In Aesop's fable, “The Ant and the Grasshopper,” the frugal antlaid up food for winter and survived when it got cold. Thegrasshopper didn't and died when its food ran out.

Today's CIOs must be more like the ant, but they also need a bitof grasshopper in them. They must balance the need theirorganizations have for immediate and impactful value from IT, whileat the same time building the business technology foundation thatwill insure long-term business value and capabilities.

In today's hypercompetitive marketplaces, CEOs, CFOs and CIOshave to be convinced that their business technology investments andenvironments will produce real business advantages for them, overthe short and long term. These leaders increasingly recognizethe value in employing a well-conceived and constructed enterprisearchitecture as a necessary prerequisite for the success of anymajor investment or project. In the same way that no builderworth his salt would erect a building without an architecturalblueprint, no CIO should put their organization or themselves atrisk without an architectural technology blueprint to serve as aguiding light.

CIOs are under increasing pressure to manage IT spending as aninvestment that will drive a business value return for theenterprise. As a result, the astute CIO is focusing on makingthe right decisions and recommendations early in the program andproject life cycle by employing sound architectural principles andgovernance as a basis for such decisions.

The consequences for not doing so can be burdensome and perhapseven career constricting. With such high stake risks in playit seems curious that many CIOs and the organizations they work inoften give short shrift to their enterprise architecture forbusiness technology. Perhaps it has something to do with thetheoretical nature and characteristics of enterprise architecture,rather than the practical application of it to the benefit of theorganization. Or perhaps it is a consequence of buildingarchitectural teams that prefer to stay in the ivory tower ratherthan descend from it and tour the landscape they have created butothers have tilled.

In any event it remains the case that organizations continue toinvest many millions into business technology efforts, and astill-too-large percentage of those investments become write offsfor wounded or failed initiatives. It is also certainly thecase that CIOs face the pressures of critical decision making on adaily basis, and the factors that weigh on those decisions are notstrictly related to technology issues. Such things as marketpressures, internal politics, limited time and budget, shortage oftechnical resources, business partnering, etc. are all relativeconstants for today's CIOs. Given that, it makes goodbusiness and career sense that many CIOs choose to reduce the riskand complexities of what they do in as many areas of control aspossible – including, and increasingly, in the enterprisearchitecture realm.

The benefits of such an approach are many and manifest, andarguably, the most substantial benefits reach far beyond the shoresof the IT department. Considering the proper architecturalapproach up front for substantial IT investments is in effect anexercise in enterprise risk management. An extra dollar spentinsuring that a new platform integrates well into the current andto-be architectural states, or identifying that it does not andbeing prepared for that, will be repaid many times over as theproject progresses.

That said, the reality at many insurance carriers is that anover arching architectural strategy and approach is something thatevolves as a result of decisions made on products and platforms,rather than on business and technology strategic and operationalneeds. That more often than not happens as a result ofcompetitive and market pressures, technological obsolescence, andpoint-in-time tactical decisions that address a specific pain pointor need. That does not mean, though, that all is lost and the CIOfinds him or herself essentially along for the ride. Thereare ways to get a handle on one's architectural direction, while atthe same time building C-suite credibility andtrust.

Answer These Questions First

As with most things the first step is to take stock of thecurrent architecture and application and platform portfolio. Is it linked to the organization's strategic direction? Is itconsistent with the business technology aspirations of theorganization? Will it be a flexible and scalable architecturefor the future aspirations of the organization? Does it evenmeet the current needs of the organization?

Based upon the answers to these questions the next step is tomake the necessary course corrections. More often than notthose corrections begin with an assessment of what currently existsfrom an architecture and applications portfolio perspective,what projects and initiatives are in flight, and a reassessment (ifsuch as assessment wasdone initially) of the value and benefits anyand all in-flight initiatives will deliver to theorganization. These activities can lead to some verydifficult and politically sensitive questions being asked either ofor by the CIO, and of or by executive business sponsors.

While difficult,done constructively such an exercise can providea great foundation for the CIO from both a business value andexecutive trust and credibility perspective. These exercisescan also lead to a recalibration of the relationship and theexpectations between CIOs and their business peers. LikeAesop's ant, the future-focused CIO can use this approach toestablish the business-technology value proposition for theorganization for years to come, while at the same time insuringthat the IT investments at the organization will pay dividends foryears to come.