Discussion: View Thread

Greetings Rick,
Apparently I was not clear.
I read the charts as using IT terminology such as Client-Server, Networked,
etc. and was simply suggesting that the business people should be asked to
think of similar topologies in their respective business relationships.
Usually they begin to see that any one person may be in a hierarchy for one
purpose, a client or a server for another and a node in a network for
another, all at the same time. Then they are able to discuss the pro/con of
each relationship type with respect to the purpose of that local
organization. If your audience got that, then good.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Automatic digest processor" <LISTSERV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
To: "Recipients of MG-ED-DV digests" <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:36 PM
Subject: MG-ED-DV Digest - 24 Apr 2003 to 25 Apr 2003 (#2003-77)


> There are 3 messages totalling 134 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. IT architecture (was Help with cross-cultural stories!!!)
> 2. B-school Employment Classifieds
> 3. CALL Business Innovation in the Knowledge Economy WARWICK UK
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:26:43 -0400
> From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: IT architecture (was Help with cross-cultural stories!!!)
>
> From: Rick Kennett [mailto:dina@guildweb.com]
>
> > oh no! ITSSSSsss Youuuu !
>
> Hi Jack!
> As usual you are several steps ahead of me. I think it may be a bad sign
> that I
> am now equally confused by the questions as well as the answers. If you
are
> speaking of my 'audience' at the time the presentation was given, and
> equating
> the term "architecture" to how "the IT was organized" across (and between)
> the
> four paradigms, then I would say it was unnecessary to ask that question.
It
> seemed to me that everyone was able to 'find their place' first and then,
> without really making any admission, recognize where we wanted to be. I
> imagine
> if I were to trot this out again, where I work today, and include a new
> paradigm to represent the oncoming shift to wireless, I would have
similar
> results. Then again, that's my perception :-)
>
> The point is that it wasn't necessary, I don't think, to ask those folks
> about
> I.T. architecture. In fact as I think about it, the important part was to
> get
> them to focus on business issues rather then technology. This presentation
> helped our folks do that and set the stage for increased trust in us (the
> I.T.
> weenies) to do the technology piece.
>
> Hope you're doing well Jack
> L8R
> Rick
>
> >
> > From: Jack Ring <jring@amug.org>
> >
> > The charts tell a good story.
> > Now, what if you asked them to consider not how the IT is organized thus
> > affects them but what "architecture" they should have and how IT could
> > enable that.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:57:56 -0400
> From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
> Subject: B-school Employment Classifieds
>
> From: AACSB International - Communications [mailto:comm@AACSB.edu] =20
>
> Dear Business Education Professional:
> =A0
> AACSB International, the premier business school accreditation agency
> worldwide, has more than 925 higher education members. These colleges =
> and
> universities employ a significant number of business school faculty.=20
> =A0
> What's happening in the b-school employment marketplace? Visit M.E. =
> Jobs,
> AACSB's powerful online Web site for business school faculty and higher
> education administration employment classifieds at
> http://www.aacsb.edu/jobs2 .
> =A0
> Why M.E. Jobs?=A0 The only site dedicated solely to management =
> education, M.E.
> Jobs offers user-friendly features:
> =A0
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - Jobs displayed by locations and =
> category
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - Links to designated contact persons
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - Links to school Web pages
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - Printable position descriptions
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - Access to a world-wide market
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - Email ads to a friend
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - No cost to job seekers, easy to use
> =A0
> For additional information, email kim@aacsb.edu
> =20
> =A0
> =A0
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:49:11 -0400
> From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
> Subject: CALL Business Innovation in the Knowledge Economy WARWICK UK
>
> The Second Business Innovation in the Knowledge Economy Conference
>
> Call for Papers ; Deadline approaching!
>
> Reminder - abstracts for academic papers are now due
>
> This year's conference, at IBM in Warwick, takes place from 1-2 July
>
> Themes include
> * Customer Relationship Management
> * Small firms and the Internet
> * New models of business in the knowledge economy
> * Virtual organisations and virtual collaborations
> * Technology transfer and business innovation.
>
> A book of abstracts will be published and papers will be considered for
>
> Qualitative Market Research, an International Journal
>
> And
>
> The 2004 Special eBusiness Edition of the Journal of Small Business
> Enterprise Development
>
> Papers this year come from Brussels, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Spain,
> and the UK. The conference team includes Cranfield University, De
> Montfort University, IBM Innovations Unit, Surrey University, the
> University of Central England. There is no charge for attendance but
> places are therefore limited.
>
> Brief details are available at www.elive-online.com or from Lynn Martin
> at lynn.martin@uce.ac.uk ; 0121 331 7796 or 5000
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of MG-ED-DV Digest - 24 Apr 2003 to 25 Apr 2003 (#2003-77)
> **************************************************************
>

> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:53:01 -0700
> From: Jack Ring <jring@amug.org>
> Subject: Re: IT Architecture

Hi Jack,
I think we are refining some semantics here as is customary on these lists. The IT terminology in the presentation was used to point out how
processes evolved within one technology, changed dramatically when technology changed. The purpose was to allow folks to feel comfortable
about 'where' they came from, that change was inevitable and good,
<bad analogy> How did the Borg put it .... "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" </bad analogy> and that if they let us mind the
technology we could assist them in becoming more 'agile'. i.e. we will trust you as experts in your business process. You trust us as experts
with ours, technology, and together we can do a better job of adapting.

Now after reading the explanation of your use of the terminology, I.T. Architecture, I think I see the connection you are making, and it is
certainly valid. My understanding is that you are looking to organize the multiple processes within a company in a fashion similar to a
network, as opposed to the traditional command and compliance hierarchy. That we connect processes based on deliverables to form a network and
in doing so we will see relationships similar to those found on a network. Deliverables node to node for core processes would manage the
change in state of a 'product'. Deliverables one to many would typically be a support function like HR and constitute a server. Is this
where you were going?

As for my audience that day 'getting it', i.e. the need to restructure the organization, well that would have been just too much of a leap
for this one presentation. However I would like to think that today those folks have moved along sufficiently to reorganize or at least
understand the need to reorganize around deliverables. Whatever they call it, a rose is a rose.

If I am coming around in terms of 'seeing it your way', it is only because I do.

L8R
Rick



>
>
> Greetings Rick,
> Apparently I was not clear.
> I read the charts as using IT terminology such as Client-Server, Networked,
> etc. and was simply suggesting that the business people should be asked to
> think of similar topologies in their respective business relationships.
> Usually they begin to see that any one person may be in a hierarchy for one
> purpose, a client or a server for another and a node in a network for
> another, all at the same time. Then they are able to discuss the pro/con of
> each relationship type with respect to the purpose of that local
> organization. If your audience got that, then good.