1. Freeze on discretionary spending – Announced in the State of the Union

  • National Security / DoD exempt and thus defense spending will not be impacted, for now….
  • Other agencies were part of the freeze…sounded good in the speech, but the reality is 10 of 15 cabinet departments saw their budgets increase in the FY2011 budget

2. Move to ban “earmarks” in the federal budget

  • Much advertized effort by the House of Representatives…not supported in the Senate
  • The status quo on adding budget line items used by members of Congress will not change

3. The DoD budget did not see a cut for FY2011, but many predict major challenges in FY2012 and certainly the FY2013 budget

  • $548.9 billion in the base budget
  • $159.3 billon for Iraq / Afghanistan
  • $17 billon for nuclear programs (primarily Department of Energy)
  • 3.4% increase over FY2010 budget, but only 1.8% when adjusted for inflation; 4.7% of GDP
  • Implications of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) on the budget: not really noticeable since most items had already been factored in over the last year; major issue will be the QDR’s general theme calling for a “do it all” military (more emphasis on non-traditional defense missions and tasks)
  • Three main spending areas remain:

  Cyber; some points to ponder:

  • Are we moving into a Cyber Cold War – with multiple, non-state players? Is it cyber crime or cyber war? Who protects what?
  • Stand-up of Cyber Command slowed by debate on roles and missions….no commander confirmed yet (hearing scheduled for April 15th)

  ISR

  • Anything to do with Unmanned Aerial Systems, UAS (and new phrase Remotely Piloted Aircraft, RPA) will continue to be a growth area

  Global Supply Chain / Logistics

4.  New Obama Administration priorities in 2010 and beyond:

  • FY2011 – First real Obama budget, but fiscal realities have yet to sink it with the Administration
  • Post Scott Brown election and healthcare passage – where and how much domestic spending on priorities and which priorities?  The American public is increasingly becoming concerned with Federal spending leading to huge debt.

5.  The national debt is, right now, the biggest threat to national security, and our way of life

  • How do we handle China in the future?  Buyers of debt, beholden to China, do we change national security policy / declarations to assuage them?
  • With the threat of interest rate increases, inflation, and a stagnating world economy, how do we pay for this debt and who pays?
  • February 2010 – record monthly debt; some predict the debt will be 100% of GDP by 2019….that is not very far off

6.  Green / Alternative Energy and Innovation

  • Comparative advantage leadership necessary in both the private and public sector
  • Do not become hostage to energy costs and/or lack of resources
  • Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies are promising

Three issues to keep in mind related to the DoD budget:

1. Right after the Cold War was over, we took a procurement holiday on recapitalizing and buying new defense equipment; we are still in a holiday paying for the current conflicts

2. The current fiscal situation is not going to get any better with a $1.3 trillion debt and baby boomers entering the peak years for retirement; personnel and health costs will continue to squeeze the procurement dollars out of the budget

3. We are having the wrong debate on security – terrorism is not the only and maybe not the major security threat, but we have allowed the nation to think of security in that myopic, narrow way

 

Enterprises that have achieved business-technology convergence can respond nimbly to change and use their superior performance to leapfrog over less-agile competitors and position themselves for future growth.

Baseline/BTM 500

The second annual Baseline/BTM 500 survey was conducted in the midst of the deepest economic downturn in our lifetime. While economic recession is certainly not good news, it does present a unique opportunity to test the promise of business-technology convergence. Would converged firms react? Would they perform as well in a down market as they have in up markets? Would they exhibit the resilience and agility that are the hallmarks of converged enterprises?

The results of the survey do indeed confirm the value of convergence. Of the five levels of maturity, the top two levels (Level 4, the threshold of synchronization; and Level 5, convergence) of the Baseline/BTM 500 organizations enjoy an advantage in positive performance results as compared with their industry groups. In addition, they clearly show that even when performing below industry averages, they are significantly better off than less-converged organizations. (See page 28 for a list of the top 100 companies that completed the survey across all four functional areas. To view all survey lists, go to www.baselinemag.com.)

The Baseline/BTM 500 report highlights participating enterprises that have the most efficient and optimized business-technology management and explains how that convergence contributes to growth and profitability. Business-technology convergence and business-technology management are terms that spring from a simple idea: Technology is a means for achieving business objectives; therefore, managing business and technology together provides significantly better results than managing them in separate silos. By converging business and technology management, enterprises can nimbly respond to changing marketplace dynamics, technology evolutions and competitive pressures—capabilities that are especially important during an economic downturn.

Determining the maturity level of an enterprise’s business-technology management is no easy task. The Baseline/BTM 500 is based on BTM Corp.’s BTM Framework and Business Technology Convergence Index, an ongoing study developed to measure convergence levels and financial performance of companies over rolling five-year periods. (Read “2009 Baseline/BTM 500 Methodology” below.)

Baseline and BTM assessed the survey submissions using the same methodology as last year. Performance was calculated using six financial measures relative to business-technology convergence: five-year averages for return on equity (ROE); return on investment (ROI); return on assets (ROA); earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation (EBITD); annual growth in revenue; and annual growth in earnings per share (EPS).

We also examined, as we did last year, the change in share price during the same five-year period. Nearly 58 percent of the companies in the top two levels exhibited superior or average performance, tracking with last year’s result of 60 percent. The study found that these companies experienced an average 5.9 percent higher rate of EPS, an average EBITD advantage of 9.4 percent, and an average ROE advantage of 6.8 percent over their industry peers between 2004 and 2008. Both ROI and ROA performance for Level 4 and Level 5 showed a 1 percent advantage over their industry peers.

Performing Despite the Downturn

The downturn has had a marked impact on revenue and share price, and the survey results consistently show the damage done to company and industry performance. Trying to go beyond the noise, we performed a second performance analysis to examine an organization’s ability to react to challenging environments.

Not surprisingly, nearly 73 percent of the companies in the two top levels exhibited superior or average performance—a 15-point increase over last year. They held a performance advantage of more than 8 percent over their industry peers and were nearly a full percentage point higher than less-converged firms.

Baseline and BTM also examined the impact of company size on performance, as measured by revenue. Companies of all sizes are fairly evenly distributed across each of the five levels, with two exceptions. First, no companies with more than $75 billion in annual revenue fell into the lowest level. Second, there is a disproportionate representation (about 50 percent) of companies with less than $7.5 billion in annual revenue in that level.

The Baseline/BTM 500 is in line with previous findings of the BTM Institute (the research think tank launched by BTM Corp.), which established that converged enterprises know when to change the rules to maintain a strategic advantage over their competitors—and to sense and respond to changes in the marketplace. While less-mature enterprises enjoy increasing benefits as their maturity increases, none of them equals the performance of converged enterprises.

Level 1 enterprises, which are the least mature, typically execute some strategic capabilities in a disaggregated, tasklike manner. Level 2 organizations exhibit limited capabilities, attempt to assemble information for major decisions and consult the technology function on decisions with obvious business-technology implications.

Enterprises at Level 3 are functional with respect to the capabilities, and those at Level 4 have the capabilities fully implemented. Companies achieving Level 5 (about 1 percent of the organizations surveyed) have achieved full convergence.

The Baseline/BTM 500 study shows that as an enterprise’s maturity extends above Level 3, the resulting synchronization of business strategy and technology delivery makes the company more agile and adaptable. For such enterprises, changes in the business environment—such as the one we’re currently living through—rapidly drive appropriate adjustments to strategy and its execution, thereby limiting the damage of falling revenue and share prices, while exhibiting the superior performance needed to position an organization for the growth cycle that historically follows a downturn.

Leading enterprises in the Baseline/BTM 500 study have demonstrated that data has become information. In large measure, this information is available through and managed in an integrated, enterprisewide fashion that facilitates better and faster decision making.

Leaders look at technology as an enabler of enterprise strategy. They consider the technology implications of business decisions and look for innovative ways to embed technology into their business operations and processes. For them, technology is more than “information technology” or “operational technology.” It is, rather, “business technology.”

Validating the Power of Convergence

The numbers speak for themselves. Companies such as AT&T, Boeing, Cisco and New York Life demonstrate that the principles of business-technology convergence are not exclusive to any particular market vertical, technology specialty or organizational size. The results of convergence—or the march toward convergence—pay companies real dividends in terms of financial performance.

Convergence does equal dollars, especially during a recession. But saving dollars shouldn’t be the only measure of success.

The superior performance of organizations in the upper-level business-technology management stages (alignment, synchronization and convergence) derives from their agile and adaptive nature. These organizations are able to respond nimbly to change and to use their superior performance to leapfrog over less-agile competitors and position themselves for future growth.

There is no doubt about it: To meet strategic goals, companies are drilling down to core management processes as a means of delivering results to the business. By exercising effective governance over these goals and the technology that underlies them, companies are able to maintain competitive advantage, increase operational efficiency and improve financial performance—making these objectives part of an organization’s DNA.

The Baseline/BTM 500 research and report are a collaborative effort between Baseline magazine and the BTM Institute. Faisal Hoque, Jeffrey Bruckner, Diana Mirakaj, Brian Fishman, Dr. Vallabh Sambamurthy and Dr. Robert Zmud conducted the analysis contained in the report. For complete biographies of the Baseline/BTM 500 team, visit go.baselinemag.com/BaselineBTM500Team.

2009 Baseline/BTM 500 Methodology

This year’s Baseline/BTM 500 report was built on the same foundation as the 2008 study: Both were based on the BTM Maturity Model and the Business-Technology Convergence Index. By offering participants the option to self-assess their organization by participating in from one to four 10-question surveys (each focused on one of the four functional areas of the BTM Framework), we can provide a more in-depth view of the management practices conducted in leading organizations throughout the United States.

The Convergence Index highlights the connection between corporate financial performance and business- technology convergence, as measured by the BTM Maturity Model. Enterprises at lower levels of maturity score lower for business-technology productivity, responsiveness and project success than enterprises at higher levels. As enterprise maturity improves, the increasing synchronicity of business strategy and technology delivery makes the enterprise more agile and adaptable.

To measure what companies do differently in terms of their management behaviors, BTM assessment tools are used to evaluate organizations against management capabilities for effective business-technology convergence. These capabilities are grouped into four functional areas:

1. Governance and Organization
2. Strategic Investment Management
3. Strategy and Planning
4. Strategic Enterprise Architecture.

Each capability represents a specific management competency defined by four critical dimensions: having repeatable processes, executed through appropriate organizational structures, enabled by the right information and using the right technology.

BTM research shows that at Level 1, enterprises typically execute some strategic capabilities in a disaggregated, tasklike manner. At Level 2, an organization exhibits limited capabilities, attempts to assemble information for major decisions and consults the technology function on decisions with obvious business-technology implications.

Enterprises at Level 3 are functional with respect to the capabilities, and those at Level 4 have the capabilities fully implemented. Organizations achieving Level 5 maturity have achieved full convergence and know when to change the rules to maintain strategic advantages over their competitors.

read more about the Baseline/BTM 500 at: http://www.baselinemag.com/

printed in Baseline Magazine, October 2009
BTM Institute Staff Writer

You would never put up with anything as inefficient as the US healthcare system in your own organization. Maybe we should apply some of the principles you use to the problem.

It’s 3 p.m. on a Thursday. You’ve got a doctor’s appointment in an hour; he wants to follow up on a cholesterol drug he prescribed. You turn to the screen on your desk and study the dashboard. All company systems in all regions are in the green zone. The logistics problem in Phoenix yesterday has been solved. No news on your competitors today. The system will shoot a note to your Blackberry if anything comes up. You email your wife about dinner and check your son’s flight on your screen – he’s coming home from college. Off you go.

At the doctor’s office you approach the receptionist. She looks through a stack of manila folders and finds yours. She asks for your insurance card and makes a photocopy of it. You sit and thumb through a three-month-old news magazine. At 4:30 a nurse calls your name, and your 4:00 appointment begins. She weighs you and checks your blood pressure and writes some notes in your file.

Read more…

Combining an innovation lab with a viral adoption strategy is a powerful, creative and effective way to overcome friction and drive results that boost the bottom line.

Successful companies manage innovation from concept to commercialization, so that good ideas not only get created, but also find their way into the products and services portfolio. A culture of innovation is characterized by teams that come to life in a lab environment where they can sense and respond to customers and evaluate what works and what does not work while free of the organizational inertia, or friction, that is the enemy of change and its partner, innovation.

A thriving culture of innovation requires an organization to master the art and science of managing business and technology together, as described in the following three-step approach:

1. Establish one or more innovation labs.
Innovation labs must operate outside established organizational boundaries in order for teams to create and build prototypes of new solutions. These labs also:
• provide the success needed to develop a compelling vision of what is possible
• create respected champions for new ways of doing things
• articulate and shape potential solutions for the business.

2. Promote viral adoption.
The teams return to their everyday environments with a desire to:
• spread the knowledge of what works
• apply the lessons learned throughout the rest of the business
• drive enterprise investment decisions with a shared vision of business benefits.

3. Transform to a converged enterprise.
Converged enterprises can achieve competitive advantages that are difficult for their competitors to replicate. These advantages include:
• sustained innovation
• enduring business performance
• superior financial performance.

Discipline and innovation are not opposites; they complement one another. Innovation requires a space outside the status quo and its incremental change approach. The act of creating, maintaining and leveraging that space requires discipline, resources and senior management support.

Establishing an innovation culture consumes a great deal of organizational energy to overcome the forces of inertia and entropy. But once an idea has been successfully commercialized, respected champions emerge to drive new sources of the energy, creativity, discipline and resources that sustain and grow an enduring culture of innovation.

Anything that can be standardized, should be — and that includes management practices. The paradox is that through routine and standardization we create an environment conducive to innovation.

The quest for success in business today begins in the repeatable, day-to-day disciplines of management and in something as prosaic as standards.

Standards are our defense against the complexities of life. Because of standards, we can pick up an extension cord, a light bulb, a can of motor oil or a music CD and just use it. Where there is no standard, life gets messy. Does each member of your family have a different cell phone with a different charger? And does each have a different digital camera requiring its own unique plug for the PC?

On the other hand, in the company you work for surely everything that can be standardized is  – customer account numbers, paychecks, email systems, operating software, decision rights, budget procedures, metrics, recurring management processes. No? Ah, complexity.

Anything that can be standardized should be, for a simple reason: standards free your people from fussing over routine, repetitive matters and allow them to focus on the things that will differentiate you from your competitors. Imagine the time and energy you would waste if there were no standard for light bulbs or if every new piece of office equipment required a different voltage. How much time do you waste deciding how to make decisions that you know in advance you will have to make? How much opportunity do you lose because each division captures customer data in a different way?

If you examine your organization – everything it has and does – from the perspective of standardization, would you discover that you are trying to re-invent the wheel each time on too many non-strategic activities?

The paradox is that through routine and standardization we create an environment conducive to innovation. The process is similar to the progression from commodity to brand: settle on one way to do what is known and reliable, and devote your mental energy to what is new and not yet known, which is where the real action and payoff lie.

Standards have always been critical in business. They were necessary for the Industrial Revolution to happen. Leading U.S. machine tool makers, for example, sat down a century ago and agreed on a standard screw. The birth of a national economy in the United States required connections among isolated cities, and this required standard railroad track gauges and standard time keeping.

At the same time that these things were being standardized, and as work was moving to the large factory from the small shop, various industrialists and thinkers such as Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor were developing new ideas about standardizing work. Tools such as the Gantt chart came into being. Ford’s real innovation was not the car but how he organized people to work.

With the Digital Revolution, new standards were needed, the World Wide Web being a prime example. Much as trains did for the national economy, the Internet and the Web opened up and connected the global economy.

Towards a Management Standard

All the while, management standards continued to evolve, some formal, some simply accepted practice. For example, you can expect a new CFO in your company to follow generally accepted accounting standards. And an HR director will no doubt use a set of tools and practices for compensation and performance reviews common to most companies.

Management processes have been studied and refined for more than a century.

When we think of standards, we usually think of technology. As important as technology standards are, they are not where the real game is today. The action today is in standardizing the management of technology. That is because too often it is still ad hoc, the creation of a beleaguered technology executive, whose maneuverings in the end can’t keep up in a fast-moving, ever-changing environment.
 
The very fact that there are designated technology executives who feel set apart from the nerve center of the organization, always seeking “a seat at the table,” is a symptom of our innocence in dealing with technology. We focus on the technology itself, whether servers or ERP systems or email or social networking, see it as a cost of doing business, maybe as a necessary evil, peer over our shoulders at what other companies are buying, and hope, fingers crossed, that a $100 million investment will pay for itself.

We know that technology is there to run the business. This is true of information technology, but it was also true of steam and electricity. And those technologies fundamentally changed the nature of work, the processes by which things were made, opening up new business opportunities for those who deployed them wisely and showing the door to those who didn’t catch on that something had changed.

Here’s a dirty little secret: it never was about the technology. It always has been and will be about the business. Technology is only as good as the imagination of business leaders who are focused on customers, markets, business models, threats and opportunities, and can make technology do what they need it to do. Anyone can buy technology, but no one can go online and order a customized strategy or mission.

As with the telegraph, steam and electricity, the business technology available today is changing the game, except that the playing field is global and the players are huge, multi-product, multi-division, multinational organizations. These enterprises need tools to make sense of the technology, to rationalize investment decisions so that they are centered in strategy.

They need to know when spending money makes sense and when it doesn’t. They need to trust that when they pay huge sums for technology it will actually work as intended. Accountants have had hundreds of years to get their act together regarding standards, learning what works and what doesn’t. But the first business use of a computer occurred just over 50 years ago, a relatively short time in which to learn how best to employ it.

Nevertheless, standards for managing business technology have emerged in recent years in academia and applied in the field at major companies. These have become a wheel that does not need to be reinvented. They have been shown to work, and with custom modifications can be made to work anywhere. Thus they can be plugged in and used, and the organization can turn its attention to larger matters.

A Strategic Enabler

In the beginning, a half century ago, business technology was simply added on to the way we conducted business. Nothing really changed in most companies; they just were able to do what they had always done faster. Today technology changes the way we work, the goals we set, the very nature of the organization. It creates entirely new business models, industries and markets.

In many companies, however, business processes and the technology that runs them are unmanaged, invisible, and unmeasured. They are executed haphazardly and inconsistently. There is no standard for their purchase, development or management. They do not enable decision-makers to detect and adapt to changing market conditions, and this blindness can be fatal.

Chief among the many reasons for this is that processes cross both internal and external firm boundaries as part of business networks. They therefore become the province of no one. In most cases there are no single-point-of-responsibility process owners. Although there are some recent exceptions to this in best practice companies (for example, supply chain management), few firms currently have managers in place for their key processes.

Business Technology Management, a management science, was created as a direct response to this. It fills the gap between advances in technology and slower changes in the management of it. BTM has been applied in leading corporations and government agencies, and it is constantly being refined on the basis of these experiences and through the research of leading academics. Three critical insights have emerged from this work. Note that each of the companies illustrated below are focused intently on the business, bringing consideration of enabling technology in at the highest level.

1. For many – perhaps most — companies, alignment is no longer good enough. Some companies are now aiming for synchronization, while others are pushing beyond that to convergence. “We are becoming a converged company,” says Steve Matheys, Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing and former CIO of Schneider National, the big trucking company. “The CIO reports to the CEO and is part of the executive team with a shared set of responsibilities. That brings the process and technology needs to the executive team unfiltered. It creates business-oriented discussions with the opportunity to do something with technology to change our approach in the marketplace. Those are intertwined conversations within Schneider’s executive team.”

2. Converged organizations are able to adapt – i.e., to move rapidly in response to events – and to innovate. This is because the two “sides” of the organization are acting in unison with full knowledge of what resources they have available and what they need to do to act on an opportunity or a threat. They can see every decision in the context of the organization’s overall business strategy. Being merely aligned suggests a less than strategic role for those who understand how technology works.

3. Convergence occurs in the establishment of organizational structures, processes, information flows and automation that unite decision-making from the boardroom to the project team. These are detailed in the BTM Framework, which the Business Technology Management Institute has developed and promulgated as a management standard.

From Framework to Structure

The Framework becomes the management structure upon which business and technology are converged and technology comes into its own as a strategic resource. By establishing repeatable processes for purchasing and deploying technology, the Framework frees the organization to make the best use of it in pursuit of business goals. The Framework becomes a management standard throughout the organization.

The standard aims to create a seamless management approach that begins with board and CEO-level issues and connects all the way through technology investment and implementation.

It should be obvious that implementing a management framework suggests a deep and comprehensive examination and restructuring of the enterprise, a seemingly monumental and impossible task. Each enterprise must start at a different place, and the right way to approach such implementation is iteratively. The enterprise must first determine where it is in order to focus on specific priorities, customize and implement specific capabilities against those priorities, and then execute and continuously improve upon them.

The enterprise must begin by recognizing where it stands with regard to its management maturity. Only by respecting what it is can it make real progress toward what is to be.

We cannot manage a 21st Century company with 20th Century approaches. The world moves too fast. Technology touches everything – products, processes, business models, and all industries. So how can it possibly separate from the overall management practices of a company? The answer is simple. It cannot.

The BTM Framework defines the objective dimensions of decision-making required to bring business and technology together.  It covers the required four dimensions – process, organization, information and technology.  It assumes that the professionals inhabiting the organization dimension are competent to discharge their roles, in fact, it relies on the assumption that these individuals hold their jobs precisely because of their experience, judgment and decision-making skill.

Unfortunately, that assumption does often not hold, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.  A company can implement the BTM Framework in every detail, but still show inferior results – because the individuals that execute the Framework are not ready for it.  While this can be addressed through education and training (which are a part of the BTM implementation methodology), it’s also true that certain types of individual characteristics can be inherently more successful in a BTM Framework environment.

This connection between Individual Capability and BTM Capability is one of the areas I’m currently exploring.  My current thinking revolves around Spiral Dynamics and it’s concept of a MEME, especially when it is viewed through a leadership lens.  MEME’s explain much about organizational culture (see the following table for a brief introduction, for more see “Spiral Dynamics” by Don Beck and Chris Cowan) and the personalities that create and sustain them – and ultimately change them.

BTM, especially at level 5 maturity, requires more than the POIT dimensions to be in place.  Level 5 is an intelligent system, rapidly moving and adaptable, able to sense and respond to its environment.  This is clearly not a command and control approach.  In Spiral Dynamics terms, this is a GREEN or higher MEME.  Many organizations, however, function at ORANGE or lower.  Therefore, in Spiral Dynamics terms, the dominant organizational MEME must evolve as BTM maturity increases.  Triggering – and managing – this evolution is one of the great challenges of modern business management.

I believe that attempting either alone is harder than doing both together – that BTM maturity and MEME evolution are mutually reinforcing.  The external system (BTM Framework) supports and guides internal growth (MEME evolution), and vice versa.  It doesn’t matter which goes first, what does matter is that the work is organized to take advantage of the mutually reinforcing constructs within each.

An example is the impact of the emerging business elite.  There is evidence of an emerging business model which is attracting a new level of business elite.  As traditional enterprises grow, they shed experienced, talented professionals who have the skills and capability to create – these are tomorrow’s entrepreneurs.  A couple predictions:

  1. New business models can attract the elites
  2. Elites are emerging from all parts of the globe
  3. Elites have already been successful in the traditional business world, but are seeking more (and not just material rewards, though that’s part of it).  But they are open to, and likely seeking, working with other elites
  4. They depend on technology, in fact, technology is part of the fabric of their world view
  5. Their similar world views (probably GREEN, YELLOW or TURQUOISE MEME’s) naturally draw them together
  6. Social networks will play a major role in the elite business model

Future blogs will explore quantitative metrics of the subjective dimensions, i.e., how to measure individual and organizational MEME’s and well as explore some examples of the emerging business elites.  I invite comments and suggestions, especially If you have examples of MEMEs and how they impact organizational evolution and the development of the “elite business model” (which needs a better name).

Spiral Dynamics MEME’s (individual viewpoint, from www.spiraldynamics.org )

BEIGE as natural instincts and reflexes direct; automatic existence

PURPLE according to tradition and ritual ways of group; tribal; animistic

RED asserting self for dominance, conquest, and power; exploitive; egocentric

BLUE obediently as higher authority and rules direct; absolutist; conforming

ORANGE pragmatically to achieve results and get ahead; multiplistic; achievist

GREEN responds to human needs; affiliative; relativistic; situational

YELLOW build functional niche to do what one chooses; existential; systemic

TURQUOISE experiential to join with other like thinkers; holistic; transpersonal

The BTM Framework is constructed from four dimensions (POIT- Process, Organization, Information and Technology); its approach is scientific and systems based.  It was developed by applying the scientific method to the way organizations manage their business and technology sub-systems.  Its output is a management system.

Management systems are designed to be used by people.  The BTM Framework, in particular, depends on groups of people collectively making decisions on business and technology.  In the endless striving for performance and competitive advantage, people are an uncontrolled variable, outside the realm of any management system.

Integral BTM extends the BTM Framework into the subjective, interior dimensions that are the domain of the human mind.  Integral refers to the philosophy and perspective that embraces both the individual and the system into a holistic description of reality (see Integral Theory and Ken Wilber).  Integral BTM is characterized by several principles (see the following graphic):

  1. All four quadrants are real, they exist independently and collectively form a holon, or “an entity that is itself whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole”.
  2. Holons evolve, from the center of the four quadrants to the outside.  The BTM framework describes this in the BTM Maturity Model for the lower right quadrant, other quadrants use other units (individual levels of awareness, leadership capability, cognitive ability, etc.)
  3. Maturity levels in each quadrant can vary, sometimes significantly.  This creates a mismatch that negatively impacts performance.  In other words, driving to level 5 (convergence) in the BTM framework without simultaneously improving leadership capabilities increases risk.
  4. Changes in one quadrant impact the others (they’re a holon), this impact can be managed and used to drive maturity in a coherent manner, reducing the risk of maturity mismatch.  For example, maturity advances in the BTM Framework (lower right) create a new language that impacts the relationship between business and technology (lower left).  In turn, individuals must improve their ability to adapt to the new systems and language and work to improve their personal capabilities and personal growth (upper left).  Which increases their capacity (upper right) to engage in and contribute to the POIT dimensions – and the cycle begins anew.
  5. Vision, strategy and leadership are creative human endeavors and are the province of the upper left.  BTM solutions, such as innovation and growth, expanding markets, and new business models originate from the upper left, but are enabled by the lower right (the BTM Framework).  Therefore, a complete description of these solutions, and solutions in general, require a multi-quadrant approach.

Opportunities to link the BTM Framework with leadership practice abound, and developing such linkages will be the subject of future BTM research agendas.  Integral BTM provides a perspective that can be reflected in the BTM 360 product family.  Examples include an Integral BTM version of BTM Fusion 360, an Integral BTM I-view for BTM Works 360, and BTM Accel 360 templates for maturity advancement in all four quadrants.

jb integral blog image

Decisions on business-technology investments require structured thinking about what the business wants to achieve. This clear understanding of business requirements dictates the business-technology plans and investments needed to execute the company’s business strategy.

Determining such investments must begin with a solid understanding of an organization’s strategy, goals and objectives. Ultimately, a well-articulated, business-driven technology strategy will recognize the uniqueness of varying organizational capabilities and will balance that with the desired strategic positioning by adhering to a few basic tenets:

Determine what specific business technology capabilities must be put in place for you to meet your short-term and long-term business goals and objectives. A mature businessdriven technology strategy is the most effective way to ensure that the technology group understands the specific business needs and helps carry out the business strategy.

Prepare the processes that need to be put in place to improve communications and educate the organization about each component. Creating an effective strategy requires careful and complete communication, as well as the integration of enterprise business strategy (the strategic goals, imperatives and initiatives of a company), enterprise technology strategy (the strategic direction of business technology) and technology function strategy (how technology develops, deploys, operates and supports the systems needed to deliver business technology).

Decide what internal and external capabilities you need in order to execute on defined business strategies. What is the relative priority of stability and agility with regard to the business capabilities you need to have in place? Prioritizing and focusing investments starts with understanding the type of value that will be created. Enabling stability, agility or both will require different levels and types of investments. In addition, consideration must be given to the nature of this investment mix as it relates to supporting other critical activities.

Understand and specify the business value discipline to be pursued. What is the primary value discipline: operational excellence, product leadership or customer intimacy? The answer must be embedded in the enterprise business strategy and then cascaded through all stakeholders and to all levels of the organization. Doing so will prescribe the specific business capabilities required in a way that guides effective technology strategy creation.

To view the entire workbook, visit   http://www.btmcorporation.com/pdf/workbook_june09.pdf

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.