Adrian Sannier, Arizona State’s university technology officer believes, to the depth of his being, that it is.  And he expressed his powerful thought leadership position regarding what the shift is all about and what to do about it in his presentation at Campus Technology’s July 2008 conference.  In an incredibly informative and colorful keynote speech, he laid out six components of the new paradigm that he believes must be elucidated, embraced and executed.  Component #1 is the most controversial but, perhaps, most essential because it enables the other five.  Component #1 “liberates the resources” as Adrian says, to do the rest.

You just have to hear it to appreciate the intensity of his conviction regarding the need for change in how information technology is managed in higher education!  Here is the link to listen to Adrian’s presentation – 73 minutes of transformative and energizing thinking about what the future can hold for institutions that embrace change!  Adrian paints a clear vision of the path that can lead to enhanced learning and educational value through a restructuring of the technology environment – in keeping with a strategy that separates “the core” from “the context.” 

Much more cost effective strategies exist today for maintaining “the context,” – meaning the software applications that have become mere commodities that are essential but not differentiating – than are currently being utilized by the majority of universities.  When they are employed, budgets can be reallocated to take advantage of the host of “core” technologies that facilitate collaboration, informed decision-making for stakeholders, and learning…with the agility to embrace the new and upgraded technologies as they continue to emerge onto the scene.

“Unified” organizations bring it all together.  Their needs for integration of data across business units and standardization of processes are both high.  Dow Chemical is an example used by the Enterprise Architecture as Strategy authors.  Dow cross-sells products within regions, so it needs excellent data integration, and it sells the same products, via standardized processes, in more than 175 countries around the world.  Sixty percent of Dow’s work processes are standardized and five of its eight global processes are housed in a shared-services organization.  Dow has achieved enormous bottom-line efficiencies by focusing on both data integration and process standardization…as well as shared services!

Of course there are hybrid situations as well.  Some companies employ one model for certain functions and another for others.  Once you’ve established where you fit in, or where you should fit in from the standpoint of your operating model, defining process and IT strategies becomes much easier. 

We would like to hear your thoughts and ideas.  It could be interesting to discuss some more examples of where public and private sector organizations fit in, and why.  Where does your organization fit into the MIT framework?  What about companies like Wal-Mart and Dell?  And what about public sector organizations?  How about universities?  Or utility companies?

The “Replication” model on the lower right is for organizations whose success depends on efficient and repeatable processes, but not on shared customer relationships. McDonald’s and other franchise operations are clear examples of this type of organization. Repeat the process meticulously and make sure that the experience is consistent at each company outlet and you’ve got a winning formula for success!

TD Bankworth, also described in the Enterprise Architecture as Strategy book, represents a financial services organization that found a Replication framework to best support its growth strategy. The organization transitioned from a Diversification to a Replication model because the latter enabled it to make efficient and effective acquisitions, and to get new branches up and running quickly.

Stay tuned for the next post, and last in this series, which covers the Unification Model.

Organizations that require high levels of data integration across business units, but low levels of business process standardization, are in the upper left quadrant. They share data because their business units share customers, products, suppliers, or partners, or some combination thereof. Data integration improves efficiencies, as well as the overall customer experience at each organizational touch point. No matter where customers tap into the organization, local representatives know who they are, what they buy, and many other defining characteristics – because they’ve got the data!

Process standardization is low because it would wash out the uniqueness of each service operation and commoditize the customer experience…not to mention that standardization may be impossible because different products may require different processes! Low cost, which is one of the benefits of standardized processes, is usually not a primary driver of strategy for these organizations.

As highlighted in Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, large financial services institutions such as Merrill Lynch (Global Private Client) and MetLife benefit from “Coordination” because they can integrate multitudes of products and processes without forcing standardization. They have an integrated view of customers and can interact with them via processes that fit for each product, service and business unit.

Stay tuned for the next entry, which covers the Replication Model.

So, you’ve drawn the MIT framework (see previous post) and are now ready to start thinking about the levels of “integration” and “standardization” that are right for your organization. Let’s take a deeper look at Quadrant 1.

The “Diversification” model in the lower left quadrant is probably the simplest place to start. If your business units have few common customers, suppliers or ways of doing business, you have a diversified organization. Hence, you have minimal need for either data integration or standardization of processes across business units. But, fear not! You can still create major efficiencies with technology. Even in these situations, there are processes that tend to be similar across business units, such as Human Resources and Finance, and shared services are a powerful way to achieve economies of scale.

The many-to-one vs. one-to-many principle comes into play here. Many-to-one means that every business unit is staffed up and “technologied” up to execute the same processes. That’s redundant. Major cost savings can be gained when the processes are consolidated into a one-to-many shared services unit. That’s smart business.

Carlson Companies is exemplified in the book. They own Radisson Hotels, T.G.I. Friday’s restaurant, Carlson Marketing Group, Carlson Wagonlit Travel, Radisson Seven Seas Cruises, and the Gold Points Reward Network. Though the companies are run autonomously, Carlson has captured cost savings and synergies with a world-class, award winning shared services capability.

Stay tuned for the next entry, which covers the Coordination Model.

The first step in answering this question is to take pen to paper and draw MIT’s very straightforward, four-quadrant matrix for linking data integration and process standardization with your operating model.

1. First, draw a box and split it into four even quadrants.
2. Next, write Business Process Standardization along the bottom (horizontal axis) and Business Process Integration along the left side (vertical axis).
3. In the lower left box, write “Diversification Model” and in the upper left box, write “Coordination Model”
4. Then, going over to the right side, in the lower right box, write “Replication Model” and in the upper right box, write “Unification Model”

Voila! You’ve drawn the MIT framework for assessing the levels of data integration and process standardization required for success in different types of public and private sector organizations. It is a simple but powerful tool that enables you to start with the right focus…on the operating model that will best serve your business.

Stay tuned for parts 3 through 6 of this series to find out where you fit in. Every organization should be a able to position themselves in one of the four boxes MIT framework boxes.

The answer is definitely NOT “more is better” across the board.

Most would argue that “integration” and “standardization” of business processes can be powerful strengths for both public and private sector organizations. They improve service and create efficiencies.

Yet, data integration across business units can be expensive, time consuming and, in many cases, unnecessary. Likewise, business process standardization can dampen creativity and innovation, and downgrade the customer experience.

So how do you decide what levels are best for you? In their book, Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, distinguished faculty from MIT and IMD International outline a framework for answering that question. Their framework is one of the best I’ve seen for kicking off discussions about performance improvement and organizational transformation.

If you would like to get a handle on the MIT framework, stay tuned for entries 2 through 6.