EA Voices – Page 673 – Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom

Data Management 3: Realization of Entities in applications

June 11, 2013 by BizzDesign Staff

This is the third blog post in the Data Management series. Last time we discussed the notion of subject areas and entities. This time we zoom in on the realization of these entities in applications.<img alt=”Content. Data Management part 3″ src=”http://www.bizzdesign.com/assets/BlogDocuments-2/20130611_BasvanGils/Data-Management-realization-of-entities-in-applications.png” style=”width: 501px; height: 334px;” title=”Data Management part 3: Realization of Entities in applications”/> <img alt=”Data Management. Coverage analysis” class=”left” src=”http://www.bizzdesign.com/assets/BlogDocuments-2/20130611_BasvanGils/Data-Management-Coverage-Analysis.jpg” style=”width: 150px; height: 114px; float: left;” title=”A “coverage analysis” will be the tricky part”/>One of the things we should be able to do is to create views that show which systems have data about a certain Entity. Similarly, we want to link our Entities to Processes. Going forward, we will use the term ‘Data Object’ to differentiate between the Entity in a business context and its data-counterpart. The ‘Attributes’ of Entities (see also our previous post), are reflected as ‘fields’ in their Data Object counterparts. A “coverage analysis” will be the tricky part: suppose that we have a Subject Area called ‘Customer’. The key Entity in this Subject Area is also called Customer with Attributes such as name, social security number etcetera. Other Entities are such things as shipping address, E-mail address, etcetera. There are two things we want to visualize for business stakeholders: <ol class=”ol1″><li class=”li1″>Which information with respect to a customer is relevant from a process perspective? Only name? Only Social Security Number? Both?</li> <li class=”li1″>Which information about a customer is stored in a system? One system may store the E-mail address of a customer, whereas the physical address may sit in another system</li></ol>We have call this a “coverage analysis” because: from a data governance perspective we want to make sure that all Entities in a Subject Area, as well as all Attributes of an Entity are represented somewhere in a System!This type of modeling is quite ‘standard’ in ArchiMate. There are separate concepts for BusinessObjects and DataObjects. Also, there is a standard way of relating the two, using a RealizationRelation. The fact that DataObjects have Fields is modeled using a CompositionRelation and more DataObjects. This is not a very ‘pretty’ solution. Especially when a data object has many fields, the visualization will quickly become cluttered. For example, 4 DataObjects with 3 Fields each ads up to at least 12 concepts and 12 relations which has a high visual complexity. Using graphical nesting will result in a much cleaner visualization.The standard way of modeling the relation between a system (ApplicationComponent) and a DataObject uses the behavioral concept of an ApplicationFunction. The idea is that an ApplicationComponent has (internal) behavior to manipulate DataObjects. While it is correct, and often useful to model Application Functions, for most visualizations it is equally useful to hide them and use a short-cut notation as follows:<img alt=”A model of application functions” src=”http://www.bizzdesign.com/assets/BlogDocuments-2/20130611_BasvanGils/Data-Management-model-application-functions.png” style=”width: 599px; height: 262px;” title=”model Application Functions”/>With respect to the coverage-type analyses mentioned previously, this could be done and visualized in many different ways such as:<ul><li class=”li1″>Select a Subject Area or an Entity and list (color view) all Data Objects that are associated with it</li> <li class=”li1″>Select a Subject Area or an Entity and show (color view) all Systems that manage a data object that is associated with this Subject Area or Entity. </li> <li class=”li1″>Select a Subject Area and highlight (color view) the entities that have an associated Data Object that is managed by some system</li> <li class=”li1″>Generate a CRUD-matrix that lists which Entities are accessed by which Process. Use the CRUD notation in the cells to show the nature of the access relation</li> <li class=”li1″>Select a Subject Area and create a CRUD-matrix as listed above</li> <li class=”li1″>Select a Subject Area and create a CRUD-matrix that shows which System manages (!) a Data Object that is a realization of an Entity that sits in that Subject Area. At the intersection of the columns and rows we should list the name of the Entity</li></ul>Modern tools such as BiZZdesign Architect make these analyses fairly straightforward and reusable. We mentioned techniques such as creating color views and generating tables. This functionality is available in our Enterprise Architecture tool BiZZdesign Architect, which can be downloaded here (30-day free, fully featured, trial license). If you would like a demonstration, please leave us a note!As a final thought for this posting: note that this list has a mix of different types of visualizations, such as diagrams and matrices. This is partly because of communication preferences of key stakeholders, but also because some results are easier to interpret in different formats. In the next posting we will dive into Data Governance with a strong focus on data stewardship (Data Stewards are generally considered to be the heroes of the field), so stay tuned!

Digital Disruption: Know the Fundamentals of Your Business

June 11, 2013 by Eric Meredith

Digital Disruption lesson #4: Know the fundamentals of your business. This is the 4th in a five part series about Digital Disruption.

Borders Booksellers operated for more than 40 years, growing from a local Michigan retailer to a national megastor…

How to build a Roadmap – Gap Analysis

June 11, 2013 by James Parnitzke

This post will discuss how to develop a robust gap analysis to identify any significant shortcomings between the current and desired end state. We use these findings to begin develop strategy alternatives (and related initiatives) to address what has been uncovered. The intent is to identify the difference (delta) from where we are to what we aspire to become. This exercise is critical to identify what needs to be accomplished.

Experts of the Enterprise Architecture World

June 11, 2013 by Ed Jones

The practice of Enterprise Architecture is a dynamic and constantly evolving world. To ensure you remain at the very pinnacle of the practice and keep your knowledge current, we’ve gone about collating some of the leading minds within Enterprise Architecture bubble (many of whom can be found on EA Voices). So dust off your bookmarks, …

Sometimes the small details do matter

June 11, 2013 by Tom Graves

It was the presence of the big-lens cameras that caught my eye, I guess… I’d just finished a great meetup in London yesterday with enterprise-architect Stuart Boardman, talking about the This-game, SCAN and requisite-variety, and their relation to Cloud and outsourcing.…

Ban the Word “Alignment” From Your Architecture

June 10, 2013 by Doug Newdick

Something about the typical language of enterprise architecture is starting to bug me. The overuse of the word “alignment”. When people are asked to describe what enterprise architecture is all about, they often answer with the phrase “it’s about the alignment of IT with business strategy”. But is that enough? Should it be something more? […]

NOTES – actors, agents and extras in the enterprise

June 10, 2013 by Tom Graves

If the enterprise is a story, who are the actors in that story? What are their drivers and needs? How do we model and manage the relationships between those actors in the story? (This is part of an overview and…

IBM’s Own IT Transformation Example

June 10, 2013 by Rajeev Bhardwaj

So what is the value of Enterprise Architecture, and how can it really guide transformation in an enterprise. How do you crisply attribute the value of good planning, and articulate it to others? (… as we read in my previous posts, Enterprise Archite…

IBM’s Own IT Transformation Example

June 10, 2013 by Rajeev Bhardwaj

The Project Business Model Stakeholder Groups

June 9, 2013 by Jörgen Dahlberg

This post is number nine in a series of ten about real life experiences of using business model thinking as a foundation for planning and delivering change. Writing this post I’ve had the help of a true friend and admirable colleague (Eva Kammerfors) whom I’ve shared many of the referred to business model experiences with. […]

Governance and empowerment #openwork

June 8, 2013 by Richard Sage

Governance, the word that makes me think of the colour Grey. The thoughts below have been buzzing around my head for a while, so i thought i’d try and get the thoughts out of my head and into my blog.

Governance, the etymology comes from a greek word meaning “to steer or pilot a ship”.

A lot of organisations spend a lot of time, effort, money and goodwill trying to do governance. Any sort of governance (project, corporate, architecture, risk, whatever), in my mind boils down to trying to achieve to things

1) Ensuring that what actors within the organisation are trying to achieve aligns with what the organisation wants to achieve.

2) Ensuring that how the actors within the organisation are achieving what they want to achieve aligns with how the organisation (as a collection of values and culture) want it to be achieved

In trying to achieve these two goals the governance framework (or frameworks) that an organisation puts in place should support the actors in achieving them.

However, Governance is often seen as a hurdle, an impediment, a box ticking exercise, bureaucracy or a annoying delay, whether that’s a change board, project board, architecture board, release board, etc etc. This is because, in a lot of organisations governance is about control. Its about desperately trying to herd cats, jumping on in-flight projects and saying ‘nooo, you don’t want to do it like that’.

This happens because in my opinion and experience the Governance (with a big G) framework and governance bodies are often addressing a symptom rather than the root cause.

Why do you need control?

Why do you need oversight?

Change doesn’t misalign itself, risks don’t realise themselves. It is the results of actors acting that governance attempts to steer.

But why would the actors in your organisation do something that doesn’t align to the organisations goals?

The symptom that a lot of governance efforts try to address is control of divergence in the what and the how of the organisation.

The real problem is about poor communication. Poor communication of vision (what we want to achieve) and principles (How we choose to go about achieving it).

The real solution is openness

Share vision

Share principles

Share expectations

Share risk

Share culture

Share concerns

Share arguments

Share events

Openness lived within an organisation leads to the above things being embedded within actors which leads to ownership, empowerment and self organisation. Agile teams have known this for a long time, communication through openness being a key enabler for self organisation. I’m not clear as to why that message hasn’t permeated to the areas of organisations that deal with governance?

What it comes down to is, there is no need ‘to steer’ if your ships are already being piloted in the right direction.

Every organisation is ‘for-profit’

June 8, 2013 by Tom Graves

What’s the fundamental difference between a for-profit organisation, and a not-for-profit one? Or, for that matter, between either of those and, say, a government department, or an NGO (non-governmental organisation)? Short answer: none – because every organisation is a for-profit organisation. The only…