Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
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.
A colleague at Microsoft, J.D.Meier, recently wrote a blog post about the major trends to watch for in 2010. Rather than creating just a new list he’s provided all the source material references which make it ideal to use for personal research and to take a unique filter for your own organization.
What really struck me in reading this was the last section, which is less about trends and really about what each of us needs to consider to be relevant and at our most effective in the coming decade and I’ve repeated it here:
All too often we have work commitments and development plans that are focused on the near-term, possibly as short as the next quarter. But as we see continuous change becoming the new normal I thought these were fine words to reflect on, and practical steps for how we should think about surviving the long term.
It’s about this time every year that we begin to be bombarded with the top 10 predictions for just about everything in 2010. About the only thing I believe from the predictions mania is that new technology will take longer to have an impact than we believe and that in many cases we really don’t have a clue just how big the impact will really be.
One of the more interesting of this year’s crop of predictions (for me at least) is represented on the map at this link although you’ll need a big printer to make it readable or a bit of pan and zoom.
What I like about this is the sheer scope and scale of the map that allows me to see ideas being grouped together and consider the bigger picture if a set of them do happen around the same time – and what our opportunity might be if we’re ready for the situation.
Enterprise Architecture is not just about creating models but also about understanding the potential for change and building the appropriate level of agility into the future architecture to be able to take advantage of it without increasing the cost or risk beyond what could reasonably be expected.
Enterprise Architecture domains include Business Architecture which is the first architecture domain within TOGAF 9. An Enterprise Architecture program that includes this domain, maps critical business processes to their application, information, and infrastructure components to provide a comprehensive view of the business and IT landscape that enables informed decision-making.
Business Architects are supposed to manage Business Architecture, but who are they, what are their skills? How are they different to a Business Analyst or even a Project Manager?
Business Analysts are on the way to becoming Business Architects. Sometimes called IT Business Analysts, they are not strictly business or IT specialists. They write business cases (with very few technical terms), identify business requirements and often are part of a Development Team.
Based on many job descriptions and my observation below, is a grid of standard skills and responsibilities related to the function of a Business Analyst. In the second column, are the responsibilities also applicable to a Business Architect and in the last column comments on how TOGAF 9 recommend the activities to be addressed.
| Expected skills and activities | Business Analyst | Business Architect | Comments related to TOGAF 9 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an intermediary between IT and the business users, follows the implementation strategy with respect to getting stakeholder buy-in and support. | x | x | Both roles require to be positioned between IT and business. |
| In particular business processes of a line of business. | x | The Business Architect considers the organization’s strategy and less focused in a specific line of business. | |
| Acts as catalyst to implement strategic and tactical change for the business. | x | x | The Business Architect will focus more on strategic changes. |
| Works with end-user groups to assist with aligning IT to the department’s business goals. Conduct feasibility studies to define the purpose, functions, and overall structure of business processes | x | x | The Business Architect in TOGAF 9 will use Business Scenario techniques. |
| May be involved in Business Process Management (BPM). | x | x | |
| Performs analysis and documents business processes leading to process change and/or system implementation. | x | x | The Business Architect will model and process the business processes. |
| Operating as a more-or-less independent group that is focused on delivering BPM services | x | The Business Architect will be working at a strategic level and will be less focused on the delivery of BPM services. | |
| Does not have an IT background, but had, instead, a background in quality control. | x | The Business Architect must have a perfect knowledge of the business. | |
| Translates user requirements into software requirements that IT can then use to develop software | x | A Business Architect would not develop and review design specifications for software application. This would be the role of the Application Architect during Phase C. | |
| Analyze and resolve software errors in a timely and accurate fashion | x | A Business Architect is not in charge of managing incidents linked to applications. IT operations may escalate this to the Development Team, or the vendor. Once a first level of diagnostic done, it will be transferred to one of the architects depending on the domain (technology, application). | |
| Helps to develop and maintain software to support the business processes. Assist in developing system/application architecture. | x | The Business Architect does not contribute to software development. This is done by the Solution Architect. | |
| Leads and validates enterprise system designs across multiple business applications. | x | The Business Architect does not lead Application Architecture. This will be done by the Application Architect and potentially the Solution Architect. | |
| Creates and executes test plans to ensure that the functional and business requirements are met by the proposed solution | x | The Business Architect does not contribute to test plans. This is done probably by the Solution Architect. | |
| Documents and defines processes, eliminating activities that don’t add value and straightening out the flow of the activities. | x | x | In the TOGAF 9 Phase B we would do this by documenting the baseline and target architecture and do a gap analysis, identifying the various business architecture building blocks to be eliminated. |
| Determining how business policies are implemented in business rules. | x | x | Business rules have to be identified and implemented when business processes documented in both baseline and target architecture. Can be done at both strategic and tactical level. |
| Analyses customer needs and the processes customers go through to interact with an organization are key skills that any business process practitioner needs to be effective. | x | x | Business scenarios would be used to identify business requirements. |
| Creates, manages and maintains an optimum business architecture that includes informational, organizational, process, performance and systems architecture. | x | The Business Analyst focus more on projects delivery. The Business Architect is mostly focused on the delivery of the Business Architecture. | |
| Defines, socializes and implements Business Architecture. Reviews roadmap projects for impact and compliance. | x | Business Architecture roadmaps will be delivered from the gap analysis. | |
| Identifies and facilitates cross divisional continuous business improvement initiatives. | x | The Business Architect works at a strategic level and focus mostly on Strategic Architecture. | |
| Member of the Architecture Board, composed of representative process owners who approve any cross organizational business process changes. | x | Business Architects should be part of the Architecture Board. | |
| Identifies and maintains an up to date picture of opportunities and risks. | x | x | Risks have to be identified during both the Architecture vision phase and the development of the solution. |
| Experienced in business/process architecture including broad skills in the area of strategy mapping, business analysis skills, conceptual data and process modeling/design, EA frameworks. | x | The Business Architect must have these skills. The Business Analyst may focus on process modeling only. | |
| Strong work experience in Project and Change management. | x | x | Both roles require these skills. |
| Proven track record for working effectively with technical and business functions. | x | The Business Architect must work with other domain’s architects. |
My observations are:
Business Analysts are much closer to IT. They often are assigned to a specific Line of Business, which is close to the Development Team, and are implicated in software development. They may be part of the Development Team or the Project Management Office. The Business Architect reports to managers or senior managers who may be business or IT but are independent of any project. They have a global view on most business and will be responsible for modeling the business as a whole, then working top down to “architect” encompassing end to end business processes. Their role is more horizontal and is considered a neutral voice and because of that will make more critical decisions than a Business Analyst.
Business Analysts document requirements as defined by users during workshops. A Business Architect documents and may contribute to define a business strategy using requirements provided by the users if that strategy is not finalized. The Business Architect must have the ability to think in both a strategic and tactical manner whereas a Business Analyst is normally tactical.
The Business Analyst operates within the confines of a predetermined application and technology architecture. A Business Architect is a part of the decision making process to define the IT architecture (Data, Application and Technology). He will have a strong influence directing information technology to meet business needs, and assist in identifying business inefficiencies and opportunities.
Business Architect must be cognizant of enterprise strategies whereas a Business Analyst is normally concerned with specific projects independent of enterprise strategy.
In my previous article I describe the role of the Solution Architect within the TOGAF ADM, mostly acting between phases E to G, with a specific focus on E (Opportunities and Solutions) and F (Migration Planning). This article will cover the role in phase G: Implementation governance.
The objective of that phase is to formulate recommendations for each implementation project, and govern and manage an architecture contract covering the overall system implementation and deployment. In companies where the maturity is high, it would be perfectly acceptable to have the Solution Architect acting in the name of the Enterprise Architecture team and coordinate activities during the phase G.
► To govern and manage an Architecture Contract covering the overall implementation and deployment process (Source: TOGAF 9)
He identifies if there are any issues between the architecture and the implementation organization.
► To perform appropriate governance functions while the solution is being implemented and deployed (Source: TOGAF 9)
He will refer to existing governance best practices such as IT Service Management, Project Management, Risk Management, Security Management, and Audit management (for example).
► To ensure conformance with the defined architecture by implementation projects and other projects (Source: TOGAF 9)
He will Review ongoing implementation governance and architecture compliance for each building block.
► To ensure that the program of solutions is deployed successfully, as a planned program of work (Source: TOGAF 9)
He will Review ongoing implementation governance and architecture compliance for each building block.
► To ensure conformance of the deployed solution with the Target Architecture (Source: TOGAF 9)
He will support the architecture design review using a customized checklist as defined in TOGAF.
► To mobilize supporting operations that will underpin the future working lifetime of the deployed solution (Source: TOGAF 9)
The Solution Architect with the Enterprise Architecture team and the IT Operation Team:
This diagram is a high level representation of the Solution Architect’s activities interacting with all parties involved in the architecture development and delivery.
This approach where many activities are led by a designated Solution Architect. The alternative being to share the role between several architects from the Enterprise Architecture team.
Thank you to Karen Lopez for finding and praising a blog post by Anith Sen. He writes about database design errors, Karen disagrees with some of Anith’s conclusions in her blog which goes to illustrate that design is a mix of art and science…
Tom Graves has summarised the differing roles of architects and designers in his blog What’s the difference between architecture and design?. It is an ongoing irritation to me that the two are confused. This not only devalues both dis…
Jeff Moser has written an excellent article describing how the Advanced Encryption Standard works. He uses an very accessible paradigm – the cartoon. He layers the description starting with a simple overview and progressively getting into m…
Ken Karacsony writes an interesting article about the practical use of business architecture to shape business change correctly and contrasts this with a typical IT driven approach which can fail to address the correct issues.
Quite often people wonder where a Solution Architect fits within the TOGAF Framework and it is not obvious that there is a single answer. I suggest we look first at a generic profile for a Solution Architect.
Companies such as Oracle, Cisco, SAP and others have roles called Solution Architect but with little apparent agreement to what that role is.
Some commonalities between various skills are:
Building Block – A (potentially re-usable) component of business, IT or architectural capability
o A constituent of the architecture model that describes a single aspect of the overall model
o Describe required capability
o Shape the specification of SBBs
o Represents components that will be used to implement the required capability
o A candidate physical solution for an Architecture Building Block (ABB); e.g., a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) package that is a component of the Acquirer view of the architecture
All ABBs will be stored in the Architecture Landscape of the Architecture Repository. These ABBs will have different levels of granularity to suit different architectural objectives.
The Architecture Definition Document which describes an architecture will contain all artifacts describing as views the building blocks.
During the Phase E, Opportunities and Solutions, we identify work packages and group them into projects, consolidate the gap analysis results from phases B to D, identify the building blocks to be developed or acquired reusing the existing ones (stored in the Architecture Repository) as much as we can. From there, we identify the SBBs which could potentially address one or more gaps and their associated ABBs. Existing SBBs have obviously also to be considered taking the interoperability requirements and dependencies into consideration.
The Solution Architect has a key role in this phase as (s)he will probably be the best qualified to identify the appropriate SBBs. He or she participates in the definition of any Transition Architectures, identifies potential solutions, and helps to formulate a high-level implementation and migration strategy.
During the Migration Planning phase they also have an important mission to ensure that SBBs are properly designed or that acquired solutions support business requirements. The Solution Architect may work closely with the vendor if a COTS solution is considered. A solution includes the hardware, software, and supporting people and documentation to solve a problem.
“The gaps in the existing enterprise solutions framework need to be identified and the specific Solution Building Blocks (SBBs) required to fill these gaps will be the identified by the solutions architects. These SBBs may have a one-to-one or many-to-one relationship with the projects. The solutions architects need to define exactly how this will be done. There may be other projects working on these same capabilities and the solutions architects need to ensure that they can leverage best value from these investments.”
Source: TOGAF 9 (15.4.1)
When the Implementation Governance phase is started, the Solution Architect will work in partnership with the procurer/acquirer in addition to the development team and/or the vendor. He will ensure that the development will comply with the target architecture.
When the solution building blocks are developed or integrated with other existing solutions, the Solution Architect will be working with the development team. His role will be to contribute to the design, development, integration and testing of the new components. This may be considered as being the Solution Architecture activity.
A Solution Architecture typically applies to a single project or project release, assisting in the translation of requirements into a solution vision, high level business and/or IT system specifications and a portfolio of implementation tasks.
Solution architecture starts with an understanding of the problem, which should be documented in the business scenario, and this is where so many projects fail. Too many people have the idea that solving a problem is all about coding.
The Solution Architect is a member of the Enterprise Architecture team but becomes at a later stage also a member of the Development team. His role is mixed; he is the bridge between concepts and implementation. However, the Solution Architect does not operate at the Strategic Architecture level (at the level of the Enterprise) but mostly at Segment and Capability Architecture levels.
“The Solution Architect has the responsibility for architectural design and documentation
at a system or subsystem level, such as management or security. A Solution Architect may shield the Enterprise/Segment Architect from the unnecessary details of the systems, products, and/or technologies. The focus of the Solution Architect is on system technology solutions; for example, a component of a solution such as enterprise data warehousing.”
Source TOGAF9 (52.6.3)
There is no mapping for a Solution Architect in the TOGAF Skills Framework, but I would suggest, based on my experience, the following proficiency levels:
TOGAF proficiency levels:
Source TOGAF9 (52.4.4)
This approach is related to the current situation in the market for Solutions Architects, where we see that most of their activities are limited to phases E to G. Another approach would be to consider a Solution Architect being involved in all phases of the TOGAF ADM from phase A and on-wards. A follow-up paper will describe how to address solutions from Phase A , when constraints exist, defining the role and responsibilities of a Solution Architect.
One of the common activities for IT departments when times get tough is to review the projects underways and see where greater prioritization mught realize benefits faster and re-focus resources. I recently wrote a paper for the Architecture Journal wi…