Structure in Threes: Revised Preface and start of Part One/Chapter One – An Architect’s View of Organizations

PREFACE

It has been close to thirty years since John Zachman coined the term Enterprise Architecture and introduced business to the Zachman Framework. Over the years, the metaphor has been used and abused, technical religions have grown around methodologies and still the term Enterprise Architecture is derisive.

  • Is it an activity that produces a plan for building various systems?
  • Is it the actual plan for an Enterprise?
  • Is it a methodology to produce standard compliant designs?
  • Is it a collection of diagrams that represent different types of information about the information systems used in an enterprise (the Zachman Framework Aka Ontology)
  • Or maybe a specific set of standard components organized in a specific structured way

When I started the initial concept for this book years ago, I had considered creating a text that would provide methods for designing an enterprise; this being the goal of Enterprise Architecture or at least my belief is the goal. However, over the years’ experience has taught me five things:

  1. Nothing is simple when explaining yourself; a lesson taught to me by John Zachman
  2. Words have different meanings depending upon the context and experience of others; a lesson taught by Michael Kutcher, John Sowa, Gil Laware, and Frank Kowalkowski
  3. The difference between a methodologist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with the terrorist; a lesson taught by IBM CIM Architecture Department and TC184/SC4 & SC5 working groups
  4. Thinking in the abstract and in multiple dimensions while technically possible by most, is often avoided in most enterprises in the name of speed and comprehension; a lesson taught by most managers and mid-level executives I’ve had to deal with
  5. Nothing is foolproof as fools are so dam cleaver and Nature always sides with the hidden flaw; Murphy you were an optimist

Those insights came to light over the years of associating and working with those I consider giants and mentors in the field. Included in this book are vignettes of how those insights were developed; if for no other reasons than to pay tribute to my mentors and colleagues and to establish part of the context for the content in the book.

That being the bedrock I started building this work upon, I realized I needed to answer several questions first before I introduced my approach to Enterprise Architecture. The book itself is meant to be a practical guide on “practicing” Enterprise Architecture, a theoretical text explaining my perspective on what Architecture or more specifically Enterprise Architecture is, and how these fundamentals are expressed in practice.

Why Structure in Threes

Structure in Threes praxis guide toward the design of enterprise based upon a fusion of several concepts:

  • A classic work from Henry Mintzberg, Structure in Fives, on strategy
  • My original research and training in dwelling architecture from works by Vitruvius, Soleri, and Christopher Alexander
  • Studies in Systems Theory from works from von Bertalanffy, Checkland, Forrester, Meadows, and Weinberg
  • Studies and learnings from John Zachman

The title is meant both to honor Mintzberg’s leap of using a spatial reference to describe an abstract subject as well Zachman’s ontology that defines a multi-dimensional problem space that is enterprise.

About this book

This book is both a stand-alone work as well as a companion text for an educational curriculum taught by the author. The sole purpose of both book and curriculum is to raise the knowledge and skill level of practicing architects and associated stakeholders. While it will reference a methodology for demonstration it should not be construed as THE sole approach towards developing a praxis.

Simply put I am not intending to form yet another priesthood in the field. There are many paths to this destination and fulfilling the goal of designing an effective enterprise.

Part One – Theory and Methodology

 

An Architect’s View of Organizations – creating a coordinate system for an abstract space

In 1997 I had published an article “What is Architecture” to lay out the context for the full problem space I believe enterprise architecture should cover. In this article, I recounted an earlier discussion with several IT provider executives that I worked with. Primarily the dispute was around the representations of architecture, but quickly moved past representations to what architecture is.

My opponent in this discussion strongly advocated documenting a set of components in a hierarchy. “Here the architecture is these six devices connected together by this specific network type. That’s the architecture” He’d laid out a hierarchy of computing systems that looked much like an organizational hierarchy; One master mainframe at the top with a descending hierarchy of smaller and smaller mainframes, and eventually workstations or personal computers.

I had asked what was the rationale behind using a hierarchy and the selection of each component type at each level. The response was a blank stare. It was though I was speaking Martian to him. Then suddenly a rather heated response back. “O.k. tell me YOUR definition of architecture”.

Without trying to escalate what had become a heated situation I fell back to my original training. “There is a difference between architecture and design. Many people use the term architecture when they really mean a design….an architecture are the rules for the selection and usage of components and/or elements to achieve a stated functional objective. These can be structural and non-structural such as light & shadow, space, stone, glass and wood. This how these components are selected, used to fulfill an objective is the architecture. The actual instance of using these are the design.”

Defining the problem-solution space

From that discussion and the Zachman Framework I came to the conclusion that to effectively design and construct an enterprise one really needed to visualize this conceptual entity, Enterprise” in an abstract multi-dimensional space. A similar concept to how architects use the dimensional metaphor to define dwellings. What is missing in those dwelling visualizations (designs) are the rules that were used to create those designs. That is the architecture that was developed inside the head of the architect during his/her education and practice.

However, in discussion of those components, elements, and rules has not been a topic of discussion in most Enterprise Architecture narratives or methodologies. Instead what has been taught and discussed has been documentation/representation practices. This is equivalent to teaching drafting standards. And when rules are discussed it typically has been around sizing of components, not selection and use. Occasionally one gets into discussions around implementations: Mainframe vs Network, Network vs Cloud, etc. These are typically religious wars from vendors attempting to justify why their products are better or inclusion in the latest technology theme.

Hoping to avoid such conflicts, the first part of this text is aimed at providing the theoretical foundations for the reader to move past such religious wars by establishing the coordinate space for discussions on why and in what context to select and use.

Strategy, Resource, and Structure – the three dimensions of Organizations

Keeping with the theme of threes I believe that Strategy, Resource, and Structure are the primary dimensions of this abstract space where enterprise can be defined. This may seem to go counter to the Zachman ontology, however, if one looks at the ontology in an architecture context, the various dimensions are actually views of an enterprise. Thus, each box in the framework is a projection of one or more of these primary dimensions.

Class Structures in Dimensions

One other aspect of these primary dimensions is that each is actually a family of instances based upon the context in which these are used. A simple example, there are corporate organizational structures, software structures, business structures, etc. Each describes the arrangement and relationship between components. These will be discussed further in each dimension section to follow.

[Preview/Outline] Constraints in Design – Money Changes Everything

  1. Money is both resource and measurement system for the game
  2. Perishable Resource -Time the one resource that can’t be stored for later use
  3. People – the multiplier resource

The Death of Enterprise Architecture

ea-tombstoneThis morning I read a rather despondent post by a peer seemingly on the verge of giving up Enterprise Architecture.  Not a particularly happy thought.  It was reminiscent of the death knells I heard a few decades ago and seems to repeat each decade.  

At that time large corporations had just come off of a great high on Strategic Planning, Enterprise Architecture, and other master planning activities.  There was a great trough of disillusion regarding any planning activities.  Comments like “things are always changing, so planning is a waste”; “you can’t plan for everything”; and other criticisms of planning and design were popular in the culture. 

Such comments resonate well in the cowboy culture of American Business; except when it comes to production where tremendous efforts to plan resource utilization are common.  Look at the success of ERP software as an example. 

My thoughts on ERP mega-success verses other Design and Planning software moderate success draws me to the conclusions I had back during the first trough of disillusion.  At that time “Architecture Practice”, that is the design of physical dwellings, had hit a slump or rather a restructuring.  I had been informed a career in designing buildings was going to be a difficult undertaking as investment in construction had dropped and one of the cost cutting measures development organizations and people were taking was to reuse designs (patterns and practices) rather than create or customize to individual preferences.  The perceived cost verses the benefits of hiring an architect were not in balance.  As such the question I had for my advisors: Will I be on a street corner with a sign “Will design a house for food” seemed poignant. 

Fast forward to today.  Many of my peers back then left the profession within two to four years seeing that the industry restructuring had reduced the capacity of resources needed to meet demand.  

There are strong parallels to today.  With the advent of best practices, templates, etc. the needed capacity for parametric designers (i.e., template completion staff) has reduced.  As such the role in EA has more and more become closely associated with IT presales and support.  This maybe because of its origins in information technology presales and support.  

Whether this is good or bad is up for discussion.  On the positive side such roles enable one to learn and develop soft skills working with line of business and possibly executive management.  On the negative side it often constrains one to focusing on the technology aspects of an enterprise.  Those thoughts of working to define the business are often far from reach.  Your role is to translate business capabilities defined by the business design into technology requirements, determine which technology is most appropriate, or defined implementation details. 

Notice I did not mention defining the business or business model.  Until you are in the inner circle of Executive or Line of Business Management you are unlikely to be given the opportunity to define or influence the business design.  If lucky, you’ll be asked to document the business model.  This would be the entre into business design.  From there if you can provide insight and value regarding the business model choices from other than a technology perspective you may be invited into the inner circle as an “intern”. 

The thing to remember here is that, its their business, not yours.  You’ve been invited to give insight, not criticize or make decisions.  Unlike Frank Lloyd Wright you don’t have a successful brand as a business designer, that enables you to dictate all the aspects of a design your client will have to accept if s/he wants a “Frank Lloyd Wright” House.   The closest to such defined business models that owners accept as given would be franchises like Mc Donald’s, etc.  There the business model has reached into the best practices, Patterns and Practices level.  

So what does that say about Enterprise Architecture and where it should report to?  Yes, designing the business is possible, but it will take time and effort to gain trust to be given those opportunities.  Understanding your role as a translator of business capabilities to technology will likely be the core of your practice.  While business model design and definition will be needed stills, the freedom to change these are not often granted.             

 

New Instructional Video Channel coming

Working on first instructional video for Digital Advisors and Enterprise & Business Architects for my new YouTube channel you can subscribe here: https://lnkd.in/gdxzmyW

Why your planning sucks… and what to do about it

“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”Dwight D. Eisenhower

Over the years, I have the fortune or misfortune to be involved or observe various disastrous planning activities. Most of the time one could tell things were not likely to end well. Why then did these continue to an eventual bad end? Simply because people confused planning with plans.

Plans are the documentation of the activity at a specific point in time, not the end state. Too often plans are viewed as cast in cement, never to be changed, even in the light of an approaching cliff. The question then becomes why? From observations, I’ve conclude that much of it revolves around ego. If I’m the manager I’m supposed to have all the facts and answers. And my decisions cannot be changed as these are personal commitments and a change would reflect poorly on me.

What is needed in management now is like what happened in various design professions “Egoless… programming, etc.

A simple categorization of why changes to plans are needed often reflect aspects that are often not in control of management at the time a one and done plan is made and being executed.

  • Results from activities is not as expected
  • Conditions have changed since the plan was developed
  • Another factor has surfaced or has more impact than anticipated
  • New options have surfaced

All of these infer the need to adapt or adjust one’s plans. So why in business do we continue down the wrong path in the light of these. We’re back to plans vs. planning; cement verse wayfinding. If one adapts the notion of real options in planning, this might address the situation where planning becomes day to day activity rather than a concrete list of tasks to check off. Which may have us focus on desired outcomes rather than actions that we hope provide results.

Business Ecosystem Future –a look ahead

Had an interesting discussion yesterday morning with a colleague. Our discussions already are wide-range and free-wheeling.   This morning was no different. We discussed the nature and evolution of businesses. During that discussion, I brought up how information technology has changed from monolithic applications to small apps and my hypothesis as to why. Part of that rational I believe is due to two factors: First, the IT backlog and its increasing failure to address business needs. While many IT organizations have, or are switching over to “Agile” or “Addle” as several colleagues have called it due to many misfires, I look at Agile as one of many data points proving a change to the Business Ecosystem.

The days of monolithic anything is drawing to a close. Lean the precursor to Agile in manufacturing has been working its way upstream. What this suggests is that small and fast will been the dominate development and construction tactic of this age.

This then means that consulting firms will need to retool also not only learning fast production methods like agile but understanding how to address the complexities of many more loosely coupled components. Apps vs. Applications means that integration often happens between the ears rather than through the database or API.

The critical skills that Enterprise Architects and Consultants will need to develop are in opposition to their training:

·        Synthesis in addition to Analysis

·        Experimentation and tolerance for failure (often called learning)

·        Business Value Management

·        Complexity Management

·        Understanding of Options Theory planning

·        Business Lifecycle Management

This will mean a new type of consulting firm model as the nest in the shallows of a corporation as high priced contingency labor will be unacceptable to leadership, they’ll be looking for just-in-time consulting.

Strategy and Vision Analysis

Digging through some old files this afternoon to find this sketch from ’95.

vision-analysis-workflow

After I had decomposed a Senior Executive’s Strategy and Vision to find some of the major weaknesses and suggest mitigations, he asked me into his office.  He had only put out the document a few hours before.  Mind you I had just joined the company a few weeks before when I sent the critique; other’s had warned me that was a career limiting move.  That this Executive didn’t like criticism.  So when he called me into his office shortly after sending my assessment.  Well you can imagine I figured; it was going to be one of the shortest careers in the company.

To my surprise and delight, he gushed over my assessment.  Saying it was a brilliant piece of analysis and wished others in his organization could do such.  All he could ever get from his subordinates was a weak “Because we’ve always done it that way” or other “I just don’t like it without any rational explanation.  His next request during the meeting was simple,  he asked me how I could do such so quickly.  I pulled out some paper, sketching out my process as I describe how I performed each step, and how each step fed the next in line.

Today I’m still analyzing strategy and enterprise architecture, design and construction; though my tools have matured some what, the objective of each step are still the same.

 

I guess the saying the more things change the more they stay the same still rings true.  Though many don’t realize, most of the new solutions touted are really the same ones from the past, just masked in newer technology

 

 

Anti-value and Process Measurement

 Anti-value

The problem with Earn Value (EV) has applied by many PMs and Enterprises is that often there is not value achieved. What has been done is to expend effort (work) towards a goal which is hoped to achieve value. Too often lately earned value and effort have been used as interchangeable; they are not. These are two different concepts.

It is said “Value is in the eye of the beholder”. However, if the beholder is not the ultimate consumer of the effort I would contend you may or may not have achieved value. It is my assertion that value is in the eye of the consumer external to the working entity.

The example I use is rather down to earth rather than using abstract deliverables. Take an aluminum billet, rough mill it into the shape of an aircraft wing spar. Many PMs would claim some percentage of EV at this point. “See we’ve accomplished x percent of the steps towards creating the spar, so we’ve achieved x percent of EV.

However, if we stop there can you sell this rough spar to the customer or another customer for the cost of the materials plus level of effort employed?   Typically, not. More than likely the enterprise would be selling the rough billet as scrap or salvage rate (cost of the raw material). So really what has happened is the enterprise has created Anti-Value.

Process Measurement

In 1985 Dr. Arno Schmackpfeffer, et al. put forth an article in IBM’s Journal of Research and Development “Integrated Manufacturing Modeling System”. In that he and his peers asserted there are five primitive activities in a process: Make, Move, Verify, and Rest. These activities are the basis for creating value.

Five Primatives

At his point many would put forth the argument that only one of the five, make, creates value. However, that neglects other forms of value creating activities. These again are in the eye of the consumer.

Does “Move” create value? Clearly it must, as people are willing to pay firms to move things for them. Even investment firms use move to create achieve value: Arbitrage, moving goods from one location to another to gain value from the price differential in locations.

How about “Rest or Store” this activity? Does nothing but leave an item in place, what value is in that? How many people lease self-storage space to keep things? So there must be value in rest or store as people are willing to pay for it.

Now what about “Verify” clearly verify adds not value? With verify the consumer of verify is looking to get assurance that what was accomplished previously was actually accomplished. Auditors and Consultants are examples of service providers that engage is such activities that enterprises are willing to pay for.

Summary

I had labeled the above section process measurement as a correction to a previous blog article https://briankseitz.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/structure-in-threes-process-value/  to put it in better alignment with the assertion I have that value is not achieved until someone is willing to “pay” for it.

In 1998 I had taken the five primitives a little further to develop a quick analysis method for BPR/M engagements. This approach enabled my team to analyze business processes to determine what activities could be eliminated to increase process efficiency and value contributions

Process Analysis