community

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.

Podcast on the Enterprise Architecture profession–Interview with CIPS’s Stephen Ibaraki

by

Way back in April, I announced the first of two podcasts with the Canadian Information Processing Society.  I just realized this weekend that I had not announced the availability of the second of those podcasts.  Error corrected.

The second podcast, once again hosted by the inimitable Stephen Ibaraki, focuses much more on the growth and progress of the Enterprise Architecture profession itself.  Specifically this podcast reflects upon:

  • The role of Business Architecture in Enterprise Architecture?
  • Does an Enterprise Architect have to be able to discuss technical issues like cloud computing?
  • How would you define Enterprise Architecture?
  • The value proposition of the Enterprise Architect?

 

For full details, and a link to the podcast, visit the Canadian IT Manager’s Connection, a TechNet site. 

Speaking at TechEd New Zealand on Business Architecture

by

Haven’t  been to New Zealand yet, but I will be there soon… From September 4 through 7 in Auckland, for TechEd New Zealand.  I will be presenting two topics (Business architecture for non architects, and Aligning IT with capabilities).

Now, normally you wouldn’t see Enterprise Architecture topics on a TechEd calendar.  However, in the NZ market, there just isn’t the demand for multiple Microsoft conferences every year.  As a result, all the conference demand is bundled up into TechEd.  Due to the efforts of Terry Chapman and the hard working architects in Microsoft New Zealand, the TechEd conference there has developed quite a reputation for hosting an advanced architecture track. 

I’m fortunate to be attending and presenting.  If you live or work in the region, I’d love to see you at TechEd New Zealand.  If you would like to see more information about the sessions at TechEd NZ, click here.

Conversational Antipatterns on Message Boards

by

Architects argue.  I have, over the past year, spent a good bit of time on LinkedIn Message boards.  I’ve watched a lot of people argue.  I’ve learned a great deal about Enterprise Architecture, and a few things about myself, as I’ve compared notes with individuals who have different perspectives and motivations. 

That said, some patterns have emerged, good and bad, for conversing with other architects on these message boards.  In the spirit of the GOF Design Patterns, and the subsequent work on Antipatterns, I’d like to point out some of the antipatterns I’ve noticed repeatedly on the boards, and in each case, these antipatterns cause some level of anxiety.  This is borne out by observing the responses, where frustration is often explicit.

There are nearly always two roles in this kind of argument.  The provocateur ( a person who makes a statement that is challenging or innovative ) and the responder ( a person who responds in a way that triggers the antipattern behavior ).  

Conversational Antipatterns

  1. Don’t misrepresent me with my own words
  2. The problem with your general message is this specific use of a word
  3. If you don’t understand, you should read my published papers
  4. My argument has been validated with my years of experience, so you must be wrong
  5. My certification means more than you think it means
  6. You are using “my” terminology wrong

 

Antipattern 1: Don’t misrepresent me with my own words

In this antipattern, the provocateur will make a statement that appears to conflict with something that they said previously or said in another discussion.  If the responder points out the conflict, especially if done with a direct quote, the provocateur get’s offended and becomes defensive.  Conversation ends.

How to avoid: People are inconsistent but believe that they are quite consistent.  If a provocateur appears to be inconsistent, the responder should simply ask for follow up details.  Don’t pounce in public.  Find out what their real underlying thinking is, rather than picking at words.  If they remain inconsistent, the responder should reach out in private.  In the private message, the responder should point out the text from the other thread and ASK them to explain how these two positions work together. 

How to address: The forum moderator should look at the value of the conversation.  Has the provocateur added useful thinking?  Has the responder?  Normally, the answer to both questions is “yes.” If so, send a warning message to both asking them to assume positive intent and consider the emotional context of the other.

Antipattern 2: The problem with your general message is this specific use of a word

In this antipattern, the provocateur will make a general statement designed to express a “grand idea.”  The  responder will either agree or disagree (usually the latter) but then point out that a particular word, in the response, was used incorrectly.  Perhaps they said “process” when they should have said “capability.”  Perhaps they said “activity” when they should have said “process, activity, and practice.”  Perhaps they said “business” when they should have said “enterprise.”

How to avoid: The responder should start by stating whether they agree with the main idea, or not.  If they disagree with the main idea, offer a reason “why” that has NOTHING to do with the detailed wording.  Take the time to think about what the big idea is, and follow up to understand it, before focusing on a word.  Disregarding a “big idea” because you disagree with a minor distinction in the wording is frustrating to everyone on the community, and stifles the sharing of ideas. 

When you get to the point where you understand the big idea, the responder can offer a suggestion to improve the understanding the idea.  For example, “I agree with your core concept.  It appears that we have similar experiences and I find your description innovative.  It may help, as you go forward to share this idea, if you are careful about the use of the word “zyzzix” because I understand that word to be a synonym of “fryzzam.”  I understand that you make a distinction between these terms, but not all of your audience may agree that these two terms are distinct.  You may find it easier to reach people like me if you use the term “golozarat” instead to refer to this muddy concept.”

How to address: Either of the participants can pull back and “get to the point” by reframing the “grand idea” and ask if the other person agrees with a simple “yes” or “no” answer.  If no answer is forthcoming, no learning is happening.  If you are asked to consider a new big idea, take some time before you respond to think about that idea.  Be willing to learn and grow, not just pontificate.  My father used to say, “sometimes, the best way to open your mind is to close your mouth.”  It’s good advice.

Antipattern 3: If you don’t understand, you should read my published papers

In this antipattern, the provocateur will make a specific statement that appears well thought out, but may be innovative or controversial.  When the responder asks questions for follow-up, the provocateur replies “I explained this in rich detail in my book” or “please read my paper in the Journal of EA Innovation, September 2005, page 14.”  This generates frustration on the part of the readers who cannot hear the full discussion because some of it exists in a book or article that they may not have access to.

How to avoid: First off, if you are an author, you must realize that publishing a paper or book does not give you the right to force others to read it before speaking with you.  You will never be out of the “business” of educating others in your ideas.  Get used to it.  Getting defensive is counterproductive.

To avoid creating frustration, it is OK to point others to your work, but then ALSO offer a summary of what you said in that work and be willing to continue to discuss the problem in the forum.

How to address: When this happens to you, it is probably safe to assume that the author you are speaking with is looking for some validation.  Compliment him or her, and ask them to provide a summary of their thoughts from the book or article so that progress can continue.  If you are a moderator, and one provocateur does this a lot, or gets defensive when others DON’T read their articles, remind them privately of this antipattern.  If they persist, suspend them from the board for 30 days.

Antipattern 4: My argument has been validated with my years of experience, so you must be wrong

In this antipattern, the provocateur will make a statement that appears to be too directive or too specific for others to understand or agree with. If the responder challenges the position, the provocateur claims that their “years of experience” have found their position to be true.  The provocateur remains unbending, and repeatedly argues against any alternatives.

How to avoid: This is tough to avoid.  People form their own mental models of reality and when challenged, they can listen to alternatives, or defend their model.  The problem with listening to alternatives is that it is risky.  They may discover that a past “success” was not as successful as it may have been.  In the words of my friend Jack, “their ears are filled with their ego.”

Often the best way to avoid the problem is to model good behavior in your own contributions.  When posting an opinion, lead with “in my opinion” or “in my experience.”  Use phrases like “I’ve found this to be true in my situation,” and then ask others to share “their situation.”  That way, when someone does respond with a statement like “you are wrong,” you can follow up with a moderation message, like “I believe that our experiences may be different in this respect. I’m glad that you shared your experience.  Can you tell me how we should reconcile our two different sets of experiences to come to a mutual understanding?”

How to address: Usually the best way around this is to respond as above, asking for a common understanding.  However, if that doesn’t work (and it often will fail), then you have no leverage to “require” someone to change their opinion.  Ask if it is OK for the two of you to “agree to disagree” and move on.  There is no point in discussing the same issue over and over.

Antipattern 5: My certification means more than you think it means

In this antipattern, the provocateur will state that a concept that he or she is fond of, applies to the discussion at hand.  When the responder questions the concept, the provocateur responds that they are “certified” or otherwise demonstrably educated, and their certification tells them to use that concept.  Upon inspection, it is clear to all that the certification in question does not cover the same scope as the provocateur claims it does.  An example would be an IT person, certified in the development of software interfaces called “SOA Services,” claiming an understanding of business services or customer services.  Another example would be a person with substantial training in financial risk management claiming that all business decisions in the enterprise begin, and end, from a risk management viewpoint.

How to avoid: As with most of these antipatterns, we have a situation where the ego of one or more of the people may be getting in the way of open communication.  The “certified” individual may, in fact, have broader experience than their certification prepares them for.  However, there is often a predisposition, among those that have been formally trained in a field, to believe that the training describes the world “as it is” rather than the world “as it should be.”  More often than not, the training is simply out of sync with the reality on the ground.

As a result, of the “ego factor,” this antipattern is somewhat inevitable.  It will occur more in some areas than in others.  Unfortunately, in the EA field, it occurs often because of the explosion of certifications and the lack of consistency among the field participants.

How to address: One good way that I’ve found to address this problem is to point out your own experiences, using words that reflect that you are not dictating some universal truth but rather the experiences you’ve actually had.  Use first names of people (replace the actual first names, to protect your friends), and explain how they used the terms and concepts of the space.  Then describe how you worked in that situation.  Try to use successful scenarios to lend credibility to your position.  You want to help them to see that their position may not be universally true.  You don’t want to prove them to be wrong, because that would simply be your ego trying to stomp on theirs.  There are names for this kind of ego-vs-ego behavior.  Avoid it.  It hurts your credibility to engage in it.

Antipattern 6: You are using “my” terminology wrong

In this antipattern, the provocateur will state that a concept has one, and only one, meaning.  The responder suggests an alternate meaning, and the provocateur responds defensively, citing sources for their definition of the term.  This is where you see a “dictionary grudge match” where someone cites a definition from an authoritative source, and another person responds with either ridicule of the source or, even better, another authoritative source with a conflicting definition.

How to avoid: Firstly, if someone questions your use of a word, don’t immediately go hunting for a reference definition.  In other words, model good behavior.  Admit that your definition, regardless of how well sourced it is, was created by other (fallible) people with a particular context in mind. It is entirely possible that the provocateur also has a different context than you, and that the author of the definition that you are painstakingly citing would have created a different definition if he or she had the same context as the provocateur.

Of course, if someone asks you for a reference, it is perfectly appropriate to give one on a message board.  In writing a research paper, you would assume that the reader wants to know your sources, and you would always provide them, but for conversation on a message board, you should wait to be asked.

Secondly, don’t be “possessive” about the terms that you use.  Your openness will reduce the likelihood that others will be possessive about the terms that they use.  If someone wants to use a synonym, agree. 

How to address: One good way that I’ve found to address this problem is to ask the provocateur for their help in explaining their terminology to you.  Most people will be flattered by the request, and will go out of their way to describe what their use of a term means.  If you respond by “reframing” their statement, using a smattering of your own terminology, then you will quickly discover whether that person is interested in conversing with a shared set of terms, or if the conversation can only proceed by acquiescing to their use of language.  If the latter, it becomes a judgment call, on your part, about whether you should continue to interact at all.  It is better to end a discussion on a good note than to fight on forever over the meanings of words.

—-

That’s my list.  I’m sure that there may be more, but these are the ones that crop up often enough for me to want to write about them.  I hope this is helpful for folks who want to discuss things on message boards, like LinkedIn, without becoming entwined in endless arguments.

On the road to a Business Architecture Manifesto

by

One very powerful metaphor that has reverberated throughout the technical community, in the past few years, was the Agile Manifesto.  Created by a group of folks who wanted to communicate the principles that drove their thinking, the Agile Manifesto has been a very useful tool for deciding if a particular practice is being done well.  I think it may be time to build one for the Business Architecture space.

That said, I am by myself, sitting in my living room.  I am in no position to speak for the community of business architects.  So, this submission is a suggestion for content that could be useful when the conversation begins.  It is my personal opinion about the principles of business architecture.  I would hope to bring this material to a group of other BA practitioners, as my contribution, to develop a full consensus on business architecture manifesto.  

First off, in order to develop principles for business architecture, we need to describe the problem that we are trying to solve. 

The problem that business architecture solves

Business architecture is a relatively new field that addresses an old problem.  Most business people recognize the underlying truth: the structure and practices of your organization directly impacts your ability to deliver the intended value.  Whether we are talking about a military service, a civilian government agency, a non-profit organization, or a for-profit business, the structures and processes that a leader chooses to employ will impact the results that the organization will produce.  That includes both intended and unintended results.  So the basic problem is this: how do we deliver on our mission while maintaining our values?

Business architecture gets to deal with a slice of that problem.  As people, we need to organize around a common shared mission.  We need to know what we want, and we need to go get it.  Humans can be pretty haphazard.  Business architecture does not address every issue.  Business architecture attempts to answer this question: what is the optimal way to organize?  Business architecture typically does NOT answer questions around the integration of corporate controls, or supporting activities like how to find staff to fill new roles.  Business architecture is focused on the narrow slice of “how to organize.” 

So why do we need business architecture to solve this problem?  There are literally hundreds of good, well researched, books that offer useful insight for solving this problem.  Why use a business architecture approach?  Because BA brings a novel approach, one based on the rigorous application of conceptual traceability, process improvement, information science, and mathematics.  While most of the business analysis methods prior to business architecture were founded, fundamentally, in social science, mechanical engineering, and even education, business architecture focuses on the newer sciences that have emerged in the computerized age. 

How does business architecture solve the problem

Business architecture’s unique value proposition is to focus on answering the questions of business structural and organizational effectiveness in a way that is rigorous, quick, clear, consumable, and value-focused. 

We are uncovering better ways of developing business insight by doing it and helping others do it.  Through this work, we have come to value:

Consistently reusable methods over Piecemeal assortment of best practices

Rapid insight over Deeply accurate models

Clear choices over Nuanced decision trees

Consumable deliverables over Consistency with external frameworks

Value-driven prioritization over Justification of the status quo

 

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

 

To break that down:

  • Repeatability, Reuse, and Rigor.  There are many ways to understand a business.  Business architects will expect you to pick one of those ways (one conceptual model) and then stick to it.  The rigor comes from sticking to the model.  If your enterprise is focused on creating a smooth customer experience, then the business architect will leverage the customer experience work done elsewhere, and will drive a business stakeholder to follow along rather than make something up.  While products must be creatively and freely developed, the organization itself must be architected and engineered.  Rigor matters.
     
  • Rapid Insight. There are many ways to analyze a business.  Business architects will work to reduce the overhead of their analysis methods so that they can produce valuable answers in a very timely manner.  Business people are not rewarded for taking a long time to do an excellent job.  Most will be better rewarded if they do a reasonably good job in a shorter timeframe.  While accuracy is great, the value of information is inversely proportional to the time needed to produce it.  Speed matters.
     
  • Clear Choices. If a business person cannot tell what the recommendation is, they won’t follow it.  If the business architect cannot produce insight that is clear for the business stakeholder, the architect will not effect change.  It is not good enough for a business architect to be quick and correct… they must also be clear. 
    The amount of information, and the coarseness of the decisions, depends on the level of the stakeholder.  At any level, a decision maker should be provided a short list of options (often 2 or 3) where the distinctions between them are clear.  This rule applies at all levels of the organization.  One strategy from a senior manager may require a choice among three different tactics for a department head to choose from.  No one person needs to be concerned with the entire decision tree, except perhaps the business architect himself.   The ability to make decisions is proportional to the clarity of the choices.  Business architecture favors clarity over nuance.
     
  • Consumable Deliverables.  In order for business architects to be successful, they must deliver a plan for the execution of business strategy.  That plan has to be something that the impacted stakeholders can understand and use.  In other words, the output of business architecture must be consumable.  Reams of technical detail are rarely useful.  At the other end of the spectrum, vague goals and promises of value may be just as inappropriate.  Recommendations must be provided using words and metaphors that the actual impacted business stakeholders understand.  They must be provided using forms and templates that the existing organization will recognize and can quickly use.  While consistency with frameworks and practices are important, business architects value consumability more.
     
  • Priority based on Business Value.  Business architects can spend their time on many tasks.  In addition, they can recommend that the organization spend time on many tasks.  Sometimes, even an efficient use of business architecture would be a waste of time if the resulting advice is unlikely to deliver strategic insight.  The selection of tasks, which to do now and which to do later, is of critical importance to a business architect.  While all supporting tasks can be justified, business architects will give priority to tasks that directly lead to actionable, consumable, value-driven business advice.

 

I’m always looking for insight and feedback from the community, so please feel free to add your comments. 

Please note: if your comment is long, the software will sometimes have trouble.  Write it in notepad or Word first, and then cut and paste into the comment edit window.  Don’t be afraid to send it more than once.  I will delete duplicates.  If all else fails, e-mail your comment to me and I’ll put it in.

Customer 2.0 Strikes

by

For those folks who don’t normally track the events of the Gamer community, I’d like to share a lesson that every consumer facing business should heed.  Social Media has changed the consumer landscape in an irrevocable way.  This incident…

The no-plan Plan: architecture as story

by

Next part on that expansion on my ‘no-plan Plan‘, with more detail on the theme about ‘architecture as story’. If you’ve been watching this blog for a while, you’ll know that this theme already goes back a few years, such as with the much-referenced post ‘The enterprise is the story‘. But I’ll admit that I was […]