=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2574/short9
|storemode=property
|title=How to Go about Enterprise Standardization (short paper)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2574/short9.pdf
|volume=Vol-2574
|authors=Thomas Olsen,Mark von Rosing
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/OlsenR20
}}
==How to Go about Enterprise Standardization (short paper)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2574/short9.pdf
How to go about Enterprise Standardization
Case Study: Applying and Testing the LEAD Enterprise Ontology to develop a shared standard
within Novozymes A/S
Thomas Chr. Olsen, Senior Manager, Novozymes, Denmark
Mark von Rosing, LEADing Practice, Chateau Du Grand Perray, France
Abstract
Developing a shared standard within an organization is a time consuming and difficult
undertaking. This paper discusses and tests the claim of the LEAD Enterprise Ontology (von
Rosing & Laurier, 2015), that is applicable to develop standards within an organization and
independent of industry or complexity that it would add value to the enterprise. The case study is
not only a theoretical test, but also a real practical use case which develops shared standards
within Novozymes. This organization was chosen based on the fact that as the number one
biotechnology company in the world, Novozymes is acknowledged as the trendsetter; not only
within biotech science, but also in the enterprise business model and the setup for the operating
model execution. With a very specific, highly unique and complex business context, the enterprise
ontology can be applied to evaluate and prove that generic conceptual claim in a concrete context.
The main focus of the research was to analyse and investigate if the enterprise ontology, can be
a basis of creating a shared standard. And to test, both from an academic as well as a practice-
oriented perspective, does indeed create value.
Key words
Shared Standard, Shared Structure, Shared Folksonomy, Shared Taxonomy, Shared Enterprise
Layers, Shared Meta-Objects, Shared Enterprise Ontology, Ontology Testing, Enterprise
Standards, Industry Standards, Academia and Industry Collaboration Framework.
Introduction to Novozymes
Novozymes is the world leader in bio-innovation. The company became an independent
corporation in 2000 as the result of a demerger of the Enzyme Business division from the
pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk. The roots date
back to the 1920s, when Novo Therapeutic Laboratory
and Nordisk Insulin Laboratory were founded in
Copenhagen. Industrial enzyme production began in
1941. Today Novozymes is the world leader within
biological innovation. The core business is industrial
enzymes, microorganisms, and biopharmaceutical Figure 2 - Novozymes market share -
ingredients (see figure 1). The company has a global Novozymes' annual report 2016
market share of nearly 50 % within enzymes (see figure 2). With more than 700 different products
used across an almost endless list of industries in every corner of the world, Novozymes’
biological innovations improve industrial performance and safeguard the world’s resources, by
offering superior and sustainable solutions and
alternatives across a variety of industries and applications.
Novozymes’ biological solutions enhance and promote a
range of processes. The never-ending exploration of
nature’s potential is evidenced by over 6,500 patents,
showing what is possible when nature, science, and Figure 1 – Novozymes purpose
industrial manufacturing technology join forces. statement
84
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Novozymes has more than 6,400 employees globally; a quarter of these are employed in research
and development. On average Novozymes reinvests 14% of the turnover back into research and
development. The current world market value in 2018/2019 is approx. $ 6 Billion for enzymes.
With Novozymes Market and business position, the expectation is that the future potential is many
times bigger than the current value of the entire pharmaceutical world market. Recommended
strategies point towards that service and performance modelling disciplines should be the main
focus for the strategy and the business transformation and innovation (see figure 3).
Novozymes Market and business position
Figure 3 - Novozymes' Strategic Market position - (LEADing Practice Strategy Reference Content
Earlier the supply chain discipline in Novozymes was exclusively measured on a cost to serve
premise. Novozymes former way of thinking was centred around the assumption that all value is
anchored in the core products and their application. All other supporting factors (i.e. supply chain)
represented nothing but a non-core cost driver. The former strategic paradigm and the
overarching enterprise competencies have been conceptually placed in a LEADing Practice
business competencies model. The diagram illustrates that all aspects of the operational
manufacturing and supply chain performance were in the non-core competencies category.
NOVOZYMES COMPETENCY MAPPING
NZ &
CH
EAR N
RES OVATIO
INN
NZ T
R ODUC ENT
P O PM
EL
DEV
NZ N
HAI
P P LY C ION
SU RAT
OPE
Figure 4 - Conceptual mapping of Novozymes competencies to the LEADing Practice business competencies
model
85
The prevailing paradigm was to produce and supply products as efficiently and effectively as
possible: Supply Operations produced the core products up against a defined standard, and since
products are the focal point in Novozymes, operational accomplishment was defined and
measured as quantitative product characteristics. Therefore, Lean had become the preferred and
prevailing tool in that paradigm. This thinking and way of working was also highly reflected in the
former supply chain performance management system, where performance was measured on
three main KPIs: Cost to Serve, Shipped on Time, and the number of supply chain related
customer complaints. All improvement and optimization efforts were aimed at enhancing these
business performance drivers. The immediate conclusion to the analysis of the previous strategy
for Novozymes operational customer interfaces was therefore, that the company was trapped in
a cost model deadlock. Novozymes assumed functionality versus cost as the correct and rational
paradigm for evaluating any business development initiative, and since the value of supply chain
service cannot not be precisely assessed and justified in a traditional business case model,
Supply Operations ended up on an endless quest for making the existing mode of operating more
efficient. The way to optimize business contribution could only be justified through continuous
cost reductions and productivity gains. This led to a spiral where all the optimization effort was
used to make the already established but undefined service concept more cost efficient.
Optimization gains were capitalized. This way of thinking turned every proactive service
development into a discussion of internal cost, which took precedence over any consideration of
the possible external market value and opportunities. The consequence was that Novozymes
assumed a reactionary mode in its operational service. Service standards and models were only
improved once the demands (expressed as, for example, level of complaints) from the customers
had reached a business threatening level.
The Issue at hand
Being a recognized market leader creates expectations. However, lacking a defined supply chain
service strategy, yet having a corporate strategy with a primary objective of customer partnering,
the organisation–especially in the operational customer facing interfaces—struggled to serve
customers in the very best possible way. This led to a lot of dissimilar interpretations and often
self-invented standards. Over time these grew into myriad variations in offerings, prioritizations,
and customer specific solutions. Ironically, variation became the only standard feature of the
standards. All the performance symptoms of low maturity could be found in the internal workflows.
The lack of defined standards led to increased friction and complexity, which again drove higher
cost compared to the generated value. Customer Service was overall at a good level but might
be bought with internally high costs (McKinsey & Company; study of Novozymes, 2015). In the
benchmark, Novozymes presented with four times higher cost to serve in the Customer Service
Functions, as compared to similar benchmark industries. This outcome was totally counter to the
prevailing lean business model thinking. Viewing and managing supply chain as a non-core
competency in a cost model without a strong governance caused high complexity, leading to high
cost burn in processes that should be governed and operated by simple standards. Novozymes
used a lot of resources to deliver a supply chain service that (in terms of the value to the customer)
was at best mediocre compared to the industry standard. What was beginning to show as
increasing symptoms of daily frustrations in Novozymes, manifested fully when the various meta-
objects were combined in a consolidated matrix model (LEAD-ES20000LA). Both essential
objects and many relationships were missing. This is not necessarily bad, but in the absence of
a communicated intent, it risks creating a lot of frustration and friction in the form of duplication,
ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. Novozymes had reached a size and complexity where the lack
of deployed enterprise SBO and line of sight presented as a threat to performance, and to the
continuous healthy growth of the company.
86
Clearly, there were missing elements in the application of the corporate (enterprise) Partnering
for Impact strategy to the functional area strategies. The individual layers were all looking upwards
towards a very abstract intent rather than a clear direction. They therefore tried to design their
own strategies (with more tangible goals). This resulted in:
• Siloed thinking and structure (very low End-to-
end maturity)
• Siloed performance and budget deployment
• Programs/projects being started and worked
on only within silos; mainly to enhance
efficiency of existing ways of operating.
(Everything required negotiation between
areas–there were none or very few cross
functional initiatives.)
• The entire workflow being based on siloed
functional groups (neither strategic progress,
nor daily performance was linked or
synchronized).
• Processes, Services and Information flows
being siloed and broken in the internal
interfaces
• Duplication of work everywhere, and worse,
decentralization of information, despite one
corporate End-to-end SAP ERP system Figure 5 - Corporate strategy was not deployed in a
stringent way downwards into the functional areas.
• Directional work being siloed (strategy
deployment was, as described, conducted from the bottom up)
No foundational structure
Theoretically it is easy to comprehend that any enterprise consists of flows and layers. In any
enterprise, a traditional physical flow will most likely exist, and there will always be both a service
and an information flow. Lean had already provided Novozymes with the ability to optimize and
streamline the physical flows using value stream mapping and other similar tools.
Correspondingly, most enterprises are able to do data models and conduct information mapping.
This is often with the purpose of making data management and systems perform more effectively
and efficiently, to enhance data quality or simply to document systems for compliance, regulatory,
or improvement reasons. The common denominator for many such optimization efforts is that the
actual discipline of mapping, documenting, and categorizing has been secondary to the specific
business project objective at hand in each individual case. This certainly proved to be true in
Novozymes’ case. Seen from an enterprise architecture perspective, there had been no deliberate
coordination of foundational structure, neither for vertical nor horizontal alignment: the structure
had evolved organically based on specific business needs. The actual functioning enterprise
layout was, for the most part, an unplanned consequence rather than a premeditated undertaking.
The Solution: Developing a shared standard
Imagine how you can share your ideas, concepts, objects, views and so forth that you define in
your projects in such a way that helps others align with your thinking, and theirs with yours.
Extend that thinking into aligning business and information concepts i.e. the SAP ERP system, or
the technology concepts i.e. robotic process automation, or the optimization initiatives into flow.
87
Everything in an enterprise relates, but most often it is impossible to see how. Obviously, the
different teams naturally want to work together to fulfil the goals and objectives of Novozymes.
But all these parties get so immersed in their own projects that they start to articulate their own
understanding using their own terms, concepts and views. Then they build their own processes
in their own way around them. While these terms, concepts and views are obvious to the individual
group, they cannot be communicated to other functions. The familiar problem of working in siloes
then arises. Everybody optimises their own way of working with the best intent, but:
• It leads to siloed strategies and roadmaps.
• There is no common taxonomy in relation of terms and definitions
• Everybody uses different descriptors (for the same concept)
as well as different symbols and signs for the same things
• There is absolutely no benefit from easy access to, and learning from, other teams in
Novozymes and no sharing of best practices; no one asks, and no one requests
• The internal wheels are constantly reinvented because it is too difficult to take value from
existing best practices, industry practices, or even leading practices
• It is impossible to take advantage of the business and information semantic relations, i.e. the
IT and SAP capability that Novozymes has invested in, because SAP needs:
o process, information, and service models that SAP can relate to
o these models to be articulated in a unified way so that SAP brings advanced computer
productivity to bear on our work
Put simply; sharing meaning across the business is a prerequisite for breaking the prevailing non-
core paradigm for the supply chain organisational function. To achieve shared meaning, it was
necessary to establish shared standard, which we in Novozymes called the ‘shared structure’.
The objectives were:
a. Common defined objects
b. Groups have shared meaning and definitions
c. Documentation is stated and shared
d. Business and IT are aligned
e. It must be built on a best practice, from general industries to the Novozymes organisation
f. Business and IT modelling techniques are integrated
g. Common classification and categorization are developed
The following are the founding members of the Novozymes Shared Structure:
Global Planning (GPO) Digital Transformations (RPA)
Global Supply Chain Management (SCM) SAP Applications (NZIT)
Global Data Mgmt. (GPO) Process Modelling team (NZIT)
Global Quality Control (GQC) Business Architecture (NZIT)
The SOLEAN program (Supply Operations Global Lean Program) Enterprise Architecture (NZIT)
Representatives from these teams met and did the following:
1. Established a common aspiration that the shared structure should be able to accommodate
all three Business, Information and Technology aspects
2. Defined the primary areas of focus. It was agreed to consider the business perspective, the
value aspects, the organizational competency aspects, as well as service and processes. The
information perspective should include the application/information system as well as the
various data aspects. The technology perspective should include the platform and
88
infrastructure aspects.
3. Aligned on conceptual project design based on decomposition principles. At this meeting all
the point 2 defined areas and groups were broken down. The Enterprise Ontology class types
were applied as a foundational model. It was discussed at all levels to determine what could
and could not be integrated, and whether there were missing objects.
The output of the shared structure development workshop can be seen in figure 6 as a periodic
table. The Novozymes shared structure can be used to describe all the elements in all our
initiatives. The shared structure view is broken down from enterprise layers to sub-layers, and
then to objects with notations. The elements (meta-objects or simply objects) make up the shared
structure. There are three layers, eight sub-layers, and 87 objects in total. The shared structures
layers, sub-layers, and objects are supported by Descriptions, Notations, and Modelling
Techniques that together enable any project to be aligned and expressed according to the Shared
Structure. This permits everybody to approach a given project from different angles and still align
with shared objectives. Furthermore, the shared structure depicted by Figure 6 is drawn from
leading and best practices from all industries in all sectors. Novozymes can draw upon these
experiences thereby avoiding reinventing the wheel even in cases that Novozymes haven’t come
across before. This first phase started out with a manageable subset of 38 shared objects chosen
and agreed upon in the workshop (see user testability). The rest of the 87 objects remain available
for later implementation phases of the shared structure.
Figure 6: Overview of Novozymes Shared Structure - Phase #1
Conclusion
The conclusion of the research is that it can both be confirmed that the practical test of applying
the LEAD Enterprise Ontology to an organization enabled the development of a shared standard
and that it enhances (creates) added value in an Enterprise. The value of using the Enterprise
Ontology to develop a shared standard within Novozymes has proven to be value adding beyond
what the team had envisioned. All the parties involved at Novozymes currently show a high degree
of engagement and passion. The project was not undertaken merely for the sake of having
another academic project, and it has certainly not been perceived as such within Novozymes.
89
Implementing the shared structure across the entire end-to-end flows has not only demonstrated
that superior service together with superior products can position Novozymes in a sweet spot in
any industry and on any market; but the shared structure thinking itself has provided a framework
that enables a much more mature discussion of how to work, particularly with the service
dimensions of the supply chain performance. Novozymes still has a long way to go, but it is
important to realize that ownership of the shared standard now spans multiple areas, groups and
functions. It is accepted both in line of business and IT. It is applied across multiple modelling
concepts from LEAN to enterprise architecture. The value and benefit from a shared standard
based on a standardised and aligned ontology has been widely accepted. Now that everyone has
been through the exercise, it is hard to argue against the proven logic that a common shared
standard has improved collaboration and efficiency, increasing the maturity through
standardisation of things that were siloed. There has also been a change in the driving motivations
behind actions. It is now more of a burning desire (a trust that this will provide new opportunities
and better and more mature ways of collaborating) than it is a burning platform (problem solving).
Initiatives are goal driven, not pain driven. In particular, this has transformed Supply Operations
from a reactive non-core competency role, to a much more proactive way of thinking, working and
executing. Supply Operations is launching a high profiled action-learning leadership talent
development program. High potential young leaders will be working in teams in a fast-paced case-
driven program, building on the shared standard concept. The analysis proved that the shared
standard called ‘Shared Structure’ had a great impact on a wide range of dimensions within
Novozymes; in daily business, as described in the strategic dimensions, and even in the
fundamental role and self-perception paradigm—most especially within Supply Operations. As an
extension of our research, we would like to conclude with additional observable dimensions where
Novozymes’ has seen a value benefit from implementing the enterprise ontology for
standardization and developing a shared standard provided that:
Groups have shared meaning Templates simplifying use and understanding have been created
Common objects have been established Standardization has become an aspirational term
Shared terms have been defined Maturity can be assessed and discussed across layers and flows
Common descriptors are in place Shared views increase the ability to develop and create useful models
The foundation for much stronger information and knowledge reusability has been
Same symbols/notations are applied across functions and disciplines
laid
Collaboration across disciplines and departments is already emerging in new
Documentation is stated and shared
forms
Business and IT are much better linked, and a forum has been
The ability to link and connect models and maps have been significantly improved
established
The general level of enterprise documentation based on proven and
It is possible to integrate Business and IT modelling techniques
acknowledged standards has been increased.
Common classification and categorization have been incorporated in Getting new employees into the Novozymes way of thinking and working has
artefacts been enhanced and accelerated.
The testing proves that the investment cost in the form of development, implementation and
maintaining an enterprise standard based on the Enterprise Ontology is by far surpassed by the
added value impact on the business performance. This is despite the fact that increasing the
maturity of the enterprise self-awareness and increasing the ability to share meaning will not, in
themselves, create any quantifiable value.
90
Reference List
• von Rosing, M., & Laurier, W. (2015). An Introduction to the Business Ontology. International
Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications, 3(1), 20–41.
• von Rosing, M., Urquhart, B., & Zachman, J. A. (2015). Using a Business Ontology for
Structuring Artefacts: Example - Northern Health. International Journal of Conceptual
Structures and Smart Applications, 3(1), 42–85.
• von Rosing, M., & von Scheel, H. (2016). Using the Business Ontology to develop Enterprise
Standards. International Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications, 4(1), 48
• von Rosing, M., Fullington, N., Walker, J., Using the Business Ontology and Enterprise
Standards to Transform Three Leading Organizations 2016, International Journal of
Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications, 4(1), (pages 71-99)
• von Rosing, Zachman, J. (2017). The Need for a Role Ontology. International Journal of
Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications. Volume 5, Issue 1
• von Rosing, M. C., Arzumanyan, M., Zachman, J. A. (2017). The relationship between
Ontology and Modelling concepts: Example Role Oriented Modelling. International Journal of
Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications. Volume 5, Issue 1
• Okpurughre, P., von Rosing, M., Grube, Dennis (2017) Using Ontology and Modelling
Concepts for Enterprise Innovation and Transformation: Example SAL Heavylift, International
Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications. Volume 5, Issue 1 (pages 70-104)
• Caine, J., von Rosing, M., (2018), Introducing the Strategy Lifecycle: Using Ontology and
Semiotics to Interlink Strategy Design to Strategy Execution, Springer
• Polovina, S., von Rosing, M., (2018). Using Conceptual Structures in Enterprise Architecture
to Develop a New Way of Thinking and Working for Organisations. In: 23rd International
Conference on Conceptual Structures, (10872). Springer, 176-190.
• von Rosing, M., & Laurier, W. (2018) Academic Research Methods,
http://www.globaluniversityalliance.org/research/method/
• von Rosing, M., & Laurier, W. (2018). A Framework for Analysing and Developing
Collaborative Research and Design between Academia and Industry (still unpublished).
• Novozymes (2018), Annual report 2017, Novozymes Investor Relations
• McKinsey & Company (2016), Chemicals & Agriculture Supply Chain Excellence
Benchmarking End report for Novozymes, Novozymes has a mixed performance, with
attention points around inventory levels, SC agility and total cost, but also service levels: 16ff
• Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Jinsoo, P., & Ram, S. (2004). DESIGN SCIENCE IN
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
• Liu, K., & Li, W. (2015). Organisational semiotics for business informatics. London: Routledge.
• Solutionsreview: https://solutionsreview.com/business-process-management/business-
process-management-software-directory/
91