Over the last fortnight I have happened to come across a few articles and posts on the challenges of communication, and particularly when it comes to Enterprise Architects.
So Stéphane Vanrechem, Tim Manning, Mark Dickinson, and Ben Clark, thank you for prompting a reflection on this topic.
Imagine a friend recommended a film or tv series to you. You ask them to describe what it’s about and they become rather vague, saying that they don’t want to spoil the story and anyway its a bit arty.
You agree to watch the film; but why?
- You like films, so you already had a positive attitude towards that type of content (the type of picture);
- You value the opinion of your friend, so are happy to defer to their assessment (the frame).
Note that this had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific content because you had no idea what the film was about before you watched it; it was an article of faith based upon how you felt about the type of picture and frame provided.
Now imagine a colleague at work recommends that you invite someone you don’t know to a workshop you are running and by way of explanation they say that this person is an Enterprise Architect. You don’t really know what that is and when your colleague tries to explain it further, it sounds a lot like an IT person.
On this occasion you don’t agree to invite them along as
- You don’t know them (specific picture);
- Are unsure what value they could provide (type of picture);
- You don’t want a workshop where the business needs to agree on what they want to do before being overtaken by the IT how (the frame).
Now in this instance, would it have been objectively better to invite the Enterprise Architect?
Probably.
Is it IT’s fault that you didn’t?
Probably not.
Is it your fault that you didn’t?
Probably not.
Is it a design problem?
Yes.
Most people I think have heard of ‘Form follows Function’ (a concept from industrial design credited to Louis Sullivan), that the shape of a thing should be aligned to its purpose. A related and less well known concept is ‘Form follows Convention’, where the shape of a thing is strongly influenced by past decisions that become convention.
The convention within 80% of organisations that I have observed is that an Enterprise Architect is an IT role for an IT function. The form that follows therefore is an organization chart that has one or more Enterprise Architect roles reporting into an IT manager. This is an organizational design decision, and as such, this design frames the role of the Enterprise Architect into where it is positioned and the function it can perform for the business, irrespective of any original intent.
For you and your workshop then, the organization you are in reinforced what you already believed and this informed your decision not to invite that Enterprise Architect.
Some months later you finally meet that same Enterprise Architect and they tell you that you made the wrong decision in that workshop. You become frustrated with them as your inner voice suggests to you that they may have a point. Rather than bringing you a set of solution options, they have instead brought you a problem.
I suspect anyone who has ever been an Enterprise Architect has had ‘that conversation’. You got made to feel like your role was worthless, the other party felt you were trying to make them feel stupid, everyone left looking for a bin to kick 🙂
In business terms, all of those conversations had one thing in common; they all had a low ceiling of possible outcomes. Why?
Because even if we decide that both parties involved are good communicators, the best outcome is now successful mitigation for the Enterprise.
Are some Enterprise Architects poor communicators?
Yes, and poor communication is not unique to them either. The key difference is that their communication is often pre-framed inappropriately upfront by the organization they operated within.
When communicating, context matters.
Where does this leave us then?
The purpose of Enterprise Architecture is to enable the Enterprise to achieve its objectives through effective change (as per TOGAF). To effectively change, an Enterprise must reflect upon the Forms of Convention that no longer best suit its objectives.
So that Enterprise then hires suitably qualified individuals to orchestrate this whilst at the same time framing their position within that organization to prevent them from actually doing so.
Life can be wonderfully ironic at times, eh?
The reflection I had though was that this applies to us all; how our entry into any organization is framed helps to set the medium-term parameters on what we can often achieve. Who you work for and where you sit in the organization chart is the frame to your picture; it is the lens through which others see and hear you.
It is also helps to explain the unique vantage point that consultants often have when entering any organization, and I will look to speak a bit more to this next time.
