• Save
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

EA Talk on Managing Complexity

on

  • 2,648 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,648
Views on SlideShare
2,529
Embed Views
119

Actions

Likes
11
Downloads
0
Comments
1

16 Embeds 119

http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com 57
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.co.uk 27
http://swik.net 12
http://eablogs.gotze.eu 5
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com.au 4
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.de 2
http://richardveryard.blogspot.com 2
http://paper.li 2
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.dk 1
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.fi 1
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com.es 1
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.in 1
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.it 1
http://feeds.feedburner.com 1
http://twitter.com 1
http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.mx 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 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

EA Talk on Managing Complexity EA Talk on Managing Complexity Presentation Transcript

  • ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
    Richard Veryard February 2011
    Managing Complexity using Enterprise Architecture
  • 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
  • Traditional EA doctrines
    Information Engineering
    Zachman Framework
  • Simplification and Unification
    Duplication
    Inconsistency
    Poor Interoperability
    Fragmentation
    Waste
    Risk
    Economics of scale
    Economics of scope
    Interoperability
    FROM
    TO
  • 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
  • Simple Interaction Matrix
    Source MSDN
  • Clustered Matrix
    Source MSDN
  • 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
    Comparing SIP to Traditional EA
    SIP
    Traditional
    - Higher success rates.
    - Reduced cost.
    - Increased agility.
    - Cloud optimized.
    Roger Sessions
    ObjectWatch
  • 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
  • Three Dimensions of EA Maturity
  • Information
    Gathering
    Decision
    & Policy
    WIGO
    (what is going on)
    Learning& Development
    Knowledge& Memory
    EA as organizational intelligence
    12
    Sense-Making
    Communication & Collaboration
  • Responding to customer demand …
  • 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
  • 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
  • Aspects of Modernism
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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
  • 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
  • On The Nature of Order
    Christopher Alexander
    The Nature of Order
  • 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
  • Enterprise Architecture as Strategy
    1
    2
    ?
    Low differentiation
    High differentiation
  • Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Conceptual View
  • Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Engineering View
  • Capability Requirement
  • Governance Cycle
  • Boisot I-space
  • Pace Layering
  • Information
    Gathering
    Decision
    & Policy
    WIGO
    (what is going on)
    Learning& Development
    Knowledge& Memory
    Organizational intelligence
    32
    Sense-Making
    Communication & Collaboration
  • Stratification of Models
  • 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
  • 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
  • Generalized schema
  • Example 3: Mobile Ecosystem
    Direct demand - focus on the device
    Indirect demand – focus on the customer ecosystem
    Nokia
    Apple
  • Example 4: Mashup Ecosystem
  • Example 5: Healthcare
    See presentation by Prof Bernie Cohen
  • 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
  • … 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