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.

Archimate diagram illustrating baseline and target architecture capabilities

Archimate diagram illustrating baseline and target architecture capabilities

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,
  • methodologies,

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.

During the design of the Business Architecture, in TOGAF, we have to outline the structure of the organization, including the description of how human resources are assigned to roles, organizational units, locations.

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”.

This is the main building block of our organization structure design, and can be enough if you want to limit yourself to the traditional hierarchical organization chart. Following this approach, you will find perhaps a missing element: a taxonomy that helps you classify the different elements.

Simple Organization chart with Archimate
This simple vertical organization shows some of the problems and possible solutions:
  • 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.
Using this really limited set of elements from Archimate, we were indeed able to represent the basic hierarchical organization. Some of the relationships among business units, and the kind of each unit, are somehow ambiguous, requiring an explicative narrative. This is not good, because a modeling standard should be able to represent a situation without disambiguation.
Other modeling standards, such as BPMN, provide the designer with some attributes that are specific for extensions. Archimate includes a generic extension mechanism, trough “attributes” for specific elements, included in a “profile”, or using specialization of standard concepts.
We will see later how to accomplish this, adding some more elements to the model.

From mail to knowledge

November 16, 2014

Enterprise Social Networks (ESN) are usually considered as a mean to gather the corporate knowledge that is dispersed in the people’s head, or in mail/documents threads.

The pattern commonly adopted, to connect the sources of this knowledge, to the final repository, that can be a tool within the ESN, is depicted in the following figure:

different path from mail to knowledge (2)

  1. the user receive mail;
  2. the user select some messages, that are relevant for his social interaction, and publish them on the Enterprise Social Networks;
  3. the user (or someone else, an ESN editor), further classify (using tagging, grouping or other ESN features), the content that contains knowledge.
  4. Now, the knowledge-bearing content is available to everyone.

Where is the limit? In user actions.

This pattern assumes that the single user is willing to spend some effort in publishing/reviewing/classifying content. But we forget that this is not his job.

Imagine a salesperson, in hurry, trying to close an important deal. How much do you think that he will be committed in leaving a knowledgeable trace that that particular kind of product requires a specific customizing in order to be successful for a particular kind of customers? Maybe he will do it later? With an inbox receiving hundreds of email each day?

This is why sometimes user adoption for ESN projects is limited, and adding a “training/sponsoring” track to the project is not enough.

Now imagine a different model:

different path from mail to knowledge (2)

Here, the Enterprise Social Network software includes the inbox features. Incoming mail appears immediately as a new post on the user’s dashboard, classified in the proper thread. If the message contains short-term content (i.e. “John is coming late at the meeting: he will arrive perhaps 10:30″), it will remain in the user inbox, and will be deleted lately.

There is still the need to select and classify content that is relevant for the corporate knowledge-base, but this action will be easier if the content is already classified in the context of the ESN.

A step in this direction can be seen in Zimbra, or in the last Inbox by Gmail development. But I expect that this will be a significant development for the most popular ESN products.

Google have just released a new mail client for its Gmail service, which is usable free or with a paid subscription for smb and education.

Whith this new client, Google is suggesting that a mail client should support the user not only in mail “browsing”, but also for acting on the mail messages, taking and organizing the proper actions required by each message.
This is not new, the classical user interface of Microsoft Outlook was already providing an integrated environment for mail, tasks, calendar and contact management.

image

Google is adding value to this idea in two directions:
1 adding information from the search engine that is relevant for the mail content (flight info, stock quotes, etc.)
2 providing a grouping mechanism, that was already in place in the traditional web interface for Gmail, that assign each mail to a group (social, updates, forums, etc.) according to its content/sender

The final expected result is a cleaner inbox, that helps finding out the important messages, plan when we are going to act upon them, and gently guide us in browsing other categories of messages when we are confortable.

Now, the main components of a mail messages are:
1 content
2 people involved

image

People are sets, nested and mixed together in various ways, that can be seen as “containers” for several messages, with the exception that the containment is not strict, as water in a bottle, but shows a sort of ripple effect, that goes beyond the natural border of organizational or social set.

Google is putting emphasis on content: mail are classified according to their content type, even if the sender is used as an element helping content classification.
The missing element is people relations, and threads, intended as an extended version of the traditional mail threads (answers, forwards).
I think that this is a promising further line of development.

Content is something that is somehow limited to the single message (or message thread).
People is something more “stable” in the network of our relations, and more significant when we shift to groups/clustwr of people.

In this field, Google has already its social layer, Google+, that is already exploited in the traditional web interface of Gmail.
A shift from the single interaction model that is typical of mail messages, toward a more social aware model is, in my opinion, the future evolution of mail, and the convergence field with Social networks, and, furthermore, Enterprise Social Networks,

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.

IMG_20141003_125328 Young makers at work

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

Revert the order

October 17, 2014

One of the key issues facing Enterprise Social Networks project is adoption rate.

ESN Managers struggle to involve users in the network activity, and the main internal competitor is usually the email system.

mails1

Users have always the mail client opened on their desktops, and it’s very easy and flexible to use. The user selects the client and is not willing to add the burden of “platform selection” to his messaging process.

How can we address this issue? For example giving to the user a messaging client that helps forwarding each message to the proper platform.

2014-10-17 12_35_01-OneNote

The basic idea may be to have the following usage sequence:

  1. create the message text (title/subject) and body;
  2. select, attachments, favoring document links pointing to the Enterprise Social Network publishing section;
  3. select addressee;
  4. flag importance
  5. using the above elements, create an email message, or a post on ESN

When a Company hires retired, aged, workers, the news spread across business and popular information channels.

Why?
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:

image

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:

image

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”.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.