Towards a Federated Architecture for Change Management

Towards a Federated Architecturefor Change Management

Prof. Dr. Frank Habermann

Keynote Speech

10th International Conference

on Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organizations,

HEC Montreal, Canada, July 26‐28, 2010.

© Prof. Dr. Frank Habermann

In change management we face a significant gapbetween theory and practice

* see e.g. Bull Survey (1998), Bowie State University Study (2003), Computing Technology Industry Association Report (2007)

end‐of‐project activities

not a high priority management task

very often left to external consultants

still among the top reasons of project failure*

CHANGE MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE


A life cycle model for business and technology trend

Picture source: Gartner


Let‘s explore a typical trend life cycle, e.g. of customer relationship management

20031999 2005 2008 today

CRM made it in 10 years –How does the life cycle of Change Management look like?


RiskManagement

TalentManagement

We know similar stories from othermangement disciplines

Core business objectsof strategic relevance, which

do not belong to a single vertical unit,but have their stake in many horizontal instances

Socially influenced,multi‐dimensional, and thusdifficult to measure

High interest!

Multiple concerns!

Hard to operationalize!

CustomerRelationshipManagement

QualityManagement

PerformanceManagement

…


Three main pillars help a management trendto eventually reaching the „plateau of productivity“



URGENT LOCAL NEED

beyond strategicimportance



URGENT LOCAL NEED


EMBEDDED PROCESSES

beyond leanand lighthouse



URGENT LOCAL NEED


EMBEDDED PROCESSES


INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE

beyond integrationand synergies


Unfortunately, for many central managers„integration“ still is the holy grail

SEAMLESS

CONSISTENT

STANDARDIZED

TRANSPARENT

EFFICIENT

LEAN

Picture source: http://responsiblemarketing.com


Understanding the complexity trap of integration

Number of components1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Number of areas created

Picture source: http://www.epmbook.com/resources/complexity.ppt


Understanding the complexity trap of integration

Number of components1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Number of areas created

Generating an integrated customer perspectivealways is a reasonable goal!

BUTtechnical and organizational

integration are not necessarily the best way!

To be kept in m

ind!


How much power do the local business units of your enterprise have? And how much are they interrelated within your change initiatives?

Step 1: define your interoperability challenges

degree of local power

degree of directlocal interrelations

HIGHMEDIUM

MEDIUMLOW


Understanding the levels of governance

Step 2: define your governance model

DepartmentAutonomy

InformalAgreement

FormalAgreement

CentralCoordination

CentralDirection

CentralControl

Source: Roy, J., E‐Government in Canada, Transformation for the Digital Age, 2006.


Understanding the levels of governance

Step 2: define your governance model

DepartmentAutonomy

Departments have full self‐responsibility (regarding local strategy, etc.)No inter‐departmental cooperation agreements, rules, etc.No management involvement by central bodies

Departments still have full self‐responsibilityBiletaral cooperation arrangements are highly individual and non‐formalizedNo governance by third party

Departments are highly self‐respnsibleBiletaral arrangements are agreed on a formal levelCentral supports publication/communication of arrangements

Departments are partly autonomousCooperation rules, standards etc. form an enterprise‐wide agreementCentral instance surveys and monitors all types of inter‐unit cooperation

Departments do not define an individual strategyAll strategic directions are set and monitored centrallyThe departments have degrees of freedom regarding the operational procedures

Departments have no decision‐making powerThe entire strategy as well as methods, rules and the processes are set centrallyThe center knows everything that happens within the organization

InformalAgreement

FormalAgreement

CentralCoordination

CentralDirection

CentralControl

Source: Roy, J., E‐Government in Canada, Transformation for the Digital Age, 2006.


There is no good or better governance model –it just has to meet your organizational challenges

DepartmentAutonomy

InformalAgreement

FormalAgreement

CentralCoordination

CentralDirection

CentralControl

Bileteral Partnerships, e.g. in Sales, Research, etc.

sometimes to be found in Governments and small family business

No governance by external parties

e.g.

e.g.

common in (former) state‐owened enterprise, e.g. Deutsche Bahn


Federation tries to combine the benefits of centralization & decentralization or viceversa tries to limit the costs and disadvantages which go along with each approach

Positioning „federation“

degree ofcommonality

high(= central)

low(= decentral)

Fit to enterprise strategy

Short reaction times (to common issues, particularly crisis)

Self‐responsibility and motivation

Low integration and maintenance needs

Coordination of distributed activities

Holistic supervision

Short reaction times (to local issues, particularly in daily business)

Fit to local market strategy / customer needs

no redundancies


Federation somewhere is between centralization and decentralization


A centralized organization‐ Big center of power‐ Governs all local units‐ Controls all communication

A decentralized organization‐ No center of power‐ No common governance‐ No inter‐unit communication control

Legend:very powerfulpartlynot





HIGHMEDIUM

MEDIUMLOW





decentralcentral


Federation is beyond the center just acting as a broker or hub to the separate local units

Federation also is beyond creating an umbrella organization and grouping the local units under it


A hybrid organization (type 1)‐ Still a big center of power‐ Center controls all local units‐ Units are partly autonomous‐ Inter‐unit communication possible

A hybrid organization (type 2)‐ Center acts as an umbrella‐ Center has standardization function‐ Units remain very autonomous (power is local)‐ No or few inter‐unit activity

Legend:very powerfulpartlynot





decentralhybrid I

hybrid II

central


If we want to manage a system with many (local) powerful players which share commongoals and have many interrelations, the move to federated approaches is indispensable.




decentralhybrid I

central

federated

hybrid II


Introducing the Change Service Bus (CSB) Architecture

Business Unit a

Business Unit n

ExternalPartner

CSBTeam

CustomerChangeService

OrchestrationRules

ProductPortfolio

BusinessCases

Business Unit b

CHANGE SERVICE BUS

Orga. Interface

Part of Repository

Change Message Bus

Organizational Unit

Passive Partner

Active Partner

(for one initiative)

Messaging

Legend:

…

Global Network, incl.Centers of Competence



URGENT LOCAL NEED


EMBEDDED PROCESSES


INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE

beyond integrationand synergies

Towards a Federated Architecturefor Change Management

Prof. Dr. Frank Habermann

ContactAcademicfrank.habermann@fu‐berlin.deTel +49 30 85789‐486

[email protected] +49 30 2025 3536

Date post:	23-Jun-2015
Category:	Business
Upload:	habermann-frank
View:	716 times
Download:	3 times