Enterprise architecture consulting is a great opportunity to evaluate all the benefits of enterprise architecture. Third-party experts will tell you exactly how you can implement this service in each specific case. Managers do not need to delve into all the subtleties of development on their own, and also spend a lot of effort on the individual selection of each employee to the staff. Specialized companies already have complete teams of specialists who are ready to solve the task at hand. In this article, we will give general concepts, advantages and disadvantages of the service. For more information, you can contact diceus.com.
Corporate architecture and its components
Translation into the operational language of the well-known expression: chaos cannot be automated, otherwise there will be automated chaos – it comes down to the fact that first you need to correctly build processes, and then start the automation process.
The concept of corporate architecture has recently become more and more in demand to describe new realities in business informatization. It is becoming more and more firmly established in the field of interaction between information technology and business. The IT services of a modern company are no longer mere suppliers of technology components, applications and services for business units. Synchronization of business and IT development comes to the fore.
For the most advanced companies, the goal of information strategy today is to build a global information infrastructure, the so-called Adaptive Enterprise.
The architecture of the management system is structured both by levels (corporate, strategic, operational) and by functional areas:
- Marketing and sales management;
- Investment management;
- Budget management and management accounting
- Personnel Management;
- Logistics management;
- Production planning and control;
- Product life cycle management;
- Project management;
- Knowledge management.
What are the benefits of a company that has competently built its corporate architecture?
Today, many companies wishing to improve their business management are implementing change projects related to one or another fragment of the corporate architecture. Their success largely depends on the extent to which the company’s managers or consultants who help them in carrying out these changes can adequately represent the result by making private changes. And without seeing the final product, it is impossible not only to find the optimal solution that meets the strategic interests of the company, but also to simply formulate the requirements for the necessary changes correctly. This happens because all parts of the corporate architecture are closely related.
For example, it is problematic to implement a project for setting up an effective personnel management system without having an accurate organizational and functional, or even better, a process model that defines role tasks. The requirements for the duties and competencies of employees follow from them. The motivation system cannot be properly configured without linking it to a strategic model that sets the vector of development and the direction of concentration of employees’ efforts.
On the other hand, when setting strategic management, the key objectives should be linked to the processes identified at the operational management level. Or rather, not with the processes themselves, but with the results of these processes, which makes it possible to correctly assign operational efficiency indicators. Thus, good ideas may not work because of their local implementation, i.e. implementation out of connection with other components of the system. It is this systemic integrity, which creates the prerequisites for an optimal solution, that the corporate business model provides.