Selecting Approaches to Enterprise Architecture


Published on

This presentation was given at EAC Europe (the premier European Enterprise Architecture conference) in 2010. It shows how some of the ideas of Systems and Complexity Science can be applied to produce a new way of thinking about EA that is accessible to all stakeholders and supports improved communication between people as well as machines

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
1 Like
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Selecting Approaches to Enterprise Architecture

  1. 1. 1
  2. 2. Selecting approaches to Enterprise ArchitectureEnterprise Architecture Conference Europe London 17th June 2010 Sally Bean 2
  3. 3. How can we best apply Enterprise Architecture to manage complexity and change? Changing the Running the Enterprise Enterprise, day-to-day Strategic Thinking, Operational Policy and Management macro change + adaptive change Bright Ideas Change ProjectsExternal Environment 3
  4. 4. EA people today are engaged in a diverse setof activities Coordinating technical infrastructure standards, patterns, & roadmaps Design Authority overseeing IT Development Projects? Portfolio analysis & planning of assets and projects? Current state documentation/description? Business design, enablement and innovation? Solving multidisciplinary ‘wicked problems’? …….
  5. 5. EA today has evolved from a number of distinct domain-oriented practicesField Approaches/Frameworks/GurusInformation Zachman 1, Clive Finkelsteinplanning/EngineeringTechnical Infrastructure TAFIM, Meta, Gartner, TOGAF 7PlanningBusiness Process BPR, BPM, Hammer&ChampyImprovementSystem INCOSE, DODAF, MODAF, TOGAF 8Architecture Fred BrooksComponent Architecture O-O, CBD, SOA“Whole-Enterprise” Zachman2™ TOGAF™ v 9 5
  6. 6. There’s usually a blend of different types of activity…. Prescriptive (City-Planning)  Determining, agreeing and promoting fundamental principles, policies, guidelines and standards to support the organisation’s operating model, cohesiveness and strategic direction Descriptive (Blueprinting)  Creating an aligned set of models and other artifacts that define/coordinate key elements of business, its information systems and technologies or provide pattern-based knowledge Programmatic (RouteMap)  Designing a target state architecture and a coordinated portfolio of projects to achieve it, including high-value ‘infrastructural elements’ that can be shared by organisations or projects 6
  7. 7. ….Often a variety of reasons for doing EA ..  Efficiency and Cost Reduction  Avoid duplication of effort  Contain technology varietyStructure, Coherence & Clarity  Flexibility, Innovation and Agility  Enable faster change (processes, information content/distribution, system functionality, technology)  More effective performance and decision-making  Exploitation of new technologies and information sources  Alignment and Integration  Align IT change with strategic objectives and business intent  Identify cross-departmental synergies, reduce inconsistencies and disconnects  Common source of knowledge for training  Risk  Improve visibility and compliance with regulatory requirements  Better understanding of interdependencies  Reduce dependency on failing technologies 7
  8. 8. ….and different EA orientations Horizontal EA: Promoting enterprise-wide coherence of domains (business activity, information, technology) Vertical EA: Integrative approach to large programmes or issues, so that business changes and IT systems are vertically coherent across the scope of the programme. Multi-Enterprise EA: organizations trying to join themselves up - with emphasis on defining business services and interoperability standards. ‘Whole-Enterprise’ EA: organizations establish governance policies, a framework and appropriate artifacts to promote incremental achievement of horizontal and vertical coherence. 8
  9. 9. Challenges for Enterprise Architecture EA aims for structure, coherence and clarity yet is itself diverse and not always coherent  Architecture or Engineering?  Role and Value of EA models?  IT-Driven or Business-Led? Mechanistic approach of mainstream EA frameworks  All have value but cannot be applied blindly - need to be adapted to context and culture  Treat the organisation as a machine  “EA-Centric”- not clear how they fit into an organisation’s way of working 9
  10. 10. This presentation is about making EA more realistic, accessible and inclusive Blend structured EA thinking with other approaches to business change Tailor approach to context and culture and allow for ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ complexity – you can only engineer what you understand Develop an ‘EA operating model ’ that  recognises that architecture is more of a discipline than a department  is more accessible by people outside EA Aim to diffuse architectural thinking across the organisation with a participative and progressive approach 10
  11. 11. Other business disciplines with relevance to EABusiness Discipline Relvant Ideas and ContribututorsStrategy Mintzberg, Porter (Value Chain), Treacy/Wiersma (Value Disciplines), Geoffrey Moore (Chasm Model) Osterwalder (Business Model Canvas)HR Organisation Design Learning OrganisationQuality Deming, Lean, Six Sigma?Commercial Design Design Thinking (Tim Brown, Roger Martin)Knowledge Management Snowden (Cynefin model ), Davenport, Allee, Dervin, WengerSystems Thinking and Management Cybernetics Forrester (Systems Dynamics), Senge, Beer (Viable System Model), Checkland (Soft Systems Methodology), Ackoff (Idealized Design) 11
  12. 12. Thinking about EA Approaches: Do we confuse Architecture and Engineering?Architecture - Shaping Engineering - Producing Concerned with overall  Working to a clear context, purpose, specification within overall conceptual integrity, architecture structure, broad feasibility  Have to make things actually and sustainability work Pay more attention to  Pay more attention to parts whole than parts than whole  Comprehensive and detailed Identify key elements and relationships that really  Necessary for ‘hard’ systems, dangerous for ‘soft’ ones matter  Requires in-depth skills Requires generalists 12
  13. 13. ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ complexity (Checkland & Wilson) Concorde Programme - a  Concorde Aircraft - a Human Activity System designed System with with many possible clearly defined physical purposes: characteristics  To transport people safely  Shape at supersonic speed  Technical Specification  To provide prestige to a  Operating Characteristics national airline  To celebrate technical and engineering achievement  To persuade the French to let the Brits into the Common Market (EU) 13
  14. 14. Peter Checkland on the Concordeprogramme“The Systems Engineering thinking that we were armed with intellectually was not rich enough to deal with the problematic situations we were trying to deal with” 14
  15. 15. Cynefin Sensemaking Framework (Snowden/Kurtz) 5 Domains INVISIBLE Complex Complicated Cause and effect coherent only in Cause and effect separated retrospect over time & spaceUN-ORDER ORDER Chaotic Simple No Cause and effect relationships Cause and effect relations repeatable and perceivable predictable VISIBLE 15
  16. 16. Can be used to understand the type of approach that is most suitable in a given context INVISIBLE Complex Complicated Probe and Sense Sense and Analyse Experiment Utilise expertise Distributed Cognition GOOD PRACTICE EMERGENTUN-ORDER ORDER Chaotic Simple Act and Sense Sense and Categorise Take Charge Take action NOVEL BEST PRACTICE VISIBLE 16
  17. 17. Where might we place some typical IT activities according to the Cynefin model? Complex Complicated Conceptual Data modellingUnderstanding new Physical Databasetechnical paradigms design(e.g. cloud) Chaos Simple Coping with a Infrastructure System Failure Operations Coding simple data entry 17
  18. 18. Some perspectives relevant to modelling The Conant-Ashby Theorem says that you cannot regulate a system without a model of it. “All models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box) EA models aim to represent some aspects of an enterprise  Ontological models aim to represent things in the real world  Epistemological models are mental learning devices to explore ideas about the real world (Reynolds & Holwell) “We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down” (Snowden) 18
  19. 19. Where might we position architectural activities? Complex Complicated Strategy EA Modelling Exploration “Infrastructure” EA Component Practice ArchitectureDevelopment Design Chaos Simple Exploitation 19
  20. 20. EA OPERATING MODEL: how to relate Enterprise Architecture to other activities? Changing the Running the Enterprise Enterprise, day-to-day Strategic Thinking Operational Policy, and Management macro change + adaptive change Bright Ideas Change ProjectsExternal Environment 20
  21. 21. Models of EA itself address particular facets of EA TOGAF IT process orientedZachman Framework?(Abstract content; no process) Sogeti DYA Framework Process-oriented 21
  22. 22. The DYA framework is easiest for a non-EAperson to understand 22
  23. 23. Template for a ‘blended’ approach to EA - A core of expertise supporting a distributed network of activities in Strategy, Change and Operations Environment Strategy (Business, Information, technology) ‘DISTRIBUTED’ EA: Activities embedded in EA standards, principles and models other business or IT document business strategy + high-level activities business/technology design decisions‘CORE’ EA: Enterprise architects coordinate the practice of EA and design and manage EA artifacts – they contribute to other activities as required. EA promotes coherence, EA models provide a efficiency and flexibility in ‘big picture’ view of the implementation projects organisation Change Projects and Programmes (Business, Information, Technology) Running the Enterprise
  24. 24. An organisation can then create its own ‘operating model’ of EA involvement and influence Strategy Strategic Portfolio Formulation Architecture Planning ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE Shows varying levels of EA influence across major activity segmentations. Both the Enterprise Modelling Synergies and segmentations and the EA contributions are Key Elements dependencies highly context-dependent of Strategy Rationale for Patterns programmes  Principles & Framework  Governance ‘CORE’ EA:  Enterprise Model Mgt  Communication Channels  Standards management  Etc…. Learning, Trouble-shooting Pointers to sources of expertise and info Project kick-off advice and Design Authority Experi- Mgt Enabling Core mental Complicated Simple Business Business Business Projects Projects Projects Activities Activities ActivitiesEnvironment 24
  25. 25. Don’t lose sight of the fact that EA is just one of many relevant ‘practice communities’ Strategy Strategic Portfolio ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE Formulation Architecture Planning Larger organisations may have internal practice communities or CoEs (implicit or Enterprise explicit) in several disciplines – they may Synergies and Modelling dependencies have interests in governance, business Key Elements of Strategy Patterns Rationale for change, etc programmes PRACTICE EA Process Mgt Communities Project Mgt Learning, Trouble-shooting Pointers to sources of expertise and info Project kick-off advice and Design Authority Experi- Mgt Enabling Core mental Complicated Simple Business Business Business Projects Projects Projects Activities Activities ActivitiesEnvironment 25
  26. 26. A PROGRESSIVE APPROACH TO EA ensures incremental building of understanding and delivery of value • guidelines and Enterprise methods for designing “Engineering” fully integrated, ( Only where appropriate) modular Business & Systems • High-level principles and enterprise- level models • Enterprise Segments and Target Enterprise Architecture Architectures for each one • Kickstart and guidance for projects • Patterns • What does EA really mean for our organisation? • What is its contribution to Strategy, to Project ExecutionEA Capability and Business Execution in each of the different domains?Development • Which types of artifact are likely to bring value to whom? • What types of projects do we have and what should be the architectural constraints and contributions? • Who are the friends and enemies of the EA approach? 26
  27. 27. Sources Books and Papers  Rechtin E, Maier M. 1997. The Art of Systems Architecting . CRC Press  Wilson, B. 1990. Systems, Concepts, Methodologies and Applications 2nd Ed, Wiley  Reynolds, M, Holwell, S. 2010. Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A practical guide, Springer. (contains chapters on Systems Dynamics, Viable System Model and Soft Systems Methodology)  Kurtz, C. & Snowden, D. 2003, The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making in a Complex-Complicated World, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462-83.  Snowden, D.J. Boone, M. 2007. "A Leaders Framework for Decision Making". Harvard Business Review, November 2007, pp. 69–76  Green, N, Bate, C. 2007 Lost in Translation. Evolved Technologist Press.  Wagter, van den Berg, Luijpers, van Steenbergen. 2005, Dynamic Enterprise Architecture How to make it work, Wiley Websites/Online articles    27