Introduction
Developing the enterprise architecture at Nationalstate Insurance is compulsory to set the ground or foundation for the future business. Of course, there are many benefits and costs regarding the development of enterprise architecture at Nationalstate Insurance. Consequently, envisioning a new change or project for company management is mandatory. Interestingly, the strategic intent or vision of the company is based on a current issue in the business process. In this particular case study analysis, the weight is on the benefits and costs of this new IT architecture. Apart from it, the case study analysis will also illustrate the business case for Seamus O’Malle, which can also be integrated with the possible IT solution.
1-Potential Benefits (and Costs) from the Establishment of an Enterprise-wide Architecture
The case revealed that National state Insurance is based on different business units. Separate strategies or visions have been shaped in these business units. Therefore, a lack of integrity and a shared system were two main problems. One of the most significant benefits of the establishment of enterprise-wide architecture is to combine departments. The purpose is to make all business departments work on the same agenda. It looks to centralize the business in terms of IT infrastructure, which can help to enhance the visibility of business outcomes. It is a fact that the business managers and leaders in these units are capable of understanding the dynamics of their business units. Therefore, due to this strategic IT consideration, these stakeholders are in a better position to share information and improve customer services. In the service industry, particularly in the insurance company, Enterprisewide Architecture is mandatory to understand customer service issues or problems (White, 2018., para 12). Another key benefit that the company can gain is to implement standards and security measures. When dealing with an immense range of customers, it looks compelling to manage data or information. In different divisions, the implementation of standards and security measures was stringent. Now, by using Enterprisewide Architecture, the company management is in a better position to standardize the whole system, such as data management (White, 2018). Business leaders aim to make the business system or procedure responsive, and of course, Enterprisewide Architecture is the best option for Jane Denton. With the perspective to stakeholders, the new system can enable communication, technical, and leadership skills, which can go in favor of the company. Appointing the senior architecture management as a chief Enterprise Architect to enable standards and practices is the right approach. In short, it can be said that standards, methods, and tools in centralized architecture are one of the pre-eminent benefits or advantages. Another purpose or advantage of this new system is to ensure good governance and a collaborative approach. In the internal business environment, the company management will be able to build a strong relationship between division leaders, and ultimately, the impact on the business outcomes will be positive (Nichol, 2018).
On the other hand, the cost of establishing and implementing the Enterprisewide Architecture is in the limelight. For instance, each business unit in this insurance giant has a separate IT structure or system. Hence, when intending to establish a centralized architecture, the company loses all these divisions or units. It can be said that the development of the centralized architecture is risky in terms of cost, as financial limitations are visible. Hence, Jane and all chief information officers have to conduct the feasibility of the centralized architecture. When combining business units and stakeholders, which contain enough business and IT knowledge, some resistance may occur. There may be several factors or reasons for this resistance. The training process for stakeholders is the best solution, but it will also increase the cost of the company. The implementation process may become complicated due to multiple factors. For instance, after losing the business units, chief information officers will not be able to develop their structure, and sequentially, it may make the procedures more complicated for both internal and external stakeholders. The claim from a senior architecture manager from Claims comes to life. He argued, “But isn’t good architecture about more than cost savings?” (McKeen & Smith, 2014., p. 185). Of course, if the system or procedure becomes complicated, all benefits mentioned above cannot be justified. The company management has to decide what technologies are to be adapted in the Enterprisewide Architecture. Consistent technology change or adaptation will increase the cost of the new system or business, and it can also cause an unfavorable impact. Vic Toregas, a prominent chief information officer, also claimed that the architecture could not exist in the ivory tower. Rapid delivery of the business is obligatory to get the advantage. If the business outcomes or delivery seems slow, it can be costly (Walt & Toit, 2007).
2-Business Case for Seamus O’Malley
In the business case for Seamus O’ Malley, the most important thing is to identify current issues or problems in the different business units. For instance, currently, Seamus O Malley has to know or understand that each business unit or division is suffering from data duplication. The decentralized approach has done well for business in the past. Nonetheless, in the contemporary business era, new enterprise systems are needed, along with an effective enterprise strategy. It looks better for the company to have separate units and practices to bring efficiency. But centralization becomes a need for any business when it comes to capable enterprise architecture. In modern business, best practices or standards are to be centralized to increase business exposure and essence (Wilkinson, 2006). These elements may compel Seamus O’ Malley to shape progressive or bold enterprise architecture strategy at Nationalstate Insurance.
Based on these factors or business issues, Seamus O’ Malley can use multiple architecture teams to work on a single platform (McKeen & Smith, 2014., p. 186). In this situation, when Jane envisions enterprisewide architecture, team building is the appropriate solution to work on a single or individual platform. For Seamus O’ Malley, cost reduction is not the single priority. Still, cost reduction can also be used as a measure of the effectiveness of the new enterprise system. Apart from problems and road map for implementation, the business case must illustrate some critical considerations. For instance, Seamus O’ Malley has to establish an enterprise governance process to set the strategy in terms of architecture, standards, and policies. Apart from it, applications, technologies, and information are also to be streamlined. Seamus O’ Malley must stimulate his capacity to monitor the whole project. The purpose of monitoring the entire project is to ensure that there are no obstacles or barriers. In this mega change project, the change is mandatory to be relevant and consistent (Grigoriu, 2006). Jane, who shaped the vision, is also aware of it. She can expect from Seamus O’ Malley that he will allow all possible variances to current standards. Developing new IT capabilities in the internal business environment is one of the main strategies. Enterprisewide architecture can be implemented by applying useful IT capabilities. During the change process at Nationalstate Insurance, Seamus O’ Malley must be aware of different emerging technologies. The whole system must be flexible, as integration with new technologies is essential to be relevant and lucrative. Finally, Seamus O’ Malley has to develop a valuable feedback mechanism to get useful insights and set the ground for further improvements (McKeen & Smith, 2014).
What’s in it for me?
The question streamlines possible solutions after the implementation of the enterprisewide architecture. Seamus O’ Malley has to find something through this vision, strategy, and execution. For instance, the best thing for him and the company is integrity, as all divisions will be operating as one unit. Another factor or element for Seamus O’ Malley and the company is the mitigation of risk in terms of security or data breaches. In an insurance company, security and privacy are two main concerns, and by using standards and practices, which are centralized, the difference can be made. Also, Seamus O’ Malley and the company will have remarkable control over business activities. When working on the individual system, the most important thing is to monitor each business unit and assess needs and requirements. In a centralized system, Seamus O’ Malley can optimize benefits for all stakeholders, including employees, managers, leaders, and customers. Therefore, when rationalizing these outcomes of enterprisewide architecture, the answer to the question “What’s in it for me?” is to be given precisely (McKeen & Smith, 2014).
Conclusion
In the end, it is to presume that Nationalstate Insurance can stimulate its capacity to envision and implement enterprisewide architecture. Unfreezing the whole system or business units and introducing the single platform is a big challenge, as it may disrupt business activities. However, the management of the company has to see a larger picture and set the foundation for a new single IT platform. In this comprehensive case study analysis, potential benefits and costs are elaborated along with necessary implications for the new system. Apart from it, a solid case for Seamus O’ Malley is made, and insights are obtained from the case study. Hopefully, Nationalstate Insurance can come up with a robust IT architecture, which can enable fast and efficient delivery of the business outcomes for customers. Internal and external business benefits must be maintained even when changing the strategy or technology.
References
Grigoriu, A. (2006). An Enterprise Architecture Development Framework: The Business Case, Framework and Best Practices for Building Your Enterprise Architecture (1 ed.). An EA Development Framework.
McKeen, J. D., & Smith, H. A. (2014). IT Strategy: Issues and Practices (3 ed.). Pearson.
Nichol, P. B. (2018, February 6). Why enterprise architecture maximizes organizational value.
Walt, P. v., & Toit, A. d. (2007). Developing a scaleable information architecture for an enterprise-wide consolidated information management platform. Aslib Proceedings, 59 (1), 80-96.
White, S. K. (2018, October 16). What is enterprise architecture? A framework for transformation.
Wilkinson, M. (2006). Designing an ‘adaptive’ enterprise architecture. BT Technology Journal, 24 (4), 81-92.
