6.4 Stage II: Developing the Foundations of the Final Technology Strategy
The overall objective of the second stage of the strategy project was to
develop the necessary foundation for formulation of the final technology
strategy. A lot of information had to be retrieved, read and made sense
of, enterprise models had to be developed (according to the method M2),
assessments had to be made to answer the questions, and alternative versions
of the final deliverable had to be worked out. Most of the work (in terms
of man-months) was spent in this part of the project.
The second stage may be seen as a diverging stage, with focus
on being creative and open to differences in approaches and content. This
as opposed to stage III (section ), focusing on integration and formulation
of the final technology strategy (being a converging stage).
Stage II is presented in terms of workshop 1 (WS1, section 6.4.1),
activities related to enterprise modeling in one of the work groups (WG
Gas, section 6.4.2), workshop 2 (WS2, section 6.4.3), and finally
a summary of activities in the PG running in parallel with activities in
the work groups (section 6.4.4).
6.4.1 Workshop 1: Establishing the work groups
Workshop 1 (WS1) was a full-day meeting held early in January. Recalling
, the workshop was the first in a series of three and was followed by a
period of intensive work and communication between the project participants.
Purpose and participants
The overall purpose of WS1 was twofold: First, to organize the actors
in the three work groups and make them start working, and second, to seek
to develop a shared understanding among all project participants of the
purpose of the technology strategy and the work to be done. Hence, a shared
understanding of the project was also explicitly sought (O1),
not only of the enterprise.
The actors taking part in the workshop were the process group, the three
work groups, a representative from the BoT, a representative from the corporate
staff, and representatives from four business units that already had developed
technology strategies for their particular areas. All in all, there were
about 55 actors at the workshop.
The work groups
Three work groups (WG) were formally established at WS1:
All three work groups were expected to have close contact with and report
directly to the process group. There was also considerable overlap between
the process group and the work groups (all three WG leaders and some of
the WG members also participated in the PG). The WGs and the PG also communicated
through the project database and directly with each other (email, telephone,
ad hoc meetings).
WG Gas were assigned the task of developing the necessary foundation
for a technology strategy meeting the demands related to gas business,
WG Oil were responsible for the technology needs related to oil
WG International focused on technological needs that deviated from
national needs, i.e., doing business in other parts of the world not directly
comparable to the Norwegian continental shelf.
The corporate staff representative
The corporate staff representative worked with corporate strategy issues
on a daily basis. His task was to present the first step in the method
M2 51; an overview of the business challenges to the Statoil corporation.
The business unit representatives
The task of the representatives from the four business units was to present
the strategies developed within their own units, in addition to offering
some advice based on their own experiences with technology strategy development
Agenda and accomplishment of the workshop
The workshop was conducted in accordance with the agenda that was worked
out and distributed in advance. Hence, the agenda provides a good overview
Introduction by the PG leader.
The representative from BoT presented their expectations to the project
and the challenges of strategy development as perceived from the customer
Method and terminology by a PG member.
The corporate staff representative presented the corporate business strategy.
Presentations of technology strategies from the four business units.
The work groups were organized and had their first meeting.
1. Introduction to the workshop
The introduction to the workshop provided background information about
the project and purposes of the workshop. Various facts, like the existence
of a Lotus Notes database, were provided, together with a vision of how
the technology strategy ought to be a natural part of the way decision
makers work. Hence, the importance of usefulness and applicability
of the strategy was stressed.
2. Customer expectations and requirements
The BoT representative stressed two needs that the strategy project had
to address: The need for improved business understanding and the
need for holistic thinking. Both needs concerned the organization
on the whole, not only the project groups. Although not explicitly associated
with enterprise modeling by the BoT representative, they are clearly objectives
of enterprise modeling (O1 and O4, respectively).
3. Method and terminology
The PG representative presented the main steps in the method M2
and definitions of the most central terms. Some claims made in the presentation
were the following:
There is a need for a shared understanding of the enterprise (in
the project group) in order to develop a high quality strategy (O1).
Involvement of the organization is of utmost importance in order
to ensure agreement and effective use of the final strategy.
Shared terminology and simple methods for strategy development
are prerequisites for success, and posing questions (A9)
is a major part of the method.
4. Presentation of the corporate business strategy
The corporate staff representative provided an overview of both the history
of the company and the current and future business challenges. His presentation
was very convincing and clear, as was also commented by PG members after
The presentation was essentially an act of storytelling (A22)
-- how Statoil had evolved, what had been the important decisions, the
current activities in Statoil, strengths and weaknesses, and future challenges
and changes to the company. The presentation was closed by a number of
questions asked from the audience. The questions expressed needs for clarification,
doubts about the validity of elements of the story and comments on possibilities.
These were countered or commented upon by the representative. Hence, the
session was not mere presentation of the reality seen by the representative,
but just as much presentation of the views held by the audience.
The staff representative was also allowed to say a few words after the
official agenda had been closed. He wanted to summarize his impressions
from the workshop and state what he perceived to be the most important
issues for the process group and the work groups to engage in.
Examples and metaphors were two artifacts that he asked
the project groups to develop. By examples he meant short stories illustrating
how technology had been used and played a decisive role in successful operation,
or alternatively and equally important, how opportunities had been wasted
due to lack of technology or a strategy. By metaphors was meant alternative
images of the organization and their behavior. His main concern was the
pedagogical aspect of the strategy -- to make people really understand
the technology strategy and implications to the organization and work processes
(i.e., to be able to internalize the organizational reality envisioned
by the strategy).
5. Presentation of existing technology strategies
A statement made by all four representatives was that effective involvement
and sell-in of the strategy would be difficult to achieve. To make people
really understand and get engaged in the process was seen as the major
challenge to the project groups.
The need for improved business understanding (O1) was
restated by two of the representatives, and holistic thinking (O4)
was also stressed by one of the them. To illustrate the need for holistic
thinking, a drawing of physical infrastructure on the Norwegian continental
shelf was presented and the relationships between some of the elements
discussed in more detail. The drawing is discussed below (M3).
6. Organization and kick-off for work groups
After the summary held by the staff representative, a number of the participants
left the workshop. Only the work groups and the process group stayed to
plan and organize the work schedule ahead. All actors were given about
1000 pages of documents 51; existing strategies, copies of foils from the
meeting, the status report developed by the process group, formal guidelines
for strategy work in Statoil, description of a technique for effective
group work, etc. Also included was the project plan M1 and the method
The work groups then met for about an hour, discussing their mission
and how to proceed. Administrative tasks, like presentation of actors,
election of a group leader and planning the next meetings were also accomplished.
After the work group meetings, they all met in plenary and summarized
their plans and how they understood their own role. The workshop was then
Model of physical infrastructure -- M3
One of the representatives from the business units introduced an enterprise
model in his presentation -- a drawing of the physical infrastructure related
to gas production at the Norwegian continental shelf (M3, see figure
6.5). The model includes all major physical installations of a gas production
chain: Reservoirs, production platforms, pipelines, processing plants,
compressors, gas stores, household customers (small) and industrial customers
(large). Similar models had also been developed for the oil, methanol,
and petrochemical business.
These models were not developed as a part of the technology strategy
project, but adopted from previous projects in the organization. The introduction
of the model did not cause any discussions of validity or requests for
Figure 6.5: Drawing of physical installations in gas production
in the North Sea -- M3
(text in Norwegian)
Concerning actual use of the M3 model, the presenting actor placed
the model on the overhead projector and used the it to structure his
presentation (A23, O7). The important part of the information
he presented was not in the model, but in his oral presentation (concerning
research areas along the production chain). This is a noteworthy observation
on the use of enterprise models, as it reoccurred in a number of settings
and with a number of different models.
6.4.2 Enterprise modeling in WG Gas
As the method that had been developed by the process group (M2)
prescribed enterprise modeling as a step in the project accomplishment,
and the method was to be carried out by the work groups, the activities
in one of the work groups -- WG Gas -- were studied more closely to observe
how they developed and used their models. The WG held five formal meetings
during the month proceeding WS1.
The presentation of enterprise modeling in WG Gas starts with an overview
of the WG actors, followed by an enterprise model that was developed and
used extensively by the WG throughout the project (M4). The presentation
is closed by an outline of additional observations relevant to enterprise
Participants in WG Gas
WG Gas was comprised of 8 actors. They were all experienced people that
had worked in the company for some time, and all worked within the gas
business (one of the actors was a chief engineer). The actors had been
chosen so that they in combination covered the whole production chain.
|Two of the actors worked in organizational units related to gas
resources and production, one of the actors worked with transport
systems and distribution, one with refinement, one with
sales and marketing, and three with research on elements
of the gas business.
Two of the actors also participated in the process group (the WG leader
and the chief engineer) and had taken part in the preparations. Later,
a third actor from WG Gas also joined the PG. Hence, the overlap between
the groups was significant.
Intermediate work group model of the production chain - M4
The first outline model of the Statoil business created by WG Gas is presented
in figure 6.6. The production chain can be recognized as running from left
to right, and the "sales & markets" ellipsis located down below the
chain symbolizes that there are customers willing to buy all kinds of intermediate
Figure 6.6: Intermediate enterprise model by WG Gas -- M4
The model was created by the work group leader and remained unchanged
except for some minor discussions concerning the "Distribution" element
("Distribution" was decomposed into two more specific elements). Also,
initially, the "Sales & markets" was placed after "Refinement", but
was moved as a consequence of recognizing that all intermediate products
have customers. Note the match between the model elements and the professional
backgrounds of the WG actors.
For each of the elements of the M4 model, an additional matrix
was developed. Each matrix provided an assessment of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, threats and critical
success factors for competing in the specific area given by the enterprise
model. These matrices were also considered to be part of the enterprise
The M4 model was mainly used for structuring (O7).
Examples of tasks that imply structuring include:
Division of work
Many of the tasks performed by the work group were divided among the
WG actors. The actor with background from (and interest in) a particular
area (a model element) was assigned the responsibility of making assessments
of relevant technologies, strengths, weaknesses, etc. within that area.
The work accomplished by individual actors was presented and discussed
in plenary sessions in the WG.
Setting the agenda
The agenda of a meeting was usually structured according to the enterprise
model. E. g., the actor working on technological challenges in transport
systems was asked to present his contribution between the actor dealing
with production and the presentation of distribution. Which
end of the model to start with differed between meetings, as the ones presenting
first received most attention (actors got tired).
Sequencing of presentations
When the WG leader presented the work done by WG Gas to the process
group, the enterprise model provided a sequence for his presentation, and
thereby structured the information that was conveyed.
Ensuring coverage of the entire production chain
By checking with the model, the WG leader could ensure himself that
all main elements of the production chain had been attended to.
|An observation from WG Gas was that all the elements in the M4
model received comparable amounts of attention. Areas that were outside
the professional interests of the WG members were not discussed to the
An indication of the importance of the relationship between the background
and interests of people in the project group and the issues discussed occurred
when one of the work groups were fortified with an actor working with information
technology. This event resulted in significantly more attention being directed
towards IT. The observation was also made and stated by the leader of that
An observation related to M4 was that the validity of the model
was never questioned -- it was created once and adopted without any discussions
or problems (just as the M3 model had been). Another observation
was that the modeling language used for the matrices associated with M4
was tailored to the needs perceived to exist in the strategy project (success
criteria, strengths, weaknesses, etc.) Hence, the WG developed their own
modeling language. The same occurred in the other two work groups -- all
three groups developed models of the production chain, and all three models
looked a bit different.
Outline of activities in WG Gas
The main motivation for studying activities in WG Gas was to identify activities
that could be categorized as acts of enterprise modeling. The following
observations played a role in modeling (particularly in the sense-making
Categorization of assessments.
Enactment of the strategy development method.
Additional objectives for enterprise modeling.
1. Categorization of assessments -- A12
Although the work group experienced few problems with representation of
the overall gas production chain, they encountered some problems with assessments
of strengths, weaknesses, etc. How to categorize a given element was not
obvious, and the same problems were experienced by the other two work groups
|Is deregulation of markets an opportunity or a threat? On one
hand, it may be considered an opportunity, as Statoil may enter markets
that are closed at the current point in time. On the other hand, deregulation
is a threat, as competitors may enter Statoil's markets.
2. Enactment of the strategy development method -- A24
The work group started out by following the strategy development method
M2 as ordered by the process group (including the actors participating
in both the PG and WG Gas). However, as the work progressed, the questions
of M2 and the accompanying techniques were experienced as difficult
to answer and employ. The problem was to make the assessments required
to answer the questions. Either the assessments were on a too high level
of abstraction, or they became too many to be effectively handled in any
diagram. The domain was just too complex at the required level of abstraction
to be practically manageable using the techniques.
|A metaphor proposed in one of the work groups was that making the assessments
of importance and position of different technologies was to do the pools.
The activities were characterized by the same degree of uncertainty and
Difficulties with using the prescribed method were experienced and stated
by all three work groups.
3. Summarizing -- A13
A frequent activity in WG Gas was to step back and summarize what had happened
so far. Summaries were given as a part of presentations, when new actors
occasionally took part in the meetings, in minutes from meetings, or when
communicating with the other work groups or the process group.
Summaries seemed to play a particular role in the strategy development
work, as the work process itself was rather unstructured most of the time.
As noted above, the M4 model was used to structure discussions at
a high level of abstraction, but the discussions within each element was
at times rather chaotic. The work process had more character of posing
questions than answering them, and that is consistent with the observation
that the work group did not know the product they were going to develop
(i.e., a work process dominated by design risk and information).
The role of summarizing as a part of presentations was also recognized
explicitly by one of the WG actors:
"It is positive to have to present the problems, we have to
think clearer then."
4. Additional objectives of enterprise modeling
Enterprise modeling as a part of technology strategy development was adopted
without questions by WG Gas (and the other WGs as well). The perceived
importance of creating descriptions of both current and future business
activities in order to understand was stated repeatedly in discussions
During meetings in WG Gas, two additional objectives or applications
of enterprise modeling were stated:
Enterprise models as rationales for decisions made in the technology
strategy (O2). By creating descriptions of the business activities,
the WG meant that sell-in of the strategy to the future users would become
easier. Instead of only stating "this is what we are going to do", one
could state that "this is what we are going to do, because70;" and
at the same time refer to elements represented in an enterprise model.
In this way, enterprise models were used to make sense of the strategy.
Enterprise models as means to navigate and access information in
the strategy document (O5). As the process group decided to create
a World Wide Web version of the strategy, several of the WG actors wanted
to make the model "clickable" (in the sense that additional information
about an element became available when selecting a particular model element).
|When selecting the "Refinement" element in the M4 enterprise
model, one of the WG actors wanted to have the business challenges, critical
success factors, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related
to gas refinement displayed on his computer screen. This was implemented
in the final Web version of the strategy document (but using another enterprise
6.4.3 Workshop 2: Aligning the work groups
Workshop 2 (WS2) was held about three weeks after the first workshop.
It was organized as a two-day session at a conference hotel, and all participants
were expected to stay all the time (ensuring availability of actors).
Purpose and participants
The main purpose of WS2 was to present the work done in the WGs,
and thereby align the three work groups. Another purpose was to prepare
a presentation to the customer (BoT) to be held shortly after the workshop.
The participants were the process group and the three work groups. A
total of 34 actors were present. The workshop was intended as a workshop,
i.e., not just to inform each other of progress, but to work
together for two full days.
Selected observations from WS2
A general observation from WS2 was that all three work groups had
experienced problems with answering the questions as part of the M2
method. There were perceived difficulties with either being too concrete
(and have to face considerable complexity) or too abstract (and superficial).
In brief, some frustration had been built up, and the following issues
either describe the manifest of the frustration or means to deal with it:
Use of terminology.
Confused realities -- reality as it is, ought to be, or will become.
Creation of intermediate artifacts.
Summaries and storytelling.
Use of creative techniques.
Enterprise modeling as a means to improve decision-making.
1. Use of terminology
The terminology that had been defined in the preparatory stage had been
attempted applied, but was difficult to use. The terms defined in the terminology
were used differently by different actors, and the definitions were difficult
to remember. The terminology had not been internalized, it had not become
a part of the professional language of the actors.
|A specific observation related to the questions on the method foil
M2 was the answers given when asking for assessments of competence,
technology, technology driver and business challenge.
In one situation, the same concept was categorized as being all of the
above, indicating that their understanding of both the concept used in
the question and the answer was not clear.
The recurring problems with terminology will be discussed in more detail
in section and in the analysis in section , as the definition and use of
terms are directly relevant to enterprise modeling.
2. Confused realities
Another observation from WS2 was a confusion of realities -- what
is valid knowledge about the Statoil corporation and the environment that
Statoil do business within? There were three kinds of realities observed
in the discussions:
The difference between realities is particularly important when making
assessments -- e.g., what are the core competencies of Statoil today? How
good are Statoil concerning health, environment and safety? In particular
the difference between "as-is" reality and "should-be" reality must be
recognized, as decisions otherwise may be made on false premises (i.e.,
when there is a mismatch between what is and what should be). If modeling
a "should-be" reality, the distinction between a descriptive and a prescriptive
model is blurred.
"As-is", i.e., what the actors considered as true.
"Should-be", i.e., what the actors considered ought to be true.
"To-be", i.e., what the actors agree is not true now, but it will or may
be true in the future due to actions taken.
Some assessments concerning "as-is" reality were more like qualified
"guesstimates" than documented facts. This was inevitable -- making the
assessments would imply massive amounts of work, and the assessments were
needed in a particular situation, in a meeting. Hence, qualified assumptions
had to be made. When the actors were not sure about the domain, they referred
to what "should-be" the case.
Recall that the actors participating in the strategy project were highly
experienced and knowledgeable employees. Hence, the observation that assessments
sometimes had the character of "guesstimates" had nothing to do with inexperienced
3. Creation of intermediate artifacts -- A17
WS2 was dominated by activities categorized as attempts at making
sense of aspects of the project -- the final deliverable, assessments,
core competencies, etc.
One observation was the way of working: A number of intermediate
artifacts were created, being simple drawings, diagrams, structured
text, etc. attempting to structure the issues under consideration. The
artifacts were created by one or a few actors, presented to the audience,
providing feedback. While one actor was presenting his proposition, other
actors might already be working on alternatives.
Another observation was that the intermediate artifacts were not necessarily
compatible -- they were variants over a theme, but one artifact was not
just a refinement of another. They included or left out different elements
and structured the elements differently. Hence, the variation between intermediate
artifacts was significant.
|The method foil M2 had a number of intermediate variants. The
question part of the method (step three) did not provide any easy-to-follow
sequence, and different propositions for methods that included some or
all of the questions were provided. They all attempted to provide a logically
structured answer to the questions "what have we done? what are we doing?
what are we going to do?".
Most of the intermediate artifacts remained intermediate -- they had
very short lives and were not included in any of the deliverables. They
played a role only in the sense-making process.
4. Summaries and storytelling
As a part of creating intermediate artifacts, summaries were frequently
given (A13). When giving a presentation, actors often provided an
account of what had been done to answer the questions or solve the problems
earlier in the project as a part of their presentations. The summaries
seemed to be effective and necessary to make once in a while to really
understand the work so far.
Related to the creation of summaries, a number of stories (A22)
were told during the workshop. The stories either reported on experiences
from the use or provisioning of technology in the organization, or envisioned
situations that would require some kind of action or information from the
actors. Stories were also used for recapitulating work done in other meetings
|One of the stories envisioned a hypothetical meeting with the Statoil
CEO Harald Norvik in an elevator. If he asked the question "What is your
proposal for Statoil's technology strategy?" and you only had the two minutes
on the way up in the elevator, what would you say? The use of such a story
exemplifies an attempt to extract the essence of the work performed in
the project, i.e., a summary.
5. Use of creative techniques -- A8
Late in the first day of WS2, there was a discussion concerning
what might be the drivers of technological development. A lot of answers
were proposed, but none were widely agreed upon. There were also discussions
on how to find the drivers (i.e., the methodical aspect).
The solution was to let one of the actors, a trained facilitator in
use of creative techniques, organize and run the session. He proposed the
use of brainstorming and concept clustering (classification) to arrive
at an answer to the quest for technology drivers. The accomplishment of
the brainstorming and concept clustering is discussed in more detail in
sections 9.2 and 9.4.
The outcome of the session was 103 technology drivers divided into 13
categories. The session was judged by the participants as very satisfying
and constructive (the facilitator stated that he sensed that they scored
high on the "feel-good" factor).
The project groups had employed brainstorming in some situations earlier,
but not as structured as under the supervision of the facilitator. They
had also been loosely introduced to the Quality Function Deployment technique,
but not used it to any degree (QFD is discussed in more detail in section
6. Enterprise modeling as a means to improve decision-making (O6)
Improved decision-making based on improved understanding of the
business (O6) was suggested as yet another purpose for enterprise
modeling by one of the actors during WS2. By enterprise model was
meant the overall production chain model M4 combined with the assessment
matrices that had been developed for each element of the model. The following
statement illustrates the actor's idea of how enterprise modeling may be
"Most people in Statoil are clever people. They will make the
right decisions if they only realize what they and others are doing."
Hence, enterprise modeling was seen as a means to make people realize what
both they themselves and their colleagues were doing, being an enabler
of improved decision-making in the organization.
The outcome of WS2 was a wealth of ideas and material to be used
in the development of the technology strategy. The development method M2
had also been questioned and debated, so there was awareness that the method
was not unproblematic.
The outcome of the workshop was presented to the BoT a few days after
the workshop. Their feedback and other activities in the PG will be presented
6.4.4 Activities in the process group
The PG arranged meetings in parallel with the WG meetings. Efficient communication
between the process group and the work groups was ensured by the previously
mentioned overlap between groups, WS2 and finally the project database.
The following observations from the PG are relevant to enterprise modeling:
Studies of other organizations.
Development of a communication model.
Establishing WG Deliverable.
Discussions of the development method.
Feedback from the customer.
1. Studies of other organizations -- A16
Three of the PG actors, one from BoT, and the three WG leaders arranged
a travel abroad to study how technology strategies had been developed and
implemented in other organizations. One of their large suppliers and a
first rate US academic institution were visited to learn more. The travel
lasted about one week and was reported as highly successful to the rest
of the process group and the customers.
The traveling actors brought with them a number of lessons and impressions
from the travel, and one of them was the frequently stated need for shared
understanding (O1) of how business is conducted in the organization.
This was stated by both the supplier and the academics that were visited,
and the travelers reported that the suppliers seemed to have this understanding
of their own business. This was assessed from speaking to a number of different
2. Development of a communication model -- M5
Two of the PG actors also worked on a communication model to be used in
the project. describes the topmost level, and it was accompanied by a more
detailed matrix referring to organizational roles within the company,
what they ought to be contacted about (e.g., for comments upon a preliminary
version of the strategy), how (i.e., the forum or medium to use) and when
they ought to be involved.
Figure 6.7: High-level communication model -- M5
The communication model M5 can be read as follows: The large
arrow marked with "Strategy development" represents the development phase
of the project. During the development phase, there was internal communication
in and between the project groups (the double helix) and frequent external
communication with the rest of the organization (presentation --
A19 -- is denoted by vertical arrows outwards and feedback
-- A20 -- by vertical arrows inwards). The external communication
was mediated through dedicated workshops, a Lotus Notes database suited
for both presentation and feedback, an organization-wide news bulletin,
and "word of mouth".
When the final deliverable had been completed (the cloud in ), it was
officially released for use and further comments in the organization (the
project was entering the dissemination phase). Feedback was expected as
decision makers gained experience from using the strategy, leading to improved
versions over time.
An observation from the accompanying communication matrix was that face-to-face
meetings were considered to be the most effective forum for communication
of the technology strategy. The plan described 10 organizational roles
that were to be involved, and meetings were proposed as the most suitable
forum in all 10 cases. In three of the cases, the Lotus Notes database
was listed as an additional forum. This indicates a strong belief in the
necessity of high bandwidth when communication is intended to be two-way
and intensive (presentation and feedback).
The Web version of the strategy (see figure 6.9) included dedicated
feedback functionality, enabling people to comment on the strategy directly
as they read it, via email or a bulletin board system. The Web version
will be discussed in section 6.5.2.
The strategy document was to be accompanied by an organization development
plan. This plan was intended to consider communication in the strategy
dissemination phase in more detail.
3. Establishing WG Deliverable
In order to handle the challenges of creating a communication package instead
of a traditional paper document, a fourth work group was established 51;
WG Deliverable. They worked on formulation of contents, structure and layout
of the final deliverable (both paper and a World Wide Web version). Most
participants came from the PG. However, the structure and layout of the
final deliverable did not receive much attention compared to contents.
The major problem was to decide what to write in the final deliverable.
4. Discussing the development method
As opposed to the project plan M1, the method foil M2 and
the accompanying techniques were heavily disputed. As observed in WG Gas,
the main problem was that the work groups experienced great difficulties
in trying to answer the questions on the foil and in using the proposed
techniques to answer them (i.e., making the required assessments). Both
the techniques and the questions made sense to the work groups, but they
were difficult to apply in practice. The WG leaders reported the problems
back to the PG, making M2 an issue also in the PG.
5. Feedback from the customer
After WS2, representatives from the PG had a presentation for the
BoT. The BoT supported the decisions made in the PG, backing their work.
Still, they were not completely satisfied with the use of terminology.
The PG representatives were asked to use more examples to illustrate
the meaning of terms.
6.4.5 Concluding the divergent stage
Stage II resulted in a vast diversity of intermediate artifacts and propositions
for elements of the technology strategy, summarized in three intermediate
deliverables, one from each of the three work groups. The following were
observed in stage II:
Shared understanding (O1) was restated as the most important
objective of enterprise modeling in the strategy project.
Enterprise models as means to structure work, presentations, meetings,
etc. was observed as an actual, but not intended use. Observing unintended
use of artifacts implies that the artifacts have been attributed meaning
and functionality not originally foreseen by the actors.
The models M3, M4 and M5 were introduced, all being
very simple and non-contro-versial. The "representation" part of modeling
was not the one considered problematic. The most problematic part was "sense-making"
(in particular the creation of assessment tables to the M4 model
and the enactment of M2).
Frustration concerning the definition and use of terminology was
The rapid iteration through construction, presentation, interpretation
and feedback was observed as a way of working when sense-making
was the problem, resulting in a number of intermediate artifacts.