Changing KPIs and measures is critical to any SO programme at an enterprise level. Some things I recommend are
1) Measure success 12 months after go-life 2) Have the Business architects and PMs measured 50% by IT and 50% by the business service owners The first one is one that can really drive standardisation. If a PM has a choice of "cut corner and hit deadline" in a standard environment then they (quite rightly based on their measures) will do so. If however they are compensated based on the re-use of a service and have the choice "do this and 20 projects will use it" and for each use of the service their project budget is credited 50% of the service development budget (or some other number) then after 12 months their project may have gone from being 10% over budget to being free. The 2nd one then aligns the individual measures to the success of both the IT objectives and the business strategy. I've had a few stories so far where the business has been happy to spend _more_ money as a result of an architect or PM raising an issue or opportunity. In one notable (but definitely not referencable!) occasion ended up with the CFO stumping up around $2m to "do something right" and _praising_ the architect for bringing the potential issue that required the spend to his attention. If you don't change the measures then nothing changes, people work to the measures and are bonused on the measures. Steve 2008/7/3 Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Great! But why a developer is in charge again? I think, this example has to > be applied to the architect, PM, IT Director and Business Program Manager. > Only then, the developer will be comfortable doing right thing once... > > - Michael > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 4:41:50 PM > Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] SO and enterprise (was Meehan > & Anne on SOA Success - or lack of) > > That's why these are among the things that need to be examined and > potentially changed to adapt the IT culture for SOA. > > > > For example, it may be necessary or helpful to reward a developer > specifically for creating a reusable service, or penalize them when they > don't. > > > > Eric > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 11:29:27 AM > Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] SO and enterprise (was Meehan & > Anne on SOA Success - or lack of) > >>I agree that incentive and compensation models tend to work very much >>against the vision of enterprise SO. > > Do we want to discuss this topic in this Forum or its a subject for another > forum? Are here others who might be interested besides Rob and me? > > - Michael > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] net> > To: service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 3:44:33 PM > Subject: [service-orientated -architecture] Re: Meehan & Anne on SOA Success > - or lack of > > --- In service-orientated- architecture@ yahoogroups. com, Michael > Poulin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: >> >> The major problem here are existing models of accountability and >> ownership in the organisation. They allow (if not promote) a >> difference of interests between the very top management, which >> directly depends on the reaching of the enterprise goal(s), and the >> lower levels of responsibilities, down to the regular project >> management. > > That's exactly right. The challenge is that senior leadership is > measured and judged by how they manage their P&L--what's their bottom > line contribution to the company. What's their contribution to > shareholder dividends. The common approach to maximize the > effectiveness of the enterprise is to try to maximize the > effectiveness of each business individually and independently. > > This means that business unit A doesn't really care about the > performance of business unit B. If A doesn't trust B, there is no way > they are going to rely on any facilties offerred by them. Indeed, in > some organizations the units tend to compete with each other. > > Business unit A, while they ostensibly care about the health of the > overall enterprise, predominantly acts in its own interest--doing > something for the good of the enterprise but possibly to the > detriment of the business unit is something that has to be forced by > a CEO. > > I agree that incentive and compensation models tend to work very much > against the vision of enterprise SO. > > -Rob > > > > >
