Where do people fit within enterprise architecture?

Where do people fit
within enterprise-architecture?
Tom Graves, Tetradian Consulting
BAEA Architect-Café, Heverlee, September 2013
the futures of business

Hi.
(yeah, I’m that guy.)
(that’s the PR done, now let’s get straight to it?)

How many people here
work for an enterprise
that consists only of
information?
Question…

If you answered
‘I do!’
you’ve just cancelled
your own job…
(a gentle hint…)

If there’s more to an enterprise
than only information…
then why does anyone assume
that enterprise-architecture
is only about IT?
In which case…

Hmm…
CC-BY-ND-SA ores2k via Flickr

…need to think about this one…
CC-BY-ND alexsemenzato via Flickr

…or, in this case,
right at the bottom…
Let’s start this again,
right from the top…

Yes, this is EA…
(well, part of it, anyway…)
CC-BY-SA MysteryBee via Flickr
…and yes, IT-infrastructure is where current EA started
(back with frameworks like TOGAF versions 1-7)

Yet to understand the IT-infrastructure
(TOGAF versions 1-7)
we need to understand the applications
and the data in those applications…
(TOGAF version 8)

…to understand the applications and data
(TOGAF version 8)
we need to understand the business use
and meaning of the data…
(TOGAF version 8.1)

…to understand the business use of data
(TOGAF version 8.1)
we need to understand quite a bit more
about the business itself…
(TOGAF version 9)

…and to understand the business
(TOGAF version 9)
we need to understand the broader context
in which the business operates…
(TOGAF X, we hope?)

…because, in short,
everything in the enterprise
depends on everything else
(yes – even the IT)

…which gives us the real reason
for enterprise-architecture:
things work better
when they work together,
on purpose.
(A lot simpler and more straightforward
than most definitions for EA…)

…what is
enterprise?
Yet to understand
enterprise-architecture,
we also need to ask…

…enterprise is…
In classical economics…

…“the animal-spirits
of the entrepreneur”
CC-BY-ND archaeon via Flickr

…it’s about people,
doing things, together…
CC-BY-SA Nationalmuseet via Flickr

…but where are the people
in this business-story?

Zachman has a ‘Who’ column…
CC-BY-NC-SA knnkanda via Flickr
…but it’s mainly about ‘users’…

…who somehow seem to look like this.
CC-BY justin pickard via Flickr

TOGAF does talk about…
Graphic: © The Open Group
…but again,
people here are
mostly described
as ‘users’…
‘Business
Architecture’…

In Business Model Canvas…
CC-BY Alex Osterwalder / Alan Smith et al
…we do have ‘Customer Segments’…

…who can
even look like
real people…
CC-BY Fretro via Flickr

…but inside the organisation…
CC-BY Alex Osterwalder / Alan Smith et al
…in ‘Key Activities’ and ‘Key Resources’…

…we’re back to ‘users’ again…

…at best, possibly-human…
CC-BY Vlima.com via Flickr

…or maybe not…
CC-BY aleutia via Flickr

In any case, a lot more like this…

…than like this.
CC-BY andré luís via Flickr

So how come it’s so different
to outside
when they’re often the same people?
from inside

…gonna hafta think about this one…
CC-BY-ND alexsemenzato via Flickr

How does your enterprise
engage with its people
- its employees?
(in other words, you!)
An EA challenge…

1. As-is
2. Drivers
3. To-be
4. Roadmap
Let’s do this
as an everyday-EA exercise:

“What’s the story?”
Step 1: As-is

Step 1: As-is
What name for the ‘people-service’?
What does it do?
(people, process, technology)
What is its structure?
(what, how, where, who, when, why)
Create a sketch-diagram of this service
and its structures, content and actions

Step 2: Drivers

…or, why do we need people,
anyway?
A question of skill…

A question of skill
SCRIPTED
(simple rules and checklists)
TRAINEE / machine-automation
CC-BY The-Vikkodamus via Flickr CC-BY-SA seeminglee via Flickr
IMPROVISED
(guidelines and principles)
MASTER (can’t automate)
ANALYSED
(complicated algorithms)
APPRENTICE / IT-analysis
ADAPTED
(complex patterns)
JOURNEYMAN / pattern-IT

“Let’s do a quick SCAN of this…”
Making sense of skills

“Insanity
is doing
the same thing
and expecting
different results”
(Albert Einstein)
ORDER
(IT-type rules do work here)
Take control! Impose order!

“Insanity
is doing
the same thing
and expecting
different results”
(Albert Einstein)
“Insanity
is doing
the same thing
and expecting
the same results”
(not Albert Einstein)
ORDER
(IT-type rules do work here)
UNORDER
(IT-type rules don’t work here)
Order and unorder

A quest for certainty:
analysis, algorithms,
identicality, efficiency,
business-rule engines,
executable models,
Six Sigma...
SAMENESS
(IT-systems do work
well here)
UNIQUENESS
(IT-systems don’t work
well here)
Same and different
An acceptance of
uncertainty:
experiment, patterns,
probabilities, ‘design-
thinking’, unstructured
process...

THEORY
What we plan to do, in the expected conditions
What we actually do, in the actual conditions
PRACTICE
Theory and practice

Why we need skills
order unorder
fail-safe
(high-dependency)
safe-fail
(low-dependency)
plan
actual
Waterfall
(‘controlled’ change)
Agile
(iterative change)
analysis
(knowable result)
experiment
(unknowable result)

Machines and people
order
(rules do work here)
unorder
(rules don’t work here)
fail-safe
(high-dependency)
safe-fail
(low-dependency)
analysis
(knowable result)
experiment
(unknowable result)
MACHINES PEOPLE
Waterfall
(‘controlled’ change)
Agile
(iterative change)

Why skills are needed…
What is always going to be
uncertain or unique?
(‘Messy’ – politics, management, wicked-
problems, ‘should’ vs ‘is’, etc.)
What will always be ‘messy’?
Wherever these occur,
you’re going to need human skill…

algorithm guideline
rule principle
We can’t manage uncertainty or uniqueness
without real people making human judgements
Why we need people

…why would anyone
want to be involved
in this enterprise?
Motivations…

CC-BY quaziefoto via Flickr
“Money makes the world go round”?

Research: money-alone only motivates
for ‘robotic’-type (non-skilled) work…

…for skilled-work, relying on
money alone as a motivator
can often make things worse. CC-BY andré luís via Flickr

To motivate skills-work…
What research shows will work, for individuals:
• Autonomy (decision-making at the point of action)
• Mastery (development of personal skill)
• Purpose (guidelines to assess personal achievement)
(Note: in Taylorism, all of the above are explicitly blocked or forbidden)
…and at the collective level:
• Fairness (socially-determined)
• Shared-purpose (vision/values etc ‘greater than self’)

…whose story is this, really?
- who can have impact on the
enterprise?
- what could their impacts be?
(direct, or indirect?)
Stakeholders…

“An organisation is bounded by
rules, roles and responsibilities;
an enterprise is bounded by
vision, values and commitments.”
Tom Graves, Mapping the Enterprise, Tetradian, 2010
Whose enterprise?
Organisation aligns with structure, enterprise with story.
We need a balance of both for the architecture to work.

A useful guideline:
“The enterprise in scope
should be three steps larger
than the organisation in scope.”
Tom Graves, Mapping the Enterprise, Tetradian, 2010
Whose enterprise?

Whose enterprise?
If the organisation says it ‘is’ the enterprise,
there’s no shared-story - and often, no story at all.

Whose enterprise?
The minimum real enterprise is the supply-chain
- a story of shared transactions.

Whose enterprise?
The organisation and enterprise of the supply-chain take
place within a broader organisation of the market.

Whose enterprise?
The market itself exists within a context of ‘intangible’
interactions with the broader shared-enterprise story.

A stakeholder
in the story
is anyone
who can wield
a sharp-pointed
stake
in your direction…
CC-BY-NC-SA evilpeacock via Flickr
Stakeholders in the enterprise
(Hint: there are a lot
more of them than you
might at first think…)

…what story would be a ‘guiding star’,
to bring all of these stakeholders together?
Vision and values…
What works best is a three-part ‘story’ :
-shared-concern (‘What’)
-action (‘How’)
- qualifier (‘Why’)

A myriad of ‘guiding stars’ out there…
…choose one that looks right to you.
Use it as your guiding-star. Everywhere.
Example (TED conferences): “Ideas worth spreading”

Concern: the focus of
interest to everyone in
the shared-enterprise
“Ideas worth
spreading”
CC-BY UK DFID via Flickr

“Ideas worth spreading”
Action: what is
being done to
or with or about
the concern
CC-BY US Army Africa via Flickr

“Ideas worth
spreading”
Qualifier:
the emotive
driver for action
on the concern
CC-BY HDTPCAR via Flickr

We can view employees in many ways:
- resource
- customer
- supplier
- investor
- associate
Perspectives…

Perspective: ‘Resource’
Viewing employees as ‘resources’ or ‘production-units’
may well block their access to motivation and skill.

Perspective: Customer
Employees are actually the ‘customers’ for the
organisation’s ‘people-unit’ services.

Perspective: Supplier
Viewing employees as suppliers enables access to skill,
but without link to enterprise-story, motivation may be lost.

Perspective: Investor
Viewing employees as investors – stakeholders in the
shared-story – is useful but often politically-problematic.

Perspective: Associate
For an employee-engagement model that works well,
most organisations will need some mix of all perspectives.

…names can be important!
- a misplaced metaphor
can have very unfortunate
unintended-consequences…
Choose the right name for it…

is when they are slaves…
CC-BY-NC-ND littlejoncollection via Flickr
Choose metaphors wisely…
- the only time that people are ‘assets’
“Our people are our greatest asset!”

Choose metaphors wisely…
(probably best not to show a literal image for ‘Human Resources’…)
“Human Resources”
CC-BY-SA shockinglytasty via Flickr

Step 2: Drivers
In what ways do all of these themes
- skills, motivation, stakeholders,
story, perspectives, name -
apply in your enterprise?
What do they imply for your ‘as-is’
systems for employee-engagement?

Step 3: To-be

The ‘as-is’ tells you what you have…
…your choice of
how to respond to the drivers
tells you what you need…
…where do you go from here?
Design the ‘to-be’ systems…

Step 3: To-be
What name for the ‘people-service’?
What does it do?
(people, process, technology)
What is its structure?
(what, how, where, who, when, why)
Create a sketch-diagram of this service
and its structures, content and actions

Step 4: Roadmap

This is where things tend to get
really, uh, interesting…
From here to there…

Step 4: Roadmap
What are the gaps
between as-is and to-be?
How will you bridge those gaps?
What change-projects will you need?
Over what time-scales?
How will you tackle
all the politics of this…?

What do you see differently now?
CC-BY Gulltaggen via Flickr

It’s all about the experience!
What can you do in your enterprise-architecture
to create engagement in the ‘people-side’ of the enterprise?

Thank you!

Contact: Tom Graves
Company: Tetradian Consulting
Email: tom@tetradian.com
Twitter: @tetradian ( http://twitter.com/tetradian )
Weblog: http://weblog.tetradian.com
Slidedecks: http://www.slideshare.net/tetradian
Publications: http://tetradianbooks.com
Books: • The enterprise as story: the role of narrative in enterprise-
architecture (2012)
• Mapping the enterprise: modelling the enterprise as services
with the Enterprise Canvas (2010)
• Everyday enterprise-architecture: sensemaking, strategy,
structures and solutions (2010)
• Doing enterprise-architecture: process and practice in the
real enterprise (2009)
Further information:

Where do people fit within enterprise architecture?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Where do people fit within enterprise architecture?

Similar to Where do people fit within enterprise architecture? (20)

More from Tetradian Consulting

More from Tetradian Consulting (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Where do people fit within enterprise architecture?