Architecture is a fancy word for configuration IMO – and I’ve been using the term since 1982 – as in Curriculum Architecture – and Business Architecture. Both are based on the notion that performance and its Processes and its Enablers can be diagnosed – and designed.
If one starts with the notions that Performance at the Individual Level rolls up to the Process Level which rolls up to the Organization Level – and that Organization Performance is a combination of many Processes and their Performances and that Process Performance is a combination of of many Individual Performances – then one should be able to create a data structure or data map that can capture all of the data about Performance – and organize it in a manner where the gaps and overlaps are minimized – if not eliminated.
Your model, your language, your labels – could differ. And probably do.
Whether yours is called a Business Architecture, a Business Process Architecture, a Process Architecture, a Performance Architecture – or my term: an Enterprise Process Performance Architecture – they all rest on the Performance of Individuals – which itself rests on the performance of tasks that create outputs to Stakeholder Requirements.
Here is a central model for my methodology-set – under the umbrella term of EPPI – Enterprise Process Performance Improvement – my version of HPI, HPT, PI, PT, TQM or what have you:
I analyze a department – or a manager’s job – using this starter framework. The L-C-S framework.
One level higher – I use the following model – which respects the current organization structure – which in my 32+ years of experience in the biz – is more likely a Functional framework than a Process framework.
Which – the Functional vs the Process framework – I believe is needed when the operations are complex, and expertise is not organized efficiently when dispersed across many organizations. Like having an HR person attached to each department, we typically see them centrally organized, an focused on a segment of the Enterprise in some Shared Services model – when there simply isn’t enough HR work in each department to warrant every department having their very own. HR person that is.
For each entity on the Org Chart – I can then use my other frameworks (analysis and design tools) to capture and organize specific data about performance.
I can see – in the Core section of the model – the intersection of the Value Stream (or Streams) of the Enterprise with the Department if they do cross each other. As some Department are central to the main Value Stream and some are support and some are both – it’s important IMO to have a model that is robust to any situation – and I believe that these are.
Look at your Org Chart – and reimagine it as the last graphic. Then take some Department that you are familiar with and use the first graphic to name (and number) and sort all of the Processes of that Department.
Hint: you may wish to start with that Department’s Outputs/Deliverables – and then back-out the Processes.
Then for each Process – or what I might call an Area of Performance (AoP) – define those Outputs and their key Measures and the associated Tasks and the Roles/Responsibilities – and then the Gaps – on my next tool, the Performance Model Chart. Here is a blank version for you – which I use in my Development sessions for clients – when I ask people to start with something simple, and something that they know – having done the work themselves – by focusing on a Summer Job – from their youth.
Here is an example that I have been using since the mid-1980s – based on work that I did for a client in the mid-1980s. Click on it for a larger version.
Performance is tricky – as performance is complex. Your models and tools need to be robust to handle the simple and the complex IMO. That’s what drove me to create my set.
What’s in your Performance Improvement (PI) toolbox?
How does it help you define the Processes, the Tasks – and then the Enablers of Task and Process Performance – which is where the Gaps lie – IMO?
Here are some references from back in the day – the early days of my use of the term Architecture.
The following is getting close to being 30 years old now…
CAD – Training Mag – 1984 – 6 page PDF – the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design via a Group Process – published in Training Magazine in September 1984. Original manuscript (30 pages) – How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down.
And then this is now 20 years old…
Note: the 1994 book is out of print- but is available “used” at times, online atAmazon.com and elsewhere.
These “more current” 2011 versions of these models/frameworks are addressed in this book 6-Pack:
What’s in your Architectural Views?
# # #