SKF Enterprise Architecture

This piece will capitalize on the principal issue of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) where it will focus on a specific company as per the requirements of this unit structure. However, to demonstratively grasp the focus, it is essential for one to familiarize and adhesively refine as well as break down the topic. For this reason, the researcher will engage on SKF, a Swedish manufacturing company and how it has over the years engaged this framework and design to remain competitive in its operations and whether it failed or succeeded. That said, the paper will ultimately relate SKF to the Enterprise Architecture design throughout most of its years of operations and evident how this has helped the company to improve its quality of performance. The arguments for the various Architecture Enterprise impacts for growth association are outlined. Various tools, level of organization, accomplishments and the lessons learned are effectively delineated with the aim of aggravating the positive or negative association of an organization with Enterprise Architecture.

Introduction

For many years, Enterprise Architecture has seen many companies implement their strategies to propagate the growth (Buckl et al., 2008). In introducing this framework, it is crucial to gain insight into how this implementation is developed. Thus, in the development of EA, the purpose of the company must be specific (Bernus, Noran, & Molina, 2015; Sessions, 2007). This alludes to the way the company strategizes to achieve and maintain EA. It is essential to note that the EA applies as a Blueprint that transforms the business from its current operations and state to the desired and expected outcome in the long-run (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006). The company’s state of operations through data integration, systems, and technology are considered to achieve the development of EA. The company policing must capitalize on EA as the tool for implementation to advance and capitalize on its daily operations to effectively utilize the EA because only then does EA prove transformation. (FLIPSIDE, 2006). Thus, the introduction and incorporation of Enterprise Architecture to an organization is adequately beneficial to propel growth. However, many companies have equally experienced Enterprise Architecture failure.

SKF

SKF has its headquarters in Gothenburg, Sweden. It supplies its services and products all over the globe in more than seventy countries with thousands of distributors. (SKF Group, 2017).

Tools and Frameworks

To meet the various customer demands, SKF needed to improve their service delivery and their working strategies. The company thus adopted SAP as a system for this delivery; another program called Unite was established in the year 2012 to help cater to the rising needs of the company regarding communication to the wider base of clients and distributors (SKF Group, 2016). This program was initiated to link all the gaps within the company and supplement the SAP program. This was done by integrating the system to work in unison. To date, the Unite program is deemed the most expensive program for the company (SKF Group, 2016). The EA framework was chosen because it could enhance a holistic approach in dealing with the architectural design at SKF and could as well help with the huge documentation of the company.

By 2013, the team ratifying the program, the EA team engaged their skills as it required special skills to implement. From the start, the team has been working towards the growth of the company through initiating products, governance coordination, and working on developing the whole nature of SKF in the Unite program. Many variables played a part in the architectural design of the company. The overall effect is that the governance was altered to accommodate the new framework to enhance co-existence.

Organization of the Enterprise Architecture

A standard in architecture was set to enable the team to measure the performance of the program. Wider management of the overall architecture was necessary, so the team applied skills from the IT Architectural Council (ITAC) and was applied in 2015 (SKF Group, 2017). The plan aimed at applying a single repository system of documentation and disassociate from the informal practices of documentation. As a content repository system, it was initialized as (GEAR) which means Group Enterprise Architecture Repository and was ratified on ARIS as the main platform. The system could carry out most of the work like documentation, processing of requirements from the clients, and businesses with the help of the EA team. The company was compliant with the (GAF) which implies Group architectural framework.

Further, in this development, the EA acts as the bridge of the organization relating to its vision and strategy of operation and the overall business elements involving the people, processes and their overall relationship with how they are organized. In this bridging, the flow of information is, and data relation is tantamount to effectively managing the EA (Struck et al., 2010). In other words, the gap between the interdependent variables of an enterprise and the other dependent variables of the business are linked on the process of business operation through the business information flow and application to the technology infrastructure that exists within the organization (EITBOK, 2017). It is crucial to recognize that a business must decide whether to keep the manual systems of operation or the automated metrics when it comes to this infrastructural development as the EA relates widely to the available technology of the business.

The Enterprise Architecture design and framework has numerous advantages in the long-term (Urbaczewski, & Mrdalj, 2006). Companies engage various tools and strategies to carry out their operations. In essence, Enterprise Architecture is modestly the structural exemplification of a business solution that helps it to create an enabling environment relating to the value of the business and achieving the objectives and ultimately its goals ( Ronald G. Ross, 2014). It has also been identified as an articulate practice for piloting an enterprise analysis, planning, designing, and implementation while utilizing an all-time holistic approach for the prosperous expansion and execution of a company’s strategy (FEAPO, 2018). It applies the architectural principles and guidelines to effusively guide the organization through its operations. The business environment through its information process and technology are advanced to reiterate positive impacts on the business strategy. Such a practice applies the aspects relating to the business identity, motive and is engaged to achieve necessary changes for the growth of the company. (EITBOK, 2017)

The objectives of GAF were to apply the design to ease data management for SKF in line with the Unite program. It dealt with all the processing of contents, and the new architectural structure of the company. All the architectural development was progressed within this system which provided management and governance allowance for the company (SKF Group, 2016). These steps formed the framework for Enterprise Architecture at SKF and were to be used to meet the objectives of SKF and offer solutions to all the requirements. (SKF Group, 2016)

The Unite program aimed at easing the data management strategies in applying the GAF design. Through the system, IT and all business functions were aligned (SKF Group, 2016). Adequate company coverage was exercised as a transformative approach to all business properties and requirements. Through this framework, principles, models, views, methods, and standards of the company were met. (SKF Group, 2016)

In generating an effective structure, this framework was necessary, and it would be difficult to define the current business structure from the various parties. Further, defining the business structure qualifies as a crucial step towards the success or failure of the EA. The business architecture analyzes the state of the company and offers value towards implementing the EA. Businesses that carry out this step have better chances of successfully applying the framework while the vice versa is also true. Through this step, the SKF business environment was linked to technology (IT) which implies that application, data, and information, and technology were in line as required by the EA. ( Ronald G. Ross, 2014)

Results and Accomplishments

EA Material Tools, and Methodology

Regarding the EA, the architects have a common ground; they understand each other. However, from the business side, there seems to lack an articulate comprehension of the EA to the business. Again, the architects develop a framework that fails to incorporate certain models. More so, the framework seems complex, presenting a probable reason why business representatives lack the understanding. The GAER is a good way to handle the EA and is well documented (SKF Group, 2017; Bricknall, 2006). Nevertheless, it is way beyond comprehension by both the architects and the business thus mitigating its usefulness (Mertins, & Jochem, 2005).

Communication

The EA team and the business have a weary communication. Thus communication to the business that warranted for EA is negative and thereby misses crucial information. Thus, the architectural plans are not initiated. (SKF Group, 2017; Lankhorst, 2009)

EA Governance

EA ratification within the organization is wanting. It would have been done better to avoid the business decisions from overriding it. When reorganization occurs, ITAC is involved, but there seem to negate the protocols and guide on the EA rules (SKF Group, 2016). There is pressure during the ratification of the EA due to the time factor, and there seems to lack an objective to improve the EA despite the documented Architectural plans. There also seems to lack formal evaluation of the EA regarding its implementation. Stakeholders are committed to the implementation of EA. Others are however disassociated as they lack the value and EA benefits. Training is not prioritized as it is occasional and is not structured.

Organizational Culture

There is a general willingness to adopt the EA framework. However, time compromises this willingness. The general lack of understanding hinders the adoption process (Schekkerman, 2004). This attitude towards EA and IT could affect the implementation process (Schmidt & Buxmann, 2011; Cameron, & McMillan, 2013)

Analysis

It is clear that SKF implementation has many obstacles than there seem to be opportunities to successfully implement the EA. This is based on the level of communication, commitment, lack of understanding, poor training and implementation strategies, the distance between the business and the EA team, lack of formal power, among others. This can ultimately affect the implementation process and the achievements of the desired goals. (Rogers, 2003)

Maturity Level

This would be defined through the ability of the people to adopt or reject innovation (Rogers, 2003). Individuals inability and reluctance to adopt the innovation can be determined by many factors (Schmidt & Buxmann, 2011; The Open Group, 2018). In this case, a lack of knowledge is a significant determinant to people’s adoption of this innovation. EA team was the main player from the business to implement the EA. However, they failed to communicate the progress to the business, and thus people did not find the benefits. Basing the argument on earlier studies, the involvement of the people to adopting the innovation would have been strengthened by the EA team who would have relayed more information to the stakeholders, and the business regarding the GEAR and the overall progress thus widening the chances for this adoption. (Rogers, 2003)

The maturity level of SKF is low and poor. It lacks the necessary drive to implement and adapt. The team propagating the framework lacks the skill and the know-how. The overall effect is that the framework fails due to many obstacles than the opportunities. Many implements are negative towards the framework. The governance is poor and lacks the leadership power to propel the project. The staff is not motivated towards this adoption, and there is a little achievement. The general organization culture is weak and lacks an articulate understanding of the benefits associated with the EA.

Lessons Learned

Knowledge is lacking in SKF regarding the implementation process. The people; architects and the business representatives do not have a clear understanding of what they should do in certain stages which makes it hard for the framework to be properly executed.

Implementation stage- there needs to be more coordination between the main players; the EA team ought to communicate the progress to the stakeholders and the business. Likewise, communication is crippled within the organization because the main players negate t relay the implementation to the business. The stakeholders have little communication with the business, and they do not know how to react towards the EA.

Governance is also proving poor as it does not put pressure on the EA team and the architects. Thus, they rarely observe the guidelines and the standards by the EA compliance. Therefore, they do not hold themselves answerable, and this gives them the general attitude of negligence and reluctance.

Knowledge; this lack of knowledge hinders the process of implementation and adoption of the EA within the organization. There is a need to instill awareness of the EA among the stakeholders, the business and every party involved. In this regard, the EA should be capitalized and its need adequately articulated among the business stakeholders. There is a need to emphasize the accruing benefits as it widens the chances of its adoption and adaptation within the business structure. It is complex in the ratification, and thus everyone should be involved to create an enabling environment for the purposes of its establishment within the organization. In this case, the knowledge could have applied to the training process of SKF stakeholders, the EA team, and the staff in general. Usually, this knowledge is instilled through communication, and thus it is essential that communication is also enhanced within SKF.

Communication; for the success of EA, this has to be through the proper channels. Communication at all levels will advance the roles played by each stakeholder within the organization. EA majorly depends on communication through creating awareness of the architectural platform established through the framework that is ready for implementation. The communication link between the architects and the business lacks within SKF. Without communication, there are fewer chances to create awareness about the framework and mitigates the chances of adoption. Decreased or lack of communication implies the negation of rule adherence relating to the EA guide. This can be improved for SKF through introducing the necessary change agents like opinion leaders who instill and capitalize on the need for EA. This ultimately increases the adoption rate. To start with, there would be a need for ratification of informal communication to give opinions regarding EA and thus creating awareness for the adopters. Secondly, there should be a provision of the architectural design and materials that the adopters will relate and gain knowledge about the framework.

Re-invention of the framework should also be a way forward for SKF. The repository system should be drawn to the stakeholders to give its usability and the nature of why it is important to adopt. This increases the awareness level, and so does the adoption rationale. SKF should strive to create awareness for the adopters because, in the long run, they hold power to propel the adoption of the framework. A formal evaluation through a formal communication would also catalyze the adoption rate. Increasing usability of EA can also be achieved through the high degree of re-invention of an architectural.

Formal power; the formal drive is dependent on communication metrics. Communication has no impact without formal power and governance. Therefore, the rules should be followed, standards observed, agenda communicated and ratified accordingly, meetings should also hold authority, and the impact should be felt. There is a general perception of formal power towards any ratification, and therefore, SFK should uphold this as it escalates the chances of adoption to adoption through a willingness driven by authority.

SKF Failure in the Adoption Stages

Persuasion Stage

This is another level that SKF EA team failed to observe. In this stage, stakeholder s and all other involved individuals make room for more information regarding the repository. This is formulated through opinions and guidance about the framework. This is where generalization takes effect, and the framework is well known to the people (Rogers, 2003). Because the individuals at SKF did not have knowledge regarding the framework, they EA team failed to realize this stage.

Decision Stage

Rodgers (2003) advises that individuals in this stage choose to either reject or adopt the innovation. Usually dependent on the persuasion stage and seeks to assist the adopters in making an informed choice. The chances may be increased through allowing the individuals to utilize the implementation for a period of time in order to assess the viability and the usefulness. With the help of the EA team, individuals would have been allowed to utilize the GEAR to advance their know-how. But this was not realized and thus mitigated the chances of the adoption.

Implementation Stage

The EA was concerned about the implementation stage, the team, however, forgot that this is dependent on the adopters. Failing to involve the adopters at the other stages decreased the chances for this adoption. The people did not know what exactly the framework was all about. The EA team worked at implementing a model that would work with the structure but not the members. This was critical because, without the linkage between all the stakeholders and the users, the innovation would fail. SKF should have utilized the ITAC board to propel this stage. The involvement would have increased the chances to link the architecture with the proper implementation strategies through the help of the ITAC architecture board. A re-invention may prove a difference as with a new strategy, incorporating this step should promote the adoption rate within the general organization through an improved overall organizational culture. (Rodgers, 2003).

Confirmation stage-this is when the framework can be judged to have worked or not. Usually, this step involves discontinuation of the framework process or full adoption. It involves the individuals to carefully examining the ratification and therefore improving the chances or reducing their willingness to adopt it. The members exercise further scrutiny to associate and relate with the innovation (Rodgers, 2003). If the system does not auger with the organizational culture, the chances are that it will be rejected, and if it promotes the objectives, behavior and establishes a good connection within the business structure, then it is fully adopted. It is improved through a formal power, where advancements for future growth are communicated and the need to adapt to technology and current business practices. However, because SKF failed to exercise this authority, the adoption rate was very poor.

Conclusion and Future plans

SKF EA fails because the players within the implementation teams fail to carry out their roles as they should. This makes the process experience poor reception from the stakeholders and the business. The framework implementation fails because the people have no way of knowing what to expect from the system and neither do they have knowledge regarding its benefits. However, in the future, SKF should re-invent the implementation and train an effective team that will carry out their roles in accordance with the guide on EA. More so, the governing bodies should involve more power to command and direct effective processes and implementations. The general attitude of the organizational culture should also be altered through persuasion, motivation and knowledge relay.

References

Bernus, P., Noran, O., & Molina, A. (2015). Enterprise architecture: Twenty years of the GERAM framework. Annual Reviews in Control, 39, 83-93.

Bricknall, R., Darrell, G., Nilsson, H., & Pessi, K. (2006, June). Enterprise architecture: critical factors affecting modeling and management. In ECIS (pp. 2349-2361).

Buckl, S., Ernst, A. M., Lankes, J., Matthes, F., & Schweda, C. M. (2008, September). Enterprise architecture management patterns--exemplifying the approach. In 2008 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (pp. 393-402). IEEE.

Cameron, B. H., & McMillan, E. (2013). Enterprise architecture valuation and metrics: A survey-based research study. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 9(1), 39-59.

EITBOK. (2017). EITBOK. Retrieved from Enterprise Architecture: http://eitbokwiki.org/Enterprise_Architecture

FEAPO. (2018). Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from Enterprise Architecture: http://feapo.org/

FLIPSIDE. (2006). Enterprise Architecture Regional Summit. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from Establishing an Enterprise Architecture (EA) Practice: http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/~bernus/publications/pdfs/EstablishinganEAPractice.Workshop.pdf

Lankhorst, M. (2009). Enterprise architecture at work: Modelling, communication, and analysis. Springer Science & Business Media.

Mertins, K., & Jochem, R. (2005). Architectures, methods, and tools for enterprise engineering. International journal of production economics, 98(2), 179-188.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Uppl. 5. New York: The Free Press.

Ronald G. Ross. (2014). Brs. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from What’s a Business Architecture?: http://www.brsolutions.com/tag/enterprise-architecture/

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.

Schekkerman, J. (2004). How to survive in the jungle of enterprise architecture frameworks: Creating or choosing an enterprise architecture framework. Trafford Publishing.

Schmidt, C., Buxmann, P. (2011). Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: empirical insight from the international financial services industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(2), 168-185.Stanleigh, M (2013) Leading change.

Sessions, R. (2007). A comparison of the top four enterprise-architecture methodologies. Houston: ObjectWatch Inc.

SKF Group. (2016). Architecture Handbook. Gothenburg: SKF Group.

SKF Group. (2017). About SKF. Retrieved 2017-05-21, from http://www.skf.com/group/our-company/index.html

Struck, V., Buckl, S., Matthes, F., & Schweda, C. M. (2010). Enterprise Architecture Management from a Knowledge Management Perspective-Results from an Empirical Study. In MCIS (p. 84).

The Open Group. (2018). Architecture Maturity Models. Retrieved 2017-05-21, from http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/chap27.html

Urbaczewski, L., & Mrdalj, S. (2006). A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in Information Systems, 7(2), 18-23.