Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

EA Talk on Managing Complexity

2,242

Published on

Presentation from Unicom Enterprise Architecture Forum, London, February 24th 2011

Presentation from Unicom Enterprise Architecture Forum, London, February 24th 2011

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
11 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,242
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
11
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • There are actually three contrasting agendas, but we’ll save the third agenda until later in the presentation. It is not clear to what extent the third agenda still counts as EA.1. simplify around single (simple) business model: single definition of 'market' qua single-sided market.2. differentiate business models and integrate to span their differences: multiple definitions of 'market' qua single-sided markets.3. differentiate business models AND differentiate the modes of integration: multiple 'markets' within multiple contexts-of-use qua multi-sided markets.(PJB)
  • http://csis.pace.edu/~marchese/cs615sp/L3New/L3new.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachman_Framework
  • Function versus data CRUD matrixhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480036.aspx
  • http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480036.aspx
  • There are actually three contrasting agendas, but we’ll save the third agenda until later in the presentation. It is not clear to what extent the third agenda still counts as EA.1. simplify around single (simple) business model: single definition of 'market' qua single-sided market.2. differentiate business models and integrate to span their differences: multiple definitions of 'market' qua single-sided markets.3. differentiate business models AND differentiate the modes of integration: multiple 'markets' within multiple contexts-of-use qua multi-sided markets.(PJB)
  • 3. differentiate business models AND differentiate the modes of integration: multiple 'markets' within multiple contexts-of-use qua multi-sided markets
  • i.e. really bad at dealing with differentiated integration....Therefore need for new ideas
  • http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/10/selling-business-architecture.html
  • http://thecelebration.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-urbanism-christopher-alexander.htmlhttp://www.natureoforder.com/teachers/givens/exercise2.htm
  • Operating Model Quadrants (Adapted by Clive Finkelstein from Figure 2.3 of “Enterprise Architecture as Strategy”)http://esvc000904.wic047u.server-web.com/ten/ten38.htmhttp://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/05/differentiation-and-integration.html
  • http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001237.htm
  • http://www.cybsys.co.uk/ProtoforMeta.htm
  • Richard Veryard and Philip BoxerMetropolis and SOA GovernanceMicrosoft Architect JournalJuly 2005http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa480051.aspx
  • Philip Boxer and Richard VeryardTaking Governance to the EdgeMicrosoft Architect JournalAugust 2006http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb245658.aspxhttp://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/29
  • http://www.trainmor-knowmore.eu/75D2E63A.en.aspxhttp://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2006/02/knowledge_hoard.htmlThe I-space² is a model describing how knowledge moves from being undiffused (ie only known by a few people) and concrete (ie very specific to a single situation) to becoming more abstract (ie. generalised to apply to more situations) and codified (ie. more able to be articulated). At point 3 on the diagram the knowledge has maximum value to an organisation because it can be applied in a variety of ways to a range of problems but hasn’t leaked (diffused) to its competitors. It is inevitable, however, that if the knowledge is valuable it will soon become common knowledge. In the case of the lawyers, the idea of using collaboration software to get all parties together can quickly arrive at point 3 but as soon as the solution is implemented the knowledge is diffused and available to everyone—competitive value diminished rapidly.Boisot’s argument is that organisations which operate in a slow moving environment, such as flute makers where the way flutes have been made hasn’t changed in a century, should do whatever it takes to protect their intellectual property including doing everything to retain their master craftspeople. Fast moving industries require a different strategy: keep your mean time at point 3 as high as possible. This requires an organisation to continually rotate through the I-space spiral with new ideas—constant innovation.
  • http://www.locatearchitects.co.uk/seda-lg.htm
  • Richard Veryard and Philip BoxerMetropolis and SOA GovernanceMicrosoft Architect JournalJuly 2005http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa480051.aspx
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8308634.stmhttp://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/114
  • The example here comes from working with a computing services business with banking customers. The customer was operating in a problem domain in which the fundamental concern with managing risk required them to manage two kinds of problem - looking for market inefficiencies that could create investment opportunities for the bank, and managing the ‘value at risk’ associated with existing investments.At the bottom of the diagram is ‘data warehousing’, understood to be a generic service that can be provided in a way that does not require knowledge of the specific bank’s situation, and ‘c-level‘ (it is always rising) is the level above which the bank’s specific context-of-use can no longer be ignored. In between c-level and the problem domain is a knowledge domain, in which knowledge about the bank’s context-of-use enables cKP-type services to be offered. The situations within this knowledge domain then identify opportunities for the supplier to provide services that cumulatively build on each other to meet their larger need in the problem domain.This is an effects ladder, and it provided the bank customer and the computing services supplier with a framework within which to build a shared picture of the bank’s context-of-use. http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/82
  • http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/82
  • http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/16/nokia_had_choices_but_couldnt_take_them/
  • http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/72
  • Transcript

    • 1. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
      Richard Veryard February 2011
      Managing Complexity using Enterprise Architecture
    • 2. Two Contrasting Agendas for EA
      Business is simple
      Systems are complicated and inflexible
      Software applications
      Human activity systems
      Therefore simplify and unify the systems to align with the business
      Business is complex
      Systems are complicated and inflexible
      Therefore differentiate and integrate systems to help manage complexity.
      Simplify and Unify
      Differentiate and Integrate
    • 3. Traditional EA doctrines
      Information Engineering
      Zachman Framework
    • 4. Simplification and Unification
      Duplication
      Inconsistency
      Poor Interoperability
      Fragmentation
      Waste
      Risk
      Economics of scale
      Economics of scope
      Interoperability
      FROM
      TO
    • 5. Achieving Simplification and Unification
      Quick and cheap solutions to local problems
      Tight project goals
      Stakeholders protecting established assets and arrangements
      Joined-up thinking
      The “Big Picture”
      Clustering
      Increase Cohesion
      Decrease Coupling
      Typical Challenges
      EA Weaponry
    • 6. Simple Interaction Matrix
      Source MSDN
    • 7. Clustered Matrix
      Source MSDN
    • 8. Simple Interaction Protocol (SIP)
      8
      SIP brings a rational process to project optimization
      Reproducible
      Verifiable
      Optimal
      SIP has a mathematical foundation
      Set theory
      Complexity analysis
      Equivalence relations
      SIP drives simplicity
      The architecture with smallest collections of functionality that have the fewest dependencies.
      Simplest possible architecture that solves the problem.
      Roger Sessions
      ObjectWatch
    • 9. 9
      Comparing SIP to Traditional EA
      SIP
      Traditional
      - Higher success rates.
      - Reduced cost.
      - Increased agility.
      - Cloud optimized.
      Roger Sessions
      ObjectWatch
    • 10. Two Contrasting Agendas for EA
      Business is simple
      Systems are complicated and inflexible
      Software applications
      Human activity systems
      Therefore simplify and unify the systems to align with the business
      Business is complex
      Systems are complicated and inflexible
      Therefore differentiate and integrate systems to help manage complexity.
      Simplify and Unify
      Differentiate and Integrate
    • 11. Three Dimensions of EA Maturity
    • 12. Information
      Gathering
      Decision
      & Policy
      WIGO
      (what is going on)
      Learning& Development
      Knowledge& Memory
      EA as organizational intelligence
      12
      Sense-Making
      Communication & Collaboration
    • 13. Responding to customer demand …
    • 14. Enterprise or Ecosystem  a third agenda
      Looking outside the traditional enterprise
      Questions of corporate identity
      Indirect demand (end customer)
      From Affiliation to Alliance
      Value for whom?
      Scope
      Third Agenda
    • 15. Dynamics of strategy (Kurtz & Snowden)
      AGENDA 3
      Differentiated Integration
      Strong
      distributed
      AGENDA 2
      Differentiate and Integrate
      Weak
      distributed
      AGENDA 1
      Simplify and Unify
      Strong central
      Weak central
      Source: “The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated World”. Kurtz and Snowden. IBM Systems Journal Vol 42, No 3 2003
    • 16. Aspects of Modernism
    • 17. Limitations of modernism
      Difficulties handling complexity, emergence and self-organization.
      Lack of agility, flexibility, evolution.
      Constrains organizational learning.
      No explicit treatment of holistic architectural properties such as balance and harmony
      No room for pluralism and human values
    • 18. Exploration of new ideas?
      “Hybrid thinking drives change via the co-creative exploration of meaningful human-centred experiences when confronting complex, intractable issues.”
      Gartner 2010
      “Holistic enterprise change”
      TOGAF 2009
    • 19. Structural complexity of business
      Asymmetrical demand
      Business as a platform
      Coupling
      enterprise as loosely coupled network of sociotechnical components and services
      Edge organization
      Enterprise tempo
      activities with different characteristic tempi
      Ethical dilemmas
      conflicts of interest, moral hazard
      Multi-sided markets
      different stakeholder classes with complementary demands
      Organizational intelligence
      Viability
      command and control
      VSM
    • 20. Value of business architecture
      Structural complexities in any business can critically affect business performance.
      To manage these structural complexities, we need to think  architecturallyabout the business …
      … which will help us to overcome the structural inhibitors to business performance.
      An explicit business architecture should help coordinate specific forms of congruence and requisite variety across all human activity systems
      management information systems (IT)
      management reward systems (HR)
    • 21. As business becomes more complex …
      Complicated or fragmented systems
      Exposes management weakness
      Customers’ economics of alignment outweigh suppliers’ economics of scale and scope
      Competitive advantage
      Requisite variety
      Costs
      Benefits
    • 22. Some alternative lenses for viewing structural complexity
      Viable Systems Method (Stafford Beer)
      I-Space (Max Boisot)
      Pace Layering (Frank Duffy, Stewart Brand)
      The Nature of Order (Alexander, Salingaros)
      Asymmetric Design (Philip Boxer, Bernie Cohen)
      Organizational Intelligence
      Asymmetric Leadership
      Structural Complexity
      Management Capability
    • 23. On The Nature of Order
      Christopher Alexander
      The Nature of Order
    • 24. To be simplified
      Exogenously defined linkages
      Weak (not convincing)
      Strong (convincing)
      exploration
      Strong (evident to the player)
      just-in-time transfer
      (exploitation)
      Endogenously
      defined linkages
      incremental improvement
      convergence-divergence
      asymmetric collapse
      Weak (not evident to the player)
      imposition
      The relationship of the actor/ player to the larger context
      ‘linkages’ = action-consequence pairing: strategies:
      ‘strong’ = convinced that they are right
      ‘weak’ = not convinced
      Good-enough ground for mechanism design that is convincing to a rational and intelligent actor…
      The right answer only emerges retrospectively
      An expert would be expected to know the right answer
      Complex:
      Cause-and-effect are only coherent in retrospect and do not repeat
      Knowable:
      Cause-and-effect separated over time and space
      NB read-across to Hutchins’ Cognition in the Wild
      disorder
      Known:
      Cause-and-effect relations repeatable, perceivable and predictable
      Chaotic:
      No cause-and-effect relationships perceivable
      Everyone knows the right answer
      There is no right answer
      Source: “The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated World”. Kurtz and Snowden. IBM Systems Journal Vol 42, No 3 2003
    • 25. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy
      1
      2
      ?
      Low differentiation
      High differentiation
    • 26. Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Conceptual View
    • 27. Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Engineering View
    • 28. Capability Requirement
    • 29. Governance Cycle
    • 30. Boisot I-space
    • 31. Pace Layering
    • 32. Information
      Gathering
      Decision
      & Policy
      WIGO
      (what is going on)
      Learning& Development
      Knowledge& Memory
      Organizational intelligence
      32
      Sense-Making
      Communication & Collaboration
    • 33. Stratification of Models
    • 34. Example 1: Defence Procurement
      “The Ministry of Defence has a substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification. This programme is unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets.”
      [MOD 2009]
      Each piece of equipment may have many different uses and affordances, in various use-contexts.
      Traditional planning and cost accounting cannot cope with this complexity.
      Description
      Issues
    • 35. Example 2: Bank DataWarehousing
      Two kinds of problem
      looking for market inefficiencies that could create investment opportunities for the bank
      managing the ‘value at risk’ associated with existing investments
    • 36. Generalized schema
    • 37. Example 3: Mobile Ecosystem
      Direct demand - focus on the device
      Indirect demand – focus on the customer ecosystem
      Nokia
      Apple
    • 38. Example 4: Mashup Ecosystem
    • 39. Example 5: Healthcare
      See presentation by Prof Bernie Cohen
    • 40. Conclusions
      Broad range of complex practical problems
      Emerging methods for reasoning about differentiation and integration.
      New agenda for enterprise architecture
      Not suppressing complexity but managing complexity
    • 41. … and more
      EA Forum (Unicom)
      February 24
      September ??
      EA/OI Briefing (Unicom)
      April 13
      RVsoapbox.BlogSpot.com
      asymmetricdesign.com
      Future Events
      Other Material and Links

    ×