Aligning Business Value: We Need A Common Language

Language is our most important tool as human beings. It is essential to our interactions and has the ability to bridge gaps created by space, time, and culture. Unfortunately, in our organizations, language can be a burden, exacerbating those gaps and even widening the chasms that have formed organically between lines of business, teams, and functions over time.

Today, we face market conditions that change by the month, by the hour, or even by the second. In order to remain agile and shift our strategies in response to this dizzying pace, it is critical to correlate strategy and investment in a way that every function, product, line of business, and leader can understand. To do this, language matters. 

 

Seems easy, so what’s the problem?

In most companies, investment decisions are evaluated on an annual basis providing guidance on what should be done and what value will be achieved. As part of this financial planning process, strategies get divided up among business units and functions. Isolated lists of projects are created to support those disaggregated objectives, vying for limited funding. These project lists contain line items that may be recognizable to the individual teams, but are meaningless to other areas, e.g., Phoenix, Eagle, CRM, SAP (which parts of SAP?). This “Inexorable March Toward Projects” (Figure 1) fosters the false sense of security that the sum of the projects will achieve the desired goals in a fiscally responsible and timely way.  

 

                           Figure 1.  Inexorable March Toward Projects   ©The Feld Group Institute 2021

 

Project lists mask important information.

Teams spend so much time getting their project on the list, that once approved, they are already behind on delivery. There is little time left to coordinate or share their plans with other groups for broader awareness and typically few, if any, resources are dedicated to identifying the patterns (for integration, resource leverage, acceleration) that exist across projects and across the company. These disconnected project lists and cryptic project names diffuse any possibility of common understanding of what the company is marching towards. Leaders may know what’s going on in their own area, but it’s hard to know if other business units are building the same functionality (e.g., how many eSignature apps do you need). In addition, what functionality could be reused or leveraged to speed delivery and increase quality. In the project-centric operating model, there is a deadly one-two punch: limited visibility of the whole and virtually no incentive, nor appetite, to plan beyond your silo.

And as soon as the annual project lists are finalized, they are quickly unfinalized. Late breaking changes to goals and objectives lead to constant revisioning of what is “in” and what is “out”. With these adjustments masked by project jargon, the company may achieve annual budget targets but may fall short of the desired business goals. The sum of the projects becomes blurry and blind spots are formed between business vision and delivery execution, between business units and functions, and between business and technology. To make matters worse, this never ending process is resource intensive, mentally exhausting, and creates devastating cracks in investment plans where value leaks out.

This convoluted project-centric modus operandi undermines our ability to dynamically align business value with the change required to achieve it. At best, you achieve the business outcomes (good) but it costs more and/or takes longer (bad). In the worst case, business outcomes are not even achieved (very bad). 

If the “Inexorable March Toward Projects” is costly, risky, and time consuming, why do we still do it? The answer is simple: that’s the way we have done it. But if you press leaders, they will readily admit that the current way is neither efficient nor effective. 

 

We need to do something different.

We need to remove the jargon and miscommunication that is inherent with project lists and project names. We need a common language across the organization which can align business value with the change required to be successful. We need to shift toward a “capability” mindset.  

A capability is simply the ability to do something. For a business, a capability is what a business does (or should be able to do), defined in the same language executives use when describing strategy. No acronyms. No code words. No application names. It’s “Generate Service Recovery Options” not “Falcon 2.0”. It’s “Administer Benefits” not “Workday-HCM”.  

Having this common language of capabilities allows us to:

  • Integrate strategies across business units and functions
  • Identify redundant needs and opportunities to build once and reuse 
  • Leverage existing building blocks to gain speed to market on new capabilities
  • See patterns that are unfolding that require runway to address collectively and effectively

Leveraging a common language, we can converge, rationalize, and integrate the needs of various teams (Figure 2). Capabilities allows us to zoom out and look across the entire organization to see the synergies and opportunities. 

 

Figure 2. Converge, Rationalize, and Integrate through a Common Language   ©The Feld Group Institute 2021

 

Whether you know it or not, this common language of capabilities is the foundation of the “Business Architecture” discipline. Don’t be scared, “Business Architecture” is not as complicated or esoteric as you might think.  Business Architecture simply provides the connective tissue you need to link the value you want to achieve to the capabilities needed. (Figure 3).

 

Figure 3. Connecting the Dots    ©The Feld Group Institute 2021

 

So, how do you shift to a “capability” mindset? 

The dialogue will need to change as capabilities become the lens through which you will talk about the current and future state. Start conversations with your partners in terms of what you need the “ability to” do instead of what system you want to upgrade/replace. Listen to and learn from other areas of the business; what capabilities have they developed that you could connect to, reuse or repurpose?  

 It’s not easy, but you may be closer than you think. In many cases, you will be surprised to find that you already have key elements of Business Architecture, somewhere in your company; you can dust off those insights and connect the dots between key strategies, capabilities, and a business capability model.    

Remember: the current “March Toward Projects” is not working and it’s exhausting. While a shift towards a “capability” mindset takes time, the effort to find a common language is a necessary investment, and will pay off almost immediately, in terms of speed and productivity. Make the investment. Language matters and will allow you to truly be agile and keep up in our ever changing world! 

 

Author: Meredith Sasser,  Affiliate, The Feld Group Institute

Connect with Meredith Sasser on LinkedIn

 

Author: Kenny Feld, Principal, The Feld Group Institute

Connect with Kenny Feld on LinkedIn

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FURTHER LEARNING:

Many of these concepts are covered in depth in The Feld Group Institute’s Operationalizing Business Architecture class.  If you are interested in learning more about this important topic, additional resources can be found on this site, including: Aligning Strategy To Business Capabilities , Business Architecture – Linking Strategic Themes To Tactical Demand, Alignment Is Critical In Times Of Uncertainty, and in this short video with Charlie Feld Back To The Future Series – Alignment

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn

More to Explore

the value of business architecture white, on digital fabric background blue, align technology and business strategy red
Business Architecture

The Value of Business Architecture

Align Technology and Business Strategy  In the 1960’s and 70’s information technology was perceived as a support organization that minimized cost by automating labor intensive

Express Interest

I'm interested in getting more information about the attending a workshop.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Express Interest

I'm interested in learning more about The Feld Group Institute Consulting Services.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Express Interest

| LT

I'm interested in getting more information about the LT course.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

LT2

TBD

Express Interest

| EA

I'm interested in getting more information about the EA course.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

EA10

Dates: August 19 – September 2, 2021
Virtual Classroom

Express Interest

| TLD

I'm interested in getting more information about the TLD course.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

TLD14

 Coming Early 2022

Virtual Classroom

Russell Villemez

Affiliate, The Feld Group Institute

Head of Technology Strategy, Dialexa – a Feld Group Institute partner

Highly regarded CTO and change agent with IT strategy and enterprise architecture expertise.

Russell Villemez is an Affiliate with the Feld Group Institute and the head of Technology Strategy at Dialexa, a Technology Research, Design and Creation firm that works with organizations on initiatives such as Operational Transformation, Business Growth, and New Venture Creation.

During 17 years in operational roles and 15 years in consulting roles, Russell has worked across a variety of industries in both executive leadership positions and as a subject matter expert. Russell thrives on the scale and complexity of leading major change agendas in large corporate environments.

Recent consulting clients include AmerisourceBergen, the American Automobile Association, Brinker International, Cubic, Equifax, and Cox Automotive. A common thread is the client’s need for strong leadership during a period of change—whether motivated by acquisitions, spin-offs, competitive pressures, or other factors. Clients also benefit from Russell’s expertise in enterprise architecture, agile development, application portfolio rationalization, technology and architecture strategy, as well as business strategy and commercial software product development.

Recognized as a versatile IT executive, adept at solving complex problems with innovative solutions, Russell’s capabilities and achievements span a continuum from business-strategy formation to hands-on IT solution development. His extensive career achievements include pioneering the first use of relational databases in high-volume transaction systems in the ‘80s, applying voice recognition DSPs in public intelligent network services for consumer markets in the ‘90s, and leading large-scale adoptions of open systems, object technology, and middleware frameworks in complex business environments, often in advance of commercially available software products.

Prior to joining Dialexa, Russell served at HP as Enterprise Services Chief Technology Officer for the Americas, leading a global capability for embedded Account CTOs in large enterprises. Russell began his career at Accenture, where he first crafted his consultative problem-solving approach, later honed at A.T. Kearny and the Feld Group. Russell’s deep telecom experience is built upon numerous director and enterprise architect positions at AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Telstra, US West, Pacific Bell, and Sprint, and as V.P. and CIO for WebLink Wireless.

Russell has a BS in Business Administration from Louisiana State University and an MBA from Vanderbilt University. In his spare time, Russell participates in amateur auto racing, and is a driving instructor with the Porsche Club of America.