topleft
topright
Enter the Member Network Zone View the Top 10 Points Leaderboard View Members Who Are Currently Online View Latest Member Activity

Featured Members


Member Network Zone

Expert Blog Comments

Google App Store Open for Business
I will be keeping an eye on this, it does not seem like Google fails at much but I have yet to be ov...
State Updates Extortion Laws to Cover Identifiable Info
Hopefully, common sense changes like these will become part of every states laws. Unfortunately, the...
HP Tries On a New Brand Image: ‘Let’s Do Amazing’
I like it. It's a good counter to IBM's Smarter Planet campaign, which really captured the idea that...
The Trouble with Big IT
Michael - In reading this I kept going back to an IT project risk model that I know of as coming vi...
Agility? Surely You Jest...
Ellen, Esther, Peter, Tom, Thank you for your comments. I've continued the discussion in my next ...
Enterprise Architecture Key to Elusive Goals Print E-mail
Thursday, 29 October 2009

By Mel Duvall

Countless decisions based on outdated and flawed enterprise models helped lead the global economy into its worst recession in decades, contends Leon Kappelman, a respected technology professor and editor of a new book on Enterprise Architecture (EA).

And if organizations want to avoid repeating history all over again, they need to finally start taking enterprise architecture seriously.

"IT people tend to be really good at accident management . . . at managing and keeping systems running," says Kappelman. "But to our dismay, the systems don't always meet the needs of the business."

Essentially what Kappelman is saying is that the large financial institutions that eventually failed and drove the economy into a recession, by and large had good IT systems running their operations. But what they didn't have was a strong cross-enterprise view of the various systems or "stove pipes." As a result they couldn't fully understand the depth of their financial exposures.

"All the stove pipes were humming along fine, but nobody understood the entire picture, the inter-dependencies,' he says. "They didn't get it at Citigroup, they didn't get it at Fannie (Mae), they didn't get it at Freddie (Mac) and they didn't get it at Bear Stearns."

In a new book published in concert with the Society for Information Management (SIM), titled SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture, Kappelman and other members of the SIM Enterprise Architecture Working Group, attempt to provide an understanding of the key concepts and benefits that can be achieved using EA. In an interview with CIOZone, Kappelman says the book has actually been a number of years in the making.

He said the genesis dates back to a consulting project he undertook with the United States Department of Veteran Affairs in 2005 to develop an EA that could overcome the various stove pipes separating the organizations operating under Veteran Affairs. At first the project appeared to be a great success - Kappelman was able to bring together the various IT and business leaders to hammer out a strategy and approve a plan. Unfortunately, that's where the success ended - the plan was never implemented.

"I saw this great start basically fall back into the stove pipes. The more I looked around, the more I saw this was a common problem," he adds. "People were not achieving success with EA because they weren't following through."

In 2006, Kappelman approached SIM, a national organization of CIOs and IT leaders, to see if it would be interested in forming a working group to foster understanding of how to implement and carry out EA projects. The working group was approved and since that time Kappelman and other members of the group have been involved in a number of studies to determine EA best practices. The 300 page book the result of that work.

"EA is key to effectively and efficiently accomplishing often elusive objectives like business-IT alignment, agility, simplification, process optimization, legacy replacement, and data integration," says Kappelman. He also feels strongly that it is the chief information officer who can lead and carry the EA banner in their organization. "We need great technologists, but the role of the CIO should really be that of a chief architect," he says.

More information about the book and the SIM Enterprise Architecture Working Group can be found at http://eawg.simnet.org.




Comments (3)
RSS comments
1. 10-29-2009 10:38
 
What a load of hogwash. Blaming the global financial meltdown on stove-piped IT systems is preposterous. People are greedy, plain and simple. The companies that had major roles in leading us down this road could have had the most fully integrated IT systems in the history of mankind and it wouldn't have made a difference. Since they were making money hand over foot doing what they were doing, it wouldn't have mattered a single iota what information their IT systems gave them. Getting filthy rich trumps pristine, cross organization data every day of the week. Next they'll be telling us that bad IT was behind the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.
Registered
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
2. 10-29-2009 11:37
 
I had a great chuckle reading what Ron Gastin had said above, and I am sitting here agreeing with most of what Mr. Gastin said...  
 
"What a load of hogwash." Indeed!!!! To think... IT would have been able to stop the greed factor. It is, as Mr. Gastin points out above, ludicrous. No one would have questioned these "Masters of the Universe." Certainly not at that point in the economy. 
 
By the way... Yes, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping can be traced back to very bad IT practices. Chuckle.  
 
And yet, Mr. Gastin, can you say that Madoff was in it by himself? Or that these greedy Hedge Fund Managers didn't have someone covering their digital footprints? So, Madoff had no CIO behind him producing the intricate reports? I'm recalling an article we produced back in March... 
http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/Blogs/view/2933/.html 
 
My point is, if the right IT checks and balances were in place, there would be more light shown on these jokers because IT would have run the red flag up on specific governance related issues. As Mr. Gastin points out, probably wouldn't have made much difference anyway, but we can safely say it was a failure on several levels. Including the IT level.
Registered
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
3. 10-29-2009 22:48
 
I would agree that there was a lot more to the global meltdown than flawed IT systems, but I do want to add that Leon Kappelman was trying to make the point that if the financial institutions had been better able to have a complete few their entire portfolios and the inherent risks, they may have been able to make smarter decisions. 
 
Kappelman noted there is some evidence Goldman Sachs fared much better than its peers because of the strength of its underlying EA.
Registered
 
Mel Duvall

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

 
< Previous   Next >




White Paper Library