Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
EA Talk on Managing Complexity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

EA Talk on Managing Complexity

2,260

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
2,260
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<br />Richard Veryard February 2011<br />Managing Complexity using Enterprise Architecture<br />
    • 2. Two Contrasting Agendas for EA<br />Business is simple<br />Systems are complicated and inflexible<br />Software applications<br />Human activity systems<br />Therefore simplify and unify the systems to align with the business<br />Business is complex<br />Systems are complicated and inflexible<br />Therefore differentiate and integrate systems to help manage complexity.<br />Simplify and Unify<br />Differentiate and Integrate<br />
    • 3. Traditional EA doctrines<br />Information Engineering<br />Zachman Framework<br />
    • 4. Simplification and Unification<br />Duplication<br />Inconsistency<br />Poor Interoperability<br />Fragmentation<br />Waste<br />Risk<br />Economics of scale<br />Economics of scope<br />Interoperability<br />FROM<br />TO<br />
    • 5. Achieving Simplification and Unification<br />Quick and cheap solutions to local problems<br />Tight project goals<br />Stakeholders protecting established assets and arrangements<br />Joined-up thinking<br />The “Big Picture”<br />Clustering<br />Increase Cohesion<br />Decrease Coupling<br />Typical Challenges<br />EA Weaponry<br />
    • 6. Simple Interaction Matrix<br />Source MSDN<br />
    • 7. Clustered Matrix<br />Source MSDN<br />
    • 8. Simple Interaction Protocol (SIP) <br />8<br />SIP brings a rational process to project optimization<br />Reproducible<br />Verifiable<br />Optimal<br />SIP has a mathematical foundation<br />Set theory<br />Complexity analysis<br />Equivalence relations<br />SIP drives simplicity<br />The architecture with smallest collections of functionality that have the fewest dependencies.<br />Simplest possible architecture that solves the problem.<br />Roger Sessions<br />ObjectWatch<br />
    • 9. 9<br />Comparing SIP to Traditional EA<br />SIP<br />Traditional<br />- Higher success rates.<br />- Reduced cost.<br />- Increased agility.<br />- Cloud optimized.<br />Roger Sessions<br />ObjectWatch<br />
    • 10. Two Contrasting Agendas for EA<br />Business is simple<br />Systems are complicated and inflexible<br />Software applications<br />Human activity systems<br />Therefore simplify and unify the systems to align with the business<br />Business is complex<br />Systems are complicated and inflexible<br />Therefore differentiate and integrate systems to help manage complexity.<br />Simplify and Unify<br />Differentiate and Integrate<br />
    • 11. Three Dimensions of EA Maturity<br />
    • 12. Information<br />Gathering<br />Decision<br />&amp; Policy<br />WIGO<br />(what is going on)<br />Learning&amp; Development<br />Knowledge&amp; Memory<br />EA as organizational intelligence<br />12<br />Sense-Making<br />Communication &amp; Collaboration<br />
    • 13. Responding to customer demand …<br />
    • 14. Enterprise or Ecosystem  a third agenda<br />Looking outside the traditional enterprise<br />Questions of corporate identity<br />Indirect demand (end customer)<br />From Affiliation to Alliance<br />Value for whom?<br />Scope<br />Third Agenda<br />
    • 15. Dynamics of strategy (Kurtz &amp; Snowden)<br />AGENDA 3<br />Differentiated Integration<br />Strong<br />distributed<br />AGENDA 2<br />Differentiate and Integrate<br />Weak<br />distributed<br />AGENDA 1<br />Simplify and Unify<br />Strong central<br />Weak central<br />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<br />
    • 16. Aspects of Modernism<br />
    • 17. Limitations of modernism<br />Difficulties handling complexity, emergence and self-organization.<br />Lack of agility, flexibility, evolution. <br />Constrains organizational learning.<br />No explicit treatment of holistic architectural properties such as balance and harmony<br />No room for pluralism and human values<br />
    • 18. Exploration of new ideas?<br />“Hybrid thinking drives change via the co-creative exploration of meaningful human-centred experiences when confronting complex, intractable issues.” <br />Gartner 2010<br />“Holistic enterprise change” <br />TOGAF 2009<br />
    • 19. Structural complexity of business<br />Asymmetrical demand <br />Business as a platform<br />Coupling<br />enterprise as loosely coupled network of sociotechnical components and services<br />Edge organization<br />Enterprise tempo<br />activities with different characteristic tempi<br />Ethical dilemmas<br />conflicts of interest, moral hazard<br />Multi-sided markets<br />different stakeholder classes with complementary demands<br />Organizational intelligence<br />Viability<br />command and control<br />VSM<br />
    • 20. Value of business architecture <br />Structural complexities in any business can critically affect business performance.<br />To manage these structural complexities, we need to think  architecturallyabout the business …<br />… which will help us to overcome the structural inhibitors to business performance.<br />An explicit business architecture should help coordinate specific forms of congruence and requisite variety across all human activity systems<br />management information systems (IT) <br />management reward systems (HR)<br />
    • 21. As business becomes more complex …<br />Complicated or fragmented systems<br />Exposes management weakness<br />Customers’ economics of alignment outweigh suppliers’ economics of scale and scope<br />Competitive advantage<br />Requisite variety<br />Costs<br />Benefits<br />
    • 22. Some alternative lenses for viewing structural complexity<br />Viable Systems Method (Stafford Beer)<br />I-Space (Max Boisot)<br />Pace Layering (Frank Duffy, Stewart Brand)<br />The Nature of Order (Alexander, Salingaros)<br />Asymmetric Design (Philip Boxer, Bernie Cohen)<br />Organizational Intelligence<br />Asymmetric Leadership <br />Structural Complexity<br />Management Capability<br />
    • 23. On The Nature of Order<br />Christopher Alexander<br />The Nature of Order<br />
    • 24. To be simplified <br />Exogenously defined linkages<br />Weak (not convincing)<br />Strong (convincing)<br />exploration<br />Strong (evident to the player)<br />just-in-time transfer<br />(exploitation)<br />Endogenously<br />defined linkages<br />incremental improvement<br />convergence-divergence<br />asymmetric collapse<br />Weak (not evident to the player)<br />imposition<br />The relationship of the actor/ player to the larger context<br />‘linkages’ = action-consequence pairing: strategies: <br />‘strong’ = convinced that they are right <br />‘weak’ = not convinced<br />Good-enough ground for mechanism design that is convincing to a rational and intelligent actor… <br />The right answer only emerges retrospectively<br />An expert would be expected to know the right answer<br />Complex:<br />Cause-and-effect are only coherent in retrospect and do not repeat<br />Knowable:<br />Cause-and-effect separated over time and space<br />NB read-across to Hutchins’ Cognition in the Wild<br />disorder<br />Known:<br />Cause-and-effect relations repeatable, perceivable and predictable<br />Chaotic:<br />No cause-and-effect relationships perceivable<br />Everyone knows the right answer<br />There is no right answer<br />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<br />
    • 25. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy<br />1<br />2<br />?<br />Low differentiation<br />High differentiation<br />
    • 26. Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Conceptual View<br />
    • 27. Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Engineering View<br />
    • 28. Capability Requirement<br />
    • 29. Governance Cycle<br />
    • 30. Boisot I-space<br />
    • 31. Pace Layering<br />
    • 32. Information<br />Gathering<br />Decision<br />&amp; Policy<br />WIGO<br />(what is going on)<br />Learning&amp; Development<br />Knowledge&amp; Memory<br />Organizational intelligence<br />32<br />Sense-Making<br />Communication &amp; Collaboration<br />
    • 33. Stratification of Models<br />
    • 34. Example 1: Defence Procurement<br />“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.” <br />[MOD 2009]<br />Each piece of equipment may have many different uses and affordances, in various use-contexts.<br />Traditional planning and cost accounting cannot cope with this complexity.<br />Description<br />Issues<br />
    • 35. Example 2: Bank DataWarehousing<br />Two kinds of problem <br />looking for market inefficiencies that could create investment opportunities for the bank<br />managing the ‘value at risk’ associated with existing investments<br />
    • 36. Generalized schema<br />
    • 37. Example 3: Mobile Ecosystem<br />Direct demand - focus on the device<br />Indirect demand – focus on the customer ecosystem<br />Nokia<br />Apple<br />
    • 38. Example 4: Mashup Ecosystem<br />
    • 39. Example 5: Healthcare<br />See presentation by Prof Bernie Cohen<br />
    • 40. Conclusions<br />Broad range of complex practical problems<br />Emerging methods for reasoning about differentiation and integration.<br />New agenda for enterprise architecture<br />Not suppressing complexity but managing complexity<br />
    • 41. … and more<br />EA Forum (Unicom)<br />February 24<br />September ??<br />EA/OI Briefing (Unicom)<br />April 13<br />RVsoapbox.BlogSpot.com<br />asymmetricdesign.com<br />Future Events<br />Other Material and Links<br />

    ×