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.

Towards complex adaptive architectures

2,269 views

Published on

This slide deck dives a bit in history to understand where IT comes from, where we are now and why we are there and what our options are. It starts with exploring the paradigms of the markets companies live in, travels through matching organizational approaches and finally looks at the history and current state of IT.

Based on that and after a quick look at Conway's law the market paradigms and organizational approaches are evaluated with respect to the drivers they imply on IT in general and architecture particularly.

And after all that foreplay (which is necessary to really understand where we are and what the forces are) several architectural styles and technologies are located on the scale that the market paradigms and organizational approaches span. This way sort of an "architectural fitness detector" is provided which helps to make architectural choices based on needs instead of hypes or habits (which are way to often the choice drivers).

The slide deck then finishes up with a few mismatches that are seen quite often in reality and it can be seen how the distance between architectural choices on the presented scale can be used to quickly determine potential mismatches.

As always the voice track is missing but I hope that the slides are still of some help for you.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Towards complex adaptive architectures

  1. 1. Towards complex adaptive architectures A journey from hypes and habits to real needs Uwe Friedrichsen, codecentric AG, 2015
  2. 2. @ufried Uwe Friedrichsen | uwe.friedrichsen@codecentric.de | http://slideshare.net/ufried | http://ufried.tumblr.com
  3. 3. Time for some storytelling …
  4. 4. Story #1 The story of markets
  5. 5. Formal part of value creation Solution: machine Dynamic part of value creation Solution: man sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact. t1970/80 today Age of crafts manu- facturing Age of tayloristic industry Age of global markets 1850/1900 Spacious markets, little competition Local markets, high customi- zation Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. The “bathtub” curve Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13
  6. 6. Formal part of value creation Solution: machine Dynamic part of value creation Solution: man sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact. t1970/80 today Age of crafts manu- facturing Age of tayloristic industry Age of global markets 1850/1900 Spacious markets, little competition Local markets, high customi- zation Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Pre-industrial era Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13 Tailor-made solutions “Mastery is key to success”
  7. 7. Formal part of value creation Solution: machine Dynamic part of value creation Solution: man sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact. t1970/80 today Age of crafts manu- facturing Age of tayloristic industry Age of global markets 1850/1900 Spacious markets, little competition Local markets, high customi- zation Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Industrial era Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13 Cost-efficiently scale production “Get more done with less people is key to success”
  8. 8. Formal part of value creation Solution: machine Dynamic part of value creation Solution: man sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact. t1970/80 today Age of crafts manu- facturing Age of tayloristic industry Age of global markets 1850/1900 Spacious markets, little competition Local markets, high customi- zation Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Post-industrial era Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13 Continuously respond to changing demands “Continuous customer communication is key to success”
  9. 9. Industrial era •  Cost-efficiency •  Scalability •  Repeatability •  Stability Drivers for organizations Post-industrial era •  Cycle times •  Adaptability •  Flexibility •  Resilience
  10. 10. Story #2 The story of organizations
  11. 11. The predominant industrial organization …
  12. 12. Market Observe Derive Goals & Create Plan Execute Execute Command & Control Execute Command & Control Execute Command & Control Command & Control Tayloristic Organization
  13. 13. Tayloristic Organization Pros •  Cost-Efficient •  Easy to scale simple/complicated tasks Cons •  Sluggish response to change drivers •  Very fragile with respect to complexity à Great for wide and slow markets,
 Bad for narrow and dynamic markets
  14. 14. A post-industrial organization sometimes seen in the wild …
  15. 15. Market Observe Derive Goals & Constraints Beta Organization Share Goals & Constraints Collaborating autonomous Teams Inspect & Adapt Inspect & Adapt Inspect & Adapt Inspect & Adapt
  16. 16. Beta Organization Pros •  Responds well to change drivers •  Deals well with complexity •  Scales quite well Cons •  Centralized definition of goals & constraints à Modern leadership model for
 narrow and dynamic markets
  17. 17. An ideal post-industrial organization not yet seen in the wild …
  18. 18. Market Complex Adaptive Organization (Cybernetic Organization) Continuously communicate Organization continuously adapting to market needs & demands
  19. 19. Cybernetic Organization Pros •  Best response possible to change drivers •  Perfect for dynamic, complex markets Cons •  Effective, but not necessarily efficient •  Not suitable for simple/complicated tasks à Great for narrow and dynamic markets, Bad for wide and sluggish market
  20. 20. Story #3 The story of IT
  21. 21. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Complicated (Business functions) Complex (Business processes) Highly complex (Business nervous system) Software crisis Software engineering PC LAN Internet Business Support of IT Selective Holistic Complicated Complex “Moore’s law” Mobile IoT
  22. 22. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Complicated (Business functions) Complex (business processes) Highly complex (Business nervous system) Software crisis Software engineering PC LAN Internet Business Support of IT Selective Holistic Complicated Complex “Moore’s law” Mobile IoT We are here …
  23. 23. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Complicated (Business functions) Complex (business processes) Highly complex (Business nervous system) Software crisis Software engineering PC LAN Internet Business Support of IT Selective Holistic Complicated Complex “Moore’s law” Mobile IoT … but we still base most of our decisions on that We are here …
  24. 24. Formal part of value creation Solution: machine Dynamic part of value creation Solution: man sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact. t1970/80 today Age of crafts manu- facturing Age of tayloristic industry Age of global markets 1850/1900 Spacious markets, little competition Local markets, high customi- zation Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Remember the bathtub curve? This adds an additional twist …
  25. 25. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Complicated (Business functions) Complex (business processes) Highly complex (Business nervous system) Software crisis Software engineering PC LAN Internet Business Support of IT Selective Holistic Complicated Complex “Moore’s law” Mobile IoT … but we still base most of our decisions on that We are here … Business is very different today … … than it was back then
  26. 26. Business Market IT today is a … … Nervous System … Medium … Product … Differentiator Disruptive Technologies Business Support Systems Continuous Conversation Digitization
  27. 27. What we learned so far … •  Markets changed a lot •  From wide & sluggish (industrial) •  To narrow & dynamic (post-industrial) •  Different organizations required to meet market needs and demands •  Tayloristic (industrial, centralized) •  Beta (post-industrial, partially decentralized) •  Complex adaptive (post-industrial, decentralized) •  IT itself changed a lot •  From supporter of selective business functions •  To business nervous system and differentiator
  28. 28. Time for a law …
  29. 29. Conway’s law: Organizations which design systems [...] are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations
  30. 30. Conway’s law reversed: You won’t be able to successfully establish an efficient organization
 structure that is not supported by your system design (architecture)
  31. 31. Monolith Example: Multiple teams working on a monolith usually end up in tightly coupled teams with excessive communication overhead
  32. 32. Time for architecture …
  33. 33. Industrial Post-Industrial What kind of architecture suits the different paradigms and organizational approaches best?
  34. 34. Tayloristic organization Architectural Drivers •  Core driver: Cost-efficiency •  Centralized control •  Centralized change process •  Minimize cost/feature •  Change response times of minor relevance Implies Application Properties •  Big Applications (“Economies of scale”) •  Large change projects •  Big, infrequent releases •  Long change response times •  Rigid, inflexible architecture •  High degree of configurability •  Optimized for output/$ Leads to
  35. 35. Cybernetic organization Architectural Drivers •  Core driver: Cycle times •  Decentralized control •  Decentralized change process •  Minimize cycle time/feature •  Change response times are essential Implies Application Properties •  Small, resilient Applications •  Change flow instead of projects •  Continuous releases •  Very short change response times •  Flexible, decoupled architecture •  Configurability of minor relevance •  Optimized for outcome/$ Leads to
  36. 36. Time to locate some architectural styles and technologies …
  37. 37. Industrial Post-Industrial Monolith Layered Architecture Process Engine Rule Engine ESB Microservice REST Event driven Message driven Complex Adaptive Architecture Actors Central Database Cloud Orchestration Choreography RPC/RFC
  38. 38. Time for some mismatches …
  39. 39. Example 1 Microservices on top of a central database
  40. 40. Industrial Post-Industrial Monolith Layered Architecture Process Engine Rule Engine ESB Microservice REST Event driven Message driven Complex Adaptive Architecture Actors Central Database Cloud Orchestration Choreography RPC/RFC
  41. 41. Example 2 Microservices orchestrated by a process engine
  42. 42. Industrial Post-Industrial Monolith Layered Architecture Process Engine Rule Engine ESB Microservice REST Event driven Message driven Complex Adaptive Architecture Actors Central Database Cloud Orchestration Choreography RPC/RFC
  43. 43. Example 3 Layered Microservice Architecture
  44. 44. Industrial Post-Industrial Monolith Layered Architecture Process Engine Rule Engine ESB Microservice REST Event driven Message driven Complex Adaptive Architecture Actors Central Database Cloud Orchestration Choreography RPC/RFC
  45. 45. Example 4 “Cloudifying” a traditional monolith
  46. 46. Industrial Post-Industrial Monolith Layered Architecture Process Engine Rule Engine ESB Microservice REST Event driven Message driven Complex Adaptive Architecture Actors Central Database Cloud Orchestration Choreography RPC/RFC
  47. 47. Example 5 Architectural requirement from an actual customer project
  48. 48. Industrial Post-Industrial Monolith Layered Architecture Process Engine Rule Engine ESB Microservice REST Event driven Message driven Complex Adaptive Architecture Actors Central Database Cloud Orchestration Choreography RPC/RFC
  49. 49. Time to come to an end …
  50. 50. Wrap-up •  We arrived in the post-industrial age •  The organizations need to adapt •  The role of IT also changed massively Ø  We need to re-think IT! •  Conway’s law affects architecture Ø  Align architecture and organization Ø  Don’t mix solutions for different needs
  51. 51. Don’t go for hypes or habits.
 Go for needs.
  52. 52. @ufried Uwe Friedrichsen | uwe.friedrichsen@codecentric.de | http://slideshare.net/ufried | http://ufried.tumblr.com

×