Search Results for: vertical component

Glossary

by

A collection of Enterprise Architecture terms and definitions from a variety of sources: EA3 Cube, Introduction to Enterprise Architecture, The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEAF-II), ISO 42010:2011 and TOGAF 9. 00

Bizzdesign positioned highest for Completeness of Vision in 2023 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Architecture Tools

by

Bizzdesign positioned highest for Completeness of Vision in 2023 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Architecture Tools Latest news from (my website): Bizzdesign

The 2023 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Architecture Tools has been published, with Bizzdesign positioned as a Leader for the eight consecutive year. We are also proud to be positioned highest for Completeness of Vision, which we see as an acknowledgement of our unwavering commitment to understanding the needs of our customers in an evolving…

The post Bizzdesign positioned highest for Completeness of Vision in 2023 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Architecture Tools appeared first on Bizzdesign

Bizzdesign positioned highest for Completeness of Vision in 2023 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Architecture Tools

by

The 2023 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Enterprise Architecture Tools has been published, with Bizzdesign positioned as a Leader for the eight consecutive year. We are also proud to be positioned highest for Completeness of Vision, which we see as an acknowledgement of our unwavering commitment to understanding the needs of our customers in an evolving…

Service, product, service – a question of structure?

by

Do product and service have the same structure? If they’re different views into the same space, what of that shared-structure can we see in each case? The next post in this series on the relationship between product and service was going to be …

Service, product, service – a question of structure? Read More »

Challenges of Project Management on an EA-Driven Solution : A Blog Series

by

by Allan Borra, MSCS

Sitting as Project Manager AND Enterprise Architect

In a series of blogs, I’m sharing my experiences, challenges and eureka moments related to my dual role as a project manager and an architect to a solution development project driven by Enterprise Architecture.  I’ve managed  software solutions development projects before and have varying levels of applying project management disciplines and I’m usually using the software development lifecycle (SDLC) method. So it was a fun and learning experience for me to alter my usual “success” recipe by using Enterprise Architecture (EA) discipline in the mix. This methodology is similar to what is called Solution Architecture as defined by Gartner1.
It is observable that locally there are varying degree of awareness, compliance and maturity of Enterprise  Architecture work in organizations. I happen to be working for a pioneering and leading  EA consulting company who engaged a solutions development project for a government agency. The government agency has no enterprise architecture or capability  in place and the agency management has no (with some misconceptions even) to little  knowledge about Enterprise Architecture.

IT groups in government agencies, especially the one we are currently engaged in, are very comfortable with  traditional SDLC methodology. It fits nicely with the current government procurement law2. Nevertheless, we had a unique opportunity here to really push for an Enterprise Architecture-driven software development to complement the SDLC methodology (or any software development methodology for that matter), due to the fact that the terms of reference (TOR) explicitly calls out Business/Data/Application/Technology (BDAT) architecture requirements and standard notations such as Archimate.
Challenge 1: Changing Mindsets
Herein lies the first challenge: managing client expectations on project activities and deliverables. I’ve heard of an anecdote that goes “Change Management is easiest without people”. It was a really a concern  for me back then that the client wanted the solution as  soon as possible and that, even as the TOR calls out deliverables on BDAT architectures, these are not “primary” requirements for them. The client is accustomed to the SDLC or traditional methodologies that allow for only a certain level of business and functional requirements elicitation that is just enough for the software design and  implementation.  This meant that a semblance of the software solution could be out in a month or even as soon as  codes  are translated  from the functional requirements.

Figure 1. TOGAF Architecture Development Cycle
Enterprise Architecture, using The Open Group Architecture Framework Architecture Development Methodology (TOGAF ADM)3, entails going through different phases as shown in Figure 1. Critical to the requirements of the Terms of Reference for the project are Phases B, C and D. The method allowed us to view all their process documentations, if available, or elicit and model processes that are undocumented. These process models and artefacts take part in the Business Architecture. We then looked into their data both from a high or conceptual level and from a low or physical level. It took great lengths of mapping these conceptual data models to the business processes, moreso getting the complete business processes, interactions and information flows  documented themselves. Then we looked into their existing applications, modelled and related it to the processes to which these applications serve. We looked at their current infrastructure as well and modelled a target architecture by which the infrastructure can fulfill the requirements of the applications that services the processes that fulfills the intended performance of the solution that complies with the TOR. Needless to say, we considered legacy, third-party data and applications, out of scope processes in the mix of the overall  architecture. Ultimately, all of these need time without outputting a single line of code yet. Three months spent on EA work without a line of code yet for only a year-long project. For sure the client  was very impatient.
It was a painstaking “selling an idea, selling yourself” stint for me as I ventured in winning over the client and have them be on our side for this methodology: EA-driven solution development. What partly worked was communicating the value proposition of doing the EA work. For sure,  there’s tons of references out there that list these: 1. Alignment of technology to business strategies; 2. Aids in achieving business strategies; 3. Managing complexity of the enterprise; 4. Faster design and development of solutions; etc.. At the start of every meeting, I give a few minutes to orient key client stakeholders on the EA framework and the value this provide. The orientations ran for more than a month until we had some considerable artefacts and architectures to show for.  This worked in a way that when there are differences of expectations, it’s always a heavy, difficult conversation with clients, while, if there’s a level of agreement on expectations, conversations are smooth and affable. And we are having these kinds of conversations, already. But I did mention that communication only partly worked, because at the end of the day, there’s still no solution or line of code to show. I just can’t take all of that away from them, for now.

And then, eureka! The architecture surfaced the complexity!  When one can visually breakdown a complex network of interacting components and dimensions of the organization, or in this case, the solution and its  interactions with the organization, managing all of that becomes simple.  In my next blog, I’ll discuss how EA + tool shows the complexity and how it aids the communication: bringing the client to our side. I’ll share as well,  how visualizing the complexity helped me as PM  with decision-making based on these architecture artefacts.



1Gartner IT Glossary: Solution Architecture. Accessed June 2017. Retrieved from

2Government Procurement Policy Board. Republic Act 9184: Government Procurement Reform Act. 2002. Retrieved from http://www.gppb.gov.ph/laws/laws/RA_9184.pdf

3TOGAF® 9.1 Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM). Introduction to the ADM. 2011. Retrieved from http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap05.html



Talk to Us.

© Sinag Solutions

Unit 903, Antel Global Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Ave, 

Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines, 1605

Office: (632) 956 5175

EA = Enterprise Agility

by

Enterprise Architecture equals Enterprise Agility
by Mike “MO” Oliver, SOACA
Arhicecture word cloud.png

So how does Enterprise Architecture translate into equaling Enterprise Agility, other than the acronyms both being EA?

Standardization

One key element of any quality Enterprise Architecture is the setting and governing standards across the enterprise.  If you have standards on how to do this or that, then you will likely have templates for various code elements or perhaps you have standardized on a Framework or Enterprise Service Bus.  All of these will reduce the training time, design time, and development and testing time to build a solution or service.  Saving time in going from concept to production is by definition improving agility.

Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

Enterprises that adopt SOA for their strategic integration approach do so largely because of the efficiency  and productivity gains a Service Oriented Architecture can bring. SOA and the Microservices subset are all about designing solutions around small service components that follow separation of concerns and loose coupling paradigms, which also translate into better agility through more granular design and reusable services.  If 50% of the services your current solutions use are reusable, then building a new solution will take much less effort and time, giving you better agility.

Business Architecture

Following TOGAF and documenting your Business Architecture may not seem like it helps translate into Agility, but look at it this way.  If you do not have your Business Architecture documented fully, then as problems and opportunities arise (and they will), how do you know for sure that you don’t already have something in place to do the job? Or worse how do you know what the gap analysis is from what you have to what you need?  That takes time and if you make a mistake and miss something, then you may spend even more time and money to get it right later.  This all translates into Agility.

Conclusion

Agility essentially comes from two things:

  1. Knowledge that keeps you from making mistakes that lead to wasted time and effort.  Enterprise Architecture is mostly about organizing what you have so you know what you have and what you need, and that knowledge makes your enterprise more agile.

  2. The basic Engineering Principle, DRY for Don’t Repeat Yourself.  SOA, as part of your Enterprise Architecture, puts a priority on reuse, separation of concerns and loose coupling. Do those things and you will avoid duplication of effort which equals agility.


© Sinag Solutions

Unit 903, Antel Global Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Ave, 
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines, 1605

Office: (632) 956 5175

Patterns

by

In addition to story narratvies, I’m planning to use ‘pattern’ format for describing the Change Design tools: Here’s an example that describes the Business Service Specification tool (BSS). I would also then go on to describe how it’s been used in two …