Increase selling (and buying) effectiveness via Enterprise Architecture
Very few IT vendors 
leverage Enterprise Architecture as they define, develop, market and sell the solutions. Yes, there are many aspects, components or artifacts of an EA model in their engineering practices. Architecture discussions abound in vendor processes / content (normal) but I have yet to encounter an organization that has an EA community spanning product management, development, marketing and sales. (I would like to hear your feedback on this, post here or e-mail me).
The value propositions for Enterprise Architecture would be similar to those for the buying organizations: better alignment of product development efforts to the customer realities, better utilization of resources, etc. I believe there are significant additional payoffs though is in the ability to market, sell, implement and sustain their products.
Extending the Enterprise Architecture program into marketing, sales and implementation completes the product development cycle (or architecture development cycle). There is continuity, consistency, and repeatability that could extend across the vendor product portfolio. The ability to communicate vision, drivers and realities of the product architectures and capabilities would also be enhanced.
Tip: Engage your Enterprise Architects in your marketing, sales and implementation strategy and execution. If you don’t have EAs, develop them (and yes, this takes a long term commitment).
Buying organizations with good Enterprise Architecture programs have a real potential advantage in the buying process. They have defined their architectural principles, they better understand their current challenges (governance processes), they have processes for introducing and managing change (business & technical)
Tip: Engage your Enterprise Architects in your buying process. They can both streamline and improve the efficacy of your evaluation process.
Please take a minute and fill out the three question survey below. I look forward to comments and feedback. Post here or e-mail me at jeff@jpbills.com
Posted in Uncategorized | 
Tags: Complex Sales Cycles, Enterprise Architecture, Software Sales, Software Sales Engineer
This is a great posting and an excellent idea. No one should modify their home without knowing where the location of the load bearing walls. Yet in IT, we often buy solutions with little regard to what we already have or how the existing tools integrate with the new.
The question I have is how do you get buy in from sales? I worked in an organization where we introduced the concept of an architecture document. Unfortunately, the “architects” required an unreasonable amount of time to create the “architecture” documentation required as part of the deal. This frustrated the sales team and the customer. Because the presales team had no training in enterprise architecture, it required more time than normal to create the architecture document. The same happened on the implementation time. The time (and effort) required to create an architecture document was unreasonable.
Have you seen this? How did you resolve it? I look forward to your response.
Thanks Ben for you feedback.
I am of the opinion that the struggle to get buy-in for committing to EA in a sales organization is as hard as or harder than it is for the buying organizations. Enterprise Architects can still struggle to explain the value proposition of Enterprise Architecture, the ramp up is challenging, and demonstrable results can take a while. To use a health analogy: in most organizations the focus tends to be on “symptoms” (fix my immediate pain – aka this Qtr or FY results) rather than systemic “cures” that can lead to long-term competitive advantages. The later takes more commitment, but the yields are higher. My experience has been that sales organizations have an even harder time with programs that require a longer term focus or commitment.
So trying to do a first-of-kind EA deliverable in a sales cycle as you describe is bound to create “drag” and frustration. As the sales team found out, the concepts of EA are easier to grasp then execute. From the description, it is not clear if the architecture document idea came from within the sales team or was required by the prospect. If the later, where did the idea originate from? It appears not to have been part of the RFP (competitor?).
The bottom line, and as I suggest in the post, if a vendor wants to improve its competitive profile over the long term, they should take an in-depth look at EA.
Thanks again for your comments and good luck in your future sales cycles!
Jeff- as with any “justification” for resources, there has to be a clear yet simple “WIIFM” for all three categories of buyers AND sellers; Organizational (CEO/CFO/COO), Operational (Functional VPs) and Infrastructure (IT and HR).
Within the three categories you must answer three questions; Why is this a Priority for me?, What is Required of me? (this includes soft factor requirements like people/politics/policies and procedures), and What is my success criteria?
Think about it- a 3 X 3 grid all on one page to clearly show why an EA makes sense. The answer (by the way) also serves as a qualification tool for sales so they should willingly participate. In other words, if you can not ALIGN your proposal (in this case the use of an EA) with the priorities Requirements and Criteria of the key stakeholders, you can go on to the next opportunity.
There is a free downloadable short story at my web site http://www.knowledge-advantage.com. We’ve been doing this for 18 years so we have the scars! All the best.
Gene
Gene – thanks for your insight. I really like the 3×3 grid approach. It is clean and compelling. Borrowing your point, it can be applied to the internal discussion at a vendor (or buyer) on why EA should be adopted.
I like your site and especially enjoyed starting in the Lessons Learned section.
Jeff