Human beings routinely execute a variety of complicated task as routine, without even thinking about them. Functions like breathing, walking, driving, etc. become second nature.
Taking this analogy (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006) defines Foundation for Execution as “the IT infrastructure and digitized business processes automating a company’s core capabilities”.
“Paradoxically, digitizing core business processes makes the individual processes less flexible while making a company more agile”.
When looking back at some companies I worked for, I realized that they had in place many independent solutions for single strategic initiatives. Some of their systems do the same thing in a different way and focus on similar customers. Their business objectives are still loosely aligned to the IT capabilities. I believe that these issues are not rare among US enterprises, on the contrary having what (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006) defines as Foundation for Execution is more unusual than we may imagine.
References
Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy (Kindle Edition ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
Jorge Luis Rodriguez Blog 
Hi Jorge,
You bring up a lot of valid and good points about how much agility a business could gain just by incorporating automated processes. I find it ironic that they insert a program with parameters and gain agility. Do you think that this human factor of routine is the culprit for resisting change?
I have also experienced companies where business and IT do not see eye to eye. I find that many of these issues stem from not having a proper baseline or context. A clear and concise vision statement can also mitigate these issues as well. Having said all that, I think you are right, these issues are not rare but instead the norm.
Thanks for the reading.
-Nate
LikeLike
I found the paradox between less flexible processes and a more agile company quite interesting and insightful, revealing a whole new perspective that I never appreciated before. I could not agree more with the notion that digitized processes makes an individual process less flexible – I just never would have looked at it that way. Removing the variability and randomness of humans (or to be more kind, the flexibility) creates the opportunity for large increases in scale or throughput.
The other side of the paradox, making the company more agile, is a notion that I’m spending a lot of time thinking about. Is a company with numerous digitized processes truly more agile, or are they simply more scalable? I know they are more scalable, but the agility is something I keep going back and forth on. Scaling creates low cost, low cost creates further adoption which creates more scale, and so on. This creates rapid and substantial growth, which may give the appearance of agility, but it’s really just heavy repetition of a successful model.
It’s usually the high-cost (and low volume) producer that focuses on the human element more than scalable repetition. I want to say this is where we’ll find the most agility, but I’m still debating it. Nevertheless, it’s a great thought to ponder and an enlightening new perspective that I really appreciate.
-Scott
LikeLike