CAEAP is The Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession. It is an advocacy body for the emerging (and dying) profession of enterprise architecture. The Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession is wo…
I have great news! Firstly, I have today (tentatively) put the last dot into my chapter on Enterprise Ontology Practice. Secondly, I have converted all of my Word/docx and Omnigraffle sources into LaTeX and vector graphics. I simply wasn’t happy with t…
Forrester’s Jeff Scott wrote and excellent blog post recently challenging the veracity of the two common metaphors for EA: The enterprise architect as building architect and the enterprise architect as city planner.
The former is the classic metapho…
We closed out another great EA Summit in London yesterday! Dave Aron delivered an insightful talk on how to leverage business model analogies to bring some new ideas to the business strategy planning table. And to wrap it up, Andy Kyte discussed how to overhaul a bloated application portfolio and of course applied all of […]
We’ve had a great kick-off today to the EA Summit in London. Nick Gall presented on Hybrid Thinking and how to apply this approach to build up solutions rather than decompose problems. This is an entirely new way of looking at enterprise architecture and will be a major focus of our research in the future. […]
Despite threats from the ash cloud, we’ve arrived and successfully kick-off the EA Summit in London this morning. We’ve got a tremendous agenda lined up that I’m sure people will find the conference enlightening. I’m especially looking forward to meeting with conference delegates, vendors and colleagues over the next couple of days at the EA […]
Often getting access to a specific scientific journal can be very cumbersome or expensive, unless you have bulk access through an academic or research institution. In the past few weeks I have been looking for journal articles at the intersection of En…
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
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|
|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!
There are obviously overlaps between Enterprise Analysis and Enterprise Architecture, but activities are not always done in the same sequence.
- Enterprise Analysis is more a business initiative than an Enterprise Architecture which includes both business and IT people
- Enterprise Analysis provides the context in which an Enterprise Architecture should be conducted
- Enterprise Analysis is about defining the strategic goals and the strategic planning taking into account the environment and market trends, identify business issues, focus on remaining competitive, profitable, efficient. Enterprise Architecture is reusing all this information.
- Enterprise Analysis is only covering the initial activities of Enterprise Architecture but does not address other Enterprise Architecture activities such as: – Application Architecture, Data Architecture, Technology Architecture (and Solution Architecture).
- Enterprise Analysis does not include all aspects related to governance such as the IT Governance and the Enterprise Architecture Governance Framework. Touch points with other frameworks are not addressed.
- Enterprise Analysis may not completely address the need of working with other parts of the enterprise such as IT, PMO, development teams, IT partners.
- Enterprise Architecture suggest a Preliminary phase which is about defining ‘‘where, what, why, who, and how” Enterprise Architecture will be done, establishing the business context, customizing the framework, defining the architecture principles, establishing the Architecture Governance structure.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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):
Both sources clearly underline the problems of the systems (or first order cybernetic) approach to organisations and EA: the baseline assumption that an enterprise is a system and that this system behaves like an organism (rather than like a predictable machine) is fallible and just as reductionistic and mechanistic as the Machine Age thinking introduced by Ackoff (1981).
Ackoff 1981: Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or be Planned For — Ackoff, R. L., Wiley, 1981.
Ackoff 1993: Beyond Total Quality Management. High profile lecture. University of Hull, 18 September 1993.
Bertalanffy 1969: Bertalanffy, L. von, General Systems Theory, New York, George Braziller 1969.
Dietz et al. 2008: Enterprise Ontology in Enterprise Engineering — Dietz, J. L. G and Hoogervorst, J. A. P. – Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing — ACM.
K. Harmon 2005; , “The “systems” nature of enterprise architecture,” Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference on , vol.1, no., pp. 78- 85 Vol. 1, 10-12 Oct. 2005.
P. Harmon 2007: Business Process Change, 2nd edition, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2007.
Heylighen et al 1999: Principia Cybernetica: What is Cybernetics and Systems Science? – F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn, V. Turchin 1999 – http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CYBSWHAT.HTML (Accessed on Apr 3 2010).
Hoogervorst 2009: Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering, J. A. P. Hoogervorst, Springer 2009.
Kast et al. 1972: General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and Management – The Aaademy of Management Journal, Vol. 15. , No. 4, General Systems Theory (Dec. 1972) pp. 447-465, Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig, publ. by the Academy of Management.
Katz and Kahn 1962: The Social Psychology of Organizations – Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1966).
We’ve just wrapped up the EA Summit in Las Vegas and it seems to have been a very positive experience for everyone. The Gartner analysts and our case study speakers were very happy with the level of sophistication of the audience – great questions, comments and challenges. Many attendees had positive comments on both the […]
Yet again it is time for an update on my thesis progress. After revising my initial introductory chapter with my supervisor (John Gotze), I decided to revamp the chapter completely and go forward with a more tangible problem: the failure of strategic I…
I have spent the last few days reviewing the most contemporary Enterprise Architecture (EA) frameworks. As I am trying to establish a common description of the methodology behind EA, my goal is to sketch the intersection of methodological assumptions these framework impose on organisations. However, the analysis is still on a very high level of abstraction as my goal is a cross-framework conceptualisation. Of course, every framework has its own domain of application, knowledge, and assumptions, and the analysis is fully aware of that.
People usually refer to the Zachman Framework when addressing EA’s point of departure. John Zachman published his famous first words on enterprise integration in the IBM Systems Journal publication A Framework for Information Systems Architecture in 1987, and he is still regarded by many academics and practitioners as the father of the discipline itself. In 2009 I even had the pleasure of following John Zachman presenting an updated version of his framework, and it was definitely inspiring and valuable. Besides being the first to propose an important quantum leap in the integration of business and technology, Zachman is also an excellent speaker and entertainer.
However, my analysis does not depart from Zachman’s original writings, and that is with a specific reason. Zachman has continuously emphasised that his framework concerns structure and taxonomy, and in general not process or methodology. The Zachman Framework is specifically focused on representing a static state, taxonomy, or blueprint of an enterprise, but not how the enterprise has grown the architecture over time — no development methodology is prescribed. It is merely a snapshot or slice of the enterprise at a certain point in time. As Zachman puts it: “The Zachman Framework is a schema. […] More specifically the Zachman Framework is an ontology […] The Zachman Framework is not a methodology.” Zachman’s classification structure is very useful for systematically classifying and describing the current state (or future state) or an architecture, but in my opinion he poses some fundamental erroneous assumptions about methodology and ontology — and manages to represent it in a misleading way:
– The definition of an ontology is (according to Wikipedia): “the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.” Let us for a moment assume that it is the second sentence that Zachman focused on when using the word ontology in his writings. Ontology is in the first place quite a big word (or efficient discourse) to use when describing one out of many frameworks, and I agree with Dave Snowden when he postulates that the word taxonomy is a much better concept in the context of enterprises.
– Given that ontology concerns the “basic categories of being and their relations”, Zachman must assume that a being is already in place, and that this being is involved in the creation of the relations. Being assumes a process, the creation of something — taking part in the world — or maybe less dramatic: the organisational field — over time. But if Zachman’s schema only concerns the organisation at a single point in time, how can it truly represent the inherent causality between the objects it claims to classify in an efficient way? A complete description of the objects and their interdependencies within an enterprise must assume a certain level of context within time and space. A snapshot for putting the enterprise in a context is simply not enough. And as ontology assumes both causality and being, Zachman’s framework simply is not an ontology. Similarly, Mendeljev’s periodic table (which Zachman often uses as an powerful analogy to his own concepts) not only describes the static composition of atoms (implies structure), but also how atoms evolve over time (implies process) as they wobble between a stable and unstable state. Again, Zachman’s use of the term ontology is insufficient.
In short: the word ontology is simply too strong a discourse for a classification system, and a snapshot classification is again not sufficient for efficiently describing an organisation without loosing important information. How and why the organisation is in its current state are in my opinion two major prerequisites that need to be determined before we can describe an optimal future state, and the Zachman Framework is in a conscious manner sawing off the branch that its own reality check with methodology sits on.
In my search of enterprise methodologies, I have decided to take GERAM – The Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology — as my point of departure. Peter Bernus, one of the authors behind the framework — presents it as a meta methodology for describing reference architectures: “Potentially, all proposed reference architectures and methodologies could be characterized in GERAM”— whilst emphasising the framework’s ultimate purpose of methodological unification:
“GERAM is intended to facilitate the unification of methods of several disciplines used in the change process, such as methods of industrial engineering, management science, control engineering, communication and information technology, i.e. to allow their combined use, as opposed to segregated application.”
The IFIP-IFAC task force certainly created the first real stepping stones towards a true ontology and methodology for formally characterising and representing an enterprise in context. After all, that requires an inclusion of both structure and process, and these cannot be separated without leaving out important knowledge about the enterprise itself.