Whether you take Zachman’s 1987 paper as the start of the architectural time-line or not doesn’t really matter. The point stands that architecture, as in the planning of IT systems, has now been around for thirty years. And so why do people still refer to it as emergent? It’s because although we may know what a good architecture programme looks like we still struggle to know how to achieve it. How is it that after all this time there’s still a different definition of architecture for every book written on it; well almost! I guess it comes down to knowing what architecture is. If we knew that we could sort out its epistemology. We might actually have a chance of deciding what matters and what doesn’t. In short we could identify its Critical Success Factors (CSF). It has long been recognized that architecture lacks this kind of basic research. ‘Although a wide range of topics is covered, the discipline is lacking basic research.’ (Langenberg and Wegmann 2004 Enterprise Architecture: What Aspects is Current Research Targeting?) ‘enterprise architecture is a new discipline and it will not mature unless substantial basic research will be made’.(Noran 2003).
Well some of that ‘basic research’ has finally been done (Hope 2015 The Critical Success Factors of Enterprise Architecture). And some of the results are to say the least a bit disturbing. Like the fact that given a choice of CSFs drawn from the literature a college of over 200 Architects basically can’t tell you what the CSFs are. In fact, they can barely differentiate the critical from the merely important. Even then they are a lot further from consensus than you’d expect or like.
Architects were asked to rate the importance CSFs on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being Not Important and 5 Critically Important. Most CSFs were rated 3 or higher by 85% of the respondents. This situation is exasperated when it is revealed that ‘bogus’ CSFs rated as highly as the genuine ones. When filtered for ‘critical’ only you finally get some insight. Just for the record they were: Alignment with Business 68%, Coordination with Developers 37%,Purpose of Architecture 47%, Commitment to the Use of Architecture 51% and Consultation and Communication 74%
But the results are particularly comforting when you realize that out of 25 CSFs only five were picked by more than a third of Architects and only two by seriously more than half the respondents. The research also notes a disturbing tendency for anything that ‘sounds’ rigorous or objectively assessable to be marked down. ‘Formal methodologies, tools, quality control, maintenance and budgeting are all objectively assessable tasks. Curiously, for a discipline concerned with detail it seems that rigor is unwelcome’ (Hope 2015).
Furthermore, the architects’ choices don’t tally with the academic research.
|Critical Success Factor||Critical %|
|Use of Formal Methodology||63|
|Use of Tools||25|
|Strategy for the Development of Architecture||33|
|Monitoring & Compliance||30|
|Commitment to the Use of Architecture||42|
|Consultation and Communication||51|
Arguably this data is just as indecisive as the survey data and is possibly biased by the methodological bent of the literature. Could it be that we can’t get consensus because we’re not asking the right questions? It seems that the classical empirical approach to this problem has failed. That failure is underlined, perhaps ironically, by the survey responses to questions about how well the architects thought they executed against the CSFs. ‘Only two CSFs were considered to have been excellently executed and only by around 10% of respondents. These are Alignment with the Business at 11%, considered critical by 68% and Understanding the AS-IS State with 10%, considered critical by 33% of respondents. Consultation and Communication, considered critical by 74% of respondents, scores only 8%.’
So, what does this all mean? Basically neither the academics nor the practitioners know what matters and it seems that perhaps many things may be important in different ways. That there is no ‘golden’ to-do list, no TOGAF like body of knowledge is going to save us. We’re talking about the need for an alternative paradigm, something that Architects unfortunately aren’t typically familiar with. Purpose Driven Architecture Practice (PDAP) offers such a new paradigm. If you haven’t heard of it, that’s not surprising the research was only published in late 2015. PDAP takes an empirically substantiate approach to architecture practice to develop a socio-centric approach. Suggesting that architecture consists of three Architectonic Activities, whether you like it or not these activities are going on all the time and they determine the fate of the programme.
For more information about PDAP or PraXtice email PraXtice@Truetechnologypartners.com.au