- log in
Posted by Alex Cullen on November 16, 2010
Recently I participated in a roundtable discussion by members of Forrester’s EA Council on “Getting Strategic In A Tactical World.” Members talked through the challenge of maintaining a strategic focus when the IT (or business) organization was very tactical and of getting the enterprise architecture function to have the right balance of tactical and strategic activities. “Strategic/Tactical Focus” is one of the dimensions of the Archetypes of EA that Forrester has written about, including in this blog, and the balance between tactical and strategic is a key factor in how the larger organization views EA’s relevance as well as the support it provides to EA.
One of the participants, who headed a team of more than 50 architects, asked the others, “How is your department funded – as overhead operations or as part of the project investment budget?” The person who asked this question said that his organization is more than 70% funded out of the project budget. Others responded with a range of 100% operations to 100% project-based. The comments around these different funding mixes were very interesting (all comments paraphrased):
“It’s easier to justify the size of my team if the funding is tied to the amount of project investments we are making.”
“Investment funding levels are too variable – two years ago we cut way back, now we’ve ramped way up. If my team size was a factor of investment funding, we wouldn’t be prepared for the amount of investment we are making now.”
“EA funding as part of ongoing operations budget makes us look like overhead. I don’t want architecture to look like some sort of overhead.”
“The IT areas with the project budgets expect my team to work on their problems. This drives a tactical focus.”
One participant even offered the observation that, if the architecture team is funded from project budgets, there are two risks to the success of EA:
- Project teams try to minimize EA involvement to reduce their cost, or
- The rationale for centralized architecture gets much weaker – why not just transfer the architects into the project organization?
As this back-and-forth points out, there isn’t one right answer. Forrester – and I expect all our clients – sees that EA’s greatest value arises from the strategic perspective it can provide – and how EA is funded does impact how much EA can invest in shepherding this strategic perspective. I thought the most interesting comment was from one participant:
“I was brought in as part of the centralizing of architecture. I told my CIO that he would not get the benefit of this centralization unless EA was funded as part of a strategic planning bucket. Now, funding for all core EA domains and disciplines comes from our base operating budget – the same one that pays the CIO’s salary.”
How is architecture funded in your organization? If you could change this, what would you do?
Search Forrester's Blogs
The dynamics that will shape the future in the age of the customer »
Planning for innovation and risk in the wake of Brexit »
Save Money On Your Next Software Negotiation
Work with our software negotiation experts to save 10–20% on your next contract »