Blog

Reliability Centered Maintenance

Posted by on 7:54 am in Uncategorized | 0 comments

Reliability Centered Maintenance

Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), Is a must organizational process to ensure that assets continue to do what there users require in the present operating context. The culture of capabilities management in an organization is a continuous assessment and alignment of the core capabilities to meet existing and future demands of the customers, markets, economic drifts, government directions e.t.c. Without doing this organization’s fail to stay on course and in some cases loose total focus of where they intend to reach.The necessity for a firm to manage its own capabilities to achieve success is largely based on RCM execution. Capability management contributes to a better design and implementation of strategy and facilitates the understanding of the industry and the generation of strategic options. A keystone step is the foundation of organization’s capability management. In this step, business imperatives must be clearly defined in terms of how organization see capability management a facilitating important elements in strategic decision making. The focus should be on critical capabilities which must be repeatable, sustainable and enhance able. What an organization must ask them selves is a set of important questions such as following:  How do critical capabilities contribute to the firm’s competitiveness?  How does the organization identify its future capability needs?  How does the organization identify its current critical capabilities in practice?  How does the organization’ strategy integrate these critical capabilities?  What are the strongest beliefs in the organization in regard to topics such as the way it must serve its customers, the best path to success, the complexity and predictability of its environment, and the most difficult strategic task to achieve? Are these beliefs evaluated in regard to their fit with organization’s strategy? Which methods and organizational processes are used answer all these question in practice? With in the light of RCM, the effectiveness of business capabilities management revolves around six important elements of the whole ecosystem under which an entity is conceptualized, materialized and sustained. For an organization’s future imperatives, the management agenda should be clearly defined as of what takeaway they desire to have through capabilities management. The six elements applied are as follows: Protection: This step aims at protecting current capabilities against their natural erosion, against external events, or potential rival’s actions that could destroy or reduce there value. (Sanchez and Heene, 2004) suggest three means; maintaining casual ambiguity to keep it from imitation, permanently investing in capabilities to fight there natural erosion; and dissuading rivals from acting against the firm and its capabilities. Development and evolution: Capabilities must be maintained, upgraded and transformed to be able to fit the evolution of the environment, especially with the requirements of Customers and competition, and to be better serve existing businesses. With in a constant perimeter, in terms of businesses, capabilities are fined tuned and improved to increase performance and efficiency, through an increase in capabilities number and quality and through there transformation into more advanced competencies to make them available and ready when needed, on an on going basis. Leveraging: Leveraging means, moving to structurally more attractive markets and opportunities, in a continuous reassessment of the firm’s scope, to adapt to new strategies by developing new products, new services, by forming alliances or through innovation. Leveraging implies a change of use of existing capabilities Asset integration and orchestration: Bundling or integration a firm’s...

read more

Published: Acme Building Materials Case Study

Posted by on 12:31 pm in Case Studies, Change Management, Enterprise Architecture, Innovation & Strategy, SEAS Management Updates | 0 comments

Published: Acme Building Materials Case Study

We are proud to announce that SEAS Inc. has published the Acme Building Materials Case Study to the Apple Book store on May 31, 2014. View the iTunes page here. The book is available for download to your iPad or Mac iBooks application free of charge.  The book has an introductory video and several interactive components that facilitate learning. SEAS launched the Case Study on May 15, 2013 by developing problem text for a fictitious company called Acme Building Materials, the original post can be found on this link.  SEAS selected a handful of members to provide thought leadership to solve the business problems facing ABM and develop an answer key. The simulation exercise has been a rewarding experience for the participants and we believe the answer key adds substantial insights to a methodical way to solve complex business problems similar to ABM’s.  The answer key progresses through a structured method to identify all the problems facing ABM and evolves an answer key with the following sections: Executive Summary – Includes cost-benefit analysis with $7M ROI of $1.8M spend, $5M in increased Revenues and $2M in Cost Reduction Situation Analysis – Demonstrating a structured method for identifying and focusing on the problem domain Innovation & Strategy Assessment – Demonstrating the health check of Strategy & Innovation with a roadmap People Assessment – Demonstrating the health check assessment for people & change management with a roadmap Enterprise Architecture Assessment – Demonstrating the health check assessment for EA with a roadmap ABM Turn-Around Roadmap – Demonstrating a comprehensive 2-year roadmap, 3 phases, 3 disciplines, and 2 work-streams: strategic and tactical SEAS thanks the authors, contributors, reviewers, and editor of this case study for their outstanding efforts. Those individuals have put in numerous hours pouring over the information, analyzing, questioning, and developing the answer key. Special thanks to Jeffrey Phillips, VP of Marketing at OVO, for writing the book’s foreword. Jeffrey shares his insights on Innovation and Change Management and the importance of managing change holistically. We hopes that you find the case study insightful and would love to hear from you. We encourage you to rate the book and write a review on the Apple Bookstore. You can also share your thoughts on our LinkedIn group. Happy...

read more

Gamification: Moving beyond, points, badges and leader boards.

Posted by on 8:10 am in Enterprise Architecture, Innovation & Strategy | 1 comment

Gamification: Moving beyond, points, badges and leader boards.

Leveling, point-tracking, and bonuses can recognize and reward desired activity. Leaderboards and progression indicators can steer individuals to the next tier of personal and business performance. Quests and countdowns can shape behavior. It’s all part of gamification, and it’s having a real impact on businesses worldwide. Gartner predicts that by 2015, 40% of Global 1000 organizations will use gamification as the primary mechanism to transform business operations. Gamification can instill challenge, pay-off, and new perspective into day-to-day tasks, tapping into the same human instincts that have led to centuries of passionate competition and engagement – our innate desire to learn, to improve ourselves, to overcome obstacles, and to win. As business becomes increasingly social, our professional and consumer lives are being built using digital interactions. This momentum can be tapped to improve performance by embedding gaming mechanics into traditional processes. Increasing individual engagement in work, team, and outcomes is a common business goal, and games have proven to be one of the most influential teaming and communication activities across generations and cultures. Organizations can harness gaming principles to improve morale, influence behavior, and get stakeholders passionately engaged in everything from finance, sales, HR, manufacturing, and more. Gamification and Enterprise Architecture From my perspective the work which I like to do and excel in is, Enterprise Architecture. It’s a practice which has to be adopted by the whole organization to steer its state for future success. This success from EA point of view is deep rooted within the holistic collaboration of the whole enterprise, which includes not just the organization but players beyond its boundaries such as partners, suppliers, vendors, market e.t.c. The composite consolidation of the knowledge which each player has, is what shapes an Enterprise and how it performs within a global space. The more closely this collaboration is integrated the better results an Enterprise bears. In the gamification method, every player from all vertical and horizontals of the business, have the opportunity on hand to share their knowledge and propose design of the overall organization/enterprise from their point of view. As a result organizations has a potential to enhance their outputs incrementally. In the world of EA, the fundamental work depends on sound building blocks of and organization. These building blocks if I may sound deviated for the actual practice, are mix of People, process, technology and information, which an organization owns as its most important assets. So if we agree on the above the proposal ahead of embedding gamification into EA practice, can play a major role into future EA works.   How to Gamify Enterprise Architecture? In an organization where EA practice is being followed, it can be understood that environment for EA is already set and it has been institutionalized to most if not all the workers. But yet it is also a fact that EA work done in a traditional manner, does not excites the organization as a whole and only certain % of the staff may really understand it, even if it is on a conceptual level. EA does loose some immense amount of opportunities in order not to gain interest of the organization holistically. Although every organization has people from top till bottom who have a great deal of organization’s business understanding and can be the best inputs for developing enterprise...

read more

SEAS Inc. signs a collaboration MOU with OAGi

Posted by on 9:15 pm in Change Management, Enterprise Architecture, SEAS Management Updates | 1 comment

SEAS Inc. signs a collaboration MOU with OAGi

The Strategy & Enterprise Architecture Society (SEAS) Inc. signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Open Applications Group Inc. to conduct joint Research & Development in the area of Business Integration.  Under this MOU the two organizations will do the following: Work to increase awareness of each other’s organizations and efforts for the purpose of increasing members’ involvement and knowledge.  Collaboration will include hosting webinars, participating in committees, and exchanging information OAGi and SEAS Inc. will share ideas, information, and collaborate on Case Studies to progress the objectives of both organizations. SEAS Inc. and OAGi will exchange non-voting memberships to their respective officers enabling the participating in committees and meetings “This MOU marks a key milestone for SEAS Inc. in it mission to help organizations achieve a competitive advantage.  The partnership with OAGi exemplifies Open Innovation and solidifies our efforts in making an impact in the Strategy & Innovation, Enterprise Architecture, and Change Management space.” Said Fadi Hindi, CEO of SEAS Inc. “This is a natural fit for us and we are pleased to be a partner with SEAS Inc.”, said David Connelly, CEO of OAGi.  “We are looking forward to working with a group of like-minded persons like SEAS and we look to expand OAGi’s reach as well and SEAS’s reach” We look forward to the output of this collaboration and increasing the knowledge of members in the area of Business...

read more

SEAS Inc. and OAGi in formal Collaboration Talks

Posted by on 3:08 am in Case Studies, Change Management, Corporate & IT Governance, Enterprise Architecture, SEAS Management Updates | 1 comment

SEAS Inc. and OAGi in formal Collaboration Talks

SEAS has formally engaged with the Open Applications Group Inc. (http://www.oagi.org/) in collaboartion discussions for joint research in the areas of Integration and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). The discussions center around 2 main areas: 1) Offering thought leadership and access to research of both organizations to members of SEAS and OAGi 2) Leveraging SEAS’ Case Study platform and method to conduct R&D for a real-world case study that articulates the business value of Integration and SOA. About OAGi: The Open Applications Group is a 501(c)(6) not-for-profit open standards development organization. Founded in 1994, The Open Applications Group Inc. (the OAGi) is organized to promote business process interoperability for both inter & intra enterprise business processes and to encourage the creation of and/or create and endorse one or more standards to assist organizations in achieving connectivity and multiple-source integration of inter & intra enterprise business processes.visit OAGi:...

read more

ABM Case Study Presented at ACMP MENA Conference

Posted by on 9:10 am in Case Studies, Change Management | 1 comment

ABM Case Study Presented at ACMP MENA Conference

The Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) MENA region hosted its forth annual conference in Dubai on February 4-6, 2014.  This year’s conference theme was “Manage Change: Achieve Success”.  It brought together Change Management experts and professionals to share experiences, network and learn from each other and from exports in the field. It was my privilege during the conference to present a paper on “Managing Organizational Change”.  The case study that we have been working through as the SEAS’ Consulting Team was showcased during my presentation.  During the session, participants also had the opportunity to complete an analysis of their own organization’s culture, which enriched the learning and created interesting discussions and debates that continued following the presentation. To download an excerpt of the presentation, click...

read more

eGovernment – Success or Failure

Posted by on 1:09 am in Change Management, Enterprise Architecture, Innovation & Strategy | 3 comments

eGovernment – Success or Failure

This paper – eGovernment – Success or Failure – describes why eGovernment projects succeed or fail and what can be done do to prevent failure. eGovernment projects tend to need substantial tax money funding. To have a dollar well spent, it is required that stakeholders create the right environment. eGovernment projects need to be reality-checked all through the design, implementation and operation. It is essential for the success of eGovernment projects that the design team build profound knowledge of the gaps between reality and desired outcome. These gaps are related to eight dimensions: information, technology, processes, objectives and values, staffing and skills, management systems and structures, other resources, and the outside world. It is necessary to take measures towards closing the gaps as early as possible. Most countries have engaged into eGovernment initiatives. Where some eGovernment implementations have been successful, others have failed in achieving their objectives, ranging between: Success: most stakeholder groups attained their major goals and did not experience significant undesirable outcomes. Partial failure: major goals were not attained or there were significant undesirable outcomes. Total failure: the initiative was never implemented or was implemented but immediately abandoned. There is little data available about the rates of success and failure of eGovernment, but according to some studies, 60 to 80% of eGovernment projects fail. To prevent an eGovernment project failure, we need to understand why they fail. Every project has gaps between the design and the current state. A key factor to success or failure is the level of difference between the current reality and the model/conception and assumptions built into the project’s design. The larger the gap, the greater the risk of failure. If the gap between design and reality can be reduced, the risk of eGovernment failure can be reduced. Three archetypes of eGovernment failure are identified that highlight the need for better communication between those who need to use and operate the system, and those who are brought in to design it: Hard-soft gaps – Most governmental organisations are dominated by ‘soft’ factors – people, politics, emotions and culture. eGovernment systems tend to get designed according to harder notions of machinery, rationality and objectivity thereby missing the soft factor of government services. Private-public gaps – Many IT systems have been designed in the private sector and shoehorned into a public sector reality which operates very differently. These differences are large and the likelihood of failure is high. Country context gaps – Infrastructure and mind-sets are very different across the world. A system designed for one country may not suitable for another country eGovernment Dimension Model or eGDM provides an understanding of the gaps that can exist between design and reality. It is based on five levels and eight identified dimensions. Information – The formal information maintained by the digital system, like birth certificate, tax calculation, etc. And the informal information used by the people involved with the system, like information communicated verbally to perform a task successfully. Technology – Mainly focuses on the digital IT but can also cover other information-handling technologies such as paper or analogue telephones. Processes – The activities undertaken by the relevant stakeholders for whom the eGovernment system operates both information-related processes and broader business processes. Organisation – Consists of people, processes, politics, emotions and culture.            ...

read more

ABM Case Study – Change Management Approach

Posted by on 10:43 am in Case Studies, Change Management | 0 comments

ABM Case Study – Change Management Approach

During the Situation Analysis phase of the ABM Health Check Engagement Simulation, the Change Management team focused on developing a good understanding of the human capital and change related concerns.  Out of the 51 clarified concerns related to the ABM case study, 23 concerns were People related including retention, high employee dissatisfaction, poor communications, unstructured performance management processes and almost non-existent employee development and succession planning practices.  The 23 concerns were classified by seriousness, urgency, and growth and the top concerns were identified and prioritized. Due to the high number of concerns and the limited resources that ABM would have to address all the concerns at once, the Change Management team decided to take a more holistic approach to the analysis and step back to build an overall current state picture of the organization before diving into making any  recommendations or developing the roadmap.  The method that the Change Management team will be using for this holistic approach is the “Competing Values Framework” developed by Kim S. Cameron and Robert E. Quinn.  This framework focuses on “Culture” and provides a very good tool to help organizations analyze their current culture type and define the desired culture that will work for them to turn around their organization and achieve success. According to the Competing Values Framework, there are four major culture types: Hierarchy, Market, Clan, and Adhocracy.  The more an organization’s dominant culture matches with its leadership styles, management roles, human capital practices, and quality management strategies the more effective and successful the organization is.  The other finding of Cameron’s and Quinn’s research is that organizations tend to go through cultural changes as they grow and mature.  To the extent that an organization can define its desired future culture, this change can be more methodical and organized as opposed to what ABM is currently experiencing. In order to develop a roadmap and a set of recommendations for ABM, the Change Management team will start with a cultural analysis using the “Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument” developed as part of the Competing Values Framework.  This assessment will be completed by ABM’s board of directors and will define each board member’s perspective on the current culture and desired culture for ABM.  Taking into consideration the agreed upon desired culture, the Change Management team will then work through the top concerns and develop a roadmap that addresses these concerns in a way that allows ABM to reach their desired culture.  The output of the cultural assessment can also be used by members of the SEAS’ Consulting Team in the Strategy & Innovation stream and the Enterprise Architecture...

read more

LEGO, an Enterprise Architecture Perspective

Posted by on 5:07 am in Enterprise Architecture | 0 comments

LEGO, an Enterprise Architecture Perspective

LEGO is a well-known brand around the globe for making creative and innovative toys. It all started in 1930’s when a young Danish carpenter, Ole Kirk Kristiansen,  had a eureka moment of his life and he came with the idea of toys which changed the history of the toy industry. The idea was to empower children to use their creative imagination and build toys by themselves. And from this idea he introduced the concept of using plastic bricks, which can be used to build any structure children want to. The whole idea was based on six simple values: Imagination Creativity Fun Learning Care Quality The concept of using plastic bricks to create something new every time, unleash the opportunities to create a whole new world. And due to this simple idea, LEGO became one of the world’s top toy company. The main creativity behind Ole’s invention was reusability of bricks and create new structures  This element of reusability was success due to best quality of plastic bricks created and that’s how any structure built on them stayed glued together. In Enterprise Architect, artifacts are the bricks of your EA program. These artifacts should be built on the Ole’s six value points and should be reusable over and over again to build the architecture of your business for future sustainability. The main purpose of EA artifacts is to combine them together to create value for the organization, enhance its efficiency, innovate its operations and build creativity in the overall structure of an organization. Many EA programs have wide range of artifacts delivery on hand but most of the times, they forget the element of reusability of such artifacts. This is a common dilemma for many EA teams and main design problem of the overall EA program. When the artifacts are delivered, organization finds inconsistency between the artifacts, they are not compatible with each other, organization can’t integrate them, can’t make anything new out of them and at the end, these artifacts become shelf product with no tangible value for business. This is how EA programs fail and this is how huge investments goes wasted.   What and How reusability of EA Artifacts: Interfaces, communication infrastructure, and synchronization mechanisms are very typical elements of architectures that are reused when the focus has been on asset reuse. The rationale for architecture reuse follows the typical rationale for asset reuse: e.g. improved quality based on proven performance, improved time to market, reduced development cost or protection of past investments, reduced operational costs, risk reduction, branding, and competence sharing. The common principal to have a reusable artifact is to create it to enough detailed where the compatibility with other artifacts is clear and self-explanatory. Architects need to set boundaries of each artifact to ensure that essential required information is captured and this also links to sound and well-designed metamodel. In an organization architectural artifacts revolve around people, process, information and technology. As an architect the most crucial architectural artifacts should be as follow: Human Assets: organization design and structure should be developed and should be componentized to ensure each business unit has its policies, objectives, HR roles, job descriptions and human capacity are mapped. This form of artifact may quite handy when organization is planning to change the structure of business departments and responsibilities....

read more

ABM Case Study – Strategy Approach Update

Posted by on 4:06 am in Case Studies, Innovation & Strategy | 0 comments

ABM Case Study – Strategy Approach Update

While developing the strategy of any enterprise, the current-state analysis is one of the key inputs to determine where the enterprise stands. The strategy formulation begins with strategic intelligence gathering and analysis of markets, competitors, technology, and past performance. This provides an information base for strategic decision-making, a common vision for the future, and a profile of the environment in which strategic decisions are made. Typically, the PESTLE and SWOT techniques are used to identify the external and internal issues, challenges and opportunities for an organization. For the ABM Case Study, the Kepner-Tregoe’s Situation Analysis method was used to identify and analyze the issues the organization has been encountering over the years. The Situation Analysis helped the team clarifying the concerns and identifying the actions required along with the seriousness and urgency of the identified concerns. The team initially categorized the next best actions under the headings of strategy & innovation, business, process and people. However, it was soon realized that a strategy layer needs to be built between ABM concerns and the next best action as no measurement criteria was built to determine the success of the next best actions. The absence of a formal ABM strategy was also highlighted in the Situation Analysis. The team agreed to use the Balanced Scorecard Approach to derive the enterprise objectives from the concerns and challenges identified during the Situation Analysis. The Balanced Scorecard Approach can be leveraged for strategy cascading by using top-down approach. At the same time, the same approach is used for the strategy implementation by adopting bottom-up implementation. The bottom-up approach is more about showing the cause-and-effect relationship among all the four perspectives (resources, processes, customer & financial) of Balanced Scorecard. The Situation Analysis indicates that the root cause of the ABM problems more about resources. This includes, low employee motivations & satisfaction resulting in key executives leaving the organization, unavailability of core decision support and report capabilities and learning & growth opportunities. Once the organization makes gains in these areas it will improve the internal operations including the innovation management, change & communication management, capacity planning and customer management etc. The capabilities enhancement in the resource and process areas will have direct and positive impact on the customers (image, satisfaction, loyalty) that will result in financial stability and growth. The team will continue finalizing the organizational objectives, KPIs, critical success factors and initiatives for short, medium and long...

read more