Competitive Advantage in IT 1

Although a recent article in SearchCIO alludes to competitive advantage by IT departments, arguments like this can take the CIO down a dangerous road.  The holy grail of many CIOs is to run a department which is both profitable and also increases business capability.  Mostly, however, IT departments are costly and the subject of constant complaint.

Can IT ever be a profit centre?

Economists have long argued that businesses should strip away overhead (i.e. not included in the cost of goods sold but pure overhead) cost chargebacks from business verticals and their processes in order to gain a clearer view of what is profitable and what is not.  If they don’t then smaller, profitable processes are often in danger of being swamped with overhead.  In this way, many businesses often outsource or cut the wrong activities.

It is notoriously difficult to cost IT chargebacks so that market verticals are charged just the right overhead.  Should businesses charge their verticals for email?  They often do but isn’t this just a cost of business that the centre should absorb?  Isn’t the burden of communication and reporting largely placed onto verticals anyway?  So if they could run their business units in a more entrepreneurial way wouldn’t the cost of IT be significantly reduced? 

What if we extend that argument and let IT be a profit centre?  Why don’t we let business units find cheaper ways of doing business and compete with the IT department?  Security/integration/management time arguments aside – it is likely that if IT departments were able to charge for the thing they were really good at, this would be a source of competitive advantage within the business.

So, there is a good reason why IT departments aren’t profit centres but, of course, this doesn’t solve the problem of the high cost of IT inside business.

Cloud research exposes gaps between CIOs and the business. . .again Reply

In a recent article for Beyond IT Failure Michael Krigsman highlights the colossal disconnect between IT and the business.  Looking at the graph below has IT really spun off at a tangent?  Is IT just pursuing its pet projects again?

IT is not wrong.  IT is best placed to understand compliance requirements.  IT should understand which applications delivery value for money and IT should be able to choose which apps support competitive advantage.  Cloud is, by and large, a non-functional requirement as so does not need to be in the functional user spec.

“Business is not a toy shop and the argument “but I’ve got it on my phone” does not wash in a secure, structured enterprise environment.”

So why the disparity between what what the business thinks it needs and what IT choses?

  1. IT is a cost centre.   IT is responsible for delivering functionality in the most cost effective way.  Business is not a toy shop and the argument “but I’ve got it on my phone” does not wash in a secure, enterprise environment.
  2. Business Requirements.  I have never met a business vertical which understood its requirements.  Requirements engineering for the systematic design of accurate software is an entire segment of the tech industry.  It is complex and (mostly) poorly done.  Invest in getting it right if you want to deliver better systems.
  3. Engagement.  There is no two ways about it – IT is appalling at business engagement and business are shockingly bad at letting IT in and then articulating their needs (in order to begin the requirements process.
  4. Productivity.  Improved productivity is more of a human problem than a technological one.  New software will not make people smarter.  Unless the processes and collaboration structures already exist then new binary systems will only serve to compound the problem.  In such cases, software procurement becomes a very, very expensive process of sandboxing and prototyping to elicit accurate business requirements.

In order to achieve better ROI on tech investments whilst still delivering great software which improves productivity, businesses need to (a) understand where tech enables business capability in their value chains, (b) understand the development of their business’ capabilities, and (c)  create a ‘value ladder’ which supports the parallel propositions of architectural development and business productivity.

Getting Rid of the Help Desk–a structured approach to KM 1

In a recent article in CIO magazine Tom Kaneshige argues that the rise of BYOD spells the demise of the traditional Help Desk.  He intimates that BYOD has now been overtaken by BYOS – bring-your-own-support!  The network-enabled user, with access to huge volumes of information, requires a new Help Desk. 

He is right that, ultimately, power-users need better, faster support delivered to them in a format and by people with a deeper understanding of the context and with more intricate solutions.

BYOS is the exception and not the rule. 

Although the IT function is becoming more commoditised, the larger fields of knowledge work isn’t, hasn’t and won’t be commoditised anytime just yet.  Otherwise, any 12 year old with a laptop would be in with a chance.  Help Desks don’t need to be expanded but they do need to become more mature, agile and integrated into the KM procedures of modern networked enterprises (ie those businesses with a heavy KM focus).  Expanding the remit of the Help Desk opens the door for colossal cost increases.  Internal knowledge management functions need to become more structured beyond simplistic portals.

INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

In a recent article in McKinsey Quarterly, Tom Davenport argues that organisations need to get a lot smarter in their approaches to supporting knowledge workers.  He says that greater use of social media and internet use will harm the business more than help it.  Lower level knowledge workers need more structured support to their processes.  On the other hand, high-level knowledge workers are better supported by an open platform of tools.  Getting the right balance is as much art as science.

BYOS is the wrong approach.  It’s a derogation of KM responsibilities.  Organisations need to focus on an approach to KM with the following structures:

  1. A good Help Desk function for knowledge workers involved in highly structured processes.
  2. An IT function which supports a flexible arrangement of tools for advanced knowledge workers.
  3. Knowledge Managers:  people who provide the focal point for certain areas of knowledge.
  4. Portals:  A single entry point for people seeking access to communities of interest.

So, be careful when thinking about Tom Kaneshige’s advice and “blowing up” your Help Desk.  IT can be a self-licking lollipop.  More tools and more information won’t necessarily improve productivity.  At the lower level, sometimes it makes more economic sense to support the process.  It’s only at the upper levels of expertise that it is more profitable to support the person.

Sometimes the best defense is deletion – CSO Online – Security and Risk Reply

Sometimes the best defense is deletion – CSO Online – Security and Risk.

data mining. big dataThe point is prescient.  In these early days of Big Data awareness the battle between information management v. store now/analyse later can obfuscate other issues:  Cost and Necessity.

ONE BIG POT

Is there really the practical technology that an organisation can actually move away from structured databases and just stick all its information into one big ‘pot’, to be mined for gold nuggets at a later date?

Storing information (as opposed to just letting stuff pile up) is a costly business and the decision to store information usually comes from people on higher pay bands.  The decision of where to locate is often a manual decision which not only has a significant management overhead of its own but also involves co-ordination from other high pay bands.

THE COMPLEXITY OF INFORMATION

Picture1

Add to this dilemma the complexities of  ‘legal hold’ on material and the identification of ‘discoverable’ items.  Suddenly information management looks a lot harder and the siren song of Big Data seems a lot more alluring.  The problem is that information that is not valuable to some is valuable to others.  Who is qualified to make that decision?  Should all information be held given that it will likely have some enterprise value?  The battle is between cost and necessity:

  1. Cost:  Deciding what to keep and what to get rid of takes management time and effort that costs money.  The problem is that it is neither cost effective nor good policy to to push hold/delete decision making down to the lowest clerical level. The secret is to have those decisions made by more senior case-workers but only within their limited remit.
  2. Necessity:  The secret is to categorise management information to determine necessity.  Use a workflow to cascade and delegate (not to avoid) work.  As it moves it accumulates metadata.  No metadata means no necessity and therefore it should be disposed of automatically (eschewing arguments of regulatory compliance).

THE ANSWER

The answer is to automate the deletion of information (other than ‘Legal Hold’).  Once a document/question has reached the end of the workflow without accumulating any metadata then the information should be disposed of automatically.  Case-Workers make the decisions to act on the document/question and metadata is attached by more clerical staff (on lower pay bands) as the item moves through the workflow.  If no metadata is attached it can be assumed that the item is not important and is therefore disposed of.  Cost is minimised by letting case-workers make decisions of relevance within their own sphere of expertise without the additional management overhead for de-confliction/meetings etc.   In this way, the enterprise makes a collective decision of importance and stores the information accordingly thus answering the issue of necessity.

Will CIOs Really Focus on the Business in 2013? Reply

“Whilst CIOs are predominantly drawn from the infrastructure segment of ICT there is unlikely to be a shift in focus towards proactive business initiatives.”

The CIO’s commercial prerogatives largely stem from CEO directives as they tally with other recent CEO surveys from McKinsey & Co etc.  It is likely, however, that need to increase services to corporate clouds through a myriad of new/personal devices during these times of severe cost pressures will keep CIOs occupied for the next year, at least.

Looking to the future, until business schools focus their corporate decision making modules on information management and technology enablers the dearth of IM savvy senior executives will continue and thereby the pull-through into the CIO role.  The solution is likely to come in one of two ways, namely:

  1. A cost/complexity inflection point will be reached.  Medium sized businesses will begin to outsource not only their IT but also their IM.  As better IM begins to solve business problems some people will naturally be pulled through into corporate CIO roles at FTE.
  2. Alternately, clever CEOs will shift the accounting of their IT departments towards Profit Centres.  CIOs will be forced to come up with innovative chargeback models and new services in order to compete beyond storage  for non-essential services.  The good will survive and the bad will move back to being small, in-house IT departments.

 

Managing data risk: APRA issues draft practice guide – Lexology Reply

Managing data risk: APRA issues draft practice guide – Lexology.

In their article on data security protection Helen Clarke and Melissa Burrill (Corrs Chambers Westgarth) set out an admirable approach to legal protections for data security.  However, their advice breaks the first rule of data security – if you don’t control it, you can’t secure it.  Fundamentally, businesses need to hold their secure information close, or have active measures to secure it, if they are to avoid data security breaches.  In the end, the threat of legal sanction will not stop criminal action by third parties.

The chart below shows the most high-profile data security breaches for 2012.  Clearly, the breaches do not reflect the strength of potential legal action or the drafting of data protection clauses.  No amount of due diligence would have assisted these companies’ clients as the breaches were not due to lax security procedures.

Contracts and legal sanction are only useful to deliver damages and enforce restitution to cover immediate financial losses.  They will not cover loss to brand equity or market share.

The only way to truly secure information is to manage it in-house.  If businesses wish to manage secret or confidential data in a cloud then they should store it encrypted and hold the keys themselves.  Alternatively, they can link databases and hold unencrypted information in the cloud but the actual names of clients can be held locally.

If businesses wish to remain wilfully blind (or take calculated risks) and outsource the storage of secret information then they should think about building in operational sanctions such as the moving, encrypting or the realignment of data against accounts to ensure their is no monetary loss for clients.

  • security breaches. 2012

The Cost of Capability: a better way to calculate IT chargebacks Reply

IT_Profit_Centre

THE VALUE OF SHARED SERVICES

Almost every C-Suite executive will agree that shared services, done well, are a critical factor in moving the business forward.  The problem is that implemented poorly they can potentially overload good processes and profitable service lines with villainous overhead allocations.

IT chargebacks are important because, used well,  they can assist the business with the following:

  • help IT prioritise service delivery to the most profitable business units,
  • help the business understand which IT services are value-adding to the market verticals, and
  • reduce the overall vulnerability of IT-enabled business capability.

OVERHEAD ALLOCATIONS CAN RUIN GOOD PROCESSES

However, many shared service implementations are poorly received by the business units because they add little or no value and are charged at higher than the market rate.  As Kaplan pointed out in his seminal work “Relevance Lost: the rise and fall of management accounting” the result of poor overhead cost allocation is that perfectly profitable processes and services, burdened by excessive and misallocated overhead costs seem to be unprofitable.  Kaplan goes further and points out that all overhead which cannot be directly incorporated into the cost-of-goods-sold should be absorbed by the business and not charged back to the market verticals and service lines.  This is the fairest method but most businesses avoid this method because high SG&A costs has a negative impact on financial ratios and therefore investor attractiveness.

HIGGLEDY-PIGGLEDY 

In a recent article (shown below) McKinsey & Co pointed out a variety of methods which their client firms use to calculate IT chargebacks.   Even though they differentiated between new and mature models it is worth noting that very few companies charged their business units for what they used (Activity-Based Costing).   Rather, they used some form of bespoke methodology.  This is usually (i) a flat rate, (ii) a budget rate with penalties (for behaviour change), or (iii) a market rate (usually with additional penalties for IT R&D costs).

IT Chargebacks. McKinsey. IT Metrics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALIGNMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY

Chargebacks are essential.  They are a critical means for companies to take charge of their IT costs.  Otherwise, a ballooning IT overhead can destroy perfectly good processes and service lines.  However, chargebacks can obscure accountability.  If they are not calculated transparently, clearly and on the basis of value then there will be no accountability of IT to the business and whose capabilities they enable.  Without  accountability there can also never be alignment between IT and the business.

CHARGEBACK AS AN INDICATOR OF MANAGEMENT-VALUE-ADDED

Traditional methods of IT cost modelling, on which standard chargebacks are calculated, only account for the hard costs of ICT,  namely infrastructure and applications.  It should be noted that chargebacks should only be applied for Management Information Systems (eg, knowledge bases, team collaboration sites such as MS Sharepoint, CRM systems, and company portals etc).  All other systems are either embedded (eg, robotics etc) or operational, (ie mission critical to a business unit’s operations).  MIS are largely used by overhead personnel whereas operational systems and the finance for embedded systems should be accounted for in the cost-of-good-sold.  The real question therefore, is: what is the value of the management support to my business?  The question underlies the myth that Use = Value, which it does not.  Good capability applied well = Value.

THE COST OF CAPABILITY

The cost model, therefore, needs to determine the cost of capability.  Metrics based on per unit costs are inappropriate because the equipment amortises so rapidly that the cost largely represents a penalty rate.  Metrics based on per user costs are unfair because each user is at a different level of ability.  In previous blogs we have outlined how low team capabilities such as distributed locations, poor requirements, unaligned processes etc all have a negative and direct financial correlation on project values.  We have also written about how projects should realise benefits along a value ladderdelivering demonstrable financial and capability benefits – rung by rung – to business units.

It is reasonable to say, therefore, that managers should not have to pay the full chargeback rate for software which is misaligned to the business unit and implemented badly.

It is unfair for under-performing business units to be charged market rates for inappropriate software which the IT department mis-sold them.  If that business unit where a company in its own right they be offered customisation and consulting support.  In large firms the business often scrimps on these costs to save money.  Given the usual overruns in software implementations business units are traditionally left with uncustomised, vanilla software which does not meet their needs.  The training budget is misallocated to pay for cost overruns and little money is ever left for proper process change.

In order to create a fair and accurate chargeback model which accounts for the Cost of Capability, use the following criteria:

  • Incorporate the COSYSMO cost coefficients into software and service costings so that low capability business units pay less.
  • Only charge for  professional services which the business doesn’t own.  Charging for professional/consulting serrvices which are really just work substitution merely encourages greater vertical integration.  This is duplication and duplication in information work creates friction and exponential cost overruns.
  • Watch out for category proliferation, especially where the cost of labour for some unique sub-categories is high.  Don’t let the overall cost model get skewed by running a few highly specialised services.  Remove all IT delivery personnel from the verticals.  Where there are ‘remoteness’ considerations then have people embedded but allocate their costs as overhead.
  • Do not allow project cost misallocation.  Ensure that cost codes are limited.

In order that businesses do not fall into the “Build and they will Come” trap a clear and precise chargeback model should be created for all IT costings.   Businesses should start by charging simple unit costs such as per user.  Everything else will initially be an overhead but firms may then move to a more complex chargeback model later.

It is important that low capability business units do not pay full price for their software and services.  As Kaplan is at pains to point out, where businesses do this they are at risk of making perfectly good processes and service lines seem unprofitable.  The only way to properly broker for external services is to account for the cost of capability.

 

The Law of Mobility: The legal implications of BYOD 2

BYOD

The legal ramifications of moves towards corporate Bring-Your-Own-Device policies extend far beyond simple issues of IT security and the legal discovery issues of locally held commercial data.  The biggest challenge facing the commercial world is how far businesses will have to go in regulating the online life of an employee.

Most companies have a dusty old clause in their employee contracts which states that there is no privacy in the use of firm equipment.  Recent proposed legislative amendments in the US and cases in Canada (R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53) clearly show that the use of social media on corporate platforms is (a) increasingly permissible  and (b) restricted from company access.  More importantly, it highlights how corporate and personal data are being blended together in a socio-corporate online collage.

Previously, companies and government departments have been able to ignore personal cries for BYOD due to: (i)  enterprise security concerns, (ii) legal risks around e-Discovery (iii) a perception of limited utility in social media and (iv) cost pressures relating to IT support costs.  However, now:

BYOD,McKinsey.Graph

  1. Enterprise security is no longer an excuse.  Increases in corporate cloud-based applications and desktop virtualisation mean that limited data is stored or cached on local devices.  In addition, any security breaches can be isolated to a certain user profile.  In the end, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks highlight the fact that there is little that will stop a disgruntled employee if they are intent on data theft.  Heavily layered, holistic security is the only answer.
  2. Mobile connectivity and enterprise workflows reduce local data storage.  Previously, compliance requirements for eDiscovery have limited the ability to store data locally.  However, mobile coverage is now better and  costs have reduced for 3/4G  and wifi acess.  Coupled with cloud/virtual apps and the ability to sign-in/sign-out documents from company portals means that firms can reap the benefits of extended and flexible working along with greater Discovery compliance.
  3. The benefits of social media have extended the boundaries and time of the corporate workplace.  Corporate blogging has now, apparently, increased to 38% with two-thirds of companies having a social media presence (beyond the 50% level in 2009).  Social media not only provides additional channels for marketing but it also increases both external and internal customer/stakeholder engagement (and such engagement extends both beyond the doors and timeframes of the office).
  4. Multi-Device support does not require bigger IT departments.  In fact, support is far more user-friendly (e.g. Salesforce.com, MS 365 etc) and has not resulted in burgeoning IT departments.  Companies can specify what devices they do support and outsource platform support to infrastructure providers.

The fact of the matter is that companies and government departments must move to BYOD sooner rather than later.  In a recent article, Elizabeth Johnson of law firm Poyner Spruill LLP notes that in the US:

  • 87% of people confirm that they use personal devices at work.
  • 48% of companies state that they will not allow it.
  • 57% of the same companies acknowledge that employees do it anyway.
  • 72% check email on their personal devices.
  • 42% check email on personal devices even when sick.

In fact, many US college students claim that they would accept lower pay for the flexibility to use personal devices at work.  Whatever the case the creeping cloud of BYOD will take hold, if only due to the cost benefits of not having to pay for new devices enabled by better enterprise apps and improved enterprise security.

I would posit that much of blame for limited uptake can be laid on the fact that organisations are simply unwilling to deal with the additional layer of complexity.  BYOD lies at the nexus point of enterprise trust:  their data in your hands.  How far are companies willing to let go of their information in order to reduce costs and increase productivity?  Will the law protect commercial interests in data rather just IP? Or computer based personal records?  In the case of Phonedog v Kravitz the employers (Phonedog) set up the Twitter account “@PhoneDog_Noah”, which the employee used “to disseminate information and promote PhoneDog’s services.”  During his employment, Kravitz’s Twitter account attracted approximately 17,000 followers.  When he left he kept using it and gained another 10,000 followers.  Phonedog claimed that the account was theirs and sued for damages.  The court was satisfied that an economic interest was established and that harm was done.

In brief, the answer is that companies need to define the touchpoints where their data meets the social sphere.  If businesses are to reap the benefits of increased customer/stakeholder management through wider adoption of emerging social software platforms, enabled by BYOD then they need to deal with the added complexity at the nexus point of security, legal and information management.

 

The Social Enterprise: what will business 2.0 look like? Reply

social-enterprise

If Andrew McAfee‘s book “Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for your Organization’s Toughest Challenges” is to be believed then:

“We are on the cusp of a management revolution that is likely to be as profound and unsettling as the one that gave birth to the modern industrial age. Driven by the emergence of powerful new collaborative technologies, this transformation will radically reshape the nature of work, the boundaries of the enterprise, and the responsibilities of business leaders.”

Most pundits believe that Enterprise 2.0 is the full adoption of Web 2.o by an organisation.  In the next few years, therefore, we will see:

  • Cloud technologies and better enterprise application security enable bring-your-own-device and with it the greater fragmentation of organisational information.
  • Greater transparency of organisational work through social media leaks (i.e. people advertising their work and mistakes on the internet)
  • The decomposition of many more business processes into micro-tasks (much of which can be outsourced or contracted out).
  • The improvement of distributed working practices enabled by better collaboration tools, devices and connectivity.
  • Increased pace of business through improved self-governance and, in turn, empowered by better oversight (from GRC and finance software to more pervasive CRM implementations).
  • Shorter time-to-market cycles driven by improved idea generation and organisational creativity (so called – ‘ideation’).

So, is Enterprise 2.0 the social enterprise?  Are the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 merely social?  Simply a more hectic work schedule enabled by greater ease of using mobile devices and tighter communities of practice?

McKinsey Social Enterprise

A 2010 survey by McKinsey & Company found that most executives do believe that this is the sum total of Enterprise 2.0 benefits.  Most simply believe that (i) knowledge flow and management will improve.  Many believe that (ii)  their marketing channels will be greatly improved whilst only a few believe that (iii)  revenue or margins will increase in the networked enterprise.

If this is the dawn of the new enterprise then why do so many large businesses find it difficult even to implement Microsoft SharePoint?

The most likely truth is that this is not the dawn of Enterprise 2.0.  We are probably not on the cusp of a grand new age of information work.  Our businesses are unlikely to change significantly, although the hype will be re-sold by IT vendors for some time. One only has to hearken back to the ’80’s to remember to cries of the ‘paperless office’ to realise the low probability of Enterprise 2.0 materialising.

Whether it will be Enterprise 2.0 is debatable but we are entering the age of  The Social Entreprise.  It has ushered in a new age of commercial culture but it will unlikely herald a paradigm shift in commercial structures.  The truth is that human networks and communities operate in parallel to corporate reality.  Networks are how humans interact  – they are not how humans are paid.  Ask anyone who has ever been through or performed a cost reduction exercise.  In short, emerging social software platforms (ESSPs) are fun and sexy but the do not currently affect operations in most businesses.  Emerging social software platforms will make a difference internally when they affect cost structures and not just when they show up in sales figures.  This means that ESSPs need to be able to track and apportion innovation; they need to actively manage workflow (not just passive engines); they need to engage dynamically in governance and highlight good corporate participation and collaboration.   Only once these elements are incorporated into scales of remuneration and talent sourcing will both the enterprise and the workers benefit.

Maybe then we can move to Enterprise 3.0.

Enterprise Architecture:why EA programs fail to deliver Reply

Enterprise architecture has long promised the alignment of the technical ICT of the organisation with its business strategy.  For the same length of time it has steadfastly failed to deliver this.  In order for enterprise architecture to (a) deliver alignment, and (b) execute strategy it must incorporate commercial concepts within the metamodel so that it may directly use both financial analysis as well as legal parameters.

Enterprise architecture has never been solely about infrastructure.  Enterprise capacity can easily be catered for in data centre management.  Enterprise architecture has been largely focused on enterprise applications integration.  Integrating data models and their schema across the distributed enterprise to create harmonious workflows for the fewest people promises to realise the goal of reducing labour whilst purchasing the cheapest software.  Enterprise architecture should be about driving the development of ICT architectures and business process directly from the value chain.

Enterprise architecture still provides businesses and departments with the greatest hope for the harmonious analysis and development of the enterprise.  It fails largely, however, for the following reasons:

  1. Complexity of Metamodel.  Financial language is not generally incorporated in the language of metamodels.  It is possible but not generally done.  When I was at EDS Value Management was an architectural discipline within the Agile RightStep® architectural framework.  Whilst at Serco a number of us tried to incorporate value against the various objects in architectural models withing the MEGA® modelling suite.  However, in order to take advantage of financials modelling tools would need to incorporate stochastic simulations and not just discrete event simulation into their analytical capabilities.  This explains the disparity, often large, between architectural models and financial models.
  2. Systems Engineering.  EA still remains largely focused on enterprise systems engineering.  It needs to shift its focus to enterprise engineering systems.  Where the former focuses on the minutiae of systems interaction the latter is concerned with the integration of one engineering system to another.  If the enterprise sees the financial function as an engineering system then enterprise architects should be able to use their ontological skills in metamodelling to create seamless pull-through of analysis from Finance to Design.  Some of these concepts will be explored in a later blog.
  3. Complexity of Programs.  EA still remains an ICT skill used to support large programs.  In order to capture enterprise relevance it needs to elevate itself from the technically complicated to the organisationally complex.  Given that information systems largely exist to reduce organisational entropy, one of EA’s greatest benefits will be to realise the harmonisation of working practices and not merely implementing monolithic technology.
  4. Lack of Financial Relevance.  EA needs to support value management and not just technology management.  This is as much a problem of program selection as it is the extension of the metamodel.  Automating the Balanced Scorecard  still remains one of the best initial EA programs there is.  It is relevant to both the C-suite as well as providing a direct and tangible impact on the measurement of strategy execution and financial management.

The answer, therefore, is to focus on capabilities and not on architectures.    The former delivers measurable commercial value but the latter will consume the enterprise in a needless pursuit of perfection.  In our next blog we will examine how to architect capability directly from the value chain.