Twin Cities Business Architecture Forum - tcbaf.org · Introductions Mary Lloyd is the Business...

Twin Cities Business

Architecture Forum

Community Meeting

July 15, 2014

Agenda

4:00 Networking/Refreshments

4:30 Board Business Update Board Chair Update Announcements

4:45 Trissential hosts Mary Lloyd and Linda Finley presenting:

Maturity Models and Competencies Frameworks for Business Architects

5:45 Questions and Answers

Business Update

Website

Logo

Fall conference update (MACC)

TCBAF Community Involvement

Survey

Board Members

Name Representing Position Sponsor

Representative

Pam Hullander Cargill Appointed Trip Brubacher

Tony Woods Express Scripts Appointed Kirk Oliver

Steve Creason Metro State University Appointed Bruce Lindberg

Jeff Dreher Target Appointed Webb Friedly

Jake Laabs Thrivent Appointed Bill Murphy

Bill McGarry Trissential Appointed Jim Mohs

Folkert Breitsma Community Elected Elected N/A

Pat Salaski Community Elected Elected N/A

Sharon Shakya Community Elected Elected N/A

Linda Finley (Chair) Sponsor Appointment Appointed All

Calendar and Community

Community meetings -- 3rd Tuesday every other month

Board Meetings -- 1st Wednesday every month 4:30-6pm

Sponsor Meetings -- 1st Wednesday each quarter 4:30-6pm

Join the TCBAF LinkedIn Group!

Watch for the launch of tcbaf.org!

Plan to attend ….

September 16 -- Meeting hosted by Target

November 13 -- Midwest Architecture Collaboration Community conference (MACC)

Questions

Introductions

Mary Lloyd is the Business Architect Practice Lead and Program Manager for the Enterprise Architecture Center of Excellence at MoneyGram International. She has over 18 years of experience supporting the business in various internal consulting roles.

She has been heavily involved in the Business Architecture Guild for the last three years as a primary author and contributor of content and is currently the Collaboration Lead for the Business Architecture Maturity Model team.

Linda Finley, TCBAF founder and Board Chair, will also share some thoughts relative to her work with the Business Architecture Guild’s Competencies Framework.

MATURITY MODELSM a r y L l o y d a n d L i n d a F i n l e y

7/14/2014 Copyright 2014 8

July 15, 2014 Interactive Discussion

Topic Overview

What are Maturity Models, What Value do they

Provide

Introduction to Software Engineering Institute’s

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)®

Practical Experience Discussion

Creating the Business Architecture Maturity Model

(BAMM)

9

© Business Architecture Guild 2014

A mechanism that allows an organization to have its methods and

processes assessed according to a defined management best practice,

against a clear set of external benchmarks.

Maturity is defined by the award of a particular "Maturity Level“ based on

comparison of the organizations current state against criteria outlined

in the maturity model itself.

7/14/2014 10Copyright 2014

WHAT IS A MATURITY MODEL

Conducting a maturity level assessment allows an organization to

understand exactly where they are in terms of maturity in a particular

discipline and based on their unique goals and objectives for that

discipline, they can shape a roadmap to continuously improve.

A big improvement on self-assessments

A consistent set of questionnaires and scoring

The most well known maturity models can be independently verified and

certified

An independently held set of "benchmarks".

7/14/2014 11Copyright 2014

WHAT VALUE DO MATURITY MODELS PROVIDE

Lockheed Martin Management and Data Systems increased award fees by

55%.

TATA Consultancy Services saved $4.6 million across all development

centers.

Accenture Experienced 5:1 ROI for quality activities.

What examples can you share?

7/14/2014 12Copyright 2014

REAL BENEFITS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE

ACHIEVED THROUGH USE OF CMMI®

http://whatis.cmmiinstitute.com/improve-performance

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)®

• Process improvement framework

• Result of more than 20 years of ongoing work at Carnegie Mellon University by members of industry, government, and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), a federally funded research and development center

• A model, not a process - enables comparison of an organization’s current state to proven best practices

• 3 focus areas to drive improvements

• CMMI for Acquisitions

• CMMI for Development

• CMMI for Services

7/14/2014 13Copyright 2014

INTRODUCTION TO CMMI®

http://whatis.cmmiinstitute.com/about-cmmi-institute

CMMI® TERMINOLOGY- MATURITY LEVELS

Maturity Levels — There are five levels representing the maturity of an organization’s processes:

Optimizing — continuous process improvement is structured and supported by quantitative feedback

Quantitatively Managed — measurements of the organization's processes are captured and analyzed for tuning and predicting

Defined — the organization builds, and its projects use, processes for specific functions

Managed — projects build and use processes, but no organizational consistency or direction

Initial — processes are built only after the need is recognized; often chaotic, fire-fighting

Disciplined

Process

Standard,

Consistent

Process

Predictable

Process

Continually

Improving

Process

Maturity Level 1

Maturity Level 3

Maturity Level 2

Maturity Level 4

Maturity Level 5

Process Area — A cluster of goals and practices related to a specific topic and

associated with a single maturity level.

CMMI® TERMINOLOGY – PROCESS AREAS

Process Area components diagram

Maturity Level 1 has no Process Areas.

Maturity Level 2 Process Area Topics:

Requirements Management

Project Planning

Project Monitoring and Control etc…


Risk Management

Validation

Verification

Organizational Training etc…


Quantitative Project Management etc…


Causal Analysis & Resolution etc…

Carnegie Mellon SEI

CMMI-DEV, V1.2

Generic Goals

Process Area

Specific Goals

Specific Practices Generic Practices

Goal — A characteristic of a Process Area that must be present in order to say the

Process Area is accomplished.

CMMI® TERMINOLOGY - GOALS

Two types of goals:

Specific Goal — A goal applicable to

a particular Process Area

Generic Goal — A goal applicable to

all Process Areas

Example goal:

RskM SG 3 — Mitigate Risks Carnegie Mellon SEI

CMMI-DEV, V1.2

Generic Goals

Process Area

Specific Goals


Practice — An activity that must occur if a goal is met.

CMMI® TERMINOLOGY - PRACTICES

Two types of practices:

Specific Practice — A practice

applicable to a specific goal

Generic Practice — A practice

applicable to a generic goal

Example practices:

RskM SP 3.1 — Develop Risk

Mitigation Plans

RskM SP 3.2 — Implement Risk

Mitigation Plans Carnegie Mellon SEI

CMMI-DEV, V1.2

Generic Goals

Process Area

Specific Goals


7/14/2014 18Copyright 2014

PROCESS AREAS BY MATURITY LEVEL FOR

CMMI DEVELOPMENT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration

7/14/2014 19Copyright 2014

EXAMPLE OF ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note: current version of CMMI is 1.3

Prior experience and success with developing and deploying best practices

for project management and software development methodology in

organization comprised of 55k resources spanning 9 diverse lines of

business

The Quality Management System (QMS) that we developed leveraged

inputs from IEEE®, PMBOK®, and CMMI® to create a toolkit for the

organization to use

This toolkit was successfully leveraged for a SCAMPI® (Standard CMMI

Appraisal Method for Process Improvement) A appraisal and was able to

secure a CMMI® ML 3 rating

This allowed the company to compete for federal government contracts

7/14/2014 20Copyright 2014

PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE DISCUSSION

In 2011, recruited to join MoneyGram International and initiate their business architecture practice

2011-2013 heavily involved in Business Architecture Guild, working with William Ulrich and Mike Rosen as mentors

2013, BIZBOK® was at version 3.1 and began to think we needed a maturity model to support the build out of the practice

Leveraged networks and LinkedIn Groups – little impact

Recommended idea at member meeting following 2011 Business Architecture Innovation Summit

Formed first Guild Collaboration Team

7/14/2014 21Copyright 2014

THE JOURNEY TO CREATE THE BUSINESS

ARCHITECTURE MATURITY MODEL (BAMM)

THE ORIGINAL BAMM COLLABORATIVE TEAM

Sue Alemann*, Slalom Consulting

Eric Aranow, Context Consulting

Annie Ezell Cave, Slalom Consulting

Judith Oja-Gillam, IAG Consulting

Mary Lloyd, MoneyGram International

Tony Richards, Aviva

Cheryl Timko, Merck

Taurai Ushewokunze*, Vayase Consulting

Copyright 2014 @ Business Architecture Guild22

*team members will not be able to continue with the BAMM team as they have taken leadership roles in other areas of

the Guild

Business Architecture Maturity Section Breakout

The Business Ecosystem & Business Architecture

Business Architecture Maturity Model Overview

Why Measure Business Architecture Maturity?

Sample Maturity Measurement Criteria

Executive Takeaways & Next Steps

23


24

Comprehensive, transparent view of the business ecosystem

Source: A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™ (BIZBOK® Guide), Version 3.5, Part 1

Business Architecture:

Representing the Business Ecosystem


Maturity is reflective of the ability of business architecture practices to influence

strategy and make strategy actionable

25*Source: A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™ (BIZBOK® Guide), Version 3.5, Section 3.9

Selected Principles of Practice* for Measuring

Business Architecture Maturity

The value provided to the enterprise increases as the business architecture practice

matures

Business architecture maturity must be demonstrable through evidence that would

satisfy an external assessor

The maturity model measures the maturity of the practice itself and not the maturity of

the business or organization

The maturity model is foundational to the development of an organization’s roadmap

for the progress of business architecture


BAMM: Formal model for assessing business architecture maturity


**Source: Business Architecture Innovation Summit, Reston, VA, March 25-26, 2014

Overview:

Business Architecture Maturity Model (BAMM)

Established and continues to be refined by business architecture

practitioners

Reflects practice-based, consensus-driven disciplines from A Guide to the

Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™ (BIZBOK® Guide)

1st version of BAMM beta tested at

Pfizer Pharmaceuticals**

Applies a 1-5 rating scale as follows:Initial (1), Managed (2), Defined (3), Strategically

Executed (4) and Fully Integrated (5)

Incorporates 21 business architecture

discipline and practice categories*



Business Architecture Maturity Model (BAMM):

Why?

BENEFITS of using a business architecture maturity model*

Helps organizations keep the big picture in mind while providing a roadmap for

improvement

Condenses years of experience to establish a standard on which to build

Offers a common framework and language to help communicate

Provides valuable concepts and resources to organizations just getting started

Provides a standard to help resolve disagreements

Input to your business architecture ACTION PLAN

Provides specific criteria to determine your level of business architecture maturity

Based on the results, you can use the information to define an action plan

Includes a surveying component to capture the voice of the business stakeholder

Business stakeholder input ensures that your organization “matures” business

architecture from an evidentiary perspective


28

Category 4 1. Initial 2. Managed 3. Defined 4. Strategically Executed 5. Fully Integrated

Management

Involvement*

Business

management

actively engaged in

the sponsorship,

governance, and

direction of the

adoption and use

of the business

architecture.

Minimal or no

management

involvement exists.

Some management

may inhibit progress.

Management

dedication to

business architecture

and requirements is

poor / unacceptable

by industry standards.

Level of support from

the organization, as a

whole, is non-existent.

Some senior management

recognition of business

architecture value exists.

There is executive

sponsorship with limited

first line recognition or

participation.

Management dedication to

business architecture and

requirements is just

adequate by industry

standards.

There is limited

management team

awareness or involvement.

Level of support and

acceptance from the

organization is limited or

minimal.

Management awareness of

business architecture efforts

exists. There is some resistance

to implications and benefits of

having defined business

architecture.

Organizational use of business

architecture output is on a

reactive or prove-a-point basis.

There is misalignment between

executive and management -

some see benefit, others do not.


business architecture and

requirements is good by industry

standards.

Senior management is aware

and actively supportive of

architectural standards, but this

has not rippled through the

management hierarchy.

Level of support the organization

provides is not entirely

consistent across management

levels and business units.

Senior management is directly

involved in business

architecture review processes

and governance.


business architecture is

excellent by vertical industry

standards.

Level of support the

organization gives to business

architecture is strong,

consistent, and adequate.

Management status updates

are provided to ensure

communication of reviews and

governance results are

executed.

Management support is

clear and consistent.

Management reviews

business architecture

process, progress,

governance, cycle times and

variances.

Management is involved in

optimizing process

improvements in

architecture development

and governance.

Business architecture is

completely owned by the

business. IT is a key

stakeholder.

There is senior management

involvement and direction in

optimizing process

improvements in business

architecture evolution,

utilization, and governance.

*Source: A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™ (BIZBOK® Guide), Version 3.5, Appendix B3

Sample Evaluation Criteria:

Category 4, “Management Involvement”


29

Category 9 1. Initial 2. Managed 3. Defined 4. Strategically Executed 5. Fully Integrated

Business

Architecture

Mapping –

Value*

No value mapping

concept is in

place.

Common understanding of

value stream integration is

emergent.

Value streams have been

completed for at least one

line of business.

Enterprise value streams are

being defined within the

enterprise, and cross mapping to

capabilities within that line of

business is complete.

Enterprise value streams have

been defined for the enterprise

and are published so the

business is able to see the things

of value to its customers.

Value stream cross-mapping to

capabilities is complete for key

customer-facing value streams.

Value maps reflect an outside-in

view, and are evaluated from the

perspective of the

customer/stakeholder.

Value has been defined for the

organization, and heat mapped

to the capabilities.

Value streams are the main link

from strategic planning to

capability perspectives as it

relates to stakeholder value

delivery.

Value streams are used to define

business priorities and roadmap

definition.

Value stream cross-mapping to

capabilities is complete for all

defined value streams.

Value mapping is used to

organize and synchronize

product planning, stakeholder

analysis, and business

initiatives.

Validation rules are used to

ensure value is appropriately

defined.

Value streams are used as

framework for developing

business design perspectives

and business / IT architecture

alignment.

Value mapping is used to

address competitive or strategic

issues, business planning, etc.

to understand complex business

challenges.

Value stages and streams are

leveraged broadly to inform and

deploy strategy.

Business roadmaps and funded

initiatives are fully articulated

using value streams.

Value streams are one focal

point for portfolio planning,

strategic business design, and

third party analysis.

*Source: A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™ (BIZBOK® Guide), Version 3.5, Appendix B3

Sample Evaluation Criteria:

Category 9, “Value Mapping”


30

Takeaways

Why this is valuable to your executives:

What you can do to get starting now:

© MEGA International 2014

Secure peace of mind by following an established ideal that provides the best

way to derive value from business architecture

As a business architecture program matures, management can have more

involvement and direction in the evolution, utilization, and governance of business

transformation

Meet with management to discuss where you can improve your maturity ratings

based on applicable areas of focus and industry norms

Obtain a copy of the Business Architecture Maturity Model (BAMM)*

Perform a “snapshot” business architecture maturity assessment to see where

your practice rates against industry established norms

*BAMM is part of the BIZBOK® Guide, available from the Business Architecture Guild, www.businessarchitectureguild.org


http://www.businessarchitectureguild.org/

Continue improving model by adding additional categories to fully align

with content in BIZBOK®

Incorporate a new section in BIZBOK® which provides instructions and

tools on how to properly perform a maturity assessment using the

BAMM

Partner with other Guild Collaboration teams to incorporate their ideas and

maturity criteria into the model for their respective areas of

responsibility

7/14/2014 31Copyright 2014

NEXT STEPS FOR BAMM COLLABORATION TEAM

COMPETENCY MODELSM a r y L l o y d a n d L i n d a F i n l e y

7/14/2014 Copyright 2014 32

July 15, 2014 Interactive Discussion

THE COMPETENCY COLLABORATIVE TEAM

Taurai Ushewokunze, Vayase Consulting

Linda Finley, Leadership Advantage

Michael Clark, Merck

Bryan Oak, LIBA

Kristen Pavelka

Tony Richards

Copyright 2014 @ Business Architecture Guild33

Business Architecture Competencies Section

Breakout

Appendix B2: Business Architecture Roles and

Competencies

Business Architect Outcomes Mapping

Section 3.2 Business Architecture Governance

Applied Scenarios

Team Next Steps

34


7/14/2014 35Copyright 2014

http://www.sfia-online.org/

http://www.sfia-online.org/

7/14/2014 36Copyright 2014

http://www.opengroup.org/

http://www.opengroup.org/

7/14/2014 37Copyright 2014

METHOD

7/14/2014 38Copyright 2014

SCENARIOS FOR APPLICATION

Role Competency Type BIZBOK Application of Competence

Business Sponsor Decision Making Professional

Business Sponsor Promoting Behavioural Build support across the business

Business Sponsor Influencing Behavioural Help with holistic adoption of Business Architecture

Business Sponsor Regulating Professional Avoid lopsided sponsorship of Business

Architecture Views

Business Architecture Team Leader Institution Building Professional Establish Robust business architecture with

common vocabulary

Business Architecture Team Leader Using Power Professional Reporting responsibility in the business

Business Architecture Team Leader Over Seeing Professional Not dictate direction, content or approach

Business Architecture Team Leader Representation Professional Spokesperson, ability to become the "face" the

team

Business Architecture Team Leader Facilitation Behavioural Business architecture working session facilitator

Business Architecture Team Leader Leadership Professional External team collaboration and management

7/14/2014 39Copyright 2014

SAMPLE COMPETENCIES COMPENDIUMAPPENDIX B.2: BUSINESS ARCHITECTURE ROLES AND COMPETENCIESThe following table lists the Competencies required for each role in a Business Architecture Practice as well as BizbokTM examples ofwhere those competencies can be applied.

Continue improving model by refining matrices and framework

through member review

Continue to align and complete references to role within BIZBOK®

Incorporate a new section in BIZBOK® which provides instructions

and tools on business architecture competency development

Continue to seek comparative models as they evolve worldwide

Continue to develop use cases/case studies by which to apply and

develop competencies

Partner with other Guild Collaboration teams to incorporate their

ideas and maturity criteria into the model for their respective

areas of responsibility

7/14/2014 40Copyright 2014

NEXT STEPS FOR COMPETENCIES TEAM

[email protected]

Mary Lloyd

[email protected]

Linda Finley

7/14/2014 41Copyright 2014

QUESTIONS?

mailto:[email protected]


Thanks!

Linda Finley

Leadership Advantage

[email protected]

763.639.6564


Twin Cities Business Architecture Forum - tcbaf.org · Introductions Mary Lloyd is the Business...

Documents

Transcript of Twin Cities Business Architecture Forum - tcbaf.org · Introductions Mary Lloyd is the Business...