Enterprise architecture programme

Context

A growing lender with many interdependent capabilities and systems. Business, process, data and technology were each described in separate places.

Problem

With each function describing only its own part, leaders saw many local plans instead of one operating system. Disagreements often came from unclear boundaries and ownership.

System and insight

Many architecture arguments are really boundary arguments: the same words used for different responsibilities.

Trade-offs

• A high-level capability map is quick to agree on but hides detail. Deeper maps are more useful and slower to keep current.
• Executives need fewer layers than engineers do. Choosing the level is a design decision.

Intervention

• Business architecture, capability maps and as-is / to-be transformation plans for digital lending.
• Capability roadmaps and transformation plans for executive management.

My role

I produced and presented the architecture, capability roadmaps and transformation plans.

Result

• Presented to executive management. The programme is ongoing.

Learning

Make the organisation legible, then change it.