Role of the Repository

1633369525412.jpeg

As architects we use many models and produce/share a lot of artefacts (models, documents, presentations, plans, posters). We collect a lot of references and create many “working files” (such as notes, spreadsheets, outlines, templates). We share with other parties in business, I.T., vendors and advisors.

It is a daunting task to keep all of this stuff straight, to find it when we want it, to ensure that we have the right version. Difficult to make a consistent change across the various mentions of a particular thing, for example: a Business Unit has been renamed - how can we reflect that across all references in all the various models and documents?

We can of course build a library of documents, often a network drive or Sharepoint portal. This may start out well, but often quickly devolves into a large bucket. A better solution is to have electronic document management, where artefacts are stored, indexed, versioned, searchable and sharable with appropriate permissions. This can work well with appropriate discipline. It still suffers from the maintenance problem we mentioned. E.g. Updating things mentioned _inside_ models, presentations and other artefacts consistently.

This is where we need a proper repository. This may do document management too: the key difference is that a repository will manage _objects_. These can be course grained, such as the documents and models mentioned. They can also be fine grained, such as the things of interest inside the documents, models etc. A repository allows having the same object reflected in multiple models, documents, reports, matrices etc. This greatly facilitates impact analysis and maintenance to ensure consistency. It also allows integration of different domains or perspectives. For example, I can mention Business Objects (which derive from a Conceptual Data Model) in a Business Process Model, or a Requirement Specification for a Business Intelligence Dashboard.

To provide this sort of flexibility, the repository should allow customisation of meta models. I.e. we should be able to define: the concepts we are interested in, the relationships that they can have to other concepts, the properties that are important to a concept. Also, how we want to represent the information in various ways including: forms, reports, models, documents, matrices, etc. The repository solution should provides easy import from standard formats as well as APIs for easy integration to other tooling. Global search facilities and a strong security system are valuable too.

Our EVA toolset provides such a repository. The philosophy is that it's easy to capture information from a variety of sources: CSV, XML, Web Forms, Graphical Modelling; store it all semantically regardless of source; use it for analysis; and output in many forms: Query, Lists, Matrices, Visualisations, Graphical Models, etc.

Read more about EVA here.

#enterprisearchitecture #enterprisemodelling #repository #tools

All Roads Lead to ROME

1632909089814.jpeg

No, not the historic city. And in fact not all, but few! ROME here stands for Return on Modelling Effort, a term coined by Op 't Land, Proper, Waage, Cloo and Steghuis in Enterprise Architecture - Creating Value by Informed Governance. Springer, 2008.

It is important: organisations spend thousands of hours and millions in revenue building various kinds of models in strategy, finance, enterprise architecture, requirements, solution design and other areas. Often these are useful to their creators, but do not deliver organisational value in excess of their cost.
The problems are often related to appropriateness of models to the kinds of analysis required, accessibility of the models to relevant stakeholders and quality of the models themselves.

Appropriateness relates to the relevant concepts being included, the ability of the models to capture knowledge, share knowledge, support analysis and insights and serve as inputs to further steps. It is also influenced by the appropriate level of abstraction and detail.

Accessibility is related to the representation of the models in ways that are familiar to the relevant stakeholders, ease of sharing and distribution. Architects love complex graphical models, but a business executive might prefer a poster, powerpoint deck or even a story. A financial executive will prefer a spreadsheet or graph. We also need ways to deal with complexity and scale to make them manageable, as well as ways to highlight important insights, rather than overwhelm with volume.

Quality is related to accuracy of gathered information, mapping to the model, fidelity of the modelling techniques and accurate translation to accessible output formats.

Achieving high ROME depends upon a few fundamentals, including: clearly understanding the purpose of the models; identifying and knowing the frame of reference of the Stakeholders in both business and technical domains; choosing appropriate modelling concepts, techniques and representation language that is effective, concise, efficient and precise enough. It also requires sharing outputs (including interim or evolving ones) and engaging various stakeholders positively in the process of model formulation, improvement and evolution.

#ROME #Modelling #EnterpriseArchitecture #BusinessArchitecture #ModellingLanguage

Enterprise as Social Entity

image-8.png

An enterprise is also a social entity, a mini-society, if you will. It has its own culture, politics, strata of status, winners and losers, factions and support groups. It has the upwardly mobile and those nearing retirement. It has immigrants finding their feet. Like a city, province/state or country, it has neighbours and others that it interacts with from afar. It has a government in the board and executive, and local government in the lines of business and departments. It has a geography (physical or logical).

This is pretty fundamental when we consider change, as we do in Business Architecture. We need to think of the greater good of the various constituencies. We have to think about our trading partners (customers, suppliers, channels).

Like other social entities, we can make plans and devise strategies, but their success will depend upon convincing independent minds to follow the plan and adhere to the rules. This requires that the plan be to the advantage of most participants, defensible in terms of logic and evidence, and achievable in terms of resources available.

We will also have to present our plans in ways that are familiar (in terms of vocabulary, format, medium, world view) to the “government” of the day, i.e. those who take the decisions to proceed, provide the resources and funding and take accountability for delivery.

From an architect’s perspective, this means we need to gather reliable data, do sound analysis, recommend good strategies, leverage all the soft skills of interaction, persuasion, reaching consensus and present our deliverables in accessible and convincing ways to the relevant stakeholders.

A lot of my recent research has been focused on the design of relevant meta models to integrate all the various dimensions in an holistic way; to build useful models that allow us to rapidly gather, analyse, design and share pertinent insights; and the design of compelling visual language(s) to convey these efficiently and effectively. Additionally, we need to support these activities in competent tools that allow rapid progress and collaboration while improving rigour and reuse.

Change is scary for people. We need to identify and ameliorate risks. We need to provide effective programme and project management, change management, mentoring and coaching. We may not be experts in all these dimensions, but we can certainly work on enhancing our soft skills and engaging those whose focus/profession it is.

Enterprise as Organism/Social Entity (4)

image-7.png

At Inspired we use the phrase “Desirable Futures”. When we are doing enterprise architecture, especially business architecture, we are effectively proposing a future. We contend that it should be a desirable one. Let’s define “desirable”:

  • The enterprise should survive

  • The enterprise should add value to all stakeholders (customers, suppliers, staff, partners, shareholders, unions, society at large)

  • The enterprise should do no harm. It should not exploit any group to their disadvantage, pollute, deplete irreplaceable resources or otherwise cause harm

  • Ideally:

    • It should provide utility, value, good service and delight in its products and services

    • It should be a great place to work where staff can grow and realise potential while contributing to the value delivered

    • It should be a valued and trusted partner to other enterprises

    • The enterprise should operate legally, ethically and sensitively to the norms and customs of the communities it engages with

    • It should leverage knowledge, skill, technology and industry for these purposes
      Achieving the above demands that we consider the business issues (e.g. financial health, partner relationships, products and services, growth etc.), human issues (e.g. customer journey, staff roles, organisation structure, motivation etc.) and technology opportunities holistically.

Enterprise as Organism (3)

image-6.png

A functioning organism is comprised of systems. In a biological organism these include: respiration, nutrition, circulation, sensory, locomotive, nervous, reproduction, waste elimination, skeletal and so on. In a social entity they include collaboration, competition, regulation, suppression, promotion, etc. In a business they include: financial (capital, revenue, expenses, investment, cash flow), product and service delivery, customer management, skills and capabilities, compliance and risk management, sensing and planning, An enterprise thrives when the systems are working properly and in balance. Like an organism or society, it will become ill if any system is not working properly, or if they are out of balance.

As business architects it is useful to do a “health check” which should include the following aspects: financial, human resources, geographic coverage, products and services, shareholding, partnerships, channels, technology, legal, information, risk management, agility, strategy, architecture. These dimensions can be determined in facilitated workshops (or distributed information gathering from stakeholders) using templates and maturity models. They can be usefully plotted to show a current, competitor benchmark and target for a given time horizon. Big gaps between target or benchmark and current health are obvious candidates for more intensive work.

Enterprise as Organism (2)

image-5.png

An enterprise is not a machine. It cannot be designed and set in motion to perform like a clock. The parts were not engineered to fit the design. The design (architecture) has to be devised to leverage the capabilities of the parts. Since many of these parts are human (or other enterprises), they have their own agendas, goals, capabilities, needs and foibles. The results of their interaction are emergent, i.e. they will emerge from the many interactions of the parts and are very hard to predict ahead of time.

As enterprise architects (especially business architects) we therefore have to accept that we cannot just design what we want. What we can do is to understand the environment and constraints, influence conditions, educate participants, bring knowledge, examples and logic to bear, persuade, influence, coach and guide. We can alert to possibilities. We can warn of risks and show how they can be avoided or ameliorated. We can remove myths and assumed constraints. We can show consequences through scenarios, models and simulations.

In a very real sense our job is to enlighten, to educate, to inform and to communicate persuasively.

Enterprise as Organism (1)

image-4.png

An Enterprise cannot exist without its environment. It is part of an ecosystem. It requires things from its surroundings to survive. These include capital, resources, skills, customers, services. It produces things that are absorbed into the environment. Hopefully these are positive, such as desired products and services which enhance the lives of those around them. Some may be negative, such as pollution, depletion of irreplaceable resources, or impoverishment of people or other enterprises.

A healthy enterprise has systems in balance, which allow it to function well, to grow and to benefit those it touches: staff, customers, partners, society. Since many of the inputs it depends upon require the willing cooperation of other parties (funding from clients, services from providers, sanction to operate from society) it is vital that the outputs produced are positive ones and that negative consequences are minimised. An organism that pollutes its environment will suffer.

Shouldn’t business architecture start with understanding where we live?

The (Enduring) Value of Great Design

1623746975644.jpeg

Prepping for my upcoming Techniques and Deliverables of Application and Solution Architecture course, I watched a video by the UX guru Jakob Nielsen talking about UX 2050. The future predictions were interesting, but what was more interesting to me was the information about the empirical work and iteration that went into the design of the humble telephone touch keypad by Bell Labs, way back when. They researched many models of keypad with different layouts, sizes, shapes, etc. They surveyed potential users, but they also empirically tested many models before settling on the final design. Nielsen estimates that the design has been employed 40 trillion times and has saved the world some 1 million person years of time! Would that some of our current web designers would take note!

On a related theme, Apple hired a Masters graduate in physics and computer science to work on the scrolling of lists, their acceleration and “bounce” at the bottom and top for IOS. This was an effort of some three plus months for a very qualified individual. Sounds crazy, but the lists behave beautifully, intuitively and feel natural. Just think how many times somebody, somewhere scrolls a list on an IOS device and you get a sense for how much this design attention has paid off. 

Staying with the Apple theme, after watching the World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC) for 2021 last week, I again came away with the conviction of how much good design contributes and pays off downstream. Consider Unix (also, originally, from Bell Labs), which was taken up in academia and evolved into the Mach kernel paired with the Berkeley Distribution (BSD) OS, which Steve Jobs and Next used as the platform for Next Step, which later evolved into Apple’s System X, now MacOS, but is also the foundation for iOS (on the iPhone), iPadOS (on the iPad) and even watchOS on the Apple Watch and tvOS on the Apple TV.

WWDC showed a variety of examples of how the unified concepts underlying these systems facilitate advanced features, such as seamlessly controlling apps across multiple devices in proximity with a single keyboard and mouse (Universal Control); The Notes App which is available across the family and supports quick note taking, handwritten notes, capture of images, task management, cloud syncing, attachments, maps integration, tagging and more; the Live Text feature allows recognising text in photos and images from various sources, including device cameras, websites and image files. By the way, it is 20 years ago that Steve Jobs returned to Apple and the company bought Next Step to form the basis for the next generation of Apple operating systems. 

Bottom line: It’s worth the effort to create great design, which is functional, human centric, efficient, durable and elegant. It pays off handsomely in the long term. 

When Worlds Collide, They Should Collaborate

Image Credit: MeetingMediaGroup

Image Credit: MeetingMediaGroup

Enterprise Architecture has evolved over several decades now. Initially incorporating the technical, looking at components, standards and interfaces to allow interoperation of programs, platforms, messages, files and technologies. Expanding to address application landscapes, data, security and processes. More recently addressing business issues, operating models and the contexts within which they operate. EA also has to engage with neighbouring disciplines such as risk and compliance, change management, programme and portfolio management and strategy. 

EA has traditionally been divided into the BDAT domains, viz. Business, Data, Applications and Technology. Things like Security have been overlaid as “Cross Cutting Concerns” - i.e. they do not fit neatly into one of the domains, but have implications and concerns across several. 

Given the depth of knowledge required for competence in any one of the domains, it is small wonder that different “turfs” have arisen where different bands of architects feel they have ownership. However, the real benefits and value of an enterprise view are often to be gained when we consider the holistic view of all the domains and how they impact and inform each other. 

What is useful is to identify the “intersection concepts” between the domains. These may belong to one domain (and fall under the responsibility and jurisdiction of one kind of architect) but they are important for adjacent domains to create alignment and perform competent analysis. A strategy we have frequently adopted with good results, is to allocate concepts to a domain for ownership/update/maintenance, but provide visibility and relating rights to other adjacent domain architects. For example, an Application Architect would have jurisdiction over the concepts Application System, Application Service and Application System Component. Accordingly, she would be able to create, update and manage these instances. A business architect may have jurisdiction over concepts including Business Process, Organisation Unit and Offering (being a Product or Service). He may be able to see and link to instances of Application Service which support a given Business Process or Offering. The business architect might also have jurisdiction over the concept of Business Object (a conceptual data definition). A data architect might have visibility and linking rights to the Business Object and jurisdiction over the more detailed data concepts of Logical Data Collection and Physical Data Collection. These arrangements should be supported in a competent EA repository/tool e.g. EVA

1614938455446.png

In this way each architect can maintain instances of the concept that they are responsible for while aligning with and linking their content and knowledge to that of adjacent disciplines. When an architect feels the need for an alteration of information in an adjacent domain (say the data architect needs the creation of a new Business Object), she would need to request this be done by the business architect. In this way collaboration and alignment is achieved. To see how domain intersection concepts are addressed in a production scale meta model, take a look at this related article and graphic (Inspired Holistic Architecture Language).

From a professional development perspective, it serves architects well to be interested in neighbouring domains and “look over the wall” to learn about them. This can be done by participating in other interest groups, attending webinars, reading articles and sometimes taking training outside of our own comfort zones. We can engage with adjacent architecture domains, as well as strategy, change management, programme management, enterprise risk management, portfolio management and system delivery. An architect who understands, at least at some level, the issues, priorities and challenges of the surrounding disciplines is far better equipped to have better conversations, provide meaningful deliverables to colleagues and to have an increased impact and delivery of value. 

Build Back Better

realestate.co.nz

realestate.co.nz

2020 has been a tsunami for most organisations and society in general. Work life has been disrupted by the COVID pandemic. Economies have been interrupted and bent out of shape. Individuals have been challenged to work in different ways, with new tools and often for more hours with less boundaries to protect personal space and time. Many organisations have “held it together”, focussed on essentials, leveraged assets they had, pivoted where necessary and managed to survive. Some have been less fortunate where their business model and revenue streams have disappeared overnight due to the pandemic itself or heavy handed government interventions. 

It is not all bad: some organisations have prospered. Zoom, for example grew corporate customers 488% and revenues 367% (annualised, at Oct 2020), and was deemed by investors to be more valuable than Boeing! The latter suffered from travel bans and the fiasco with 737 max groundings due to safety issues. Other tech leaders in e-Commerce, cloud, telecoms and streaming have done very well. 

The pandemic has accelerated trends already underway to work from home, virtualisation, streaming, use of mobile technologies, practical use of machine learning, internet of things and others. Shut down of travel and reduced economic activity showed that pollution and climate change can be reduced and maybe brought under control by the concerted action of humans. 

Physical borders between countries and movement have become much harder, but virtual borders are coming down at an unprecedented rate. Banks, insurers and other large corporates have realised that they can have staff work remotely and effectively. 

First world governments have stepped in to cushion the blow to citizens with small business and individual support programmes. In the USA, some 4.5 trillion dollars has been injected into the economy. This has fuelled stock markets and created a false high. Why false? Essentially the money is printed by the Federal Reserve. There is no new productivity, or increase in goods and services generating these funds. It is just more dollars buying the same value. While creating some short term relief, it distorts the economy and must be inflationary in the medium term. 

There is a high risk of an economic correction / crash in markets in the near future. This is partly ameliorated by the US$ being a reserve currency internationally, so many of the dollars that are devalued are held by foreign nationals and governments, so America gets away with everyone funding some of their excess. But the world is showing signs of tiring of that game and most countries have reduced their dollar dependence during the Trump era. The rise and stability of the Chinese economy, and the level of trade of many nations with China may make it attractive to contemplate the Yuan as a reserve currency. It was officially recognised as the third reserve currency by the IMF in 2016 and its influence and performance are growing. 

The pandemic is not going away just yet. Yes, there are vaccines and they are being rolled out, but it will be 3Q 2021 before most people in most countries are covered. However, there are new strains, some more contagious and potentially more severe (or targeting different sections of the population) than the original. We are definitely not out of the woods yet, with many countries now in second or third lockdown scenarios. Even when the physical risk of Corona is reduced to levels we associate with more traditional disease (like the annual influenza), the psychological and structural effects will remain. There are no guarantees that this will be the last pandemic either. 

All of the above means that organisations are operating in a very uncertain world, where assumptions and fundamentals will be tested on a regular basis. It is not enough to be “strong”. As Nassim Taleb pointed out in Antifragilesome things are strong, but break easily when subjected to force in an unexpected direction. Some things are hard, but fragile. Some things are robust, meaning they withstand more force before breaking. We have to look to create things which thrive under disruption or application of force and become better - these are antifragile. Nature exhibits this principle where changing circumstances weed out weaker solutions and evolution continually adapts survivors to better exploit changing circumstances. 

How can we achieve antifragility in our planning and strategy, our Business Architectures? Taking advice from Nassim, we should look to some of these principles:

  • Avoid debt - debt brings fragility

  • Increase redundancy, especially in critical areas (today that would include networks, security, data, scarce skills)

  • Avoid over optimisation - it does not leave room for the unexpected

  • Design for antifragility or at least robustness

We need to adopt more biologically inspired models when designing our future organisations. These include:

  • Seeing organisations as “systems of systems” - much like the human body has s sensory system, a circulatory system, a respiratory system, a skeletal system, a muscular system, a nervous system, etc.

  • Consider the whole ecosystem in which we operate, not just the machinery of the organisation and what is under its control

  • Make sure we are paying attention when the environment changes. We need strong sensory systems which alert us to new developments. We need to play scenarios ahead of time to have a plan when fundamentals shift

  • We need distributed intelligence in our business units, our staff and our technologies to allow rapid adaptation

  • We need systems that can change in hours or days, not months and years. This requires design at a meta level and a shift from a static to a dynamic view. Not agility in projects (producing artefacts faster) but artefacts which themselves are adaptable in operation and without interruption (see related paper here)

Emerging technologies offer us many opportunities to do things in different ways. When we contemplate a new approach, architecture or design, let’s remember to ask some key questions:

  • How will this benefit people? Think experience and value for customers, partners, staff and society at large

  • How will this make us more agile / antifragile or at least robust?

  • How will this fit in the ecosystem? Does it fit current or emerging standards? Does it have clear boundaries so that it can be integrated easily / replaced when necessary?

  • What risks does it bring? How will we avoid or ameliorate them?

  • Does this enhance our ability to absorb change or shocks?

The future requires the ability to think of a business as a set of capabilities delivering value to a community in an ecosystem. Bear in mind that the ecosystem may change, the community will develop new needs and requirements, suppliers and partners have their own agendas. We have control only over our own assets (resources, reserves, skills, intellectual property, structure, etc. ), initiatives and responses. Raise thinking above the level of solutions to requirements and capabilities. We need to build so that we:

  • Build assets and capabilities

  • Ensure that they are modular and interoperable - with our own and those available elsewhere

  • Use scenarios and rapid sensing to predict / think through / detect / understand change

  • Build our models, processes, systems and architectures to allow rapid adaptability and reconfiguration

When building a house in an earthquake zone, don’t use concrete. Rather steel (robust) or bamboo (antifragile).

Here’s to your Desirable Future!