Search Results for: open group

Dump the BDAT-stack!

by

For a viable enterprise-architecture [EA], now and into the future, we need frameworks, methods and tools that can support the EA discipline’s needs. Yet there’s one element common to most of the current mainstream EA-frameworks and notations – such as…

The Demoralised Man

by

Right now there’s an interesting (to me, anyway!) discussion going on within the Enterprise Architecture Network community on LinkedIn, on the role of ethics in EA, and its relationship with EA as a profession. I’ve added a few quick comments…

Designing Digital Change

by
Session Synopsis for Hong Kong, April 2016: 

In this session Mr. Nigel Green shares his experience of preparing organisations for the Digital World. He introduces key concepts that will help open-up the discussion of the implications, risks, and opportunities, of a digital strategy. Whilst the popular definition of “Going Digital” is often focused on digital channels for Marketing purposes, Mr. Green explains why it also impacts many areas of the organisation, and explains why it is not simply the CMO’s, CDO’s, or CIO’s challenge alone. He will also share tools and techniques used in the design & execution of the transformation to a digitally enabled business. In addition, he will discuss pragmatic next steps to take, and share ideas on how to contribute to a business-wide discussion on the subject.
This session should be of interest to anyone trying to get to grips with what “Going Digital” means to their organization, and how to start planning the change:
  • The components of a digitally-enabled Business Model
  • The implications & risks of adopting “Bi-modal IT”
  • How to design for the protection of existing core business systems whilst embracing the new
  • Dealing with an unknown future, and adaptive long-range planning
  • The dangers of “Big Design Up Front”, and perhaps paradoxically, why “Adaptive Design” is ever more crucial
  • The business and technology architecture implications – including a perspective on the applicability of a pattern adopted by the “born digitals” (e.g. Netflix, Google, and Amazon)
  • Suggested subject matter experts to track, follow-up research material, and next steps to take.

Designing Digital Change

by
Session Synopsis for Hong Kong, April 2016: 

In this session Mr. Nigel Green shares his experience of preparing organisations for the Digital World. He introduces key concepts that will help open-up the discussion of the implications, risks, and opportunities, of a digital strategy. Whilst the popular definition of “Going Digital” is often focused on digital channels for Marketing purposes, Mr. Green explains why it also impacts many areas of the organisation, and explains why it is not simply the CMO’s, CDO’s, or CIO’s challenge alone. He will also share tools and techniques used in the design & execution of the transformation to a digitally enabled business. In addition, he will discuss pragmatic next steps to take, and share ideas on how to contribute to a business-wide discussion on the subject.
This session should be of interest to anyone trying to get to grips with what “Going Digital” means to their organization, and how to start planning the change:
  • The components of a digitally-enabled Business Model
  • The implications & risks of adopting “Bi-modal IT”
  • How to design for the protection of existing core business systems whilst embracing the new
  • Dealing with an unknown future, and adaptive long-range planning
  • The dangers of “Big Design Up Front”, and perhaps paradoxically, why “Adaptive Design” is ever more crucial
  • The business and technology architecture implications – including a perspective on the applicability of a pattern adopted by the “born digitals” (e.g. Netflix, Google, and Amazon)
  • Suggested subject matter experts to track, follow-up research material, and next steps to take.

“Want Fries with That?”

by

Greger Wikstrand and I have been trading posts about architecture, innovation, and organizations as systems (a list of previous posts can be found at the bottom of the page) for quite a while now. His latest, “Technology permeats innovation”, touches on an important point – the need for IT to add value and not just […]

UNIX®: Allowing Engineers to Engineer

by

By Darrell May, Senior Principal Software Engineer, Oracle® Oracle® Solaris innovation is due in part to the UNIX® standard,[1] the test suites,[2] and the certification.[3] By conforming to the standard, using the test suites[4] and driving to certification, Oracle® Solaris … Continue reading →

Accidental Innovation?

by

From my very first post, I’ve been writing on the subject of “accidental architecture”, which is also sometimes confused with “emergence”. From the picture on the right (which I used previously on a post titled “Accidental Architecture”), it should be easy to infer what my opinion is in regard to the idea that coherent system […]

Innovation on Tap

by

Two articles from the same site (CIO.com), both dealing with planned innovations, but with dramatically different results: “Report: Twitter’s algorithmic timeline may arrive next week” reports that rumors (or “rumors”) of Twitter switching from a chronological timeline to one curated algorithmically has led to an uprising under the hashtag #RIPTwitter. Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, has […]

The New Generation IT Operating Model

by

By Yan Zhao, Ph.D, President, Chief Architect, ArchiTech Group LLC Introduction The New Generation IT Operating Model is mostly associated with the current trend of service orientation. A service-oriented IT operating model should be based on service-oriented IT architecture. More … Continue reading →

Don’t Sacrifice Your Business Architecture

by
Business architecture is core for an organisation’s Enterprise Architecture. Both the leading Enterprise Architecture frameworks, TOGAF and Zachman advocate Business Architecture to become a fundamental corner stone of Enterprise Architecture. Business architecture is about not just about business process modelling and business capability definition on a project to project basis. I think it is also about defining the Target Operating Model of the organisation. I have personally experienced the power of applying pragmatic business architecture to model current (as-is) and target (to-be) business operating models.
However Business Architecture is not easy to deliver on. An organisation needs skilled and experienced practitioner architects to engage stakeholders, establish relationships to understand and model the business capabilities, business processes workflows etc. Business architects should ideally also need reasonable domain knowledge of the respective business to make a meaningful contribution in the design of such model. Otherwise that individual runs the risk of becoming simply (an expensive) documentation resource.
These days often the funding for Enterprise Architecture is limited and high priority projects and programs are often competing for best resources and funding. In these situations often the Business Architecture resources are sacrificed to make way for technical architects (e.g. infra, integration). In such scenarios an organisation runs the risk of doing Enterprise Architecture without Business Architecture. This probably results in this organisation doing IT Architecture rather than Enterprise Architecture. See below graphic. 
It will probably still deliver value by bringing structure, discipline, visibility and planning to the critical IT project delivery. However these efforts risk falling short of becoming something much more meaningful and sustainable investment for business and not just IT.

I strongly feel that organisations should not sacrifice Business Architect. When resource and funding is limited, instead such organisations should find clever alternative ways to resource them. Some of the options which have worked for me in the past are;
  • Get your most important projects to fund it and then expand that to Enterprise level
  • Use your experienced application or data architect to play the role of Business Architect in the interim
  • Leverage your strategic partners / suppliers to perform this role
  • Leverage your customers / internal business stakeholders to play this role directly and indirectly. I came across an excellent real life use case of this recently. More on this in next post.

Don’t Sacrifice Your Business Architecture

by
Business architecture is core for an organisation’s Enterprise Architecture. Both the leading Enterprise Architecture frameworks, TOGAF and Zachman advocate Business Architecture to become a fundamental corner stone of Enterprise Architecture. Business architecture is about not just about business process modelling and business capability definition on a project to project basis. I think it is also about defining the Target Operating Model of the organisation. I have personally experienced the power of applying pragmatic business architecture to model current (as-is) and target (to-be) business operating models.
However Business Architecture is not easy to deliver on. An organisation needs skilled and experienced practitioner architects to engage stakeholders, establish relationships to understand and model the business capabilities, business processes workflows etc. Business architects should ideally also need reasonable domain knowledge of the respective business to make a meaningful contribution in the design of such model. Otherwise that individual runs the risk of becoming simply (an expensive) documentation resource.
These days often the funding for Enterprise Architecture is limited and high priority projects and programs are often competing for best resources and funding. In these situations often the Business Architecture resources are sacrificed to make way for technical architects (e.g. infra, integration). In such scenarios an organisation runs the risk of doing Enterprise Architecture without Business Architecture. This probably results in this organisation doing IT Architecture rather than Enterprise Architecture. See below graphic. 
It will probably still deliver value by bringing structure, discipline, visibility and planning to the critical IT project delivery. However these efforts risk falling short of becoming something much more meaningful and sustainable investment for business and not just IT.

I strongly feel that organisations should not sacrifice Business Architect. When resource and funding is limited, instead such organisations should find clever alternative ways to resource them. Some of the options which have worked for me in the past are;
  • Get your most important projects to fund it and then expand that to Enterprise level
  • Use your experienced application or data architect to play the role of Business Architect in the interim
  • Leverage your strategic partners / suppliers to perform this role
  • Leverage your customers / internal business stakeholders to play this role directly and indirectly. I came across an excellent real life use case of this recently. More on this in next post.