Virtuous circles of strategy, architecture and delivery

If we don't support a virtuous circle of use - we won't achieve much (and certainly not cost effectively).

The majority of people who need to consume an Enterprise Architecture and Strategies are business teams (owners, analysts etc.) and solution architects, designers etc. i.e. down-stream project teams wanting to do something (buy, build, change etc.). NOT other EAs and Strategists. You can see the same thing with a town plan i.e. the majority of people who consume the town plan are property owners, architects etc. wishing to do things.

Governance functions also have a need (e.g. project office, contract/vendor management, business case analysts).

Until EA can effectively understand its place in the lifecycle of think, plan, excute, operate - it will struggle.

Enterprises wish to make changes (transform, optimize) and EA is intended to guide these changes (it is not an end in itself). The changes will usually be implemented in initiatives, programmes, and projects. Those involving IT will usually have requirements, solution architectures, etc. These projects are where the rubber hits the road.

So EA needs to be consumed by down-stream projects - which will indicate their use of existing assets (applications, services, interfaces, hardware etc.), standards (products, technologies, patterns), capabilities (skills, resources) - and indicate where they will produce new assets or require new/different standards to be adopted or capabilities established etc.

Most of what one sees in a tradional EA once came from some project that drove the need for it. This is true on the business and technology side - but is usually more obvious with technology.

An EA needs to be produced and consumed both bottom up and top down.

EVP - Powerpoint fails to deal with complexity well - who would have thought

I have heartened to see this "U.S. Army discovers PowerPoint makes you stupid" (http://blogs.computerworld.com/16006/powerpoint_makes_you_stupid?source=CTWNLE_nlt_entsoft_2010-05-03).

For many years I have been presented with powerpoints that claim to communicate complex things e.g. strategies, roadmaps, architectures, transition plans etc.

I have been perplexed when on examination the PPTs turned out not to contain the information necessary to describe the complex situation being dealt with. I am then asked how do we model these - or why can't you produce a model, visualisation or report that communicates like these do. The reason is that the powerpoints are often specious - being favoured by executives, sales people and other trying the illusion that analysis has been done and sound conclusion reached based on facts - when in the facts, analysis and conclusions are at best usually disconnected. If one points out the limitation of the powerpoint source documents - one hear "Oh so you don't know how to represent this". Well the answer is that if the data is rubbish expressing in a semantically precise way will just highlight that it is rubbish. This doesn't to fly well with the executives.

I like these quotes:

"Have you fallen in love with your bulletized slides, nifty transitions, and pretty charts in PowerPoint? If so, you're likely getting more stupid ..."
"... We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint... When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war."
"It's dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable."
"... it leads to bad decision-making, with serious consequences ..."
"... that tremendous amounts of time are spent in the military on putting together presentations, and that this takes away from true productivity."
"... [PPT] does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters." [or executives]
"hypnotizing chickens."

Artifacts vs Business Results

I am often involved in looking at how people can improve their IT processes e.g. in areas of strategy, architect, governance and service delivery.

Firstly let me say I am fairly familiar with principles underlying OO analysis and design techniques having started using them in the mid 1990s (before UML, and before Java). Naturally when UML emerged as a defacto standard we moved to it; and to RUP which followed soon after. Having overseen many large projects using OO analysis and design techniques I think I have some understanding of what needs to achieved.

Now an apparent digression - Almost 30 years ago when I specialised in CAD and Mapping systems I used to have to explain to Architects, some of whom had been my tutors, the benefits of CAD. They pulled out beautiful water colours and asked if the CAD system could produce them. They had mastered the skills of producing these works of art over lifetime and were justifiably proud of them. At the time the answer was "no". Of course the CAD system could convey the essential information but the way in which conveyed it was different. And of course the cost to produce any ad-hoc view (plans, elevations, details etc.) or deal with changes using the CAD system was far lower. Also the CAD system could be interactively inspected, do counts etc. What these artisans failed to grasp was that what the client wanted as business not a water colour i.e. the business result was the building, the water colour artifacts were incidental.

I now encounter the same issue with people looking at various artifacts related to manual methods of solution design - the classic being the large SAD (seldom if ever read by anyone but the author) or in strategic area some large attractive diagrams manually created with many pretty colours. People seem to think the artifacts (e.g. SAD, Roadmaps etc.) are important per se. In my view they fail to focus on the business results to be achieved e.g. a transformation to be made, or a project delivered and really examine what information is required by whom, when, where and why.

I had a lot of sympathy for those being asked to move from water colours. While they required an experienced practioner and some time produce a result was aesthetically pleasing and communicated very well to many audiences i.e. technical and non-technical (if limited to a specific point of view e.g. plan, perspective, detail, elevation etc.) I have a lot less sympathy with IT people today wasting energy trying to replicate some arcane symbols (e.g. associated with modelling logic, processes, objects or data). These also require experienced practioner and some time produce. The result are neither pleasing nor particularly communicative to average person.

Business architecture as part of Enterprise Architecture

I saw this and thought some of the quotes interesting
http://jccavalcanti.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/defining-business-architecture/

"...BA is an intrinsic component of EA, but what most people really perform in most organizations that I see is IT architecture."

"... enterprise business architecture is a set of artifacts and methods that helps business leaders make decisions about direction and communicate the changes that are required in order to achieve that vision."

"... It's our excuse sometimes that it's too complex to change quickly."

"... We really need to focus the conversation on capabilities..."

"... BA is a means by which we can engage as IT professionals with the business leadership, the business decision-makers ...

"... By having that meaningful dialogue on an ongoing basis, not just as a result of the big implementation ..."

"... understanding your audience is a big part of doing this.

"... That's why there's no, "This is the artifact to create." ..."

"... there's a missing linkage between that vision, that strategy, that direction, and the actual activities that are going on ...

"... jump from high-level strategy down to tactical daily decision-making and activities is too broad of a gap. .."

To me this supports my view that:

1. The BA is intrinsic to EA (though EA function focus on technology).
2. EA needs to support decision making and communicate what needs to be done to achieve a vision (goals, strategies, plans and down to requirements)
3. The excuse made that it is too complex to change quickly indicates a failure of EA.
4. BA needs to focus on capabilities and allow us to engage with the business leaderships (so we need to use the right language)
5. Waiting till a big project to justify the dialogue is like waiting until you are attacked to learn how to defend yourself i.e. it is just dumb
6. Understanding the audience is critical and what and how you communicate varies based on the audience.
7. There is a missing linkage between that vision and plans that live in PPT decks on the shelves and what happends on a day to day basis.

Communicating with people in languages they understand

For many years I have run foul of SW developers how have migrated into Architectural roles - but want to continue to use the techniques and languages suited to the role of OO SW development.

Open Group advocates are often some of worst as many are committed to UML - a language manifestly unsuited to communicating with most business people most of the time.

I recently read this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=3450. And saw these comments:

"To achieve business-IT alignment, architects need some way of understanding what the business is really about. ...

We need to talk to business people to understand what the business architecture is, but the business people don’t want to talk tech-speak. ...

We need to be able to talk to them in their language, but addressing an architectural end. "

And I wonder when the penny will drop that this language isn't UML.

What impedes the development of Information Architecture

Prompted by: Forrester: Information Architecture Matters - Survey of enterprise architects finds information architecture is immature and undervalued.
http://www.information-management.com/news/forrester-information-architecture-matters-10016994-1.html

I think the obstacles of IA is the preponderance of people involed who see data in relational database terms (or in terms of other implementation methods and standards) rather than in terms of the business questions, knowledge and information.

One sees similiar, but perhaps lessor, issues with business architecture where the people involved want to see things in terms of Use cases and techncial process execution (e.g. BPEL) - rather than focusing business capabilities, functions and process.

The higher levels are intrinsically less transient and not really related to technology per se.

In both cases the boil-the-ocean problem arises from starting at the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top. The absence of a sound top level means the framework for progressively elaborating lower levels as a by-product of execution projects doesn't exist (or isn't used).

Forrester proposes a process or methodology solution - but the solution in changing the people i.e. changing the behavior of people in the roles; or changing the people who inhabit the roles.

It seems to me nothing much has changed since I wrote this
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2007/09/enterprise-data-management.html

In this I identified some things:
- Information management strategies are going to have to improve.
- Most organisations can't even provide a high level map of their information - it is buried in silos (maintained by a technical clergy with arcane interests)
- Most organizations don't have a handle on the relationship between business information and the underlying ICT systems that implement the data
- Most organisations can't explain what information is associated with what: process, service, rule etc.
- Most CIOs can't have candid conversations with their business counterparts about what the real issues are associated with managing todays data or dealing with more data.

I suggsted some things that should be done
- a knowledge base which could act as hub
- the boundaries between the hub and the various spokes (e.g. ER modellers, XML modellers etc.)
- inventory data and usage
- benchmark against industry Reference Models
- defining architectural principles and goverance approaches
- analyzing business information context
- develop optimisation programmes

Inspired by "13 Enterprise Modeling Anti-Patterns & How to Avoid Them"

I saw this today: 13 Enterprise Modeling Anti-Patterns & How to Avoid Them [
http://www.linkedin.com/e/avn/103346240/1814869/EML_anet_nws_title-cDhOon0JumNFomgJt7dBpSBA/]

I thought it presented some useful points albeit often otiose. It mixes two issues i.e. how to do enterprise modelling (SITP) and what the results of good enterprise modelling (SITP) should be e.g. avoiding immature or unstable technologies (except in rare circumstance) should be a result or conclusion from for SITP - but it doesn't really tell us about SITP per se. I am interested in SITP and focus below on aspects that relate SITP method.

I think it can really be boiled down to 3 things

1. Audience, Purpose and Use are critical - The one thing it repeats many times in many ways is that you need to model with an audience, purpose and use in mind. This means models won't be too detailed i.e. if they are fit to purpose. It also implies that you will look at how to engage with the various stakeholder (rather than doing what suits developers who in my view have often hi-jacked the process). Lastly this means that you must have some idea of a path to implementation as few stakeholders will proclaim to know things for no purpose other than to know them i.e. stakeholders will clearly say we want to know so we can decide and act.

2. Ongoing knowledge accretion - It also points out that you need to roll things out (when they are not perfect) and let them evolve and mature.

3. Know what you know - Understand what you are capturing e.g. an essential aspect, just how it is today (but not how we would like it to be), how we would like it to be (but not how it is)

The things it say to avoid (with by comments in [ ]) are:

30,000 feet and climbing
- avoid models that are too high level [well this is tautology];
- ensure models have a practical use [but this is absolutely key]

Detailed enterprise model
- model just enough detail [this really comes back to understand the use i.e. the point above].
-- Model with a purpose [yes].
-- People rarely read the details [Well this really is a problem with the concept of models and it is most people are not interested in most detail (detail about other peoples domains]. This is not to say that the detail should not be understood or recorded. It is to say that the detail should only be presented to the people to whom it is of interest and when they want to see it]
-- Know the audience for the models [absolutely - or more accurately understand the audience for views of the data that answer question they care about]

Ivory tower architecture
- Create realistic models [?? what other kind of models are of use??] rather than perfect world scenarios [?? well surely one need to know how one would like things - this seems to conflict with a point below]
-- Get Development teams involved early [?? why on earth would you set out with the aim of doing development, surely development is necessary evil not something to be encouraged by premature engagement of people who like doing it]

Modelling for modelling sake [absolutely]

Real world disconnect - ensure models reflect the actual stakeholder requirments [absolutely]. So don't use arcane developer oriented modelling approaches e.g. UML, ERD etc.

Striving for perfection [there is nothing wrong with striving for improvement].
- Roll stuff out even if it is not perfect [This is the key aspect. The information and process needs to evolve progressively with the involvement of the whole community]

Getting stuck in the weeds [Well I would say - avoid capture transient implementation specific details unless they are critical for some reason and capture the essence of the issues]

"Technology above all" [yes] Make technology a business enabler not a business driver [well the fact is that sometimes the market/environment means that technology is or should be a a driver]

"Tomorrow suffers from today" [record how you would like things to be - which is why it is important to understand the essence of things vs. just their current implementation]

"Underground Future" ensure models create a clear path [yes - with out plans, initiatives and transitions a vision is not that useful]

"Yesterday's Enterprise model" - Once finished don't let your models get out of date [well this is oxymoronic. One never finishes, the models are an ongoing active record]