Todd Biske: Outside the Box

Archive for November, 2008

This post, by Robert Swanwick, was brought to my attention by Brenda Michelson courtesy of her followup post. In the first post, Robert describes a situation of a company that has historically operated as autonomous business units, each doing what was best for their own customers, including each building their own web channel. As they tried to incorporate more customer contributions into those web channels, he states that “they sought to build a common platform.” He didn’t provide additional details on what common means, whether it was shared customer presence across all of the web channels, or if all of the web channels were consolidated into one. He goes on:

However, the autonomous business units lived on. Because they are quite independent, they are constantly seeking to diverge in order to meet the specific needs of their customers. At the same time IT continues to work towards increased centralization. As you can imagine, this is creating some tension.
A service oriented architecture (SOA) with shared web services and appropriate SOA governance might be their salvation. If IT can control the main architecture and help facilitate the sharing of approved web services, this firm may be able to get the centralization they need while allowing for business units to meet their own customer needs.

Personally, I think there is a risk that SOA could muddy the waters in this situation. I do agree that this is a governance problem, however, it’s not SOA governance, though, it’s IT governance. Based on the description provided, it doesn’t seem like there’s any immediate business desire to consolidate the channels to the customer or to stop viewing these units as autonomous. The second governance question is more about the goals of IT. Why is IT trying to centralize everything and strive for commonality? Are solutions not being delivered on time? Are IT costs running wild? If they are, and these costs can be tied back to the redundancies that exist across these autonomous units, then the governance board needs to determine which of these competing goals, business autonomy or IT cost reduction, is more important. If the stakeholders decide that IT cost reduction is more important, then there’s a high likelihood that SOA is going to help achieve that goal. If the stakeholders choose that business autonomy is more important, an effort to adopt an enterprise SOA is going to continue to be in conflict with that desire and may do more harm than good. Individual business units may want to run with SOA within their domains, and IT may be able to take it a bit further under the radar, but keep in mind that those efforts would not be in support of the stated business goals. In other words, even though there may be opportunities where SOA could be applied, if it puts the stated goals of the organization at risk, that’s a problem. I would encourage the leaders of this organization to first read Jeanne Ross’ excellent book, IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, to assist in getting their priorities straight. I also address how the priorities of the business must be factored into your decisions around SOA in my own book on SOA Governance.

I recorded another podcast about my book, SOA Governance, and also a little bit of discussion on President-Elect Obama’s call for a federal CTO. This was part of Dana Garnder’s Briefings Direct Insights Edition, sponsored by Active Endpoints. Joining the podcast with myself and Dana were Jim Kobielus of Forrester Research and Tony Baer of Ovum.

Listen to the podcast. Download the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript of the discussion. Purchase the book.

I recorded a podcast discussing my book and SOA Governance with David Linthicum as part of his regular InfoWorld SOA Report. You can download it here.

In my post on a CIO and CTO for the USA, at the very end I called out Jim Kobielus’ idea for an online presidential scorecard. As it turns out, I think this has merits in the world of EA and SOA, as well.

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, this idea came from some very smart co-workers of mine. It’s great having colleagues that make you go, “Why didn’t I think of that?” Consistent with my governance views that stress empowerment over enforcement, the use of self-assessments via scorecards can be a powerful tool. We need to be able to determine whether solutions the architectural goals of the enterprise, but we also need to ensure that a bunch of time isn’t wasted preparing documents whose usefulness begins and ends in the timespan of the formal review. To meet these goals, a self-assessment may be just the right thing, if done properly.

The first criteria is that the assessment shouldn’t take a long time. It shouldn’t require submission of PowerPoint or VIsio, but rather be a series of questions where the answers are yes, no, not applicable, and then one or two “partially compliant” answers. The second criteria is the questions themselves. These should be derived from the policies associated with your architectural governance. This is another reason why I emphasize policies over decision rights. If the policies are known, anyone can make the right decision because we have given them the tools to do so.

With these self-assessments, the group responsible for EA governance can now track compliance without creating a heavy burden on the project teams. The assessment can’t be the only means of communication, because the governance team must be able to determine when someone is falsely claiming compliance, but that’s a challenge for any audit-focused group. The governance group should be reporting the results so that teams will want to be compliant in the future, rather than having to explain to their manager why they showed up lower on the report than their peers.

Shameless plug: Looking for more help in implementing effective SOA governance? Get my SOA Governance book from Amazon or via the publisher.

If you didn’t know it, today is World Usability Day. Besides the events from the usability team here at work, I was reminded of the importance of usability when I had to press “On” three times on the projector to get it to really come on. Usability has always been a passion of mine, and frankly, it’s importance is still lost on many in IT. Take the time to understand your usability team and how they can improve your solutions. If you don’t have one, consider forming one.

In a soon-to-be-released podcast I did with Dana Gardner, Tony Baer, and Jim Kobielus, we briefly discussed the topic of President-Elect Obama’s desire to create a federal CTO position. Some articles are now coming out about this topic, including this one on ZDNet’s Between The Lines blog, this one from Business Week, and this one from the Wall Street Journal. Unlike these articels, I’m not going to pontificate on who might make a good CTO of the USA. Rather, I’m interested in what a CTO of the USA must do, and whether one person is enough.

One of the very early decisions that will help determine the right person for this role is whether the whole take on technology will be inwardly focused or externally focused. Compare this to SOA adoption in an enterprise. Two common questions that must be addressed are, “how do I build services the right way?” and “how do I build the right services?” Both of these questions are important. The first is more inwardly focused, the second is more externally focused. What is the more pressing question for the CTO of the USA? Is more about fixing the way we leverage information technology within the federal government and its multitude of agencies? Or, is this more about how the government makes information technology services available to the constituents?

Interestingly, if we look at President-Elect Obama’s policies in this space, he actually addresses both sides of this, but only one of them references the creation of a CTO position. Both of them are under the header of “Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy.” The first bullet item in this section is “Open Up Government to its Citizens.” Specific actions (not all are listed here) he calls out include:

• Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
• Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies …
• Lifting the veil from secret deals in Washington with a web site, a search engine, and other web tools…
• Employing technologies, including blogs, wikis and social networking tools, to modernize internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing to improve government decision-making.

Clearly, this seems all about the external view of the federal government and its interaction with the constituents. Note, however, that there is no mention of the CTO position in this bullet point. Where the CTO is mentioned is in the next bullet point, “Bring Government into the 21st Century.” Here, he calls out:

• Appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century.
• The CTO will have a specific focus on transparency… The CTO will also focus on using new technologies to solicit and receive information back from citizens to improve the functioning of democratic government
• The CTO will … ensure technological interoperability of key government functions.

The bullet items here are much more inwardly focused, with the exception of the “also focus” portion of the second one.

I think these two areas actually each require their own dedicated attention. Interesting, the two articles I mentioned earlier that call out people for the CTO role are all tapping the private sector for people that would seemingly be more appropriate for handling the portions of President-Elect Obama’s policies on opening up government to its citizens, the externally-focused portion. For the role where the CTO position is called out, the important factor here seems to be an ability to implement consistent technologies and interoperable messaging across all of the federal agencies. While you can argue that an outsider may be required to actually get these legacy agencies to change, I would think that someone with strong familiarity with the operation of these federal agencies is going to be critical.

What I think would be the perfect situation would be to have both a federal CIO and a federal CTO. The CIO would likely come from the private sector and be focused on opening up the government to its citizens through the use of information technology. The CTO, on the other hand, would have more experience in the public sector and would be focused on fixing things on the inside to ensure the goals of the CIO and the administration can be met.

One final comment on this. In this blog, Jim Kobelius calls out the need for an “online presidential scorecard.” The fourth process of governance that I define is “measure and feedback,” so I think a scorecard makes great sense, although I also think that this could be a very difficult scorecard to create and make consumable for the average citizen. That sounds like a great task for a federal CIO tasked with opening up government to its citizens. What better way to show transparency than to present a scorecard that shows how the administration is viewing its own efforts toward its goals.

Loraine Lawson has published her interview with me regarding my book on SOA Governance on IT Business Edge as a two part series. Part one can be found here and part two can be found here.

No SOA Governance today, it is all about the governance of the United States. Look at the people, the policies they will put in place, and the processes used to support them, and then place your vote!