One of the greatest challenges is to convince the CEO and/or Board that a fully defined architecture is necessary to be competitive in today’s economy.
If you built an office block without an architect’s plans, and all of the relevant city/state approvals. Sure you can put-up a building without plans, but if it collapses with loss of life then you will be facing serious repercussions (and probably criminal proceedings).
When it comes to the corporate IT structure then there seems to be a general acceptance that it is OK to simply plug-in a new component without adequate planning. On top of this corporate mergers add other unplanned systems into the mix. The problem is that we end up with a mess.
The purpose of building an enterprise architecture is to ensure that all components deployed are compatible and function in a planned manner. The other effect of implementing a consistent architecture is that there should be a $ saving for the corporation.
I have previously worked with an organisation that had to implement a consistent architecture after a corporate merger brought in 5 different systems covering the same business area. The net effect of consolidating these various systems into a single architecture was a saving of $20 million of licensing fees over a 5 year period – at an integration cost of approximately $1 million. That is where a consistent architecture reaps benefits.
Not every case will have tangible financial benefits to show, but even a CEO will understand benefits if you can demonstrate performance improvements even where there is a $ cost for the upgrade, provided the benefits bring an demonstrable advantage.
Planning is the key to success
