Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

EA Talk on Managing Complexity

2,807 views

Published on

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

Published in: Business, Technology

EA Talk on Managing Complexity

  1. 1. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE<br />Richard Veryard February 2011<br />Managing Complexity using Enterprise Architecture<br />
  2. 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. 3. Traditional EA doctrines<br />Information Engineering<br />Zachman Framework<br />
  4. 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. 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. 6. Simple Interaction Matrix<br />Source MSDN<br />
  7. 7. Clustered Matrix<br />Source MSDN<br />
  8. 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. 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. 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. 11. Three Dimensions of EA Maturity<br />
  12. 12. Information<br />Gathering<br />Decision<br />& Policy<br />WIGO<br />(what is going on)<br />Learning& Development<br />Knowledge& Memory<br />EA as organizational intelligence<br />12<br />Sense-Making<br />Communication & Collaboration<br />
  13. 13. Responding to customer demand …<br />
  14. 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. 15. Dynamics of strategy (Kurtz & 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. 16. Aspects of Modernism<br />
  17. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 23. On The Nature of Order<br />Christopher Alexander<br />The Nature of Order<br />
  24. 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. 25. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy<br />1<br />2<br />?<br />Low differentiation<br />High differentiation<br />
  26. 26. Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Conceptual View<br />
  27. 27. Viable Systems Model (Stafford Beer)Engineering View<br />
  28. 28. Capability Requirement<br />
  29. 29. Governance Cycle<br />
  30. 30. Boisot I-space<br />
  31. 31. Pace Layering<br />
  32. 32. Information<br />Gathering<br />Decision<br />& Policy<br />WIGO<br />(what is going on)<br />Learning& Development<br />Knowledge& Memory<br />Organizational intelligence<br />32<br />Sense-Making<br />Communication & Collaboration<br />
  33. 33. Stratification of Models<br />
  34. 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. 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. 36. Generalized schema<br />
  37. 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. 38. Example 4: Mashup Ecosystem<br />
  39. 39. Example 5: Healthcare<br />See presentation by Prof Bernie Cohen<br />
  40. 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. 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 />

×