• Email
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
  • Embed
 

Architecting multi sided business

by

  • 2,048 views

Presentation to IASA UK Chapter February 2012

Presentation to IASA UK Chapter February 2012
Extract from Business Architecture Bootcamp.
http://unicom.co.uk/product_detail.asp?prdid=1864

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via SlideShare as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

Cancel

12 Embeds 54

http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com 19
https://twitter.com 10
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com.au 6
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.co.uk 5
http://www.twylah.com 4
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.de 2
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.nl 2
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.ru 2
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.mx 1
http://paper.li 1
http://veryard.wikispaces.com 1
http://server02 1

More...

Statistics

Likes
6
Downloads
0
Comments
6
Embed Views
54
Views on SlideShare
1,994
Total Views
2,048

16 of 6 previous next Post a comment

  • MichaelPoulin Michael Poulin I fully agree with Richard that just data model and process structure do not characterise Business Architecture to an acceptable level of comprehension.

    I do not believe that technical differences between Apple and Microsoft are important to Business Architecture either.

    A 'secret' of dissatisfaction that people feel with data model and processes for Business Architecture is in that Business Architecture is not about data and not about processes. In reality (proved by daily __business__, not IT, practice), Business Architecture is about business functionality of the enterprise and related informational (not information systems/data) model(s). A business cares about particular function and associated information semantics, e.g. , Accounting, and it does not matter if Oracle's or Microsoft's SW /platform is used whilst it satisfies functional and non-functional business needs. Core business processes, embedded into Accounting Functions such as Account Payable, Account Receivable and General Ledger, may be implemented in many different ways; particular implementation has to coop only with local culture and financial regulations regardless the SW vendor's configuration specifics.

    My actual understanding (now) of 'platform configurations and policies' is: this is just a different terminology of standardised term of 'Execution Context' for a business function. Particularly, it is about a Business Execution Context that sets the business rules, policies and regulations, which the business function and its realisation must be compliant with. Also, technical part of the Architecture and related implementation have to be adhere to the policies of Technical Execution Context (more details about contexts may be found in OASIS standards and book 'Ladder to SOE').

    So, technical differences between Accounting solution from Oracle and Microsoft appear in the technical policies and corresponding configuration of the run-time platform. However, I would not say that this is the primary concern of Business Architecture and Business Architects.
    1 year ago
    Are you sure you want to
  • RichardVeryard Richard Veryard, Writer at Independent I've uploaded a new version today; I've added some slides to backfill in some of the story and to flesh out some of the examples I talked about at the IASA last Monday.

    If I can expand on my answer to @MichaelPoulin, I think that many conventional accounts of business architecture are based on a fairly limited set of architectural viewpoints, and therefore fail to equip business architects to address a broad range of increasingly important structural questions.

    To take one example, which we discussed last Monday, Apple and Microsoft have pursued significantly different platform strategies over the past 20 years or so, with significantly different outcomes. But you wouldn't understand the differences between these two companies and their results just by inspecting business data models or process models.

    I argue that there are fundamental architectural differences between these two companies (as well as Google, Amazon and the rest), which manifest themselves not in data structures or process flows but in platform configurations and policies. So in that sense, the platform configuration is an element of the architecture, and not just an aspect of the architecting process.
    1 year ago
    Are you sure you want to
  • MichaelPoulin Michael Poulin Thank you, Richard.

    There is no doubts that a BA has to be aware of such things in IT, especially if multi-sided business environment splits IT on side/domain dedicated sub-sections.

    Currently, I am debating with Alexander what might be a 'platform' in Business Architecture? If your presentation is about an implementation of Business Architecture, I'd agree with an approach 'when we view business as a multi-sided platform' because an outside viewer may see anything s/he wants.

    I a not sure that the slide 16 demonstrates different relationships, I think a 'platform' is unrelated while Value Networks snapshot was in the Traditional model and is in the 'Platform' model the same. For many years (in the US, I think it is about 70-80 years already), a Retailer drove a Farmer as well as a Consumer affected a Farmer or any Manufacturer. Existence of Hey Markets and later Commodity Stocks proves my statement. The Traditional model is about 100 years old, IMO.

    Still, curious what does mean a 'platform' in Business... :-)
    1 year ago
    Are you sure you want to
  • RichardVeryard Richard Veryard, Writer at Independent Hi @MichaelPoulin, sorry you couldn't make it. One of the key architectural points is that a platform strategy for an increasingly multi-sided business environment raises some tough structural issues, and I think Business Architects should have a way of representing and reasoning about these issues. Obviously the pictures in my presentation are designed to tell a story and are not sufficiently detailed or rigorous to support proper architectural analysis, but clearly Business Architects need architectural language for talking about these kind of isses. 1 year ago
    Are you sure you want to
  • MichaelPoulin Michael Poulin Richard, I am sorry I missed your presentation. Am I correct that the uploaded slides demonstrate a snapshot of a fragment of the processes of architecting but not an element of the architecture? 1 year ago
    Are you sure you want to
  • samarin Alexander Samarin, Architect at this planet Super 1 year ago
    Are you sure you want to
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Architecting multi sided business Architecting multi sided business Presentation Transcript