I’m seeing lots of good posts on archetypes, well done. Being a Political Scientist by training, its important to me that you understand that these archetypes represent the politics of organizational decision making around IT. By defining who is making these decisions I can affect what decisions are being made.
So, think about a company with multiple lines of business (LOB). How powerful is the center vs the heads of each LOB? If the LOB heads are very powerful (think “we make all the profits you center guys just cost money”) then you will likely have a Feudal archetype. If there is a strong center (CEO,CFO,CIO) then you probably have a Duopoly or Federal archetype.
While you will never get a CISA or CISSP question on archetypes, they can help you in your work. If you are in security and proposing a significant spend to the CFO and CIO and all the decision making power is in the hand of the LOB’s, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you are auditing enterprise architecture and see all the right plans and documents but everyone is allowed ti do their own thing (Anarchy), then you have the same problem.
Lyndon Johnson, former US President, once said of politics “Before I enter a bar, I like to know where my friends and enemies are sitting.” You need to understand how decision making is being done and who is involved (and who isn’t) to really understand how IT governance is done and influence the decisions.
Comments please.
Rich,
I was reading about the distinctions between the Business Monarchy archetype and the Federal archetype. One of the key differences I saw was that the Federal archetype includes the business unit when making decisions, whereas the Business Monarchy archetype may only include the CxOs when deciding upon direction for IT. Are there any other sharp contrasts between the two archetypes?
Thanks!
You have the major point. Federal recognizes that there are two levels of decisions that are necessary and assigns certain decides to each one. Thus the center may choose standard email, accounting, order entry software, but the line of businesses may be free to pick manufacturing and customer relations software. Its rather sophisticated and takes a level of understanding that make it difficult for companies to manage.
I would like to mention, at my company we have a really strong center. The CIO makes the overall decision regarding IT in their org. However, one step below CIO we have the Executive Director (ED). The ED makes the majority of decisions for their respective org. Generally, the IT decisions that the ED makes for their org aligns with the overall IT strategy that the CIO has implemented. It’s interesting to see how the dynamics around decision making works and how different parts of the org work together making sure they are aligned to the overall strategy.
Ahmed,
Are business people engaged in the decision making or merely consulted? What standards are set by the CIO and what would happen if one of the ED’s wanted something else (say the CIO wants SAP used everywhere and an ED wants to use Salesforce.com for CRM)? Who wins?
I haven’t been involved in any of the IT discussions, but I feel although business has some say in IT, it does not have the final say over IT matters. The CIO, who is well-versed from both business and IT side of things, sets the direction of where IT should go, and the ED implements how to get there. We haven’t had any crazy IT changes since I have started, but if there were any major infrastructure or system changes the CIO will have their way.
I think the archetypes are a like a study of human psychology and behavioral analysis in ways. The question comes down to control, who has it and who doesn’t. By correctly identifying a business’s IT archetype, you can get an idea of what types of decisions are made, why they are made, what information is used to make the decisions, who provides that information, and why a business may be doing well, or having problems. Also, what works at any given point in time for a business in regards to IT archetypes may not work tomorrow based simply on a change in personnel more than a change in business conditions. This could include both personnel in important roles in regards to the IT archetype, and even possibly new people outside those key roles who comes in and spearheads change to the current IT archetype. I do believe it comes down to control though, but for the health of the business hopefully that control desire is aligned with the business strategy properly.
Well said. A glaring example is duopoly. The business leaders on an IT Steering committee must adopt a “Corporate Hat” meaning they must decide issues based on whats best for the company, not their business. This could be going along well and then the head of the biggest LOB is replaced by someone more narrow in view (whats good for my business is good for the company). Now you have a real problem, someone who is powerful in the company who is not playing by the rules.. Hard to resolve.
Doesn’t it really come down to money? If you have a strong center (CEO, CFO, CIO), but a particular LOB that makes a lot of money for the company; your archetype for that LOB may vary. I would think that money does has the overall influence despite who is making the decisions. Do you force your LOB who is generating the most revenue to conform to a certain archetype because of your control or because it aligns with both the business and IT strategies?
In my opinion, a company with multiple lines of business should give more power to the heads of each LOB but cannot give them all. I think a company with multiple lines of business just like a country. Central government should give more power to local government because each place has their own problems and situation. Central government cannot or hard to get enough information to make right decisions for each areas, while the heads of each city or state can get them. In this case, the more power the heads of each city or LOB get, the more benefit the city or lines create.
Central government, however, should handle some power because the heads of each city or LOB just think about themselves. They do not have the whole picture of the country or enterprise or do not care about that. For example, each LOB may just spend 10 thousand dollars to change or fix computer. The head do not think this is a big budget for themselves but it actually is a serious for the entire company. Thus, the heads of each city or LOB cannot get more power.
Therefore, I think that center should give more power to the heads of each LOB. However, they should control them not only in the cost, but they also control them in the strategy. Thus, a complete system which contains make rules, create strategy and do audit should be built.
center vs the heads of each LOB