2. Two Contrasting Agendas for EA Business is simple Systems are complicated and inflexible Software applications Human activity systems Therefore simplify and unify the systems to align with the business Business is complex Systems are complicated and inflexible Therefore differentiate and integrate systems to help manage complexity. Simplify and Unify Differentiate and Integrate
4. Simplification and Unification Duplication Inconsistency Poor Interoperability Fragmentation Waste Risk Economics of scale Economics of scope Interoperability FROM TO
5. Achieving Simplification and Unification Quick and cheap solutions to local problems Tight project goals Stakeholders protecting established assets and arrangements Joined-up thinking The “Big Picture” Clustering Increase Cohesion Decrease Coupling Typical Challenges EA Weaponry
8. Simple Interaction Protocol (SIP) 8 SIP brings a rational process to project optimization Reproducible Verifiable Optimal SIP has a mathematical foundation Set theory Complexity analysis Equivalence relations SIP drives simplicity The architecture with smallest collections of functionality that have the fewest dependencies. Simplest possible architecture that solves the problem. Roger Sessions ObjectWatch
9. 9 Comparing SIP to Traditional EA SIP Traditional - Higher success rates. - Reduced cost. - Increased agility. - Cloud optimized. Roger Sessions ObjectWatch
10. Two Contrasting Agendas for EA Business is simple Systems are complicated and inflexible Software applications Human activity systems Therefore simplify and unify the systems to align with the business Business is complex Systems are complicated and inflexible Therefore differentiate and integrate systems to help manage complexity. Simplify and Unify Differentiate and Integrate
12. Information Gathering Decision & Policy WIGO (what is going on) Learning& Development Knowledge& Memory EA as organizational intelligence 12 Sense-Making Communication & Collaboration
14. Enterprise or Ecosystem a third agenda Looking outside the traditional enterprise Questions of corporate identity Indirect demand (end customer) From Affiliation to Alliance Value for whom? Scope Third Agenda
15. Dynamics of strategy (Kurtz & Snowden) AGENDA 3 Differentiated Integration Strong distributed AGENDA 2 Differentiate and Integrate Weak distributed AGENDA 1 Simplify and Unify Strong central Weak central Source: “The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated World”. Kurtz and Snowden. IBM Systems Journal Vol 42, No 3 2003
17. Limitations of modernism Difficulties handling complexity, emergence and self-organization. Lack of agility, flexibility, evolution. Constrains organizational learning. No explicit treatment of holistic architectural properties such as balance and harmony No room for pluralism and human values
18. Exploration of new ideas? “Hybrid thinking drives change via the co-creative exploration of meaningful human-centred experiences when confronting complex, intractable issues.” Gartner 2010 “Holistic enterprise change” TOGAF 2009
19. Structural complexity of business Asymmetrical demand Business as a platform Coupling enterprise as loosely coupled network of sociotechnical components and services Edge organization Enterprise tempo activities with different characteristic tempi Ethical dilemmas conflicts of interest, moral hazard Multi-sided markets different stakeholder classes with complementary demands Organizational intelligence Viability command and control VSM
20. Value of business architecture Structural complexities in any business can critically affect business performance. To manage these structural complexities, we need to think architecturallyabout the business … … which will help us to overcome the structural inhibitors to business performance. An explicit business architecture should help coordinate specific forms of congruence and requisite variety across all human activity systems management information systems (IT) management reward systems (HR)
21. As business becomes more complex … Complicated or fragmented systems Exposes management weakness Customers’ economics of alignment outweigh suppliers’ economics of scale and scope Competitive advantage Requisite variety Costs Benefits
22. Some alternative lenses for viewing structural complexity Viable Systems Method (Stafford Beer) I-Space (Max Boisot) Pace Layering (Frank Duffy, Stewart Brand) The Nature of Order (Alexander, Salingaros) Asymmetric Design (Philip Boxer, Bernie Cohen) Organizational Intelligence Asymmetric Leadership Structural Complexity Management Capability
23. On The Nature of Order Christopher Alexander The Nature of Order
24. To be simplified Exogenously defined linkages Weak (not convincing) Strong (convincing) exploration Strong (evident to the player) just-in-time transfer (exploitation) Endogenously defined linkages incremental improvement convergence-divergence asymmetric collapse Weak (not evident to the player) imposition The relationship of the actor/ player to the larger context ‘linkages’ = action-consequence pairing: strategies: ‘strong’ = convinced that they are right ‘weak’ = not convinced Good-enough ground for mechanism design that is convincing to a rational and intelligent actor… The right answer only emerges retrospectively An expert would be expected to know the right answer Complex: Cause-and-effect are only coherent in retrospect and do not repeat Knowable: Cause-and-effect separated over time and space NB read-across to Hutchins’ Cognition in the Wild disorder Known: Cause-and-effect relations repeatable, perceivable and predictable Chaotic: No cause-and-effect relationships perceivable Everyone knows the right answer There is no right answer Source: “The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated World”. Kurtz and Snowden. IBM Systems Journal Vol 42, No 3 2003
34. Example 1: Defence Procurement “The Ministry of Defence has a substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification. This programme is unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets.” [MOD 2009] Each piece of equipment may have many different uses and affordances, in various use-contexts. Traditional planning and cost accounting cannot cope with this complexity. Description Issues
35. Example 2: Bank DataWarehousing Two kinds of problem looking for market inefficiencies that could create investment opportunities for the bank managing the ‘value at risk’ associated with existing investments
40. Conclusions Broad range of complex practical problems Emerging methods for reasoning about differentiation and integration. New agenda for enterprise architecture Not suppressing complexity but managing complexity
41. … and more EA Forum (Unicom) February 24 September ?? EA/OI Briefing (Unicom) April 13 RVsoapbox.BlogSpot.com asymmetricdesign.com Future Events Other Material and Links
Notas del editor
There are actually three contrasting agendas, but we’ll save the third agenda until later in the presentation. It is not clear to what extent the third agenda still counts as EA.1. simplify around single (simple) business model: single definition of 'market' qua single-sided market.2. differentiate business models and integrate to span their differences: multiple definitions of 'market' qua single-sided markets.3. differentiate business models AND differentiate the modes of integration: multiple 'markets' within multiple contexts-of-use qua multi-sided markets.(PJB)
There are actually three contrasting agendas, but we’ll save the third agenda until later in the presentation. It is not clear to what extent the third agenda still counts as EA.1. simplify around single (simple) business model: single definition of 'market' qua single-sided market.2. differentiate business models and integrate to span their differences: multiple definitions of 'market' qua single-sided markets.3. differentiate business models AND differentiate the modes of integration: multiple 'markets' within multiple contexts-of-use qua multi-sided markets.(PJB)
3. differentiate business models AND differentiate the modes of integration: multiple 'markets' within multiple contexts-of-use qua multi-sided markets
i.e. really bad at dealing with differentiated integration....Therefore need for new ideas
Operating Model Quadrants (Adapted by Clive Finkelstein from Figure 2.3 of “Enterprise Architecture as Strategy”)http://esvc000904.wic047u.server-web.com/ten/ten38.htmhttp://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/05/differentiation-and-integration.html
Richard Veryard and Philip BoxerMetropolis and SOA GovernanceMicrosoft Architect JournalJuly 2005http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa480051.aspx
Philip Boxer and Richard VeryardTaking Governance to the EdgeMicrosoft Architect JournalAugust 2006http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb245658.aspxhttp://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/29
http://www.trainmor-knowmore.eu/75D2E63A.en.aspxhttp://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2006/02/knowledge_hoard.htmlThe I-space² is a model describing how knowledge moves from being undiffused (ie only known by a few people) and concrete (ie very specific to a single situation) to becoming more abstract (ie. generalised to apply to more situations) and codified (ie. more able to be articulated). At point 3 on the diagram the knowledge has maximum value to an organisation because it can be applied in a variety of ways to a range of problems but hasn’t leaked (diffused) to its competitors. It is inevitable, however, that if the knowledge is valuable it will soon become common knowledge. In the case of the lawyers, the idea of using collaboration software to get all parties together can quickly arrive at point 3 but as soon as the solution is implemented the knowledge is diffused and available to everyone—competitive value diminished rapidly.Boisot’s argument is that organisations which operate in a slow moving environment, such as flute makers where the way flutes have been made hasn’t changed in a century, should do whatever it takes to protect their intellectual property including doing everything to retain their master craftspeople. Fast moving industries require a different strategy: keep your mean time at point 3 as high as possible. This requires an organisation to continually rotate through the I-space spiral with new ideas—constant innovation.
http://www.locatearchitects.co.uk/seda-lg.htm
Richard Veryard and Philip BoxerMetropolis and SOA GovernanceMicrosoft Architect JournalJuly 2005http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa480051.aspx
The example here comes from working with a computing services business with banking customers. The customer was operating in a problem domain in which the fundamental concern with managing risk required them to manage two kinds of problem - looking for market inefficiencies that could create investment opportunities for the bank, and managing the ‘value at risk’ associated with existing investments.At the bottom of the diagram is ‘data warehousing’, understood to be a generic service that can be provided in a way that does not require knowledge of the specific bank’s situation, and ‘c-level‘ (it is always rising) is the level above which the bank’s specific context-of-use can no longer be ignored. In between c-level and the problem domain is a knowledge domain, in which knowledge about the bank’s context-of-use enables cKP-type services to be offered. The situations within this knowledge domain then identify opportunities for the supplier to provide services that cumulatively build on each other to meet their larger need in the problem domain.This is an effects ladder, and it provided the bank customer and the computing services supplier with a framework within which to build a shared picture of the bank’s context-of-use. http://www.asymmetricdesign.com/archives/82