Using Archimate to model OKRs for Business Motivation

A Fabricated Example of Using OKRs with Archimate

Following the theme of moulding different modelling languages, methodologies and toolsets together, I want to take a look at how to model OKRs in Archimate.

Once again, I’m using Archi (or ArchimateTool) with the Archimate modelling language.

OKRs do not cascade

Just because the diagram depicts a hierarchy, doesn’t mean that the objectives cascade down the organisational hierarchy. Following the logic in OKRs don’t cascade, I’ve taken the approach of the depicting the hierarchy, rather than how that hierarchy is achieved. In the article, Felipe mentions that objectives should not be cascaded down the organisation. Instead, objectives and key results should be discussed and agreed at each level. The resulting picture is the same either way, but the content of the objectives and key results may be different depending on the route.

Contributing Goals

Depending on the level of the organisation, many of the components that achieve an Objective will not be Key Results, but instead will be lower level Objectives (e.g. of the next team down in the corporate hierarchy or downstream in case of a flatter hierarchy). The diagram allows both Key Results and Objectives to form part of an Objective.

Modelling Goals and Objectives

Key Results have been modelled as Outcomes. Objectives and Contributing Goals (lower-level Objectives) have been modelled as Goals. In doing so, I’ve allowed for a hierarchy of Objectives to fulfil the concept of Contributing Goals. Had I gone with a model of Objective = Outcome, we would have seen a model of hierarchical outcomes which would not have made as much sense, especially to those having to achieve those outcomes.

Alignment

From the perspective of Business Architecture, I’m interested in the alignment of actions to the overall vision. I like to see a clean line connecting actions of the workforce to corporate objectives to vision. Many organisations suffer because the objectives are cascaded down rather than agreed at each level. Combining OKRs with a culture of joint-goal setting has a good chance of resolving that core issue.

Notes about the diagram

The content is fabricated; completely artificial. I haven’t populated every single branch, but enough to indicate what could be captured. For those areas that I did populate, I kept to the concept of 3 key results per Objective, of which any of the Key Results can be replaced with Contributing Goals. You can flex that as you wish.

I’ve created a tiny environment in which the OKRs operate, featuring an internal driver for change, an external driver, the assessments for both and the corporate vision and missions.

Implementation

The interesting concept for me regarding business motivation is that the diagram is agnostic of the organisation structure in that it doesn’t indicate which team or who is responsible for achieving which objectives or key results. I’ve done that on purpose.

If we imagine a typical organisation of 400 people. Each of those named 400 individuals could have Key Results to deliver. Some of those Key Results would contribute to team Objectives. Some of those team Objectives would coalesce to fulfil higher level Objectives and so on. That’s the bottom-up picture.

The top-down picture is that the strategy needs to pervade the organisation and steer the choice of actions and the delivery of those actions. At the top level, the objectives may be independent of who is going to deliver them, but shortly thereafter the key results or contributing goals would have to be assigned. And it’s likely that they’ll be assigned to relevant directors (in the case of stretch targets and keeping the operation running) or delivery teams (in the case of changes). However each of the delivery teams should have a sponsor. It’s that sponsor that’s actually accountable in this case for the delivery of the key result, whereas in many organisations it would be the delivery team.

Overall, OKRs force a concept of personal responsibility or rather, a concept of personal accountability if we follow a RACI model. For the majority of a workforce, the individual is likely to be both accountable and responsible for their key results.

What I haven’t address is the non-aligned use of OKRs, e.g. allowing or encouraging the setting of key results that do not fit with corporate objectives.

A Fabricated Example of Using OKRs with Archimate
A Fabricated Example of Using OKRs with Archimate

Finding a balance between the needs of the organisation and the needs of the customer

Checkout Till
Some companies are immature in their approach to customer relationship management (CRM), but at the heart is a desire to get something for free. And that’s wrong.

The scenario

You look around a shop, you pick something up, take it to the checkout, wait in a queue. You notice that the queue is moving slowly, despite most customer only having a handful of items and then paying with credit card. Maybe the link to the credit card authoriser is a bit flakey today? It’s your turn at the checkout. Once the greeting and the small talk is out of the way, the dreaded question is delivered by the sales assistant “Can I have your email address please?” or some variant on that request for your email. This may be followed with “can I take your postcode?” or “do you already receive our newsletter?”.

The analysis

What’s happened is that the company’s desire for collecting valuable customer data got in the way of its prime purpose and I’m guessing the prime purpose is to make money by selling goods that customers want to the customers that want those goods.
There are other methods for collecting customer data. Some methods cost more than others, some are more accurate than others, some are more comprehensive than others. More importantly, some are less demanding to the customer and even less demanding to the customers in the queue behind them.
Often the desire is created due to a new multi-channel campaign that wants to treat all customer channels equally, not recognising that there’s a different social contract in place when you’re in a store to the one that’s in place when you’re buying on line. Companies that slow down the queue in order to collect information have broken that social contract.

Exceptions

While I’m against slowing queues down, I can concede that short analyses are valuable. This would mean performing the data collection during the natural queue created by your checkout processes. Even then, I’d be concerned that you have a queue and, while it may be acceptable to have queues, I would question an organisation if it counts queues as excellent customer service. If the answer to that is no, then we can prompt other questions such as relative priorities, but that’s for a different article. The take-away here is that companies usually choose acceptable customer service over exemplary customer service.
There are potentially other methods that they could use in store. One that never seems to be used apart from by car salespersons is the option of walking up to a customer, engaging in a conversation and then asking for their contact details. Can you imagine this working in your supermarket, the next time you buy a phone or the next clothing shop you go into? While I don’t believe we should all move to the used-car sales model, I do believe there is room to find a better balance.

The Real Issue

There is no need to wait until the checkout to ask for this information. In fact, asking at the checkout is contrary to the purpose of the checkout.
What’s missing is that the company is trying to build a relationship with the customer. But rather than trying to do that in an underhanded manner at the checkout till (sometimes in the guise of asking to email a receipt), why not engage with that customer while they’re perusing? This highlights the actual issue. It’s not what the company wants, but what the customer wants. What value is the company going to deliver to the customer in exchange for a longer-term relationship?
So rather than trying to obtain an email address for free, consider what you’re going to provide so that the customer would actually want to provide their email address. When viewed in that light, a 10% voucher may not be sufficient.

Alignment

I take issue with any company that slows down the purchasing process for the purpose of collecting customer information. Whether it works financially or not, it’s a bad customer experience and not one I want to see implemented in any shops. I believe in a managed flow from a lean perspective (that’s Lean, not Lean Startup) and so, simplistically, anything that gets in the way of that flow is waste and should be avoided. Instead I’d provide options for collecting emails while people are queueing, while they’re on their way out (e.g. a pedestal table, pen, cards and a ballot/post box on the way out) or have it built into the product itself (like the cupcake liner mentioned in an earlier article).
In short, engage with customers at a more appropriate time (or stage of their purchase) and collect data that’s appropriate to collect for your future interactions but don’t make the purchase process worse just so that you can collect that data.
Any comments, you can find me @alanward.

Efficiency Through Motivation

Efficiency Through Motivation

I started an Instagram channel a while ago. I wanted to start generating an audience for my forthcoming course on Efficiency Through Motivation. I didn’t want to just post inspirational quotes; there are plenty of those channels already. What I wanted to do was to help people explore business architecture and strategy through asking questions of where they are at the moment. I’m using the images as the initial thought-provoker then writing related commentary, often in the form of prompting questions. Go have a look at EfficiencyThroughMotivation, does it work for you?

Actually, better than tell, how about you let me know what you think of the idea? Or even what stage of business you’re at at the moment, what are your struggles and how do you think you’ll be resolving them? You can reach me at Contact Us.

How many objectives do you set yourself each day and how many objectives do you set for your organisation? Are those objectives related?

A photo posted by EfficiencyThroughMotivation (@efficiencythroughmotivation) on

Rethink the Carrot and Stick

The Wrong Quick Wins

A few thoughts from me on quick wins and why we go for the wrong type.

Hands up if you’ve ever had a project sponsor say they needed quick wins? Usually, it’s about showing that you’re doing something to the company board so your project isn’t cancelled or it’s about showing you can make savings. Both of those indicate an immature organisation that’s ready to cancel change activities before they’re due to return results. Some changes take time, some can be done more quickly. The same change activity isn’t necessarily the right type of activity to achieve short and long-term changes. So if you’re on a long-term change project and you’re asked for quick wins, start to head off the question with looking at the original plan for when you’re due to complete your first phase. A better idea is to use quick wins to generate motivation within the users. They didn’t agree to the change plan, instead their managers signed-up to it. They have some inkling of what’s going to change, or in the case of many organisations, they’ve seen many change activities come and go with little result for them. So you’re on the back foot already. Quick wins should be about the users, such as front-line teams or field workers. Listen to their needs, hear their pain, uncover the activities giving them the most problem. And only after you’ve listened, start to generate a few quick solutions to their problems. These solutions are not intended to be long-term fixes. Instead, the quick wins are simple changes that can alleviate their pain. That’s how you get people to believe in you. At the same time, you can be addressing the longer-term fixes. The best thing is that quick wins, when approached from this perspective are usually easy, sometimes just a case of asking another team to respond differently or moving some office furniture around so people can work with less stress. Remember it’s not about achieving savings but making the working lives easier. What’s your experience and how do you approach quick wins? #changemanagement #motivation

A photo posted by Alan Ward (@awkward2006) on

Innovation is not a Space

Image of grassI’m increasingly seeing clients with innovation spaces and I’m seeing more of them on social media/news channels where companies are outfitting office spaces with fun decorations and repurposed objects (e.g. tuk-tuks as meeting spaces). This concept of an innovation space has been introduced to change the way that employees generate solutions.

What’s the problem?

The problem with this is a belief that innovation is a space, i.e. create a non-conformist space and label it as your innovation. Then expect magic to happen. But the magic doesn’t happen.

Here’s the truth, you can introduce innovation in a windy portakabin. It’s not comfortable (and that breaks one of the rules I’ll mention later), but it can be done.

You don’t need fake grass carpets, slinky springs, koosh balls, nerf guns or whatever else is hip at the time your innovation designers come into your organisation. Those things could help, but they don’t guarantee innovation.

Where does innovation come from?

Innovation comes from within the collective mind. No, I’m not getting all new-age here, I referring to the effect you achieve when you put people in a room together, remove some boundaries, give them a task and prompt with them with different perspectives. Continue reading “Innovation is not a Space”