Cloud and AI Adoption Maturity and Opinion

Developed in 1989 I observed that design disciplines such as Architecture, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Information Architecture, etc. followed a unique and recurring pattern that was intimately linked to technology.   Awareness of the technology occurred with innovators and early adopters exploiting its new characteristics first. As the technology’s performance attributes became better known application techniques developed through a maturity cycle becoming more structured. This body of knowledge eventually become ubiquitous in the discipline and the technology application common practice. Eventually, the discipline and technology application pass through industrialization stages to where practitioners debate about the aesthetics surrounding its usage. Here is where typically a shift occurs. Innovators become aware a newer technology and start the cycle over again. These innovators are typically not the innovators of the previous discipline-technology generation as most have established expertise and reputation in the status quo. However, that does not preclude a small sect of innovators that are in constant search to push the boundaries.

So where are we today in Enterprise Design (aka Enterprise Architecture not Enterprise IT Architecture)?

 

The Gartner Hype Cycle now places Cloud Technology somewhere in the Industrialization Stages 2 and 3.  However, from the artifacts and observations so far I would place Cloud maturity approaching Stage 2 as I continue to see modular componentry as the primary research thrust despite Cloud Providers, myself included**, having sold the technology as an economic benefit.  [**While at Microsoft I had been asked to research economic justification and develop a body of knowledge behind Cloud usage to create calculators and portfolio management techniques].

AI is supposedly the next big thing. From the observations and artifacts again, the discipline maturity of such is still in the Craftwork Stage where it left off in the 80s.  What has changed is the cost, performance, and availability of data for experimenting.  However, the discipline maturity is still quite low as well as the understanding of the potential hazards for a enterprise.  A decade ago program trading (AI in disguise) crashed several investment houses and several months ago a corporation had to shut down it’s AI response experiment, it had learned to become racist.  Now consider the exposure and liability a Senior Executive or CxO has with regard to such.  While AI has promise, till safety controls and the design discipline with this technology is at a Stage 3, I would suggest it be employed internally to support automation decisions with humans monitoring in failsafe positions.

Enterprise Architecture Catalog++

Every dream about having a catalog of the complete design of your enterprise?  One that not only gives you and inventory and status of components, but also gives you the relationships between those to create higher level objects: Business and Operational Models, Capabilities, Processes.  How about linking in how these play against your business and technical strategies or assessing those strategies against your abilities to achieve?   Well the wait is almost over, because I’m almost finished building it!

Several decades ago when I met John Zachman for the first time I was impressed by his curiosity about what I was doing at Rockwell.  I was using a CAD/CAM system to design a factory.  Not only the floor plan, but the systems, applications, information flow, etc.  Several years later after John had released his brilliance regarding Enterprise Architecture I got to meet up with his again.  From our talk and his insight I’ve been working on creating a CAD for Enterprise(TM) system.  One that would enable Enterprise Architects to work with Executive Teams to design the enterprise of their dreams like designing a house.  While the UX/UI will take a while longer, the Minimal Viable Product (MVP) database which is what the application will rest upon is almost complete with a usable text-based UI.   I will be considering just a few Testers for this MVP in the next few months as well as possible partnerships with graphical design tool vendors**.  Details to follow on how-to sign up.

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ

**Graphical Design Tool Vendors you can contact me directly now.

Are you designing your Enterprise or just copying someone else’s wiring plan?

Last week a former executive client of mine and I discussed his latest initiative: “Digital Transformation”. He was all excited about moving to the cloud, AI, and a host of other hype cycle buzzwords. After attending an analyst firm’s briefing about the latest and greatest technology trends. With his CIO in tow he was ready to invest in moving applications from his on-premise infrastructure to the cloud and magically have his business transformed.

Now my former client is also a friend so I can speak candidly to him. I asked one simple questions of him. “Aside from changing the technology you’re using, what are you going to do differently that would make you say you’ve transformed your business?”   “Well were scalable now and….” “Oh, so adding another server in your on-premise infrastructure is not scalable also?”. I could see he was getting very uncomfortable about my questions.

Next came the flash of insight I hoped would occur. “Are you trying to tell be all this doesn’t matter?” My response “Does it?” After a few awkward moments “It does but I’m not sure why”. “Tell me. You have a really nice house. Would you be willing to rip out all the wiring, replace the receptacles and switches because some new wiring technology has come to market?” A puzzled look for a moment, then a “That’s crazy, I’d only do that if it enabled me to do a lot more or something different with my house…” Then a pause and a second flash of insight. “I get it! You’re not say don’t go to the cloud. You’re saying ask what I’m going to do differently that the cloud will enable me to do”. Then a friendly dig back at me. “Just like a consultant always giving a depends answer and telling me what I already know”. “Maybe so, but would you have asked yourself those questions before coming to me. Clearly there was a reason you called me up after a couple of years have passed since our last set of discussions”.   “Brian, you’re sounding more and more each time we talk like a psychoanalyst”

“So, Doctor Brian, what should I do?”. “First off, lay here on the couch…. Seriously, the question you should be asking yourself is; am I repeating someone else’s wiring plan in my house (a pattern) and do I expect to get a competitive advantage from doing what others are already doing?”

I’m a great believer in patterns. Patterns in whatever shape and form they are: frameworks, templates, etc. help you organize information so you can focus on the innovation potential locked away in it. Implementing patterns also mean you have to focus less on routine activities that are necessary but don’t provide differentiation and advantage.   Also, examining patterns can give you insight into opportunities or threats and weaknesses. That is by examining patterns you can learn on another person’s dime.

With this little vignette and hopefully passing some insight to you, I’ll ask: Are you designing your Enterprise or just copying someone else’s wiring plan?

Enterprise Portfolio Management Series: Innovation within and existing Enterprise

Enjoyed Alexander Osterwalder’ s article on Portfolio Management today. He covers some of the same ground I’ve been presenting within Microsoft, DMR and IBM over the years. The enterprise has many portfolios. These are categorized in hierarchies, functional domains, temporal horizons, as well as the innovate/exploit Portfolios.

The issue I found within many organizations was with the cross-over from Innovate to Exploit. While at IBM it took a while to build out the practices to somewhat effectively do such. At IBM we had embraced “Alchemy of Growth” for portfolios but the transition became the stumbling block. At other companies I’ve consulted to, it’s the same. Creating that system that enables escape velocity from the innovation center and then captured into a new orbit around the performance center of gravity ( i.e., exploitation of the innovation into the core business ) is no small challenge.

This issue will be addressed in the Enterprise Portfolio Management Levels 3/4/5 articles in the series.

Slide Notes

Today one hears a lot about innovation or being innovative in an enterprise. However, and enterprise by its nature seeks to maintain a status quo. For an Enterprise to survive today management needs to create an equilibrium between innovation and performance.

The two major centers of gravity in an enterprise are its innovation and performance engines – “Beyond the Idea”

Concepts, Initiatives, and Activities will stay in the gravitational sphere that supports these unless escape velocity is reached

Once escape velocity is reached unless influenced by another gravitational center these items will spin off into the void

Effective portfolio actions assist in the change in mass in each of the gravity centers of an enterprise.

Beyond the Idea: How to Execute Innovation in Any Organization, Vijay Govindarajan & Chris Trimble, 2013

Methodology Engine for Consultants

Early wake-up call…well not actually early for me.  Today’s agenda: More Data Mining and evaluating the best course to capture methodology for my consulting firm.   Four primary factors to consider: 1) Knowledge and Skills transfer 2) Job Aid and Execution support 3) Ease of maintenance 4) Accessibility for field consultants

In prior roles I help construct or constructed my own methodology engines for various domains: Marketing Management and Strategic Planning, Enterprise Assessments (e.g., ISO 9000, CALS, etc.).  Depending upon factor four the technology choices I had narrowed down to were: Lotus Notes, SharePoint, and MS Access.  Of all the platforms to build on, MS Access was the most popular as one could carry the engine into a client’s site where Internet access was limited.

 

I was consider a hybrid on desktop MS Access and Access Services, however, given the uncertain future of both I’m considering another option such as Pega which would have the accessibility limitation pointed our prior, but gains an orchestration engine and data consolidation of multiple engagements for future BI application.  However, to kick start the project I’ll likely use the Methodology Engine I created in ACCESS as it has the basics to capture the workflow, methods and R&Rs

Philip K. Dick was right but may be wrong also

For those who are not Science Fiction fans, Philip K. Dick was a writer of notable insight to cultural trends.  His books have later been turned into blockbuster movies: BladeRunner, Minority  Report, Total Recall,  and Next to name a few.  His books had a dystopian perspective to these, where governments and social agents become tyrannical.   I will not dwell on that forecast of the future of society is this post.  One interest concept I thought interesting was his focus on media.  More specifically how the media would change.  Though the movie adaptations only hinted at it media, print for example, changed from a primarily word based format to more of a graphical based one.  Well the saying goes “One Picture…”

When moveable type was created it did two things. First it made production of information cheaper.  Thus distribution of information increased and was made available to lower income people. Second, it changed the cost ratio between text and graphics.  When books were hand drawn, the cost of graphics was on a par with text.  This ratio changed only slightly over the years until the application of computer technology.

What is interesting about this was that prior to the movable type revolution much communication was through pictures and other symbols.  Dick’s prediction of the future was a return to graphical communication and a reduction in text.  This inferred a lowering of grammatical literacy within society as a whole.  Having just complete several Government RFP response marathons where reply instructions were specific about writing to an 8th Grade level that would seem to prove Dick’s point.  However, I took a few steps back in considering such.

What came to mind were presentations and proposals I’ve seen and participated in over the years.  Many times I was privy to executive decision-maker sessions.  What struck me over the years was how these sessions have changed.  Initially presentations and proposals were fully of textual information.  A slide or page was filled with paragraphs of descriptions and opinions.  A little later after spreadsheets had become the go-to business tool, these became filled with tables of data and charts.

Then as graphic software became more capable presentations in many companies became more simple and focused.  A term which was not originally meant to be complimentary became popular code for these presentations to executives: “Big Animal Charts”  I suppose this was because someone thought reducing issues down to the simplest concept was similar to old children’s books; “See Spot Run, See Tiger run…”   A sort of arrogance was hidden in this comment lay just below the surface.  That is “I’m the expert and you’re not.  I have fancy jargon”  While jargon is useful to shortcut the communications process, its also an inhibitor for those that are not dedicated to a particular discipline or domain.  What many proposers and presenters forget, myself included, is that the presentations and proposals are not about me but about the audience.  So any means to make understanding easier for the audience is good.

Now I get back to my most recent RFP and presentation efforts.  After writing my technical responses I ran a reading level analyzer.  The results didn’t shock me.  The text was rated at Ph.D or beyond.  A far cry from the 8th grade level requested.  After significant effort I managed to reduce it down to 12th grade reading level. There I was stuck and required assistance from team mates, who thankfully jumped in.  What I found interesting beyond the reading level issue was that when I presented similar or more complex material I used very little text, choosing to use pictures, diagrams, and charts.  When I asked several audience members if the material was too complex and I should simplify it, thinking the words needed to be “dumbed down” I got a surprise.  They hadn’t even read the words, instead they got all they needed from the charts and spoken words, even though I used very technical jargon.

Which brings me back to Mr. Dick’s forecast of the future of media.  That graphics would dominate communications in the future.  Interesting points to consider: Look at Steve Jobs presentations, Nancy Duarte’s books Slid:eology & Resonate or books on Storyboarding –Hollywood’s go-to method to organize and present complex information.  All of which rely on graphics.  May be Philip was right in his forecast of the rise of graphics but others were wrong in thinking that graphics is dumbing down the communications.

Morning’s Ponders and Tool Suite Rational

Prior to jumping into finishing writing the technical approach for an RFP response this morning I spent a little time reflecting on the past few weeks of work.  I’m a big fan of Covey’s approach to analyzing your time to gain insights and understand patterns that could help you become more productive and enjoyment.  Yes I said pleased.  In a day when everyone talks about work-life balance as though these are separate things, I’m wondering if I’m the only one that gets enjoyment out of my work.

Must work translate into drudgery?

That seems odd.  I’m a woodworker, initially to assist my wife’s real estate projects and create items specific to what we need around the home, then it became a hobby.  As I participate in other social media sites around woodworking and makers, the pattern seems the same.  Then I find some others taking it a bit farther and creating businesses around their passion (e.g., Stumpy Nubs, The Wood Whisperer, etc.)  It appears woodworking has gotten a resurgence in popularity.  From their online appearance it seems they are have a passion for their work.  May be I’m reading into what I see in their public appearances and activities, but I continually see signs of real enjoyment in their participation in the craft.  Marc Spagnola,  The Wood Whisperer, has a science background and he uses it daily to expose the science behind the craft, right down to using the scientific method and experimentation to discovery such.  On his video blogs you see him and his wife Nicole banter back and forth.  To me its clear they are enjoying not only success in their business, but the process.

Which brings me back to this morning’s musings.  Do others also enjoy the process of their work like I do?   As I’m about to get back to writing the technical approach, I find myself excited about the process.  I really, no love, the entire process of discovering new methods and figuring out how to solve problems.  This is probably why I had gravitated to Management Consulting and Information Technology.

With that bit of personal insight, like always, after I closed out work last night I when back to working on the next section of my CAD for Enterprise ™ Design Tool suite.  My thoughts around this as a worthwhile endeavor is that there are plenty of technology corporations creating tools for what is the equivalent of CAM for Enterprise.  This matches what happened in the physical product industries for decades, lots of industrial automation technology while Architects, Engineers, and Designers continued to use manual methods and slide rules to accomplish their work till the computer technology became mature enough to be applied.  I’m seeing this as a similar pattern.  Last night I did a quick inventory of the “tools” I’ve built throughout my career to aid/automate various tasks around Enterprise Design, some I.T. oriented, some financial, some business management.  Then I looked at a tool I created in MS Access decades ago, B.A.S.E. ™ (Business Analysis System and Environment), it enable me to work in multiple functional domains on an engagement and reuse the information.  That goal I’ve continued to work on throughout my career.  A few weeks ago I had a brief exchange with my mentor regarding integrating various information domains.  With his encouragement and the involvement of others in their respective fields it looks like I’m close to creating the infrastructure that would support such a tools suite.

In the meantime I continue to create various point tools that will eventually snap-in, like the B.A.S.E. ™ product I created which had a similar idea of point tool modules.  This along with my question-based methodology is the goal I’ve set out to accomplish.  –and yes the point tools can be used in stand-alone mode; and yes I have shared these to others over the years (some on the Office Templates Online under the brand Intellectual Arbitrage Group which appears to have been syndicated on multiple sites as free downloads).

Cloud –hype or a lesson to learn about ongoing technology change

A while back the model was there was a market for just 10 mainframes worldwide, or so the quote goes.  The in order for a corporation to join the big boys, you needed your own.  Decades later I’ve the equivalent of a S/360 processing power in my pocket.  If one follows the technology generations: On-Prem. Mainframe; Department Minis; Timeshare; PCs; Client-Server; then Internet, Now Cloud. There is always a new technology on the horizon (e.g., quantum computing) that will solve the worlds problems and put the kids to bed on time or so the marketing hype goes.

I’m neither a fan-boy or luddite when it comes to new technology.  I believe I’m a pragmatist.  I’ve a set of simple rules when it comes to acquisition and holding onto technology:

• Explore and examine, but do not commit till conditions point to such
• When exploring the technology, examine both the technological aspects:
  • does it add new capabilities
  • Is it stable (mature enough, reliable enough, has enough market share to continue a reasonable lifespan)
• and business application:
  • does that new capability add something to my business
    • Reach to customers or markets
    • Improve customer relationships
    • Allow me to do something new for customer or improve my operations
  • or reduce costs and risks

Which brings me to the latest R&D I’ve been conducting over the past few decades that fits into my larger research project of creating a CAD/CAM system for Enterprise Design, Construction, Operations, and  Remodeling.   That latest research has been all about the overlap between business and technology strategy.  This is something my mentor John Zachman had started decades ago.  By now I can imagine several people’s eyes rolling. “Zachman Framework!, that so yesterday…”  However, those that have seen the decades of methodology hype go by know that the Ontology expressed in the Framework still is relevant.  Its just not the “silver bullet” everyone wants.  It takes some work to understand that the views defined in the Framework are there for a reason: To understand the various aspects of an abstract entity, Enterprise, to be manifested.

Given the hype and technology priesthoods that have developed around various methodologies: TOGAF, DODAF, SAFe, BPMN, etc.. I will not enter into the fray, other than to say these all have some aspect of utility and all address some dimensions in the Zachman Framework. 

Back to Cloud and business/technology strategy:  As of late business models or various levels of business models (Campbell’s Operation Model Canvas**) are become more mature from decades ago and starting to reach across to technology or rather technology has been identified as an enabler to business strategy.  With that as an underpinning to this post.  I post the real question around Cloud and Cloud Hype:

The real issue is how or should you take advantage of such. If you’re just switching technology to “modernize” that’s fine.  If the cost of maintenance or business continuity risk due to end of life is a significant threat changing technologies is a simple model (i.e., you’re replacing you car because you can’t get anything more out of your Model T).  That does suggest however, it will be running business as usual.

That, in my opinion, is short sighted as few businesses are in an environment that enables that.  Today business as unusual is the norm.  There is so much volatility and change going on in the space we call enterprise that operating a business is now more an effort of managing complexity and change than executing a simple production line was twenty or thirty years ago.  As such prior to committing to such a change it behooves Executives to ask the questions beyond the easy just replace On-Premise with On-Cloud for a supposed cost saving, how will I exploit the technology to improve my business besides just keep it operating another day?  As well as ask what are the trade-offs I make with such choices:

• Dependencies/Risks on a service provider
  • Will they be around tomorrow
  • Will the service change
  • Besides Security and Data Ownership, can I extract such to a new provider should I decide to
• Will/Can I integrate a broad spectrum of services together (primary vendor and others) with moderate or less effort, or is it really a closed system
• How long will it take to covert?  Will the conversion take more time than the technology is likely to be in place

The thing I tell my clients continually, there is no free lunch, there are always trader-offs.  Some immediately, Some during an event, and Some eventually (i.e., in the future).  It is up to your executive team, not the technology providers or operators within the company, to understand these implications and impacts.  -And if your team does not have the confidence in making these decisions get a Business – Technology Strategy Consulting firm to assist.  This is not a technology strategy consulting firm (i.e., how to install, configure, and operate), but one that focuses on how-to use the technology for business as well as what are its implications to the business.

**full disclosure I’m working with Andrew Campbell on a tool suite to evaluate Operating Models similar to the evaluation tool suite I built for the Business Model Canvas community

Zachman Ontology (Framework) and other Ontological Models

This past Friday a had a short but insightful email thread with a new colleague, Karen Morphy. I’ve been busily working on my –to quote a joke from my PDES Inc. / ISO10303 development friends and associates — Mother of All Frameworks. Except its not my framework or ontology. Its John Zachman’ s.

I had previous discussed my various discussions with John about the Architect Metaphor and the drafting paradigm that people only partly understand. My thought around such is that the Framework is a 2D projection of a Multi-Dimensional Problem-Solution Space. The issue I brought up then to John and continue to work; on sending him insights that I discover for he and I to discuss. [I am still a supporter of and hopefully contributor to the advancement of the framework] Is finding the logical/mathematical connection that binds the rows and columns together into a unified whole. The Unified Field Theory of Enterprise Architecture if you please.

I had agreed to read and review [soon to come on Amazon] Operating Model Canvas book by another colleague Andrew Campbell.

About a quarter in I found that it would provide some valuable insights to a project of mutual interest between Karen and I.   I fired off a quick note suggesting this may be of value as it focuses upon the “architecture of implementation” –cringe at the application of such a phrase, but in this context I think its true to my definition of architecture .

Her question back: “How does that differ from the Business Model Canvas? Seems like it puts the Value Chain at the center so there is more of a customer journey represented? Being a Zachman disciple, I see many of these as just a rearrangement of the Zachman ontology…”

Almost without thinking my reply came. It seemed so natural: “I see all of these models as either subsets of Zachman Ontology or auxiliary views (I.e. Combinations of columns or rows to create a specific perspective needed for illumination (same thing is done in other engineering fields)”

Which brings me back to the drafting metaphor and my original personal R&D. With so many I.T. and Business Framework popping up every day how is one supports to make rational sense of such. As stated above I believe all these others are simply views or auxiliary views of the Zachman Framework. These are not better or worse than each other, but specific perspectives needed to illuminate a specific item of interest, similar to such in the drafting domain.

 

Should you fire your CEO as part of the company’s next RIF?

It’s the next corporate off-site, the stock price is down, revenue is down, and margins are shrinking. The new CEO has had approximately one to two years in tenure. His recommendation to the board to “save the company and boost stock price” is to rebalance the workforce aka Reduction in Force (RIF). After several years of building up the workforce, capabilities, knowledge, and skills this seems the logical thing to do from his perspective. Lay off workers and get newer, cheaper employees. This is after stating its employees are its most important asset.

But is it? A decade or so ago several Blue-Chip corporations did such. Stock market reacted, as it does quickly with a momentary boost. However, as the years went on, the corporation’s product quality, customer service, and eventually its competitiveness dropped.

Solution? Hire back seasoned professions they laid off. Only problem, those employees when on to competitors, became competition, or now will cost the corporation more to hire back and will likely not have the same loyalty they once had (i.e., it’s now just a job not a career; they’ve learned from millennials all too well).

Given this state of affairs, should stockholders and the board consider laying off the CEO as part of that RIF also? Consider the statement: “Employees are our most important asset”. If so should the CEO be judged rather harshly for losing a large percentage of the corporation’s assets and value?   If intellectual property is really of value as inferred tens of thousands or possibly millions of dollars have walked out the door.   Would an executive at any company still be in place if they allowed a factory to be sold off for pennies less than what could be sold on the open market?

In the declining age of Superstar CEOs maybe a rating/tracking system is needed similar to those in professional sports leagues to see if those CEOs really do add value? Just a thought to ponder as I consider where to invest my retirement funds…