I presented a 5 year plan to the board last week. One aspect of the presentation that seemed to resonate really well was an adaptation from the Pragmatic EA Framework's Enterprise Debt. However, I re-badged the terms Remedial, Tactical and Strategic as Deficient, Temporary and Permanent.
I found the term Remedial a bit ambiguous - is it a remedy or in need of a remedy? The intent is 'in need of', but to avoid confusion I chose deficient. We live with deficiency in all aspects of our lives - I have a headache, but I soldier on; the handle on the toilet is wonky, but it still flushes OK so I leave it be; we are a headcount down in our department; our systems don't integrate. Some deficiencies obviously more severe than others.
To address deficiencies we find a remedy, which can either be temporary or permanent. I prefer this to tactical and strategic, largely because tactical has become associated with quick, dirty and cheap, and strategic with expensive and (potentially) over engineered - at least they have in my mind.
So the distinction I draw is whether the remedy will no longer be used, replace by a different solution, at a planned point in time, or one with no foreseeable event that will trigger replacement, even if a desirable replacement exists. Many solutions are built with every intention to replace them, but that replacement never comes - hence the emphasis on a known point in time or triggering event.
Putting this into the presentation gave the roadmap a sense of pragmatic commercial awareness, which can often be lacking when the focus is on technology. It acknowledges that in all areas, technology included, we manage the mix of deficiencies and remedial measures (temporary and permanent). Each section of the roadmap referred to the changes in terms of deficiencies and temporary or permanent remedies.
I didn't get into the ratio measurement proposed in PEAF, partly because the application inventory doesn't use this language yet and partly to take small steps in introducing this new language/model; let it gain traction and then develop it.
I encourage you to read PEAF. How have you used this concept?
UPDATE: So I abused the PEAF terms, doing something a bit different. Made sense in the context of painting current state. I'll have to read over the PEAF material again.
2 comments:
Hi Richard,
Glad you and your organisation can get some benefit from PEAF. We do find that the Enterprise Debt area around EA Governance is always an area people immediately identify with, both in terms of understand and also value.
What you are referring to (as I am sure you already know but I provided here for background) is the Enterprise Debt Ratio (EDR) of the executing project portfolio. (It’s not so much a point measure in time that’s important here, it’s more how that ratio changes over time.) as opposed to the Enterprise Debt Value (EDV) of the Enterprise.
Re “I re-badged the terms Remedial, Tactical and Strategic as Deficient, Temporary and Permanent.”
Pragmatic is always keen to hear peoples views and updates itself where necessary. Sometimes people’s suggestions are valid and PEAF changes. Sometimes there is some miscommunication and the reader needs adjustment. Either way, it’s all good
Those categories in PEAF define the type of work going on in a project and we always try to use words people normally use rather than trying to create new ones and confuse people. “Call a spade a spade” as my father used to say… “unless it’s a fork!”
Strategic means effectively you are not creating any Enterprise Debt.
Tactical means you are increasing Enterprise Debt
Remedial means you are reducing Enterprise Debt. E.g. replacing some previous tactical work with more strategic stuff.
Please let us know how EDV and EDR was received by your board and how things progress for you.
Cheers,
Kevin.
Hi Kevin, we had a long exchange of emails about efficiency and effectiveness some time ago when I was with my previous employer. Thanks for taking the time to comment here.
Clearly I haven't (yet) employed your concept of EDR as you designed it. I guess I was looking for a way to simply establish a view of the level of debt without actually measuring it in money terms. This is why I settled on a measure that was more akin to your ratio; and why I looked at deficiencies and interim as two things requiring redress (or, in other words, carrying debt).
The overall idea of measuring debt was well received; it is a concept that anyone can grasp. It's not innately a technical issue and the concept meant people engaged with the need to manage technology rather than feeling turned off because it's technology.
Post a Comment