Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
Last week I had the pleasure of attending and presenting at the Open Group conference in Newport Beach, California. I find these conferences enlightening as I enjoyed the dialog with fellow professions who share similar point of views on the discipline of Enterprise Architecture. I have made the following observations: We have a huge challenge in…
I continue to explore the great post from Ivo Velitchkov step-by-step, because his posts allow my thoughts to follow a red line. He pretty much eliminated a GLUE Disease in my very own head. Once again (and I will continue to say that till I reach the end of the red line) thank you for unplugging me.
So here again a quote from Ivo:
Big organizations in all sectors, especially in the service industries, tend to gather huge number of applications until they find themselves in a situation where there are far too many to manage. A good number of them are not used at all. Some other part is underutilized. Most of the critical applications have high maintenance or high replacement cost or both. Inevitably there are many which automate different parts of the same process but they don’t talk to each other. And this justifies new spending on building interfaces, or buying application integration packages first and then replacing them with BPMS and then probably with something better than BPMS. As a result – more spending and more applications to manage.
Ivo keeps continuing exploring that with some more statements, which all point to one specific problem: Unneeded complexity as the root cause of too high costs. Once again a great observation and a situation I have also faced more than once (and most likely will face each and every day as long as I stay in Enterprise Architecture drEAmland. So what am I doing? Actually I am applying the EPIC SCAN approach to analyze the past (GLUE Defence).
By analyzing the problem at hand with the EPIC SCAN approach I am able to create transparency and visibility on the root cause of the problem. And then it is (once again) all about communication and people to optimize the information flow and by that find the best fit-to-purpose solution.
It does help quite a lot, if you don’t panic and stop thinking to be an Enterprise Architect but start knowing that you are one. Remember, in the Enterprise Architecture Matrix you just have to let it all go, fear, doubt and disbelief. Free your mind.
As always over to you for commenting to help me improving my thinking and share as much knowledge as possible.
Thanks to a great post from Ivo Velitchkov which unplugged some thinking of mine I was able to put some words around a couple of ideas and approaches I use. One post about Communication rather than creating an aligned (meaningless) language and a second post about truly Bridging the Silos instead of creating a new Enterprise Architecture silo.
So here another quote from Ivo:
EA is often in the position to attract some serious budgets for reasons we’ll see in another dream, and this way the new island becomes a safe territory for people that have either failed or lost interest in the pure IT. This as a result further decreases the credibility of EA which slowly, in some organisations, gets the image of a place for people that are not good enough for IT and prefer to hide under EA labels where things are vague enough and much more difficult to measure. The lost credibility either undermines the work of the really good EA practitioners or pushes them out of the organisation or both.
This immediately reminded me of an Enterprise Modelling Anti Pattern from Scott Ambler the so called Enterprise Parking Lot. Here a quote from Scott:
Your enterprise modelling group is composed of a lot of very smart people who don’t fit in well anywhere else within IT but you don’t want to lose their knowledge.
I personally have often observed a combination of both and therefore I phrase it the Capability Cemetery. So how to fix or handle this? First of all I am typically looking at each individuals capability. It is fairly seldom the case that there is people who try to avoid working under all circumstances, even thought that happens now and then. In most cases there is a deficit or GLUE Disease somewhere, a conflict between the organization setup (be it structural, process, project or any other organization) and the way the individual person is willing to operate. Typically, via investing in the interesting to reveal the relevant, it is possible to dig out the real root cause of the problem. Knowing the root cause then allows to optimize the information flow through the circulatory GLUE Cube.
The chance that your car might be washed away is not the only reason to avoid driving across a flooded road.
The greater danger is that the road under the flood waters has already been washed away.
How many large system projects fail because of unexpe…
“Goodbye, Anecdotes”, says @Butterworthy, “The Age Of Big Data Demands Real Criticism” (AWL, January 2013). Thanks to @milouness, who comments “Important concepts here about what is knowable!”. The article tries to link Big Data with Big Question…
What do the great innovators have in common? Looking at examples from Picasso to Kepler, Art Markman calls these men expert generalists. They seem to know a lot about a wide variety of topics, and their wide knowledge base supports their creativity.
Markman identifies two personality traits that are key for expert generalists: Openness to Experience and Need for Cognition. Can we also expect to find these traits in innovative organizations?
Openness to Experience entails a willingness to explore new ideas and opportunities. Obviously many organizations prefer to stick with familiar ideas and activities, and have built-in ways of maintaining the status quo.
Need for Cognition entails a joy of learning, and a willingness to devote the time and effort necessary to master new things.
In his post on the origins of modern science, Tim Johnson compares the rival claims of magic and commerce. He points out that good science is open whereas magic is hidden and secretive; he traces the foundations of modern science to European financial practice, on the grounds that markets are social, collaborative, open, forums. But perhaps it makes more sense to see modern science as having two parents: from magic it inherits its Need for Cognition, a deep and passionate interest in explaining how things work; while from commerce it inherits its Openness to Experience, a broad fascination with the unknown. Obviously there have been individual scientists who have had more of one than the other, and some outstanding individual scientists who have excelled at both, but the collective project of science has relied on an effective combination of these two qualities.
The challenge of pricing – for an IT service provider While an end-to-end management approach provides a competitive service advantage, it can carry a substantial additional – and often unforeseen – cost and risk. The challenge is that it’s difficult … Continue reading →
@timrayner01 points out that so-called information-sharing is never neutral, disengaged – it is a positive act of communication.
“Don’t think of what you share as information. Even if what you share is information, by sharing it, you are telling the world that it is information that you affirm in some way. It is the affirmation that counts. We share what we love. Even when we share details about things we despise, they are things we love to hate. Love is the key to understanding how we contribute to social media commons. We populate the commons with expressions of love.”
So even scorn is a form of affirmation. The comedian who devotes his spleen to the latest reality show is thereby contributing (in a complex post-modern fashion) to the show’s success. Daniel Smith describes this as alternative consumption, and sees Charlie Brooker as a modern version of Baudelaire.
The Royal Television Society may pretend that Charlie Brooker represents the high-brow alternative to Simon Cowell. But Brooker’s material is basically the same as Cowell’s, it just has a different sentiment. They obviously need each other.
The Enterprise is a complex system. I have accepted that fact. I think many of us in the enterprise architecture profession have also accepted this fact as well, or at least I hope we have. But then again there is natural response to things in which we do in order to address “complexity.” There is a tendancy to…
Our relationship to technology isn’t only utilitarian.
It is also emotional.
Technology empowers us, it amplifies us in the world, and gives us super powers.
Maybe productivity is a not just a function of the design, but also of our attachment to it.
A…
Michael Mainelli and Ian Harris have written a wide-ranging survey of economics, choice theory (game theory, psychology and ethics), systems theory, chaos theory, global warming and evolution. So what’s all that got to do with the price of fish?
One of the themes running through the book is that the price of fish bears no relation to the value of fish, especially if we are concerned about long-term value and the sustainability of fish stocks.
Oscar Wilde famously defined a cynic as one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This definition has also been applied to accountants and economists. Michael and Ian are leaders of the Long Finance initiative, a movement within the City of London that aims to overcome this kind of short-term financial cynicism.
Michael and Ian describe the price of fish as a wicked problem – a problem that lacks easy definition as well as easy answers. “Sustaining the supply of edible fish is a wicked problem that presents global risks.” (p 301) And yet they suggest that the system might possibly sort itself out. “As fish run out and have to be sustainably fished, the historic underpricing of fish ceases.” (293)
But this is no time for naive optimism, and the system will undoubtedly need some intervention. “When the price is the same as the value, there are opportunities for sustainable financing. So far, price has not equaled value for fish. This is the biggest, wicked decision-making problem of all: knowing how to set a price that equals the value.” (p 295)
In other words, the problem is not just the alarming dwindling of fish stocks but the collective cynicism that not only led to this problem but also amplifies it and resists dealing with it effectively. The key word in the problem statement is the word “set” – even if a few clever people can agree what the right price of fish should be, the real challenge is to set this price into global trading and consumption systems.
@hjarche via @Cybersal says “I’ll show the same thing many times and people have various interpretations of it. Sharing knowledge artifacts is not transferring knowledge.” In other words, we don’t actually share knowledge, what we share are documents …
