A Post-Project Review of a Business Analyst

1
INF80014 CONTEMPORARY
ISSUES IN BUSIUNESS
ANALYSIS, S2 2021
ASSIGNMENT 1
INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
Assignment Submission and Weighting Details: See Unit Outline
Length:1,500 ± 10% words
ASSIGNMENT TASK
Please read the attached case study and complete the following 2 tasks
You are a business analyst and have been engaged by Bank1 to do a Post-Project review.
1) Applying the following Knowledge Areas of the BABOK (enterprise analysis,
elicitation, requirements analysis and solution assessment and validation), analyse why
the architects in Bank1 were unable to build stakeholder commitment and support for the
enterprise architecture implementation (EAI). 2) With reference to the above knowledge
areas, what would you do differently to ensure stakeholder commitment and support for
the EAI?
Please refer to the assignment rubric for additional information.

2
BANK1 ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
IMPLEMENTATION CASE STUDY
Introduction
• Background to the case: This includes information about the organization, its
operations and structure. Though it is important that the case studies be understood in
their wider organizational context, background information is presented in a way to
ensure that the identity of the organization and participants is not revealed.
• Information about the case study presentation
The discussion of results from the data analysis is presented in four themes. The first
theme, EAI work – the architect’s perspective, highlights the architects’ view of their
role in the EAI and how they conceptualize their implementation work. The second
theme: Practice work in the architecture team is focused on the nature of the interactions
amongst the architects and highlights the architect’s perspective on the EAI approach,
tools and documentation. The third theme, Framing EAI work – business and technology
staff’s perspective, highlights business and technology staff’s perceptions and
expectations of the implementation roles and practices of the architects. The fourth
theme, Interactions with business and technology staff, highlights the issues that reveal
the nature of the relationship between the architects, business and technology staff.
Case Study: Bank1
Bank1 has over 48,000 employees, operates in more than 30 different countries including
Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific, Europe, Dubai, United States of America and has
over eight million customers worldwide. At the beginning of 2011, the CEO of Bank1

3
announced a new five-year strategic plan that required radical change to the business
model and structure of the organization and would see it operating in new international
markets. Such a radical change had significant ramifications for the existing enterprise
architecture (EA). The organization was restructured from sixteen business units to four
business divisions with greater emphasis on international markets. Many of the
technology management and operational functions that supported the sixteen business
units were to be disbanded and many of the technology systems and environments they
managed and maintained were to be upgraded or decommissioned. Previously the
sixteen business units had operated independently, but under the new strategy there was
greater emphasis on common platforms, applications and data sharing.
Producing the EA Plans
After the announcement of the new strategy, the architects met several times over six
weeks with the executives of the business divisions to understand their requirements.
According to the Deputy CEO, who was involved in these meetings, the business
executives and architects discussed the business process, product and service
requirements of the different business divisions, and also their customer data and
information requirements. For the next four and half months (until June 2011), the
architects developed an integrated set of EA models that described the desired systems
and platforms, including the data, application, infrastructure, integration, storage and
security specifications required to support the business divisions. In June/ July of 2011,
the architects presented the EA plans to the senior executives of the various business
divisions who approved them.
Implementing the EA
After the approval of the EA plans, the architects were involved in two significant
activities. Firstly, they selected the new software and hardware products to build the
systems and platforms specified in the EA plans. This task, which began in June/ July
2011, was expected to finish by December 2011. In December 2011, the architects
presented the plans for the selected hardware and software products and the programs of
work to the senior executives of the business divisions for approval. However, these
executives were reluctant to commit to funding the hardware and software products and
the programs of work specified by the architects, and by the end of 2011 the
implementation of the EA had stalled.

4
The second significant activity that the architects were involved with was the
Architecture Review Board (ARB). In June 2011, the CIO established the ARB to
review the hardware and software changes proposed by existing and new technology
projects at Bank1. Senior members of the architecture team staffed the ARB and the
ARB became an important approval step in the funding of technology projects at Bank1.
Approval from the ARB also gave projects access to critical implementation facilities
like the development, testing and production environments. Existing technology projects
that were already underway, as well new technology projects were required to submit
their proposed hardware and software changes to the ARB for approval. From its
inception, the architects used the ARB as an instrument to stabilize the technology
environment of Bank1, thus ensuring the relevance of the EA plans and the selected
technology products and implementation plans. The architects effectively used the ARB
to stop new technology projects from beginning and existing technology projects from
implementing.
The ARB lasted approximately twelve months from June 2011 until May/ June 2012.
The interviews for this research were conducted from January 2012 until June 2012, a
period when business and technology stakeholders’ frustrations with the ARB and the
practices of the architects were growing.
The following diagram (See Figure 5.1) provides a timeline of significant events from
the announcement of the new strategy up to the time when the new organizational
strategy was expected to deliver its forecast profits. The timeline also identifies the
period during which the research interviews were conducted.

5
Figure 5.1 Timeline for new strategy and EA
2011 2012 2013 2017
New)Strategy)Announced
Formation)of)the)Architecture)
Review)Board)(ARB)
Architecture)Review)Board)
Disbanded
2014
Acceptance)of)the)EA)plans
Architects)begin)development)
of)the)EA)plans
Tentative)acceptance)of)the)
technology)components
Research)
interviews
Time)allowed)for)the)deployment)of)
the)new)hardware)and)software BeneHits)of)new)strategy)expected

6
The following diagram (See Figure 5.2) situates the architecture team within the organizational structure
of Bank1 and shows at what levels and areas of Bank1 this research was conducted. To preserve the
anonymity of Bank1, the individual business divisions are referred to generically.
Figure 5.2 Situating the architects at Bank1
1.1.1 Information About the Research Participants
For this case study, I conducted thirteen interviews of forty-five to sixty minutes duration. The
interviews were conducted between January 2012 and June 2012. I also attended the weekly EA team
meetings for a period of four months from December 2011 – March 2012 and had access to EA
documentation including the EA methodology documentation, architectural models, EAI plans for all
business divisions, architecture review board templates and also the architecture team charter. Table 5.1
provides a summary of interview participants and their role in the EAI.
Participant Role Role description
Legend BU = Business Unit T = Technology A =
Architect
A1 Head Architecture team Has overall responsibility for EA plan
development and EAI activities of the
architecture team. Leads a team of 25
CEO
CIO Business
Division A
Deputy CEO
Enterprise
Architects
Corporate
Services ....
Solution Delivery
Services
Solution
Architecture
Services
EAI Projects
Organisational Levels
Project
Management Office
Business
Division B
Business
Division C
Business
Division D
Specifying technology projects/
Monitoring and Supporting
Project resources required to
implement EAI projects
Senior Executive level
General Management level
Project/ Operational level
Project Architects Network/ Security
Specialists
Project Managers/
BAs
= Interview participants
Infrastructure ....

7
architects and also Heads the ARB.
A2 Senior Architect
(Division A)
Responsible for planning and
coordinating EA and EAI activities for
Division A.
A3 Senior Architect
(Country A)
Responsible for planning and
coordinating EA and EAI activities for
Country A.
A4 Architect (Division B) Responsible for the production of
documentation outputs associated with
the selection and implementation of
hardware and software products for
Division B.
A5 Practice Manager
Architecture Team
Responsible for the day-to-day
administration of the architecture
team. Also responsible for reporting
and communications associated with
the EA and EAI.
BU1 Deputy CEO Responsible for stakeholder and
regulatory matters, deputizes for CEO
as necessary. Worked closely with
architects in the development of the
EA plans.
BU2 Head of Group
Operations
Has overall responsibility for
Technology at Bank1. Line manager
of CIO and Head of architecture.
Reports directly to CEO.
BU3 Head of Strategy Responsible for analysis and planning
associated with the strategic direction
of Bank1. Also responsible for
outsourcing arrangements.
BU4 Head of Transformation
Projects
Liaises with the Head of the
architecture team and senior architects
to plan and coordinate programs of
work associated with the EAI.
T1 Head of Solution
Delivery Services
(Group)
Responsible for management and
coordination of all technology projects
and project staff at Bank1.
T2 Head of Solution
Architecture (Division
A)
Responsible for the management and
coordination of solution architects for
Division A. These staff will be
involved in executing projects
associated with the EAI for Division
A.
T3 Senior Solution
Architect (Division B)
Leads a team of solution architects
working on various technology
projects in Division B. These staff
will be involved in EAI projects for
Division B.

8
T4 Senior Infrastructure
Architect (Division A)
Responsible for infrastructure
planning and design for Division A
and will be involved in EAI projects
for Division A.
Table 5.1 Summary of interview participants for Bank1
The Challenges of EAI Work
In this section, I discuss insights into the architects’ EAI roles and practices under three of the previously
discussed four themes,
• Framing EAI work – architects’ perspective,
• Practice work in the architecture team, and
• Framing EAI work – business and technology staff’s perspective.
Framing EAI Work – Architect’s Perspective
Comments categorized under this theme revealed how the architects perceived their EAI role and how
their worldview may have influenced both their practices and their relationships with business and
technology staff. When the architects reflected on the nature of their EAI role, they focused on their role
as enabling strategy and the importance of selecting the appropriate hardware and software products to
realize the new organizational strategy. The issues that emerged in this theme include, 1) the tendency
of the architects to focus on internal architecture team activities and processes, 2) the absence of business
and technology stakeholder involvement in the selection of the hardware and software products, 3) the
technological focus of the architect’s EAI efforts, and 4) the efforts made by the architects to try to stop
the business and technology from implementing new hardware and software into the environment.
1.1.2 Selecting the New Systems and Defining the Implementation Plans
The main objective of the architects’ EAI work, as articulated by them, was to select the new systems to
deliver the new organizational strategy and develop the implementation plans to deliver those systems
into operation. My field notes indicate that the architects allowed themselves twelve months to complete
the EA plans and begin implementing the new systems. It appears from the comments of A2 that the
architects wanted to be seen as proactive in responding to the new organizational strategy.
Once the strategy was announced, we moved fast. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be visible.