Using CMU/SEI Quality Attribute Workshop (QAW) while developing an Architecture Vision

Business Scenarios are a proven technique to link business requirements to architectural models. According to TOGAF a Business Scenario is a description of:

  • A business process, application, or set of applications that can be enabled by the architecture
  • The business and technology environment
  • The people and computing components (called “actors”) who execute the scenario
  • The desired outcome of proper execution”

Recently I have been working with another technique which is commonly used by Software Engineering People but mainly for Software Architecture: Quality Attribute Workshops (QAWs) from CMU SEI (Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. This technique make use of interactive workshops with the main stakeholders of a project. Where you the solution is to be developed either internally or externally (not a COTS), then this technique could be combined with the Business Scenario.
A Quality Attribute Workshop (QAW) is a systematic approach to elicit the needed requirements. This will ensure that all quality attributes are included in the final design. To This end it:

  • is a facilitated method that engages system stakeholders early in the life cycle to discover the driving quality attributes of a software-intensive system
  • provides a way to identify important quality attributes and clarify system requirements before the software architecture has been created (Implementation Governance)
  • is based on the qualities and the non-functional requirements that may be captured in the Architecture Vision document, the team will identify and elaborate specific quality attribute scenarios and document them
  • produces a documentation that includes most of the quality attributes specified by the stakeholders

QAW defines two kinds of architectures:

  • System Architecture: the fundamental and unifying system structure defined in terms of system elements, interfaces, processes, constraints, and behaviours
  • Software Architecture: the structure or structures of the system, which comprise software elements, the externally visible properties of those elements and the relationships among them

The TOGAF specification considers the Enterprise as a System, however the term System in QAW is more related to IT Systems. QAW provides an opportunity to gather stakeholders together to provide input about their needs and expectations with respect to key quality attributes that are of particular concern to them. A similar concept to what we try to achieve with the TOGAF Business Scenario but with a focus on IT systems quality attributes.

It is also a purpose of identifying scenarios from the point of view of a diverse group of stakeholders which can then be used by the system engineers to analyse the system’s architecture and identify concerns. QAW is mainly addressing non-functional requirements and there is still needs to understand the problems we try to solve, gather functional requirements like in Business Scenarios.

clip_image002
Quality Attribute Workshops ensure that quality attribute scenarios are identified, prioritized, and refined before the software architecture is completed. Individual requirements are viewed in a forum in relation to one another in the context of the overall problem. Architecture is based on complete set of requirements that add up to a whole problem description.

Technique requires involvement – at an early stage in architecture project

  • Business stakeholders (end users)
  • Systems stakeholders (installers, administrators, DBAs; network, training, acquirers, system and software engineers, etc.)
  • Other stakeholders (such as Operations amongst others)

The QAW provides:

  • Increased stakeholder communication, an informed basis for architectural decisions
  • Improved architectural documentation, and support for analysis and testing throughout the life of the system

And the results include:

  • A list of architectural drivers
  • Raw scenarios
  • A prioritized list of raw scenarios
  • Refined scenarios

During the workshops the Stakeholders receive a “participant’s handbook” providing example quality attribute taxonomies, questions, and scenarios.

Below are the steps of the QAW.

clip_image004
clip_image006
clip_image008
clip_image010
Business and/or mission drivers for the system (goals and drivers), plan, strategies, high-level functional requirements, constraints, artifacts and quality attribute requirements should be presented to the stakeholders. Using Business Scenario in conjunction with QAWs can be an appropriate approach.

A QAW lends itself to the capture of many architecturally relevant materials:

  • Software architectural documentation is a collection of view packets plus any documentation that applies to more than one view
  • Each view packet contains a primary presentation, a catalogue of the view’s elements (including element behaviour), use case diagrams, sequence diagram, context diagrams, collaboration diagram, a variability guide, architecture background (rationale, analysis results, and assumptions about the environment), and other information including mapping to requirements

These elements may also be produced in a Business Scenario or produced later in the ADM phases A : Architecture Vision, C: Information Systems Architectures (stakeholders management and taxonomy of artifacts).

clip_image012
The outputs from the QAW can be summarised as:

  • A list of architectural drivers
  • Raw scenarios
  • A prioritized list of raw scenarios
  • Refined scenarios
  • Questionnaire

Quality attribute requirements are the means by which a system is intended to meet its business goals and QAW helps to document them.

Software architectures must be designed so that their quality attributes are met.

The QAWs technique can be utilised as a complementary approach to gather all sort of requirements including those from Software Architectures when appropriate.

Using CMU/SEI Quality Attribute Workshop (QAW) while developing an Architecture Vision

Business Scenarios are a proven technique to link business requirements to architectural models. According to TOGAF a Business Scenario is a description of:

  • A business process, application, or set of applications that can be enabled by the architecture
  • The business and technology environment
  • The people and computing components (called “actors”) who execute the scenario
  • The desired outcome of proper execution”

Recently I have been working with another technique which is commonly used by Software Engineering People but mainly for Software Architecture: Quality Attribute Workshops (QAWs) from CMU SEI (Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. This technique make use of interactive workshops with the main stakeholders of a project. Where you the solution is to be developed either internally or externally (not a COTS), then this technique could be combined with the Business Scenario.
A Quality Attribute Workshop (QAW) is a systematic approach to elicit the needed requirements. This will ensure that all quality attributes are included in the final design. To This end it:

  • is a facilitated method that engages system stakeholders early in the life cycle to discover the driving quality attributes of a software-intensive system
  • provides a way to identify important quality attributes and clarify system requirements before the software architecture has been created (Implementation Governance)
  • is based on the qualities and the non-functional requirements that may be captured in the Architecture Vision document, the team will identify and elaborate specific quality attribute scenarios and document them
  • produces a documentation that includes most of the quality attributes specified by the stakeholders

QAW defines two kinds of architectures:

  • System Architecture: the fundamental and unifying system structure defined in terms of system elements, interfaces, processes, constraints, and behaviours
  • Software Architecture: the structure or structures of the system, which comprise software elements, the externally visible properties of those elements and the relationships among them

The TOGAF specification considers the Enterprise as a System, however the term System in QAW is more related to IT Systems. QAW provides an opportunity to gather stakeholders together to provide input about their needs and expectations with respect to key quality attributes that are of particular concern to them. A similar concept to what we try to achieve with the TOGAF Business Scenario but with a focus on IT systems quality attributes.

It is also a purpose of identifying scenarios from the point of view of a diverse group of stakeholders which can then be used by the system engineers to analyse the system’s architecture and identify concerns. QAW is mainly addressing non-functional requirements and there is still needs to understand the problems we try to solve, gather functional requirements like in Business Scenarios.

clip_image002
Quality Attribute Workshops ensure that quality attribute scenarios are identified, prioritized, and refined before the software architecture is completed. Individual requirements are viewed in a forum in relation to one another in the context of the overall problem. Architecture is based on complete set of requirements that add up to a whole problem description.

Technique requires involvement – at an early stage in architecture project

  • Business stakeholders (end users)
  • Systems stakeholders (installers, administrators, DBAs; network, training, acquirers, system and software engineers, etc.)
  • Other stakeholders (such as Operations amongst others)

The QAW provides:

  • Increased stakeholder communication, an informed basis for architectural decisions
  • Improved architectural documentation, and support for analysis and testing throughout the life of the system

And the results include:

  • A list of architectural drivers
  • Raw scenarios
  • A prioritized list of raw scenarios
  • Refined scenarios

During the workshops the Stakeholders receive a “participant’s handbook” providing example quality attribute taxonomies, questions, and scenarios.

Below are the steps of the QAW.

clip_image004
clip_image006
clip_image008
clip_image010
Business and/or mission drivers for the system (goals and drivers), plan, strategies, high-level functional requirements, constraints, artifacts and quality attribute requirements should be presented to the stakeholders. Using Business Scenario in conjunction with QAWs can be an appropriate approach.

A QAW lends itself to the capture of many architecturally relevant materials:

  • Software architectural documentation is a collection of view packets plus any documentation that applies to more than one view
  • Each view packet contains a primary presentation, a catalogue of the view’s elements (including element behaviour), use case diagrams, sequence diagram, context diagrams, collaboration diagram, a variability guide, architecture background (rationale, analysis results, and assumptions about the environment), and other information including mapping to requirements

These elements may also be produced in a Business Scenario or produced later in the ADM phases A : Architecture Vision, C: Information Systems Architectures (stakeholders management and taxonomy of artifacts).

clip_image012
The outputs from the QAW can be summarised as:

  • A list of architectural drivers
  • Raw scenarios
  • A prioritized list of raw scenarios
  • Refined scenarios
  • Questionnaire

Quality attribute requirements are the means by which a system is intended to meet its business goals and QAW helps to document them.

Software architectures must be designed so that their quality attributes are met.

The QAWs technique can be utilised as a complementary approach to gather all sort of requirements including those from Software Architectures when appropriate.

Context is Everything!

“Context eats strategy for lunch.” This quote is typically attributed to Peter Drucker, one of the most revered management consultants and business authors of all time, whose writings made significant contributions to the foundations of today’s business corporation. Most of us know this to be true . . . yet, we often ignore it in […]

Ten Ways to Kill An Enterprise Architecture Practice

Have you seen practices that you know could kill an Enterprise Architecture practice?  I have.  A recent LinkedIn thread asked for examples, and I came up with my top ten.  I’d love to hear your additions to the list.

How to screw up an EA practice

  1. Get a senior leader to ask for EA without any idea of what he is going to get for it. If necessary, lie. Tell leaders that EA will improve their agility or reduce complexity without telling them that THEY and THEIR BUSINESS will have to change.
  2. Set no goals. Allow individual architects to find their own architecture opportunities and to do them any way they want.   Encourage cowboy architecture.
  3. Buy a tool first. Tell everyone that they need to wait for results until the tool is implemented and all the integration is complete.
  4. Get everyone trained on a “shell framework” like Zachman. Then tell your stakeholders that using the framework will provide immediate benefits.
  5. Work with stakeholders to make sure that your EA’s are involved in their processes without any clear idea of what the EA is supposed to do there. Just toss ’em in and let them float.
  6. Delete all the data from your tool. Give no one any reason why. You were just having a bad hair day.
  7. Get in front of the most senior people you can, and when you get there, tell them how badly they do strategic planning.
  8. Change your offerings every four months. Each time, only share the new set of architectural services with about 20% of your stakeholders.
  9. Create a conceptual model of the enterprise that uses terms that no one in the enterprise uses. Refer to well known business thinkers as sources. When people complain, tell them that they are wrong. Never allow aliases.
  10. Every time you touch an IT project, slow it down. Occasionally throw a fit and stop an IT project just for fun. Escalate as high as you can every time. Win your battles at all costs.

Your career will be short. 🙂

Do Enterprise Architecture Frameworks matter?

Last week I explained why embracing organizational change is important.  This week I will talk about Enterprise Architecture frameworks and whether or not they matter.
What is an Enterprise Architecture framework?
An Enterprise Architecture framewor…

Categories Uncategorized

Enterprise Portfolio Management: GPS for CIOs

bg outline

By: Ben Geller, VP Marketing, Troux

gps for cios 081913The 24 satellites that make up the global positioning system (GPS) space segment are orbiting the earth about 12,000 miles above us. Traveling at speeds of roughly 7,000 miles an hour, they are in constant movement, making two complete orbits every 24 hours. Military, civilians and commercial industries worldwide depend on the GPS system for location and time information every day. A GPS is an effective tool used by many to help save time and money and reduce daily stresses. When used correctly, a GPS can help its end users find the most direct route to their destination while delivering decision-making information that helps avoid time consuming obstacles such as road construction and traffic. Now imagine a GPS navigation system specifically designed for CIOs. One that could provide CIOs with the information they need to successfully steer IT and business together. Sound too good to be true? Navigation systems for CIOs already exist in the form Enterprise Portfolio Management (EPM).

Like a GPS satellite, a CIO must maintain a very precise orbit around their environment to maintain crucial insight into their entire organization to navigate current challenges and architect a future-proof infrastructure. However, GPS satellites are built to last ten years, while a CIO’s average tenure is only four years. How can a CIO successfully steer an organization and extend their tenure? An EPM solution can provide CIOs with a 360 degree view of the IT landscape in the context of the business, providing them with the information they need to synchronize IT with business goals in real-time. 

Everyone knows that the first step in operating a GPS device is plugging in the destination. Many organizations undertake enterprise architecture (EA) initiatives with the vague destination of “aligning the business with IT” in mind. Without defining specific business questions to answer or outcomes to achieve, a program can get bogged down in activity that does not drive EA initiatives in a direction that supports corporate goals. To determine the best route, a CIO needs a clear picture of the landscape as it exists.

An EPM solution provides a powerful and interactive analysis engine that supports a library of preconfigured visualizations to help decision makers quickly analyze and identify risk areas, as well as opportunities for cost savings and investment re-alignment. Without a set of rich analytics that represent the current state of organizations, processes, information, technologies and their relationships, the EA program will not have the roadmap it needs to reach the destination.

GPS accuracy depends on a number of variables, most notably signal to noise ratio, satellite position, weather and obstructions such as buildings and mountains. Businesses are often challenged to capture the structure and dynamics of the enterprise due to obstructions such as siloed information existing in disparate repositories such as Excel, Visio or even PowerPoint. An EPM solution provides the CIO with a comprehensive, advanced report creation environment, which delivers a collection of standard reports that answer critical business questions. These reports provide a comprehensive view of the IT landscape in the context of the business. Further, built-in data stewardship capabilities support the ability to federate the management and maintenance of information assets on both an organizational and individual level. A CIO can browse, search, edit and report against data stored in a centralized repository.

With a clear picture of an enterprise’s entire IT portfolio, a CIO can then leverage a comprehensive EPM solution to provide a visual modeling environment which enables decision-makers to create models and quickly understand the connections and dependencies between different types of enterprise portfolio elements. With rich visual models that represent the current state of organizations, processes, information, technologies and their relationships, a CIO can perform scenario-based alternative analysis to understand how each decision can impact the organization, allowing the company to link actions to business goals.

A GPS helps users reach their destinations by providing them with up-to-date, relevant information. When it comes to defining and implementing a strategy to connect the enterprise, an EPM solution can do the same for a CIO.  Businesses have always had tremendous decision-making challenges due to the lack of complete, accurate and timely information. With a solid Enterprise Portfolio Management strategy, enterprises can gain clear line-of-sight and instantly see how current and future technology strategy decisions impact an organization before they are implemented. Businesses can make more informed decisions that synchronize IT with business goals leading to reduced costs, decreased risk and increased agility. Capturing and managing information in the context of these portfolios is a critical component in providing visibility and synchronization between business and IT investments.

 

 





Categories Uncategorized

You Can’t Sell Unicorns

Many of my fellow business architects are incredibly excited about the value an architected approach to business design can offer. They believe in the model so strongly that the value is intuitively obvious. They believe so strongly, they expect the value to be intuitively obvious to everyone else. Unfortunately, it isn’t.   Even with all the […]

Dotting the joins (the JEA version)

[The new editor of the Journal of Enterprise Architecture, Len Fehskens, asked me to expand my previous post ‘Dotting the joins’ into a formal paper for the Journal. Which I did, and it was duly published in the August 2013

Three Types of Strategy

The word “strategy” means different things to different people, much of which isn’t really strategy at all (see A Strategy by Any Other Name for more on this topic). But within the domain of well-defined strategy there are uniquely different strategy types. Here are three that come to mind. What strategy types do you see? […]

The Value of Deployment Options

By Bernadette Nixon and Isam Alyousfi
The announcement today that OpenText has acquired Netherlands-based Cordys will provide significant value to customers, partners, and prospects. Not only does it give them many new capabilities, but it also gives them a host of new options for deployment. This kind of power and flexibility is what we strive for at OpenText, and this acquisition takes us to a whole new level.

The new capabilities of the Cordys platform mean that we can offer on-prem, SaaS and PaaS BPM and Case Management solutions all in the same platform, which adds convenience, efficiency, and value for our customers. The Cordys platform also includes a built-in ESB, RIA (Rich Internet Applications) framework, master data management, rules engine, business activity monitoring, and cloud orchestration capabilities.

Cordys has also created a composite applications framework (CAF) with mash-up capabilities, so our customers will be able to build custom applications quickly, and integrate them to their backend systems, all from an intuitive interface that is really usable by business analysts. The CAF will be a nice complement to our Assure platform, which provides pre-built service delivery-focused processes and user interfaces, and together they redefine the term “time-to-value” for our customers.

The acquisition also brings a new level of flexibility in development and deployment. Many customers and partners are looking to the cloud to ease the burden of managing hardware and infrastructure, and the Cordys platform can take them there. The platform was built from the ground up for the cloud, and is a true multi-tenant solution that offers a complete middleware Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) solution, with cloud orchestration for BPM / case management and the underlying infrastructure. This includes app development, app integration, and enterprise mobility, from an on-premise deployment, 100% cloud deployment, or with a hybrid cloud model. While many of our customers will continue to deploy Assure, MBPM, and Case & Process 360-based solutions on-premise, we know others will choose to deploy with OpenText in the cloud. That’s true flexibility, and flexibility increases value.

Also important about the acquisition is that we now have a very compelling offering for OpenText partners, including ISVs, SIs, and Managed Service Providers to develop and deploy their own process automation solutions to a much broader set of customers than we could reach alone. These might be horizontal, vertical, or custom solutions that will bring specific functionality to meet specific business needs in new markets.

So we couldn’t be happier with the news. We now have a very comprehensive set of products that cover the application development needs of even the largest global organizations. When we add the capabilities of the broader OpenText EIM platform, which includes content management and customer engagement management – all from a single vendor – we have an extremely compelling and competitive offering that’s going to be very hard to beat.

Related posts:

  1. High-Velocity BPM Comes to the Cloud For years, we have been known for our ability to…
  2. When It Comes to Mobile Apps – Thin is In! One of the big topics of discussion regarding mobile is…
  3. Insights from OpenText: What Metastorm Brings to the Company OpenText announced Friday the completion of the Metastorm acquisition. We…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.