Business ‘Fit’ vs. Technical ‘Fit’: The Crucible of Strategy, Architecture, and Governance
IT leadership and EA teams struggle with how to effectively engage business leadership regarding application systems that do not adhere to architectural standards or technology strategy. A simple technique can be used to effectively illustrate when existing systems do not fit with current standards or strategic IT road maps, as well as to:
- IT leadership and EA teams struggle with how to effectively engage business leadership regarding application systems that do not adhere to architectural standards or technology strategy. A simple technique can be used to effectively illustrate when existing systems do not fit with current standards or strategic IT road maps, as well as to: Generate effective conversation with the business owner of an application regarding long-term evolution.
- Aid decision making on new application investment (both custom development and COTS).
- Analyze an application portfolio.
- Validate an IT road map or other strategy.
Assessing and Comparing Business ‘Fit’ and Technical ‘Fit’
The first step is to assess the degree to which the application being assessed meets the requirements of the business. If business requirements are changing, it is important to assess the Business “Fit” at more than one point in time (e.g., today, six months, one year, two years). Business Fit will become the vertical axis in figure 1.
The next step is to assess the degree to which the application meets the technology standards established by IT. If the technology standards are evolving as part of an IT road map, then it is important to assess the Technical “Fit” at more than one point in time (e.g., today, six months, one year, two years). Technical Fit will become the horizontal axis in figure 1.
The result is four quadrants which are identified as “A” through “D.”
Quadrant A: High Business Fit but Low Technical Fit.
Applications mapped into this quadrant typically have strong business support, but are significant challenges to IT. Usually, the business is happy with the application, and it is unlikely to support any changes unless new business requirements emerge. On the other hand, these systems don’t meet current IT standards, likely are using older technology, and have higher support costs.
Any changes to these applications, which are driven by IT and perceived by the business as only for the purpose of meeting technology standards, will be strongly resisted by the business. Examples include: a COTS application for which maintenance support has been discontinued, an application that uses a legacy DBMS (e.g., ADABAS, IDMS), or an application that uses an older hardware platform (e.g., HP3000).
On occasion, an application will have a High Business Fit, from the perspective of the application owner, but may have a Low Business Fit with other corporate strategies. For example, an older inventory system that operates in batch mode may meet all the needs of the inventory function but does not meet the demands of the firm’s biggest customers, who want real-time visibility into inventory.\
Quadrant B: Low Business Fit and Low Technical Fit.
Applications mapped into this quadrant typically do not meet business requirements and do not meet current IT standards. Support for replacing these applications is almost always strong.
Quadrant C: Low Business Fit but High Technical Fit.
Applications mapped into this quadrant typically do not have strong business support because business requirements are not being met. On the other hand, these systems usually have strong IT support because they meet current IT standards.
Typically, applications in this quadrant are relatively new and are built on products that are viewed by IT as market leaders but fail to provide the functionality needed by the business. First generation Web portals are a common example. Business Fit is improved through additional functional enhancements.
Quadrant D: High Business Fit and High Technical Fit.
Applications mapped into this quadrant typically have strong support from both the business and IT. This quadrant can be described as EA nirvana.
Engaging Business Owners of Applications
This tool is most effective when used as the basis for a dynamic exercise done with business owners of applications. In the exercise, business owners are asked to plot their perception of Business Fit and Technical Fit of their application at two or more points in time (e.g., today, one year, three years) and describe their rationale. Similarly, the chief architect (or other IT leader) then plots Business Fit and Technical Fit, and provides the rationale.
The plotted data is then used to discuss (usually in a facilitated manner):
Reasons for the differing views on Business Fit and Technical Fit
How these views change over time
Possible strategies for getting concurrence on Business Fit and Technical Fit
The Problem of Regression in Business and Technical Fit
Businesses are under constant pressure to change to address emerging challenges in their markets, respond to competitive pressures, adapt to changing economics, etc. Consequently, the applications that enable the business are under constant pressure to change. The result is that applications, which are not enhanced on an ongoing basis, are likely to be regressing in the degree of Business Fit they satisfy.
Similarly, technology advancements are continuing, and price/performance is constantly improving. Three or four years ago, few complex enterprises were embracing virtualization, horizontal scaling, open source, and continuous operations as core components of their IT strategy. Consequently, if technology standards are not continuously reviewed and IT road maps updated, the degree of Technology Fit of applications systems will likely regress over time.
The same forces put pressure on applications that have High Business Fit and High Technical Fit to regress, over time, from EA nirvana to one of the other quadrants.
Extending Portfolio Management with Fit Analysis
- Fit analysis can also be applied to an entire application portfolio. This can provide a different picture of: Business and IT alignment
- Degree of business satisfaction with IT performance
- Application systems, which are viewed as technical successes but business failures
- Adherence to IT standards
In figure 2, seven applications have been plotted using Business Fit and Technical Fit. A simple glance tells the viewer than the business is probably unhappy with applications 5, 6, and 7, while IT views applications 6 and 7 as successes, along with applications 1 and 2. A systemic disparity between business fit and technical fit can be remedied by applying enterprise architecture techniques designed to link enterprise business, information, and technology architectures.
Note that in figure 2 the anticipated changes in the Business Fit or Technical Fit are represented by vectors. The size of the vector indicates the amount of change or regression projected. This will help executives to better understand the dynamic nature of their portfolio.
Larry R. DeBoever is a Managing Director of EAdirections and is recognized as one of the pioneers of enterprise architecture. EAdirections is a research, advisory and consulting company focused on improving the effectiveness of EA teams by creating deep, mentoring relationships driven by independent research.
