Managing the Complexity of Digital
Transformations – Or How to Manage and Govern a Multi-Speed IT Environment
by Marc Lankhorst (Bizzdesign) and Danny Weinberger (R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG)
In the previous
blog we wrote about the impact of multi-speed IT on the IT organization and enterprise
architecture. Let us now talk about the different options for managing a multi-speed
IT approach.
The management
and governance of the agile fast track architecture and the stable and robust baseline
architecture we discussed previously can be done by various options, which are
shown in Figure 1. You might assume that we just talk about a simple two-speed IT
approach as mentioned elsewhere, but it is not as easy as it looks.
Figure 1
Why Bi-Modal IT Won’t Work
Many organizations
tend to establish a Digital Office function that includes governance for new digital
initiatives supported by a dedicated team. That sounds a bit like the bi-modal approach
as advocated by Gartner, shown in the picture below. As every approach, this
has pros and cons. Separate teams working on separate issues sound like a good
idea as each team can concentrate on their specific tasks bringing this forward
to the target.
However, it also
results in disconnecting the two teams. When establishing two different teams
working on two different tasks, the communication between them will suffer,
independently from the quality of the communication strategy. Furthermore, the
team of the stable baseline might feel disadvantaged in their reputation (being
perceived as ‘slow’ and ‘old-fashioned’ compared with digital initiatives),
access to resources and budget, and power and influence in the organization.
This circumstance often leads to major conflicts between the two teams and the
quality of the work may suffer dramatically.
Furthermore, the
bi-modal approach, unfortunately, does not seem to offer a sustainable,
long-term solution. It is even found to be incapable of putting forward a
potential solution to the simplified agility-stability problem. Moreover,
organizations that actually implemented a bi-modal approach had to face harsh
consequences, like the formation of artificial silos for products, processes
and people, and institutionalizing stagnation by deterring innovation in
traditional platforms with the excuse that “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”.
Next to this,
there is also a major architectural and technological challenge: the stable
baseline systems need to be connected to the rapidly changing innovative
systems of the new digital business domain, since they often contain core
business data. Such systems of record are indispensable but difficult to
integrate. Putting this integration and transformation burden on the digital
business team may slow them down to an unacceptable pace, whereas the baseline
team is already quite busy enough keeping the lights on, and dealing with new
rules and regulations. Hence, it appears we need something in between, to
bridge both the cultural and the technical differences between a stable
baseline world and a rapidly moving digital business world.
Is Tri-Modal the Solution?
A tri-modal
approach, as shown in Figure 2, offers a more sophisticated and flexible method
than a simple two-speed scenario. This approach considers three different teams:
the Pioneers, the Settlers, and the Town Planners. The Pioneers develop the target
digital organization enabling innovation and co-creation, using agile
techniques and methods. At the other side of the spectrum, the Town Planners
represent the baseline , providing stable and robust services to the Pioneers
and Settlers. Simultaneously, they manage external service providers via a service
integration and management function and add value to the other teams. The
Settlers are positioned in the middle and deal with transitions or rather transition
architectures, helping the organization industrialize and personalize the target
services, systems, and applications to fit with the baseline architecture, and
to gradually transform that baseline architecture to accommodate the new digital
business needs. They also ensure a better management of workflow and
communication as it proceeds from one level to the next.
Figure 2
Towards a Cellular Structure
Evolving the tri-modal
approach results in a cellular structure (Figure 3), where each team (or rather
a team member of one such team) supports the teams above, fulfilling their
objectives and thus being involved in the daily business of this team. Different
teams are responsible for different parts of the IT, some focused on stable
baseline functionality, some on advanced digital capabilities, and some in
between. Applying DevOps practices implies that each team is fully responsible
for building and running their part of the IT. Communication between teams
happens on a daily basis at the ‘shop floor’, and necessary decisions across
teams can be made quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, relevant stakeholders
from business and IT can smoothly be integrated into the team work, contributing
their views and providing strategic and tactical guidance when needed. Enterprise
architects are one such group of stakeholders, tasked to ensure that the teams’
efforts and results are aligned with the organization’s digital strategy and
medium- to long-term goals.
Figure 3
