Comments on: Architecture & Process: Robert Pillar http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/ BPM, Enterprise 2.0 and technology trends in business. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:27:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Sandy Kemsley http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7821 Sandy Kemsley Sun, 04 May 2008 20:49:31 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7821 I'm glad that you found the session beneficial, that's the reason that we all go to conferences. I’m glad that you found the session beneficial, that’s the reason that we all go to conferences.

]]> By: T Darman http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7820 T Darman Sun, 04 May 2008 16:42:11 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7820 So you are saying that everyone equally values the same issues and that they have same impact to their organization? Granted there was marked leaning of this presentation to private industry- but understanding how a problem impacts a SPECIFIC enterprise IS half the battle, and it’s a unique collection of relevant variables was part of that understanding- simply understanding that there needs to be a weighted and unique calculation of these variables was the gold from this session. They are more than alphabet soup as he described them Personally this was the "ah- huh" moment for me- apparently it went over most people's heads. I find it interesting that in any response positive on this session – you have felt the need to negatively counter- its your blog, but I discovered it in searching for info a conference I paid to attend so is there some association/ motivation perhaps? So you are saying that everyone equally values the same issues and that they have same impact to their organization? Granted there was marked leaning of this presentation to private industry- but understanding how a problem impacts a SPECIFIC enterprise IS half the battle, and it’s a unique collection of relevant variables was part of that understanding- simply understanding that there needs to be a weighted and unique calculation of these variables was the gold from this session. They are more than alphabet soup as he described them
Personally this was the “ah- huh” moment for me- apparently it went over most people’s heads.

I find it interesting that in any response positive on this session – you have felt the need to negatively counter- its your blog, but I discovered it in searching for info a conference I paid to attend so is there some association/ motivation perhaps?

]]> By: Sandy Kemsley http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7819 Sandy Kemsley Sun, 04 May 2008 13:07:55 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7819 I don't think that anyone is expecting a speaker to fix his problems in 45 minutes. However, with only 45 minutes to speak in front of an audience that presumably already knows about business-IT barriers because they live with them every day, I personally would not have spent half of the time talking on that subject. I don’t think that anyone is expecting a speaker to fix his problems in 45 minutes. However, with only 45 minutes to speak in front of an audience that presumably already knows about business-IT barriers because they live with them every day, I personally would not have spent half of the time talking on that subject.

]]> By: T Darman http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7816 T Darman Sun, 04 May 2008 00:19:21 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7816 I gained a new perspective from this valuable session. We often begin with the silver bullet mentality, (especially from technology) but in the end it comes down to understanding what works for a specific organization starting with the multiple vectors as Mr. Pillar's one slide displayed. I concurred with the simple statement (and the one rude gentleman up front doesn’t get this) that it’s never technology for the sake of technology. Perhaps in 45 minutes he expected the speaker to fix all of his problems. I also noticed and appreciated his honesty in describing how to work with software vendors in these situations to promote collaborative dialogue and partnership. I’ve seen this same presenter at a Delphi event a few years back and he has refreshing perspectives on the impact of various IT and Business drivers . Its also Refreshing to hear this from a Microsoft person I emailed him and he quickly forwarded the presentation as well as a related Cutter Consortium whitepaper and mentioned that he had provided the copy to the conference organizers as well. I gained a new perspective from this valuable session. We often begin with the silver bullet mentality, (especially from technology) but in the end it comes down to understanding what works for a specific organization starting with the multiple vectors as Mr. Pillar’s one slide displayed. I concurred with the simple statement (and the one rude gentleman up front doesn’t get this) that it’s never technology for the sake of technology. Perhaps in 45 minutes he expected the speaker to fix all of his problems. I also noticed and appreciated his honesty in describing how to work with software vendors in these situations to promote collaborative dialogue and partnership.
I’ve seen this same presenter at a Delphi event a few years back and he has refreshing perspectives on the impact of various IT and Business drivers . Its also Refreshing to hear this from a Microsoft person
I emailed him and he quickly forwarded the presentation as well as a related Cutter Consortium whitepaper and mentioned that he had provided the copy to the conference organizers as well.

]]> By: Sandy Kemsley http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7758 Sandy Kemsley Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:12:31 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7758 Rick, thanks for your comment. I think that the complaints from the audience -- and I heard it from other people who attended the same session -- is that this was a fairly shallow listing of the issues, not any deep analysis or understanding. His slide deck doesn't appear to be on the conference's SlideShare group, but I seem to recall that he promised to discuss solutions, not just issues. Rick, thanks for your comment. I think that the complaints from the audience — and I heard it from other people who attended the same session — is that this was a fairly shallow listing of the issues, not any deep analysis or understanding.

His slide deck doesn’t appear to be on the conference’s SlideShare group, but I seem to recall that he promised to discuss solutions, not just issues.

]]> By: rick maurer http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7749 rick maurer Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:22:08 +0000 http://www.column2.com/2008/04/architecture-process-robert-pillar/#comment-7749 The speaker identified four important and related issues organizational, cultural, political, and collaboration barriers. I understand the frustration of the audience member, but I find that people in technical environments often want quick-fix solutions to those types of challenges. They would rather place their attention on the “good stuff” – the things that got them interested in engineering, IT, accounting, and so forth. And, of course, that makes sense. Who doesn’t like to work on things that interest us. But, the bad news is that they can easily miss the human dimension of these projects. I believe that is a major reason why BPR projects have somewhere around a 20 percent success rate. I find that my clients who get interested in the deeper reasons why those barriers exist, have much better success finding strategies to deal with them. And thanks for a fine post. Rick Maurer www.changemanagementnews.com (blog) www.beyondresistance.com The speaker identified four important and related issues organizational, cultural, political, and collaboration barriers. I understand the frustration of the audience member, but I find that people in technical environments often want quick-fix solutions to those types of challenges. They would rather place their attention on the “good stuff” – the things that got them interested in engineering, IT, accounting, and so forth.
And, of course, that makes sense. Who doesn’t like to work on things that interest us. But, the bad news is that they can easily miss the human dimension of these projects. I believe that is a major reason why BPR projects have somewhere around a 20 percent success rate.
I find that my clients who get interested in the deeper reasons why those barriers exist, have much better success finding strategies to deal with them.

And thanks for a fine post.

Rick Maurer
http://www.changemanagementnews.com (blog)
http://www.beyondresistance.com

]]>