 Ydw i'n amser, Steve Yrraedd yw'n rwy'n dweud yw yw'n cael ei ddweud. Ond rwy'n cael ei ddweud yw'n ddweud yw'n ddweud. Ydw i'n ddweud yw'n ddweud, mae'n ddweud gan y cyfnodol, a ddweud yw'r ddweud gan ddweud ar hynny. Rwy'n cael ei ddweud yw'r olaf o'r ysgrifennidol yma, mae'n trefnwyr yma, mae'n ddweud yn y ddweud, o'r cyfnodol yn y ddweud. a'i ceisio'n ceisio'n unrhyw, oedd yr olygu o'ch fath fydd. Fe wnaethwch chi i chi eisiau cyself o'r hollau, yw'r hollau, y byd, o'ch chi i chi ddod o fod yn ddod o hollau, neu rolethwch coi nad yr ydw i am gwrs honno ond ynthenaf yn fwyaf amser yma, fel hwn ni yw i chi, wrth gwrs ymddynt, roedd yw'r suoedd, ond chio'n holleg yswyr, I'll leave you to fill in the blanks there. This work came about through an IBM Impact Grant, which is to support non-profit organisations, community organisations to develop, maybe access either software or consulting that is the agency that's going to be looking into a'r bobl yn cofought. Wrth gwrs, mae hollwch resistance dynnu am y blynyddoedd yn angen... ..a'r peth yw'r companies sydd yn ganhawr am ddannu'r newid am unrhysgrifan. Mae'r cyflawniaeth sydd yn cael ei dŵr yn cael ei sydd yn cael ei ddweud. Mae'r cyflawniaeth yma ar hyn cyhoedd yn y cyflawni, yn cael ei ddweud, mae'r cyflawniaeth yma ym��eddon yn celeron digon. a bod hynny'n gael i'n bwysigl i'r llwyth o'r bwysigl iaeth a'ch gweithio allanol yn unigoddiant, ydynnu a bwysigol yn gyntafol yr oedd yn gyfyroddiadau mewn cyfwyr arall yn gyfwyrddol i'r cyfrindig sy'n cyfwyrddol i'n cyfwyrddol i'r cyfwyrddol i'r cyfwyrddol i'r cyfrindig a'r cefwyrddol i'r cyfrindig llunio ar ardal, fel ydych chi'n mor cyfle a'r cyacityn i'r cymaint. Rydym ni'n meddeunio'r LNCR yn sylfaen i amgylchedd y dyfi o'r unig ar hyn, maen nhw yw'n amser. Roeddwn i fy modd heb i gyrdestudio ein lleoedd yma yn hynny mewn coleg. Mae'r unrhyw honno yn unig dyfodol i LNCR yn y prosaen yn awr. u'r cyfnodd ymddio'r cyfnodd am gyfnodd. Rwy'n meddwl i'r ddweud o ddweud o bobl arweithio, rwy'n meddwl i'r strategiaeth digital a rwy'n meddwl i'r ddweud o'r mawr ac rwy'n meddwl i weithio i gwybodaeth i wneud yw'r gweithio. So, rwy'n meddwl i'r ddweud o ddweud o bobl arweithio. Rwy'n meddwl i'r ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud. ac ydych chi am ddweud y cyfnodd? Dydyn nhw'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'r ddweud. Onw, ac ystod y llywodd a Olyfr Ysgrifennid arno. Felly, yn y ddiwedd i'n gweithio, dywedd i'n gwybod i'r ddweud, rydyn ni'n gwneud yma'r hynny'n ddechrau. dyma y gallwch chi gydig? A wnaeth chi'n bwysig? Mae'n ddysgu'r ffordd gymrydau a fyddwch yn ei ddweud o'r ysgol i gydag y ffwyaf sydd ei gynnig ac mae'n gweithio'r strategiaeth sydd ar 121 slyg o 16 oed yn ddiweddol. Mae'r ddweud a ddwyf yn gweithio'r sgol. Mae hyn yn ei gael o bwysig. Mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud ac mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud ac mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud ddigonwch i gynllun o'r cyfwyr yn ymwygen i'r hyfforddiol? Rwy'n cael ei ffwrdd cyfwyr gwirion o'r cyfwyr i'r byd? Byddwn yn ddigonwch i'r cyfwyr a fyddai chi ddim yn ymddangos. Rwy'n cael ei ffawr i'r cyfwyr, oherwydd oedd y cyfwyr yn cyfwyr yn ei ddigonwch y pethau ac yn gobeithio'r rwyf yn ymdain i'r cyfwyr yn ymgyrch ymddangos, oherwydd oedd ymdain i'r cyfwyr. y gofyn fynd i chi'n gwyngor i'r holl i gael, lle mae'n gweithio i'n holl i ffordd y ffordd, y ngyd-ffordd, ac mae'n nhw'n arddangos. Rydyn i pethau, mae'n gyd-fforddwl. Sy'n caelch chi'n ei wneud o'r teiml i gyllidol yn ysgrifennu i gyfrifon i'r holl, ac yn ôl, ym colleagues i fi, yn hefyd nhw. So y proses nawr, hwnna yw'r Rhaglen Y togaf, ac we went as is first, and this was in part for the benefit of the consultants myself and my colleagues to understand the business. Now we'd never worked in the charity sector before and business in the community aren't a typical charity. So we built a business capability model using the IBM way of doing things and we built our architecture views and this was actually the first time that business in the community had a holistic view of their own organisation. So really quite enlightening for them and got us up to speed very quickly on what the organisation was doing. We hosted a visioning workshop at our head office just the other side of the river. This was really useful to engage a wider group. I think we had about 16 people in the room. We're using IBM design thinking techniques to understand the users, understand the customers. I'm going to touch on that later on as well. That workshop helped us to identify the capabilities, the changes that were required and after some analysis we brought these together into a set of initiatives which are the white boxes on your screen and across six themes, channels, so the websites, their user journeys, their content management, collaboration. So how do they engage their members? How do they engage their communities? Relationship management with their member organisations and with the local government and national government people that they work with. Their knowledge management. Over the last 30 years they've built an absolutely incredible set of reports of data and I think similar to Togaf, how you manage that information as an organisation, how you give your members, your users access to it is a real challenge and sometimes you can have more information than you know what to do with. Analytics, setting off that journey to become a more data driven business, data driven organisation, how would you start that? And finally a lot of stuff going on in business and IT operations as Oliver mentioned yesterday around the discipline and governance that the business needed to start off. One of the things that came out of the workshop was that they were starting to realise that a lot of their IT problems were not totally the fault of IT. It was actually how the business used it, what governance, what discipline they had, so there's a lot in that space. Developed the target architecture which I was really infused by that Oliver's told me that it's been really really useful to have what do they need on one screen in general terms that they've been able to set up a common language across their organisation for people that may not be IT people, but they can at least go okay well I know that I need to be in this space or when we're talking about something I understand that there are components to for example managing my knowledge and then the digital centre of excellence, something which we were very keen on from a point of view of promoting good business discipline around architecture, around their strategy, around their project delivery and around their skills and capabilities so they could become a more digitally enabled organisation. That turned into our report and roadmap. I haven't seen myself any other reports which makes the TOGAP roadmap the centrefold of your magazine, it's a different kind of centrefold, sorry. And we had a final presentation so made a large format roadmap to they could take around their organisation, it's not quite my height, again I missed another trick. So what were my learning points? This was the first time I had led an enterprise architecture strategy project myself. I've had a lot of guidance from Paul Holman who's down in the audience and I know many of you know him, but I kind of thought this was the first time I'd been let loose and it went very well. So I had to use TOGAP for the first time in Anger perhaps without that really sitting, someone sitting alongside me. So I found that TOGAP led to asking the valuable questions. The time we had was very limited so we had to really focus on where the value was, what did BITC require from us, what did we need to them to understand their business. And what we used when I used TOGAP I was able to use the content meta model. These are the kind of artefacts I should be looking for. This is what we need to develop especially in the business architecture space to understand how the organisation works and maybe in some areas we can say actually we don't need that at this level because we're okay. We understand enough from a point of view of an overarching IT strategy and that came into the second part known when to apply the spirit of TOGAP rather than the letter. There was no desire of the organisation at the time and I think it's still true to stand up in enterprise architecture capability. They have five IT professionals who are keeping the lights on in the main. So to impose a too strict form of TOGAP to require them to produce models or data that wasn't going to contribute to the strategy or to the roadmap would not have been appropriate. I found that this project reinforced the importance of how we use models in two senses. First to understand when I came on to the project I had no background in the charity sector and no understanding of how business in the community worked. So by building a component business model here or maybe perhaps more familiar to you as a capability model enabled us to understand how the organisation worked. What are the pain points in the organisation? How is technology used? The colourful diagram in the back is how the organisation was using their Salesforce CRM platform. And it called out to them that they were using it in quite a disparate way, maybe not taking advantage of all of the capability. And in some cases they kind of half used it and maybe that was really interesting for us. We also looked at where activity had been. Now I asked a question yesterday in one of the breakout sessions around user capability models and breaking out capabilities into a sort of a strategy, management layer and operational layer. And what we found was that the organisation, by doing that, the organisation was very operational focused and had not been working strategically and not been thinking strategically for a year to 18 months by breaking the capabilities out at that level even though you kept them. So for example advisory strategy, advisory services management and then the advisory delivery. By breaking out we found actually you've been doing a lot in delivery but you haven't thought about your strategy for this for 18 months. What does that mean? What needs to change? The second part was model to communicate. Now I'm going to show a little animation which was how we developed our business vision for the digital vision for business in the community. We started with an initial concept and then we went for a load of iterations. Now these iterations I'm showing you are just the ones that we published that we shared with the organisation. But it was really key to develop this, talk to the business team and they would talk to their community to understand what was working for them, what language was going to engage their stakeholders, some of whom were people we wouldn't get the chance to meet. Because the businesses had to focus had to allocate a limited, could only allocate a limited amount of resources. So that was useful. There were other examples around the capability model of the themes and the target architecture as well. The third learning point is around the use of design thinking which I'm not sure how many people are familiar with. It's about user-centred design. I actually did a little bit of a digging little search through the old version. Togaf 9.1 because no one had told me about 9.2. It doesn't mention end users or customers in any great detail. I wonder if that's missing a trick. Design thinking takes very much of people, a human focused approach to working out what we should be delivering. You can use this internally or externally. In our case, we used it to understand the people, the business in the community would be engaging with their needs. What were they looking for? Why would they go to business in the community? I think for me this was a really key driver to understanding what they actually needed to do and also help the business understand that while they had different campaigns, different focus areas and they had different services that they provided, actually their users, their customers had very similar needs. It didn't matter if they were a massive IBM sized organisation or a small medium enterprise in the north of England. These people they were engaging with had very similar time pressures, very similar motivators. So I think that by understanding our users, by empathising with their needs, we can really drive out a better architecture. Finally, I thought I'd just share a few observations about the charity sector I imagine from many of you. It's an area where you haven't worked either. Oliver mentioned this yesterday. The motivations of the stakeholders, the motivations of the people that work there. Many of them are truly engaged with the cause and that might be for quite personal reasons. So I think it's important to be mindful of that. Not something which is always true in the private sector and in the public sector can vary, but I think in the third sector, yeah, truly people believe in the organisation they're working with and it's a personal thing. So you have to respect that. How they measure success. I think this was actually a question to Oliver yesterday. Similar to public sector, there's no focus on profit, so to speak. However, that doesn't mean that there's no way to measure success. It just means you need to be a bit more, you have to be a bit more shared about it. You have to look for different ways to measure that, different KPIs. And I think TOGAF can help an organisation like this, tease out those drivers. A flip side of that, and I guess going back to the previous one about your stakeholders' motivations, is because there's no one single bottom line number to measure success, people can have different, they can prioritise these measures themselves. And so the measure for one person may not be the measure for another. And I guess, again, similar to the public sector, I'm working with some public sector organisations myself and different people have different priorities. So that is something to manage in TOGAF. The next point around the power of influential stakeholders now. I mentioned the influential stakeholder right on their logo. Similar to public sector, a stakeholder almost with the stroke of a pen, change the direction of the organisation or create a new focus area. I think in the case of this organisation, we need to go over here as well as do the other stuff. This is all great, but we need to add another area on. I think TOGAF can be really useful in this area by helping the organisation understand what's different, what's new, how do we need to change, but also what's staying the same. What can we lift from the old way of doing things into this new way? I think that's really interesting, really useful. And I think for the organisation, maybe they hadn't considered that previously when they started a new area, a new campaign area, they started afresh from a blank piece of paper. My final learning point about this charity sector is that they have the opportunity to be agenda setting in the way that maybe a private or a public sector organisation can't be. Now Oliver did say that a lot of the time they follow the action. They started after riots in here in London and in Liverpool in the 80s, but then they've, since then they've developed into areas around age discrimination and helping senior citizens who maybe don't want to give up working, helping them find work and they've worked a lot in the environment. They can also set the agenda, set the standard for responsible businesses to engage in these matters and provide guidance. So that's really useful. So in that Togaf model, their target architecture, especially around their vision, could be beyond what anyone else has been thinking about. So Togaf can help by mapping a course, mapping a path. So my conclusions. Togaf can be used to support projects in the charity sector. It's been used to support projects in many sectors. I imagine it's been used to support other charity projects, but I've confirmed that for you. Second one, by applying the spirit of the framework, we can maximise the time, the value of the time we had available. Final point, the strategy of secured buying from stakeholders proved to be a catalyst to change off the back of this strategy. Business in the community have secured the services of a chief digital officer, conded from Sky, a major UK company. They have started thinking about digital prioritising. It's no longer the IT guys in the corner behind a cupboard. IT, digital is front and centre of the way they can do things. And as Oliver said, can help enable these volunteers, these very motivated individuals to do more and less admin, less fighting the machine. So my final thanks to my report co-authors, Tim Allcock and Ernie and the BITC team. So Oliver's there, but also Danielle Coo, Paul Ampiedt. And so with that, any questions? Take a seat. Thank you. So thank you for that. It's good to hear. I know Oliver was a little concerned yesterday about what you were going to say on the other side, but I've been perfectly happy with that, I'm sure. Thank you. But let's see. So you talked a number of times about, which was the subject of the talk, how Togaf was useful in various ways. And one of those was specifically towards the end, you talked about, it was useful to help the ITC look at what was the same, what was different in potential new activities that they might want to take on. Can you say something about how you actually do that in practice, how Togaf helps, how you use it as a tool to help them do that on? So I think it was, we presented it as a potential way forward, something to perhaps include in their business planning. For me, it would be about a target first approach to going through your architecture. Of course, the ITC perhaps won't use it initially, but we've given them that seed, and I think it would be very much a target first iteration. Where do we want to be? What's this? What's the business process? What's the value stream going to look like? And then understanding the differences from where we were before. I know Oliver talked yesterday with some pride, I think about the target architecture, actually gave him something to show people and to look at. And you showed the centrefold, the roadmap there. Sometimes things like that in architecture aren't embraced readily and quickly by the senior management. Was that the case here or did they get it? So I think in both cases there was a nervousness on the team's part that we were trying to keep it engaged in, but at the same time you have something that's very technical and very detailed to communicate. So I spent a lot of time around the layout, around the presentation, trying to make it as engaged as possible. The second one was introducing the concepts to them early. I showed you when we did the business digital vision, how the iterations developed. That vision took about a month worth of elapsed time backwards and forwards through workshops. So there's a metaphor I've heard from the Navy. They talk about a little bit of rudder far away from port is a lot better than a lot as you're going into the harbour. And so I think that's the case here is to engage the stakeholders, engage the leadership as early as possible, not be afraid for people to tear it down and build it back up again. So exactly to that point. At what point in the project was the word architecture first used? That is a good one. I think that we perhaps we may have mentioned it in our first meeting in our first workshop. I don't want to say it was wrapped up in cotton wool, but it was we're going to take you through it. We're going to build it with you. If you we're going to understand your concerns, make sure you're comfortable with it. So I say we use the word architecture early, but it wasn't. Can we have your architecture, please? It was all in a non threatening. Don't worry about this kind of way. Let's see. Why were sticky notes with information from people's heads used as input for the strategy and not reports with the actual performance data that might be more predictive or prescriptive? So sticky notes are a key material in design thinking. It's not just an IBM thing. Many organizations across the world are using design thinking, and I wonder if BITC had the volume of data to guide where we wanted to go. Also, did we have the time as part time project members to consume all that information, understand it and make valid recommendations? The business strategy was evolving as we were engaging the team in developing the digital strategies. There wasn't something locked down we could refer to. And finally, I think it's really important, especially when our end users, our customers, don't have a voice, that we create personas that we try to as much as possible empathize with them to understand their needs, understand their motivators. And build a picture of that. And the best way we find is to use sticky notes, is to throw stuff on the wall and pull stuff down, work it out together in teams. We then took those sticky notes. I think some people may be referring to where we had the capabilities and the initiatives on one side and the sticky notes on the other. There were maybe 70, 80 ideas, we analyzed them, we brought them together, went through a loop, went back to the project team and said, we're in this area. This is what we're thinking. Is this okay? Oh, you might have missed something, or can you put a bit more emphasis in here? So, I think sticky notes are a great tool for helping to prioritize things as well. Great tools for prioritization. One thing, actually, if I may, one thing I didn't talk about in the presentation there was how we prioritized the initiatives for the roadmap. We had a big list of 20-something initiatives and we had a workshop with decision makers where we created a grid of perceived value versus feasibility. And went through each one by one to say, is this relative to the other, more or less valuable, more or less feasible? And that really engaged these decision makers in a two-and-a-half-hour workshop to prioritize 20-something initiatives. And I'd been in a workshop in situations where it can take organization weeks to prioritize 20 things. So, to get it done in two hours, post its work. Right. Okay, thank you. Next question. How did you decide to use Togaf in the first place? Was it a standard of BITC? It didn't sound like it was, but was it a standard of those? Or was there some other driver to use it as opposed to other EA approaches? So, I think Togaf was the approach that I used, something that I was familiar with, as I mentioned. Togaf has been mentoring me through, to build my knowledge, build my understanding of it. It provides a really good structure. It gets past the fear of the blank page. And it also enabled us to ensure we considered business information, application technology, even if, in the final reckoning, information and technology were not discussed to a great level of detail in the strategy, it was very much around the application architecture and around their business architecture. Right, but at least they were considered and there were phases that you didn't need to spend so much time on. Yeah, okay. Based on your experience at BITC, would you be interested in contributing a design thinking guide to the Togaf body of knowledge? Is this a volunteering or a volunteering? I definitely, whoever is suggesting that, better not be Paul. It's not Paul, actually. It's not Paul, okay. No, just come find me in the brain and we can have a chat. Yeah, okay. It must have been challenging to engage with the stakeholders quickly. Did you need to explain Togaf to them or was Togaf a framework under the covers? Definitely a framework under the covers. And I think it was, Brian yesterday was talking about not selling business architecture to the C-suite. It was, use it and when people go, this works, this is good. Right. Then you go, oh, tada, it's Togaf, isn't it awesome? Great, okay. This is about tools. Were all of the BITC models developed in PowerPoint or are some of them in another tool? PowerPoint and Excel. I personally don't have experience of using an Archimate, a Spark CA. I think it's just size of project. They're not that complicated. Right, okay. I was interested in tools. There are people in the exhibition area who would love to talk to you about them more. How frequently do you think the BITC models and roadmap will need to be updated? I think that if they come back to their roadmap in two, three years, as I actually talked to Oliver about this recently, I think that would work. They have an annual planning cycle. A roadmap is a three to five year roadmap. One of the key things is we didn't lock down on these dates in the roadmap. We talked about phases because you're a charity. To be honest, many organisations will struggle to hit a specific date. My massive one and a half meter of size, 1.6 meter roadmap is now out of date. I don't think that's crucial. The answer to the question is give them a couple of years. I think they'll be ready to refresh it. It may not be quite so. See what's changed, see what's stayed the same. Give them a chance to live with it for a while and see how useful it is. Question that comes up quite a lot about architecture and pace, let's say, agility. Agile approaches to architecture. You said at the beginning this was six weeks. They want it in six weeks and it's annual part time. Clearly this wasn't a long drawn out process. Can you say a bit more about whether it was easy, difficult or anything else to do it in that kind of timeframe? I think the time pressures were very much, it's a grant. It's a corporate social responsibility thing. I have billable commitments as many of us do. I think by having togaphers that we never had a blank page. You always said I need to understand the business architecture. I want to just lift the covers on information, on application technology. Okay, we need to look round and go more detailed in these spaces. Always having an idea that it was only going to be six weeks. Therefore I need to have these milestones. Focus the mind because of the structure that it provided. Knowing what you have to get through with the phases provides you with another check as well. That's the spirit rather than the letter. Of course. Last question that is so far unless one comes in. You talked about togaph allowing you to ask valuable questions. In a similar way we often hear a big value of it is it provides a common language for people working on a project. Was that the case here? Was that another of its values? I think that it may be the common language in the project team, which just by the nature of consultancy hadn't worked together before. We didn't have togaph 9.1 stacked up in our project room. I think it was more that common language when we came to the architecture around naming conventions. I think that came from Tim, who was our very experienced technical architect, was able to refer to things in a generic way, which is quite important because now business in the community can say, we want one of them, we want a sales force, we want a CRM. It allows you to describe it as well. James, we're going to leave it there. Thank you very much James Conway.