Business Architecture, isn’t that technical
In our e-zine this week, we published an interview with Ric Merrifield at Microsoft. The subject was Business Architecture. It wasn’t well received by some of our subscribers.
Microsoft! Business Architecture! Heck, if I wanted to read technical stuff I’d subscribe to Joel Sposky. I had three people unsubscribe to the e-zine over straying away from business and into this technical area.
But business architecture isn’t technical — and Microsoft is very interested in the business models of their clients. It helps them provide better solutions than just pushing software out the door. But when you hear the words Microsoft and Architecture together, you mind jumps to technology. You bring a specific background of obviousness to how you listen to everything after that.
Ted Walls and David Walden discuss the problem of different backgrounds of obviousness in Understanding Unclear Situations and Each Other Using the Language Processing Method
"Unfortunately, however, when two or more people are trying to understand, discuss, and act on a complex business situation, the fact that each person has a different background of obviousness and therefore reasons differently can lead to confusion and unproductive effort. We talk past each other."
We participate in different conversations in different ways. Based on how we participate, we may we decide to listen and interpret the information differently. The situation, certain words, how someone looks, the location, and our prior experience can all trigger the way we participate. I am participating differently with my 11-year-old daughter than I am with a senior executive.
Based on the trigger of Microsoft and Architecture, the subscribers came to the conversation with a preconception that we were talking about something technical. We were talking about a way to develop a common understanding of an organization’s business model. This is important when you are trying to align people, process, and technology improvements with the strategy of the organization.
This break down happens between different functional areas all the time. People stop listening to things they could understand because they choose to participate in a way that keeps them from understanding. It is the responsibility of both parties to get past this problem.
Are there words, or situations, or people that trigger a specific way of participating in conversations with them? Does your ability to comprehend someone break down based on different backgrounds of understanding? Pay attention to those situations where you are participating in a way that is unproductive. See if you can shift to a more productive way of listening.