well TOGAF in many parts – we can describe these elements.
The figure is only an overview, but the gaps highlighted will guide you through a series of questions that will define your evolution:
- people and skills involved,
- organizational position of the Architecture team,
- usage of internal/external resources,
- scope (horizontal and vertical) of the analysis,
- interaction with IT, HR, Board, etc.,
- tools, standards,
- project management practice,
and so on.
This will be also a good opportunity to start practicing, in your “real” business, your new organizational structure. At the same time, during this project, you will produce – as a deliverable – an initial Enterprise Architecture, covering the basics layer of Business, Data, Application and Technology. This initial Architecture, stored in your Architecture Repository, will be used and refined in your following architectural projects.
April 7, 2015
The structural element representing the organizational unit in Archimate is the Business Actor. As the standard says, a Business Actor may be “a human, a department, or a business unit”.
- the sales organization is a business unit, with a manager; we suppose that the manager will be a single person.
- There are more Area Manager; the composition relation shows that the Sales Manager is their direct boss. Again, this “Actor” will perhaps be a single person, but there will be more people in this role, each of them assigned to a different geographical area.
- Within each “Area”, there are separate managers for each “Product”. All the Product Managers of an Area will report to the Are Manager. The geographical dimension appear to be the prevalent one.
- Perhaps there is also an orthogonal Product dimension; we can imagine that there is a global Product Manager, it’s not represented here, but is clearly possible.
- There is a single back office unit, working for the whole sales organization.
November 4, 2014
Originally posted on Postdigital Node:
The Innovation Week Rome ended with the Maker Faire European Edition, a huge event where makers from all around the world met to showcase and share their innovative ideas and inventions with more than 90,000 people from all ages.
Showcases, exhibitions, workshops and talks in the field of robotics, 3D printing, drones, sensors, and many more, took place during 4 days at Rome’s Auditorium Parco della Musica.
Maker Faire Rome was promoted by Camera di Commercio di Roma and curated by Massimo Banzi and Riccardo Luna.
On this post we will focus on the Opening Conference that gathered an array of noted international speakers to talk about the future of the Third Industrial Revolution and Maker Movement.
I can’t let you do that, Dave
Science Fiction author and technology activist Cory Doctorow made one of the boldest speeches of the meeting. Doing a strong call to make an active defense…
View original 802 more words
September 28, 2014
When a Company hires retired, aged, workers, the news spread across business and popular information channels.
Because HR departments, Board members, recruiters, commonly believe that a younger workers offers more “opportunities” for the Company.
This is based on a common perception of the shape that the age/opportunity curve has:
After the peak, reached between 30 and 40 years, the opportunity offered by a worker decreases (and its cost increases). So, the marginal utility of hiring such worker decreases.
This approach doesn’t take into account the shift introduced by the evolution of the wealth/social landscape occurred in the last years. Why business and recruiters are missing this point? Mainly because they have been trained by aged teachers, or by teachers replicating concepts and behaviors that are linked to a previous situation.
It’s known that social systems have the tendency to maintain their established order, and this is valid also for the ecosystem of labour market.
I believe that the real opportunity curve is different:
The green curve shows a flattened tendency over the years. This means:
A) younger workers offer an higher opportunity value, earlier,
B) older workers retain their opportunity value for a longer period, and the slope of the decline is less.
Remember that I am talking about “hiring opportunity”, not about “retaining opportunity”.