Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
The Open Group committee made a conscious choice to encourage customization of TOGAF, since every organizational context is unique. After all, TOGAF is a framework, not something you swallow whole to get well. If you look at the first BPMN sub-pr…
The Journey
This initial posting is to set up the practice of Zen and the Art of Enterprise Architecture. I am often asked the question: “How did you become an Architect?” Although many in the IT industry have tak…
The Journey
This initial posting is to set up the practice of Zen and the Art of Enterprise Architecture. I am often asked the question: “How did you become an Architect?” Although many in the IT industry have tak…
With something as big and complicated as the entire enterprise, it’s not uncommon for customers to look for help after seeing an enterprise architecture (EA) effort collapse. One of the most frequent reasons their efforts crumble is that they …
With something as big and complicated as the entire enterprise, it’s not uncommon for customers to look for help after seeing an enterprise architecture (EA) effort collapse. One of the most frequent reasons their efforts crumble is that they …
The Conservative Party Manifesto 2010 which I reviewed for their IT agenda and priorities was accessed by me on this link.Before I share my views on this, here is an extract of relevant content.Sections of the document which focuses on cost reduction i…
Enterprise Analysis is a knowledge area which describes the Business analysis activities that take place for an enterprise to identify business opportunities, build a Business Architecture, determine the optimum project investment path for that enterprise and finally, implement new business and technical solutions. The question you may ask: Does this really differs from Enterprise Architecture, and if so, how?
At first sight, business opportunities are not always considered as being part of an Enterprise Architecture initiative, more as an activity which should be considered as an input. But let’s look at this in more detail.
Let’s look at this in more detail by way of mapping activities between BABOK v2* and the TOGAF 9 Framework*. The BABOK is the collection of knowledge within the profession of business analysis and reflects generally accepted practices. It describes business analysis areas of knowledge, their associated activities and tasks and the skills necessary to be effective in the execution:
|
BABOK v2 Knowledge Area Activity in Enterprise Analysis |
Definition | Enterprise Architecture (e.g TOGAF 9) | Differences, observations |
| Requirements Elicitation | This describes the interview and research process-how to best extract needs from stakeholders (and even how to recognize needs they don’t know they have).Elements such as metrics (tracking the amount of time spent eliciting requirements) and elicitation techniques (prototyping and brainstorming are just a couple) among the topics covered | Phase A: Architecture Vision is the initial phase of an architecture development cycle. It includes information about scope, the key steps, methods, information requirements and obtaining approval for the architecture development cycle to proceed |
Business scenarios are a useful technique to articulate an Architecture Vision. A Business Scenario describes, a business process, an application or set of applications enabled by the proposed solution , the business and technology environment, the people and computing components (called “actors”) who execute it, the desired outcome of proper execution To build such a Business Scenario, workshops with business users (stakeholders) would be organized |
|
Business Requirements Analysis |
This describes how to write/state requirements that will meet business needs. Key objectives include methods for prioritizing and organizing requirements, as well as the most beneficial techniques for requirements presentation (including state diagrams, prototyping, data flow diagrams, and process modeling, and more). Business Requirements for future project investments are identified and documented. They are defined at a high level, and include goals, objectives, and needs are identified |
Business Requirements are collected from business people during the Architecture Vision’s phase using the technique called Business Scenario (as mentioned above). That document identifies what will be the business solutions in generic terms |
The Enterprise Architects will define the Architecture Vision phase based on the goals, and objectives of the enterprise gathered from the business. There are two steps: 1. Business people will have defined the goals and the objectives of the enterprise independently from the Enterprise Architecture team 2. The Enterprise Architecture team which include business people gather the requirements based on the previous activity |
| Enterprise Analysis |
Begins after a Business executive team develops strategic plans and goals This outlines the crucial (and sometimes political) process of keeping everyone in the loop and on the same page regarding project’s direction and progress. This activity delves into such details as the requirements review and approval processes (including record-keeping). |
Most of these activities are taken into account in doing Enterprise Architecture or done directly by the Business executive team before starting an new Enterprise Architecture project | |
|
Strategic plan development |
Done outside of the Enterprise Architecture process by business people but is a key source of information | ||
|
Strategic goal development |
This is done outside of the Enterprise Architecture initiative by business people but is a key source of information | ||
| Business Architecture development | Done during Phase B:Business Architecture, looking at the baseline and target architecture, delivering a gap analysis, a plan and a roadmap | ||
|
Feasibility Studies |
Done during Phase A: Architecture Vision (with a Business Scenario) | ||
|
Business Case Development |
Done during Phase A: Architecture Vision (with a Business Scenario) | ||
|
New Project Proposal |
This is done in two steps: during the Phase A where we identify a Business solution and during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
| Selecting and Prioritizing New Projects | This is done in two steps: during the Phase A where we identify a Business solution and during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
| Business Opportunities | This is done during the Phase A: Architecture Vision and the Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions | ||
|
Launching New Projects |
This is done during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
|
Managing Projects for Value |
This is done during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
|
Tracking Project Benefits |
Once the project is in production, it is no longer part of the Enterprise Initiative | ||
| Solution Assessment and Validation | Details how to choose the best solutions for specific business needs (as well as assessing how well the chosen solution worked after its implementation).This should also cover risks, dependencies, and limitations that must be identified before proposing any solution |
Solutions are identified during Phase E.: Opportunities and Solutions. This phase is directly concerned with implementation, identifying major work packages to be undertaken and creating a migration strategy. Risk management, dependencies are taken into consideration. |
|
| Business Analysis Planning and Monitoring | Explains how to decide what you need to do to complete an “analyst effort” (in other words, how to plan a project). This helps intelligently decide which stakeholders, tools, tasks and techniques we will need to get the job done | Covered mostly in the Architecture Vision phase, then in the Business Architecture Phase | Stakeholder management techniques are used within TOGAF, tools and techniques are identified in the Business Architecture phase (modeling, reference models, viewpoints) |
| Requirements Management and Communication | Describes how to identify business needs (the why of the project; whereas requirements are the how) and state the scope of their solutions. This is a crucial piece of the analyst’s work. SMART criteria of measurement, SWOT analysis and other measurement factors that make identifying this root cause data objective and tangible are used | Business Requirements are collected with the business people during the Architecture Vision’s phase using the technique called Business Scenario (as mentioned above). |
SMART techniques are equally used. Communication plans are defined. |
This diagram below is a draft map BABOK® and TOGAF 9; more work is required!
Observations
There are obviously overlaps between Enterprise Analysis and Enterprise Architecture, but activities are not always done in the same sequence.
Enterprise Analysis complements Enterprise Architecture but also overlaps in some areas. Organization looking into Enterprise Architecture and specifically TOGAF 9 may consider adopting a Business Analysis framework such as BABOK and integrate them in the Preliminary Phase. If both approaches exist in a company, this would be a great opportunity for optimizing the alignment between Business and IT, and to run an Enterprise Architecture program from a complete business perspective.
About Business Analysis Body of Knowledge® (BABOK®)
The Business Analysis Body of Knowledge® (BABOK®) is the collection of knowledge within the profession of Business Analysis and reflects current generally accepted practices. As with other professions, the body of knowledge is defined and enhanced by the Business Analysis professionals who apply it in their daily work role. The BABOK® Guide describes Business Analysis areas of knowledge, their associated activities and the tasks and skills necessary to be effective in their execution. The BABOK® Guide is a reference for professional knowledge for Business Analysis and provides the basis for the Certified Business Analysis Professional™ (CBAP®) Certification.
BABOK® Guide 2.0 represents the development of a common framework to understand and define the practice of business analysis.
Enterprise Analysis is a knowledge area which describes the Business analysis activities that take place for an enterprise to identify business opportunities, build a Business Architecture, determine the optimum project investment path for that enterprise and finally, implement new business and technical solutions. The question you may ask: Does this really differs from Enterprise Architecture, and if so, how?
At first sight, business opportunities are not always considered as being part of an Enterprise Architecture initiative, more as an activity which should be considered as an input. But let’s look at this in more detail.
Let’s look at this in more detail by way of mapping activities between BABOK v2* and the TOGAF 9 Framework*. The BABOK is the collection of knowledge within the profession of business analysis and reflects generally accepted practices. It describes business analysis areas of knowledge, their associated activities and tasks and the skills necessary to be effective in the execution:
|
BABOK v2 Knowledge Area Activity in Enterprise Analysis |
Definition | Enterprise Architecture (e.g TOGAF 9) | Differences, observations |
| Requirements Elicitation | This describes the interview and research process-how to best extract needs from stakeholders (and even how to recognize needs they don’t know they have).Elements such as metrics (tracking the amount of time spent eliciting requirements) and elicitation techniques (prototyping and brainstorming are just a couple) among the topics covered | Phase A: Architecture Vision is the initial phase of an architecture development cycle. It includes information about scope, the key steps, methods, information requirements and obtaining approval for the architecture development cycle to proceed |
Business scenarios are a useful technique to articulate an Architecture Vision. A Business Scenario describes, a business process, an application or set of applications enabled by the proposed solution , the business and technology environment, the people and computing components (called “actors”) who execute it, the desired outcome of proper execution To build such a Business Scenario, workshops with business users (stakeholders) would be organized |
|
Business Requirements Analysis |
This describes how to write/state requirements that will meet business needs. Key objectives include methods for prioritizing and organizing requirements, as well as the most beneficial techniques for requirements presentation (including state diagrams, prototyping, data flow diagrams, and process modeling, and more). Business Requirements for future project investments are identified and documented. They are defined at a high level, and include goals, objectives, and needs are identified |
Business Requirements are collected from business people during the Architecture Vision’s phase using the technique called Business Scenario (as mentioned above). That document identifies what will be the business solutions in generic terms |
The Enterprise Architects will define the Architecture Vision phase based on the goals, and objectives of the enterprise gathered from the business. There are two steps: 1. Business people will have defined the goals and the objectives of the enterprise independently from the Enterprise Architecture team 2. The Enterprise Architecture team which include business people gather the requirements based on the previous activity |
| Enterprise Analysis |
Begins after a Business executive team develops strategic plans and goals This outlines the crucial (and sometimes political) process of keeping everyone in the loop and on the same page regarding project’s direction and progress. This activity delves into such details as the requirements review and approval processes (including record-keeping). |
Most of these activities are taken into account in doing Enterprise Architecture or done directly by the Business executive team before starting an new Enterprise Architecture project | |
|
Strategic plan development |
Done outside of the Enterprise Architecture process by business people but is a key source of information | ||
|
Strategic goal development |
This is done outside of the Enterprise Architecture initiative by business people but is a key source of information | ||
| Business Architecture development | Done during Phase B:Business Architecture, looking at the baseline and target architecture, delivering a gap analysis, a plan and a roadmap | ||
|
Feasibility Studies |
Done during Phase A: Architecture Vision (with a Business Scenario) | ||
|
Business Case Development |
Done during Phase A: Architecture Vision (with a Business Scenario) | ||
|
New Project Proposal |
This is done in two steps: during the Phase A where we identify a Business solution and during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
| Selecting and Prioritizing New Projects | This is done in two steps: during the Phase A where we identify a Business solution and during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
| Business Opportunities | This is done during the Phase A: Architecture Vision and the Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions | ||
|
Launching New Projects |
This is done during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
|
Managing Projects for Value |
This is done during Phase F: Migration Planning | ||
|
Tracking Project Benefits |
Once the project is in production, it is no longer part of the Enterprise Initiative | ||
| Solution Assessment and Validation | Details how to choose the best solutions for specific business needs (as well as assessing how well the chosen solution worked after its implementation).This should also cover risks, dependencies, and limitations that must be identified before proposing any solution |
Solutions are identified during Phase E.: Opportunities and Solutions. This phase is directly concerned with implementation, identifying major work packages to be undertaken and creating a migration strategy. Risk management, dependencies are taken into consideration. |
|
| Business Analysis Planning and Monitoring | Explains how to decide what you need to do to complete an “analyst effort” (in other words, how to plan a project). This helps intelligently decide which stakeholders, tools, tasks and techniques we will need to get the job done | Covered mostly in the Architecture Vision phase, then in the Business Architecture Phase | Stakeholder management techniques are used within TOGAF, tools and techniques are identified in the Business Architecture phase (modeling, reference models, viewpoints) |
| Requirements Management and Communication | Describes how to identify business needs (the why of the project; whereas requirements are the how) and state the scope of their solutions. This is a crucial piece of the analyst’s work. SMART criteria of measurement, SWOT analysis and other measurement factors that make identifying this root cause data objective and tangible are used | Business Requirements are collected with the business people during the Architecture Vision’s phase using the technique called Business Scenario (as mentioned above). |
SMART techniques are equally used. Communication plans are defined. |
This diagram below is a draft map BABOK® and TOGAF 9; more work is required!
Observations
There are obviously overlaps between Enterprise Analysis and Enterprise Architecture, but activities are not always done in the same sequence.
Enterprise Analysis complements Enterprise Architecture but also overlaps in some areas. Organization looking into Enterprise Architecture and specifically TOGAF 9 may consider adopting a Business Analysis framework such as BABOK and integrate them in the Preliminary Phase. If both approaches exist in a company, this would be a great opportunity for optimizing the alignment between Business and IT, and to run an Enterprise Architecture program from a complete business perspective.
About Business Analysis Body of Knowledge® (BABOK®)
The Business Analysis Body of Knowledge® (BABOK®) is the collection of knowledge within the profession of Business Analysis and reflects current generally accepted practices. As with other professions, the body of knowledge is defined and enhanced by the Business Analysis professionals who apply it in their daily work role. The BABOK® Guide describes Business Analysis areas of knowledge, their associated activities and the tasks and skills necessary to be effective in their execution. The BABOK® Guide is a reference for professional knowledge for Business Analysis and provides the basis for the Certified Business Analysis Professional™ (CBAP®) Certification.
BABOK® Guide 2.0 represents the development of a common framework to understand and define the practice of business analysis.
I have the fortunate opportunity to manage the Enterprise Platform portfolio for Microsoft IT and thought that I’d share some tidbits how I do it.
In Microsoft IT, the Enterprise Platform Portfolio (EPP) is only one program portfolio peer to other program portfolios like our Line-of-Business (LoB) specific portfolios such as Sales, Marketing, Services, HR, Legal, IT (yes, even IT is a LoB to us), etc. The EPP is a portfolio designed to manage our platform systems and encourage them to deliver more value to the company.
I’ve distilled the EPP’s Charter (aka Team Model, Process Model and Delivery Approach) into the following points to help articulate how I manage the EPP:
| Architecturally-pure Platform Diagram | Exec-ready Platform Diagram |
 |
 |
• An Enterprise Platform is a set of Components where one or more of those Components are used by more than one Application. More than one Line of Business uses these Applications.
• An Enterprise Platform may master a Data Facet.
|
Business Alignment |
||
|
Relation to Goal Prioritization |
Does the Platform relate to highest priority Business Goals? |
|
|
Capability Assessment |
Does the Platform relate to priority Business Capabilities Assessment (Value, Performance and Maturity) |
|
|
Business on-boarding Commitment |
Can the Platform demonstrate commitment from multiple businesses? |
|
| Portfolio Simplification | ||
|
# of Redundant Apps and Plats |
• Will the Platform reduce redundant Applications/Platforms? • Will the Platform retire similar functioning Applications/Platforms slated for retirement? |
|
|
Retirement of Unsupported Vendor Products |
Will the Platform retire the use of unsupported vendor products? |
|
|
Platform Excellence |
||
|
Information Quality |
Will the Platform improve information quality; make information more accurate and available? |
|
|
Regulatory Compliance |
Will the Platform help Microsoft comply with Regulatory Compliance? |
|
|
Security and Privacy Policy Alignment |
Does the Platform comply with Security and Privacy Policies? |
|
| Agility |
Flexibility, Maintainability • Flexibility to support many Business Processes • Self-service |
I’m curious to learn what others do to manage platforms. Please share your thoughts if you have a moment.
In my ongoing research, I have identified a close link between enterprise architecture/engineering and systems science. P. Harmon, the prominent business process thinker and author of the book Business Process Change (K. Harmon 2007), Hoogervorst (2009…
In my ongoing research, I have identified a close link between enterprise architecture/engineering and systems science. P. Harmon, the prominent business process thinker and author of the book Business Process Change (K. Harmon 2007), Hoogervorst (2009), and Dietz et al. (2008) all discuss the influence of systems science and systems thinking on the process management and enterprise engineering disciplines as such, whilst K. Harmon (2005) even stresses the contention that systems thinking is a basic premise for the successful IT/management strategy implementations in today’s organisations. Interestingly, these authors share the same foundations of research: cybernetics and systems thinking as put forward by Norbert Wiener (1948) and Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1969) — and for Dietz and K. Harmon, R. L. Ackoff (1981, 1993).
Obviously, systems science and cybernetics has offered very important contributions to IS research — especially within process management where organisations are better conceived as self-regulating, self-controlling systems rather than Laplacian machines that reason and act only by their internal causal structures. Systems researchers such as Beer, Bertalanffy, Ackoff, and Checkland have all contributed towards making this a mainstream research branch within a multitude of sciences, and it has also found its way to the enterprise engineering. But K. Harmon’s integration of enterprise architecture research and systems thinking is a good example of cybernetics as a research eulogy: we have finally found the magic gemstone that bridges the gap between our IT systems and business operations.
Unsurprisingly, that wide statement come at the cost of certain ontological premises. In my thesis research, I have made an attempt at systematizing these premises and their ontological influences on enterprise architecture. The criticism might not be unique or new, but at least it is an attempt to put very important research in the broad frames of enterprise architecture. We keep stating that EA is the future meta discipline for the modern enterprise; thus we also need a broad meta framework that is capable of 1) questioning its own foundation and 2) supporting the diverse types of knowledge, processes, and methodologies within an organisation in order to create and sustain innovation. In my next blog entries, I will present these critique points, and hopefully receive some valuable feedback as well. I haven’t been very good at replying to your valuable comments; that is only due to me being busy, and not because of arrogance or ignorance. I will post a follow up very soon.
Defining Cybernetics
Before I present the initial critique, it is valuable to define what cybernetics really is, and how it relates to systems thinking. Both disciplines are often used interchangeably, but there are, depending on the author, certain differences.
Systems theory and Norbert Wiener’s theory of cybernetics are closely related (Heylighen 1999). But where systems theory focuses mainly on the structure of systems, cybernetics concerns the function of a system (e.g. what the system does) in relation to other systems. But, as Heylighen puts forward in Principia Cybernetica, both concepts are facets of the same subject and have permeated into a vast amount of sciences from information systems and biology to social sciences (ibid.). To provide a comprehensive analysis of EA and systems thinking, it is thus also necessary to draw in cybernetics.
The word cybernetics stems from the Greek word kybernetes meaning pilot or steersman and was by one its pioneers, Norbert Wiener, defined as the science encompassing “the entire field of control an communication theory, wether in the machine or in the animal.” (Principia Cybernetica: Defining ‘Cybernetics’ – http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/definitions.htm — accessed on Apr 11 2010). However, that is only one branch of a definitional wilderness, spanning from Bateson’s very rigid explanation of cybernetics as “a branch of mathematics dealing with problems of control, recursiveness, and information” (ibid.) through Humberto Maturana’s very broad definition of cybernetics as “The Art and Science of Human Understanding. (…) Why? The Person that guides the ship, the skipper, acts both on practical know-how and intuition. Thus, the skipper acts both as a scientist and as an artist,” (ibid.) – and finally to Heinz von Foerster’s very cryptic conceptualisation: “Should one name one central concept, a first principle, of cybernetics, it would be circularity.” (Ibid.)
Concluding on the previous analysis of systems thinking within EA, it is tempting to assume that a systems theoretical foundation for EA is less mechanistic and more nuanced in its conceptualisation of knowledge and organisations. But, in my opinion, that assumption is flawed.
Paradox no. 1: The Enterprise is a System v. The Enterprise as a System
Systems science, as put forward by the authors previously mentioned, operates on the basic assumption that an enterprise is a system, and therefore one must frame it as a system in order to manage it efficiently[1]. But this “systemification” of organisation theory is just as reductionistic and mechanistic as orthodox Cartesian thinking: if we invert the implication, we are logically forced to accept the inference that if the subject matter of interest is not a system, it is not an enterprise. Operating from that premise automatically constrains our framing of organisations in another way and thus entails a new systemic reductionism in the EA discipline. There is a fundamental difference between postulating that enterprises carry systemic properties, behave like systems, or should be interpreted or framed as systems, since the conceptualisation here occurs at the epistemological level (how the knowledge about the subject matter is produced), rather than stating that the subject matter inherently is a system in its own right (which thus occurs on the ontological level — this entails that the fundamental nature of reality or reality is essentially constituted by systems). The words ‘is’ or ‘behaves like’ make a very distinct — and crucially important! — difference.
Accordingly, the philosophical underpinnings of the notion that an enterprise is a system – and, as articulated by Bertalanffy, is best framed as a biological system or organism — are questioned by Kast and Rosenzweig (1972):
In my ongoing research, I have identified a close link between enterprise architecture/engineering and systems science. P. Harmon, the prominent business process thinker and author of the book Business Process Change (K. Harmon 2007), Hoogervorst (2009…