Architecture

Has in-person communication become the unwilling victim of technology?

by

In Enterprise Architecture, one of the most important aspects of the job is not only to communicate, but to lead change.  In other words, it is great to have the data to point to a problem in an enterprise.  It is better to help that enterprise overcome it by changing something (processes, technology, training, staff levels, departmental structures, roles and responsibilities, artifacts, governance mechanisms, etc).  Change requires more than simple communication.  It requires a kind of in-person, face-to-face, listening and hearing and absorbing interaction that is difficult or impossible over written mechanisms like e-mail, word documents, and powerpoint presentations.

Our technology has led us to the point, in modern business, that we consider outsourcing and remote work to be a net benefit for all involved, but each of these “distance” mechanisms introduces the RISK of poor communication.  That risk is magnified when the person on one end of the line is hoping to change something that the person on the other end is doing.  Change is harder across distance, and that difficulty becomes magnified when dealing with the array of different interactions that are needed at the enterprise level.

I wonder if the PC revolution, that brought us personal access to written communication, has created a deep reliance on written communication in corporate processes.  I wonder, further, if that access to technology isn’t directly harming our ability to look a person in the eyes and communicate with them.

As a culture, we have moved from the age of face-to-face all the way to text-messaging-someone-in-the-same-room in the course of a single generation. 

Enterprise Architecture is more difficult because of this shift in communication patterns.  All forms of face-to-face communication are hampered by it.

Modern technology has done more to damage interpersonal communication than any other paradigm shift in human history.

This worries me.

AGILE architecture vs. agile ARCHITECTURE

by

As an architect involved in an agile implementation (my current gig), you can imagine how interested I was to see that there’s a new book on Agile Architecture, and perhaps how disappointed I was to see that it focused on SOA and Cloud.  That’s not to put down SOA or the cloud.  I’m a huge fan of both.  But it wasn’t the area of agility that I was hoping that a book, with that title, would address.  The misunderstanding was mine, not the authors.  I haven’t read the book yet, but I’m sure I will.

That moment of misunderstanding crystallized a thought: how even a two word phrase like “agile architecture” had two completely different meanings.  The opening scene of the movie “The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey,” puts a rather humorous twist on this idea, when Gandalf introduces himself to Bilbo Baggins (who has apparently forgotten having met him as a boy).

Bilbo: Good Morning

Gandalf: What do you mean? Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not;

Bilbo: <stunned silence>

Gandalf: Or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?

Bilbo: All of them at once, I suppose.

Of course, in Enterprise Architecture, we have the same problem.  Does Enterprise Architecture mean “the practice of using technology architecture at an enterprise-wide scale,” or does it mean “the practice of using architectural ideas to shape the enterprise itself?” 

And after a bit of stunned silence, perhaps it means

“Creating an architecture to describe the externalities of an enterprise to set its context and improve the relationships it has with customers, partners, and suppliers?” 

All of them at once, I suppose.

Having just re-watched the Hobbit movie on my morning flight, these bits connected up in my head.

I’m proud to be both an architect of agility (applying the principles of agility to the processes of a business so that the business achieves the ability to change its own processes in response to agile demands), as well as a person who can craft technology architecture that reflects the notion of agility itself (technology that can be set up to change rapidly in response to business events).

All of them at once, I suppose.

An Agile Enterprise Architecture (EA) Delivers Critical Business and Mission Agility

by

While working with a recent partner, the question came up; “What changes are made to the EA approach if agile methods are required, or otherwise heavily encouraged?” The initial answer at the time was “Not many – we already have an agile approach to EA embedded in our Oracle Enterprise Architecture Development Process (OADP), and our Oracle Enterprise Architecture Framework (OEAF) is independent of project management and project development approaches.”

Our OADP has always been agile and therefore supportive of business and government agility – particularly in the current context of severely constrained budgeting cycles. We firmly believe in a “just enough, just in time” philosophy, with collaborative insight and contribution across teams and leadership, and delivery of EA artifacts or guidance tuned directly to prioritized results. This means strategic, useful and reusable guidance modeled and delivered in a manner that supports both longer-term initiatives and near-term objectives.

EA delivered as an agile approach, however, does require continual line-of-sight traceability back to the IT investment strategy – which in turn is aligned to the business strategy.  

In other words, a Sprint Iteration approach might be justified (i.e. using the “Scrum” strategy), from all relevant perspectives, to quickly establish a reusable process and metadata model for a common agency function – like “Document Routing and Approval” (DRA). The output might be required to inform a software solicitation (i.e. to explain the requirements).  The output might be to establish a reference model and basic governance (business rules) for identifying and improving process efficiencies around the agency where DRA is occurring.

The actual need for this EA artifact (or “Product”, in Agile terms) may be driven from an unanticipated mandate or regulatory change, and therefore require rapid response.  The need may also be limited in scope to only a portion of the agency’s business (i.e. those who actually know they need it).

So, an EA Sprint will work, and deliver what’s needed quickly and effectively to the target audience.  The highest return on investment (ROI) in this exercise, however, only exists if actual Enterprise traceability and impact assessment occurs. In other words, an agile EA output with a strategic Enterprise outcome.

Note this is a common misunderstanding for Agile software development; Agile programming and project management may deliver useful, rapid and cost-effective “features” from a Backlog of priorities, but much of the supporting infrastructure, integrations and organizational change isn’t delivered using Agile methods, but must evolve in a more strategic, methodic manner.  Preferably with EA guidance.

Here’s what should happen.  The common DRA process, metamodel and business rules begin to shape, in a somewhat parochial “requirements-driven” context, heavily leveraging the impacted SMEs for a short period of time. As this occurs, the Enterprise Architect and stakeholders begin mapping and comparing the DRA process design (at appropriately coarse levels of abstraction) to any similar that may exist within the agency, or among agency partners or stakeholders.  This may require some additional outreach and communication.  The EA may find additional SMEs, risk factors, standards, COTS DRA solution accelerators, overlapping data management projects, etc. – essentially other activities or resources that can be used or might be impacted.

The Enterprise Architect is the Scrum Master!

Strategic oversight and influence is therefore brought to bear on the EA sprint, and by leveraging EA methods, the impacts to the rest of the organization plus any modifications to the focus EA artifact can be addressed – entirely within standard and expected IT Governance. The EA artifact development is a Sprint, but actually leverages our lifecycle methodology – from Business Context through Current and Future States, and then Roadmap (i.e. Transitional Architecture) and Governance.  The EA Sprint may actually kick off or modify a more holistic EA maintenance process.

We are therefore avoiding an “agile everything” philosophy, though we’re delivering agile results.   We contribute over-arching guidance and process for both the DRA project and the organization as a whole, to make sure that all projects underway are still aligned to meet the needs of the business and IT investment constraints.

This is essentially what we believe in applying our EA process, over time or during more Agile response cycles; always raise and maintain focus on the business strategy and drivers to guide the investment of IT budget into those areas that affect the business most – or that are the most immediate priority, such as described above.

Thanks to Oracle Public Sector Enterprise Architect Ted McLaughlan for contributing to this article!

T’was but an Ounce of a Moment.

by

Did you know that terms like “Fortnight” and “Ounce” indicate units of time? Furthermore, did you know that seemingly ambiguous terms like “Moment” have actual measurable, concrete definitions? Did you also know that finding arcane facts…

Questions for the Upcoming Business Architecture Tweet Jam – March 19

by

Earlier this week, we announced our upcoming tweet jam on Tuesday, March 19 at 2:00 p.m. PT/9:00 p.m. GMT/ Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 8:00 a.m. DST, which will examine the way in which Business Architecture is impacting enterprises and businesses of all sizes. The discussion will be guided by these six questions… … Continue reading →

Having Standards and Going Broke

by

One of my favorite surveys I use when talking to a large audience, is to have the house lights brought up and then ask, “Would everyone here who personally thinks that they are irresponsible and unreasonable, please raise your hand.” It always ge…

Business Architecture Tweet Jam – March 19

by

Today, Business Architecture is shaping and fostering enterprise transformation initiatives and continuous improvement throughout companies of all sizes. On Tuesday, March 19, The Open Group will host a tweet jam examining the topic of Business Architecture. … Continue reading →

Yes, yes, but what do you do?

by

I’ve tried explaining my job as an Enterprise Architect to a number of people, including my parents, and after I’m done I get that “sure, whatever you say” kind of a look.

I’ll not delve into my job description here, except to say that a s…

Humility and the Art of Enterprise Architecture

by

As a lot, Enterprise Architects are not terribly humble people.  We name frameworks after ourselves, and sometimes go to great lengths to correct the “misinterpretations” of others who describe our work in a way that we don’t agree with. 

Yet, recognizing that the field is young requires that we should be willing to change as the field of EA changes; that we should be willing to look back on our models, developed in the past, and admit that we missed a few steps that we wouldn’t miss today.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss, on LinkedIn, a blog post that I made five years ago.  I look back on that blog post and must admit that my opinions are a bit different now than they were five years ago.  I still agree with my post, but I would certainly use different words today than I used in the past.  I am more than willing to admit it. 

I also look at the efforts of Alexander Osterwalder whose Business Model Canvas has proved both practical and flawed.  He missed the fact that he needed to create a differentiation between the customer’s needs and the value proposition of the business offering to fill some of those needs.  Did he go back and create an updated canvas?  Nope.  He created a new canvas to describe demand as though it fits with his older one (hint: it’s a mess). 

The venerable John Zachman, probably one of the most humble men I’ve met, also made this same mistake.  While his original model was only a couple of columns, and was updated only a few years later into the table we see today, the field of EA has changed.  The table is no longer representative of companies with multiple business models (most of them) and the lack of a “customer” row simply relegates his “ontological table” to the dust bin. 

Neither man will change.  They have “legacy” models, with their names attached.  To paraphrase Forrest Gump, humble is as humble does.

I would like to think that my willingness to upend my EBMM and replace it periodically with new versions shows my willingness to admit that (a) I’m often wrong, and (b) I’d rather learn than become stale.  That said, I’m no paradigm of humility, myself. 

After all, a truly humble EA would not have written this blog post. 

(As my teenage daughter would say: Oh snap, you pwned yourself!)