Leadership is required for management and governance

Management and governance functions can not reasonably be expected to be driven bottom up.

No designer wants a governing body telling them what the can and can't; should or shouldn't do. It is the nature of good designers to want the freedom to do what ever they think is best.

Many designers barely tolerate the client i.e. they would rather design in the absence of this and frequently consider the clients needs, aesthetics, predilections etc. an impediment to a good design. I recall a house I was once in that had paster moulded cherubims coming out of the wall and a range of those tasteless eclectic abominations that the client had demanded. The client was happy with the result but did comment - "we went through three architects, they just kept leaving".

Designers of course accept the need for a client. But you can't expect them to run seeking further sets of constraints on their creativity. Architects don't go looking for extra town planning and codes of practice to comply with.

Nor can you expect designers to seek to publish patterns and techniques that they have spent a decade mastering so everyone else can be as good as them.

In the realm of IT it staggers me that many IT organizations look to their solution design (architecture) function to define its approach.

It is critical that the CIO and IT executive team stand up and take responsibility for ensuring the best utilizing of   the existing IT porfolio; that the best extensions to that portfolio (from the organization's perspective); correct application of best practice (patterns, principles etc.); effective harvesting of best practice (patterns); etc.

Make good information available to everyone

I like what Jeanne Ross (Director and Principal Research Scientist at MIT’s Center for Information System Research) says as reported here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gardner/enterprise-architects-play-key-role-in-transformation-data-analytics-value-but-they-need-to-act-fast-say-open-group-speakers/4489

Coming from the siloed past in IT, companies are now moving to business service-driven processes across various resources ... But they need to recognize the forces around consumption of such services, not just the implementation.

Making good data management a priority, a “single source of truth” is also at the heart of making EA valuable,...Ensuring the quality of data and the speed of data refresh will help enterprise architects rise in performance appreciation more than just about anything else..."

“You don’t get good analytics with bad data,” ...“The secret to good EA is to put information in every person’s hands so they can use data better.” And that in turn will help transform the business and spur added innovation using IT systems and good architecture principles.

Most senior executives aren’t very good at combining business and technology strategies

Principles and patterns

I have looked at these "principles" for many years and it seems to me: firstly that they are effectively constraints (almost like goals, measures of success i.e. something to be achieved ideally) and that secondly they are often opposing constraints. So that what is required in design in an understand of the trade-offs. 


This turns out to be very complex if tackled from 1st principles so in mature disciplines the idea of patterns is used which effectively encapsulate a set of principles (and materials) to suggest how something can be achieved. The seminal work on patterns (Pattern Language) reflects a practical approach in another design discipline - which also has principles.


I am not convinced that principles in their raw form can effectively be consumed and applied. They are good things that theorists like to talk about but almost useless in practice.


To use an imperfect analogy - cars one could imagine a set of principles: agility - be flexible for many purposes, go off road; capability - be able to store lots of things and people; user appeal - appeal;  speed - be fast; ease of use - easy to operate, park etc.; good TCO - economical to run; cost effective - economical to buy; etc.


But these won't tell us what type of car we want to buy or build - let alone details of a specific model. What we 1st need to understand is the pattern.  


Do we want an SUV: agility - yes; - capability - yes; user appeal - no; speed - no; ease of use - no; good TCO - no; cost effective - no.

Do we want an small hatch - agility - partial; capability - no; user appeal - no; speed - no; ease of use - yes; good TCO - yes; cost effective - yes.

Do we want an sports car- agility - no; capability - no; user appeal - yes; speed - yes; ease of use - no; good TCO - no; cost effective - no.


Our principles have not changed - but our priorities have and the patterns SUV, Hatch, and Sport car reflect this.

This comment was originally made in response to this: http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/ea_matters/2011/11/enterprise-architecture-principles-lets-talk-about-them.php#c19997

Counter-reductionist approach to requirements and projects

I like what this man Dr. Leon Kappelman says "It is the bane of applications and data to be stovepiped and compartmentalized. But that remains the standard by which we train IT and business managers" (http://www.information-management.com/newsletters/data-architecture-quality-integration-UNT-Kappelman-10021830-1.html).

He came to EA the same way I came to EA ie.

"My original focus was software development and obviously the importance of getting the requirements right. Well, it turns out that to have the requirements right, you need what you are working on in the context of the whole because otherwise you might build a great system but it doesn't create value. It might be adding redundancy or be the 73rd system to connect 72 other systems. Even if those other 72 systems are part of stovepiped business units and are perfectly aligned with them and serve their needs, as a whole the enterprise is wasting a ton of money and a ton of resources and talent."

I think it great that he identifies the problems with the “reductionist” which I had put down to solipsism of many of the technical people I have met who are interested just in their little slice of reality - their jigsaw piece. The problems are not just with technologist, but with projects in large organizations, where most operate as if the project's by itself produces business value.

I think we need to look at solutions and methods to suppirt a counter-reductionist approach. That is why we have focused on a strategic holistic approach to demand and requirements management.

EA - leadership and discipline supporting a cultural shift

MIT's Ross on how enterprise architecture and IT more than ever lead to business transformation - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gardner/mits-ross-on-how-enterprise-architecture-and-it-more-than-ever-lead-to-business-transformation/4463

What I like about this is the clear identification of the:

• cultural shift that is required
• need for understanding through the enterprise (not just with individuals) and the identifying the limitations of the "hero" model
• need for discipline and the natural tension that needs to exist (Cf. the town planner vs the laisez faire property developer)
• difficulty of getting good adoption of and need for persistent coaching and a clear vision
• need to focus on pain points that the executive are focused on (not boiling the ocean)

Cultural shift

"... we’re learning about enterprise architecture is that there’s a cultural shift that takes place in an organization, ... and that cultural shift starts with abandoning a culture of heroes and accepting a culture of discipline."

Enterprise, not just individuals using an heroic approach

"...What companies traditionally did before they started thinking about what architecture would mean, is they relied on individuals to do what seemed best ...Nobody wants to get rid of the heroes ...What we’re trying to do is adopt a culture of discipline, where there are certain things that people throughout an enterprise understand are the way things need to be done, so that we actually can operate as an enterprise, not as individuals all trying to do the best thing based on our own experience."

Natural tension

"... the architect should be able to create a very constructive tension in the organization, and that’s the tension between individuality, innovation, local responsiveness, and the need for enterprise thinking, standardization, and discipline."

Focus on pain points

"... companies who were best at adopting architecture and implementing it effectively had cost pressures. What happens when you have cost pressures is that you’re forced to make tough decisions. ...If you have all the money in the world, you’re not forced to make tough decisions. "

"... The best architects are listening very hard to who is asking for what kind of capability. When they see real demand and real leadership around certain enterprise capabilities, they focus their attention on addressing those, in the context of what they realize will be a bigger picture over time. ...They can already see the unfolding bigger picture, but there’s no management commitment yet. So they stick to the capabilities that they are confident the organization will use. That’s the way they get the momentum to build. That is more art than science and it really distinguishes the most successful architects."

Getting adoption requires persistent coaching

While the following comments are not directed at EAMS solutions I think them apropos

"... You build something that’s phenomenally good and appropriate for the business and then you just assume, that if you give them a little training, they’ll use it well. "

" ...That’s actually been a remarkable struggle for organizations. ..."

" ...there aren’t very many companies that have come anywhere close to leveraging their platforms the way they might have imagined ..."

" ... It’s harder than we thought. It requires persistent coaching. It’s not about training, but persistent coaching. It requires enormous clarity of what the organization is trying to do, and organizations change fast. Clarity is a lot harder to achieve than we think it ought to be."

When will we learn that heroic individualism is not enough

In an presentation to EA many years ago I quoted a third party who had suggested some of the the goals were: containing costs and risks, be timely, being more adaptable and customizable and the challenges included managing complexity (which requires some discipline and semantic precision) and failing methods “Today, the most common model … is based on an approach that we call ‘heroic’ ”. Some of the suggestion made at the time were: context maps for cataloging assets and knowledge; clear methods for making decisions; patterns, business/industry reference models, default infrastructural templates or frameworks; and focusing on component topologies and interactions.

This source for this is not recent - it is an old IBM Systems Journal item in 1999 discussing architecture.

Summary

I have written elsewhere on strategies for dealing with complexity (the key being semantic precision), industry reference models and patterns (which encapsulate principles, preferred technologies, standard component topologies and interactions). This item from Ross is great in identifying some of keys to successful implementation: clear vision and persistent coaching, discipline, enterprise wide approach etc.

A Copernican shift in Enterprise Architecture

This (Copernican shift) discusses a shift of centricity- for EA - from techno-centric to business-centric. I think it identifies some good points (see quotes extracted in italic below).

"... EA is becoming a thing that companies do, not a team they have"

We need to focus on how the enterprise gathers, manages and utilises the knowledge.

" ... the focus or central outcome is not technology success; it’s business success. ..."

We need to see how initiatives are driven by the business architecture and realise that ALL requirements (demand) must be driven by the business plan and architecture. Their are no technical requirements.

" ...This has profound implications for the skills and techniques that EAs need for the future. ..."

Items that discuss this further: EA solipsists ; I will be you CRMist ; EA can't be done by Enterprise Architects.

We need EA's to stop thinking their are going to engage the business with UML, ER diagrams, and other technical arcana (see UML no good for EA). We need EA who are articulate and natural communicators, collaborative and including (rather than doing pictures and models for their own or other EA's edification). See Communicating in languages the business understands

"... Integration takes on a broader context that includes people integration, process integration, and traditional technology integration. ..."

This is why in a taxomomy for EA we need to recognise as communications as key aspect of any EA "framework". Old "frameworks" (i.e. with rows and columns) - had columns for things like: what (knowledge, information, data etc.), how (function, process etc.), but lacked a natural column for communication - which ultimately drives the need for all interfaces (with people, with systems).

"... most successful firms will be “architecting their businesses for success …"
"… already seeing firms eschew the term “EA” as being to laden with techno-baggage. …"

Way back in 2007 - the need to use different terms was discussed here: Business and IT Transformation.

"Why Bad Things Happen"

"Why Bad Things Happen To Good Organisations: Part 1" - Jonathon Kendall is a very interesting.

Based on a study of public sector projects:
- only 44% of spend on capital projects is inefficient, with 31% completely lost
- only 13% of programs met more than 65% of targeted objectives. 
- only 59% of $100m+ programs longer than 5 years were delivered; 60% of those delivered were de-scoped or fragmented into other programs, and 22% were not delivered at all – none were delivered as per the original specification.
- 87% of IT programs go beyond schedule and budget, with an average overrun of 52%.
- 99% of all +$100m/5 years projects were significantly de-scoped, re-dimensioned or re-focused
- 2.25% is the average return of Corporate Service programs (they have worst return but made up over half of all capital projects undertaken.

They identify these factors embedding inefficiency:
- Lack of measurable, outcome-oriented performance metrics and reviews.
- Actual deliverables are not measured against promised or projected deliverables.
- Deliverables are not clearly articulated, defined or documented. 
- Gross over-estimation of program benefits compounded by gross underestimation of capital costs and risks. 
- Zero incentive for improved delivery performance. 

They recommend:
- Outsource Delivery Management
- Outsource Commoditised Services.
- Divest Commoditised IT Services, Invest In Specialised IT Services.
- Adjusted Benefits & Costs (to be realistic)
- Reduce Program Delivery Intervals. 
- Re-orient All Program Deliverables To Service Outcomes. "All capital works programs deliverables should be intimately equated with policy, legal, regulatory or directed outcomes."

A better approach to Requirements management - where the Requirements are directly expressed in terms of: policies, outcomes, KPIs and the capabilities and behaviour of the organization is in practice critical to many of the recommendations.  It allows you define in a common way the business requirements to be met by all outsourcing (delivery, commoditised services); clearly define specialised services (based on the specialised aspects of the business architecture)