Five of the top 10 companies in the latest Forbes Global 2000 company list (published in May) are from China, and four of them are commercial banks. If you think this is only due to China’s massive consumer base, and that you can easily apply your global innovation strategy to the Chinese market, you’re almost certainly wrong. Enterprise architecture (EA) professionals at companies doing business in China should take a look at what the country’s banking and financial services industry (BFSI) is doing to enable customer-centric innovation.
I recently published two reports focusing on China’s BFSI. In these reports, I analyzed the Chinese banking landscape and the business challenges banks face, described a systematic approach to innovation that EA pros should consider when planning their transformations, and shed light on how they use both mainstream and emerging technologies to unleash the power of innovation around products, operations, and the organization. Some of the key takeaways:
Chinese banks suffer from their own customer experience issues. As a longtime monopoly, China’s BFSI has suffered from inefficiency, quality problems, and an uncompetitive ROI — and thus can no longer meet the high bar for customer satisfaction in the age of the customer. EA pros must find innovative ways to resolve these issues.
Internet companies and regulatory changes are challenging BFSI players. Visionary Internet companies like Alibaba and Tencent have launched financial services products, including innovative products like Yuebao, that are disrupting China’s BFSI with higher profits, lower barriers to entry, and better flexibility. The government is also making regulatory changes that will open up the market and intensify competition.
There’s a big mistake often made with business architecture — a very big mistake, yet a very subtle mistake. As you might expect, there are a number of mistakes one might make with business architecture, but there’s a particularly big and common one that multiplies its effect through all the others.
The mistake is this: To position business architecture as a new layer on top of your existing processes and structures for EA domains such as application architecture, information architecture, and infrastructure architecture.
Here’s the issue: The traditional way many organizations have pursued EA, it should have been called “enterprise technical architecture” — ETA. The central focus has been on the likes of technical standards and reference architectures for application implementation — i.e., on the technology — and not on the enterprise itself. In a phrase, ETA is “technology-centered,” leading us to odd behaviors like assuming it’s only natural that business users, product data, customer data, and the rest will be fractured and split across multiple applications. We put applications at the center and make the business gyrate and adapt around our siloed and broken applications.