Inside Architecture

Notes on Enterprise Architecture, Business Alignment, Interesting Trends, and anything else that interests me this week...

July, 2007

Posts
  • Inside Architecture

    Why Business Process Management is more than BPEL

    • 4 Comments

    I recently heard a presentation from a competitor to Microsoft Biztalk talk about their business process modeling tool.  It competes with Biztalk in many ways: visual programming, rules engine, etc.  However, the salesman said something that threw me off, because the statement was so wildly naieve, that only a salesman could have said it, and only a business person would have believed it.  They said:

    Our tool is all your company needs to manage your business processes.

    If it weren't so tragically sad, it would be drop dead funny.

    The fact that I can write a business process in a visual language doesn't mean that a tool allows me to manage my corporate business processes.  There's a bit more that has to be in there.  Things like:

    • ability to catalog the enterprise's business processes and make them available, as documentation, in a portal for users without the tool to see and leverage.   The portal cannot present a simple list of processes.  They have to be organized for search and consumption by end users.
       
    • ability to add attributes to business processes, like maturity, simplicity, and variation from corporate standards.  Ability to search for processes by attributed (simple data search). 
       
    • ability to add workflow to a process for approving and including new business processes into the corporate portfolio, which provides a linkage point for governance to exist.
       
    • ability to share processes across a distributed team responsible for owning them, training folks on them, and reinforcing them.
       
    • ability to analyze the long list of processes in an enterprise and find processes that are 'similar.'  This supports many things from the simple (search for a process) to the sublime (find two processes that are candidates for process redundancy reduction).
       
    • ability to estimate or measure the cost of a process.  Of course, the requires the ability to calibrate cost for an organization, and to have that cost vary by geography.
       
    • ability to collect statistics and measurements about a process from end users along the way and to feed that information to data collection and reporting systems as part of the process management portal.  (Think TSP/PSP).

    BPEL is a language, and a nice one at that. It provides a paradigm that allows us to bridge the gap between visual programming and declarative code.  But BPEL and BPMN are simply languages.  They are not tools to MANAGE an enterprise process.  That requires more capabilities than a language can provide.

  • Inside Architecture

    Free Code - Getting IT out of the Applications business

    • 22 Comments

    There is one big thing we must do if we are to make IT align with business strategy, we need to get IT out of the role of interpreting the whims and desires of the business.  The good folks in IT are really bad at mind-reading.  As long as we are in the "mind-reading" business, we will never be given credit for what we do well: automation.

    The answer: let the business folks write free code.  Not just any business folks.  We let Business Process Developers write free code.

    What is free code?  Free code is unmaintainable code that wires together service calls in a way that is inexpensive to produce.  Free code is mashup code.  Bugs can be fixed, but we don't really maintain it.  If we want to change free code, we write it again.  It was so inexpensive to build that it costs less to rewrite than to modify in any non-trivial way.

    Free code, in order to be truly free, needs to be generated from tools that are NOT coding tools.  In other words, software development environments are too rich for free code.  Why?  Because it is too tempting to build expensive code.   We need to differentiate, then, between the rich, highly designed, object oriented code that software developers produce, and the free code that business process developers will produce.

    Note: I said that free code is unmaintainable.  Code is unmaintainable because it's complexity exceeds the ability of a developer to maintain it. Let's dig a little deeper.  Why do we need to maintain code?  Because code is expensive to write.  Therefore, it is currently cheaper to fix it than rewrite it.  On the other hand, what if code were cheap, or free?  What if it were cheaper to write it than maintain it? 

     Then we would never maintain it.  We'd write it from scratch every time. 

    Sure, we can choose to write maintainable code.  We can use practices like patterns, object oriented development, and careful design principles.  On the other hand, we can give our business project managers an environment where they can describe their needs and code is simply expressed from those needs.  If the code that comes out doesn't meet their needs, the business process developer knows it the moment they run their code. 

    What is the value of doing this?

    1) Lower the cost of IT through reduced skill requirements.  The skill set of the Business Process Developer is different from that of a software developer.  Traditionally, we've sought folks with both skill sets to employ as software analysts.  This usually meant training someone.  What is wrong wit that?  Answer: We've created expensive specialists to overcome tool deficiencies.  Why not fix the tools?  Then we won't need the specialists that cost so darn much.

    2) The speed of development goes up.  If the business process developer can change the process wiring readily, then the software developer can focus on making the needed updates to the services themselves.  This removes the coupling between process and code that slows down EVERY project in IT.   

    3) Projects become more agile.  Since a business process developer can develop a mashup of services quickly, they can demonstrate that mashup very readily, directly to business stakeholders.  A change can be shown to the business folks quickly as well.  If the business needs change, or their understanding grows, and they need the services to do something more than they do, then this kind of agile process encourages rapid feedback to the developers who own the services themselves. 

    4) Solution quality goes up.  Since we can focus our deep design team on developing the services that the business process developers consume, we can improve the quality of those services independently.  This allows for better measurement of quality and an increased focus on the key quality measures inside each service.  Reusability is a natural outcome of high quality services.

    What does this mean for our tools:

    We need to seperate business process modeling from software development and produce rich tools aimed at the needs of the BPM practitioner.  Those tools need to start and end with an understanding of business capabilities, tied through to business processes, and down to events and business documents against a common information model. 

    We need our tools to reduce the leaky abstractions that we currently call 'services' by helping developers build services that are very simple to consume by the business process developers.  We need to capture these requirements and act on them through automated mechanisms built in to both the BPM environment and the IDE.

    What does this mean for our processes:

    The good folks in IT need to formally and officially take control of managing the common enterprise information model and the business event ontology.  If a business wants to change the data and event models, they need to work through a published process that allows and encourages consensus. 

    The good folks in IT need to formally allow business process developers to easily develop, test, and deploy their processes.  Deployment is a problem because IT folks normally just 'fudge' their way through deployment processes.  If we are going to let business process folks to write code that we deploy, then it needs to be very simple to deploy that code.

    Free code makes sense...  We need to align IT to business, and this is one very useful mechanism to do it.  It is time to stop getting in each other's hair.

  • Inside Architecture

    Using Massive Multiplayer Online Concepts to Build a Shared Architecture

    • 5 Comments

    How can we leverage the power, and draw, of massive multiplayer online game experiences to build a shared vision of architecture for an enterprise? 

    I'm not in to multiplayer online games.  I have a lot on my mind between being a dad and being supportive of my student-wife, so I don't really have time to devote to something so self-focused.  On the other hand, my kids love massive multiplayer online (MMO) games and I can see the draw.  You can join and leave any time you want.  You can communicate with friends, work with friends, or work alone.  You are rewarded for the goals that the game wants you to achieve.  Add interesting animation, lively music, and very few bugs, and you get a pretty compelling environment.

    What I haven't seen yet (and perhaps it is the nature of the child-like games my kids play) is a MMO game where every person plays a role to build something instead of defeating something.  It is easy to tear something down.  Divide and Conquer.  Building something up is much harder.  It is not in human nature to oppose entropy.

    But my goal, and my job, is to build.  I want to create a framework for all the architects in Microsoft IT to cooperate, contribute, and conspire to make the company more efficient, more agile, more responsive, and more reliable. 

    Is it possible to draw on the lessons, and perhaps the environment, of the MMO game, to build that architectural framework?  Can it be so compelling that people will want to spend thousands of hours making it real?  How would we score the 'points?'  What would be the scenarios?

    If anyone knows of someone else trying to combine these ideas, could you drop me a link?  If you know of an MMO game that conspires and rewards the construction of a large and difficult thing that is not within the experiences of any of the players, could you drop me a link to that as well?

    It's an interesting idea.  Not sure it could work, but if it could, it would be very powerful.

  • Inside Architecture

    How is Business Process Management related to Service Oriented Architecture?

    • 7 Comments

    I'm at a large training conference this week, doing a presentation on my ideas around Middle-out SOA and abstractions in the center.  I got a rare opportunity: a smart consultant pulled me aside and asked me this question:

    How is Business Process Management related to Service Oriented Architecture?

    The great part about being asked that question is that I had to work to answer it, which tells me that I hadn't spend nearly enough time thinking about the relationship between the two.  The consultant who asked wasn't trying to show me up, nor was he asking for a basic course in SOA.  He had his own ideas, and he wanted a sounding board.

    So we stood at a white board and wrote, and drew, and compared models and described ideas.  What we discovered, first and foremost, was this: we both had the same answer.  We had picked up our words from different places, so they were different words, but once we wrote the models up on the whiteboard, the biggest difference was that I drew the SOA stack horizontally while he drew it vertically. 

    Turns out, when you dig down, these two activities are twin brothers.  Their parents are the same, and they have many similarities, but the serve different needs in the enterprise.

    • Business Process Management is the organization of business capabilities (people, process, technology, and data) so that common mechanisms can be discovered, simplified, and improved.  The result: a simpler, more efficient and more rational portfolio of processes.  This reduces cost and increases business agility.
       
    • Service Oriented Architecture is the organization of technical capabilities (activities, events, documents, and data) so that common services can be discovered, simplified, and improved.  The result: a simpler, more efficient and more rational portfolio of services.  This reduces cost and increases business agility.

    The similarities are striking because these twin brothers have the same father, data, and the same mother, the business event.  To understand how they relate is to understand their parents.

    First, the father: the common data model  

    As I have blogged before, we need very little at the "center" in order to make Enterprise Architecture work.  Probably the most important thing we need is a common data model, so that we all know what data we are working with.  Doesn't have to be a big data model.  On the contrary, the common data model should be as slender as possible

    The common data model should contain ONLY enough information to define the things that must be present to define a business document, to identify the unique key for that document, and to define the relationships with other business documents.  It can be developed over time, with some parts vague (just relationships between data areas) while other parts are tangible (thus allowing it to be developed iteratively, as needed by projects).

    To extend this 'family' analogy a bit further: The brother of the data model, and the uncle of our twins, is the business document.

    A business document is the collection of data items that are needed to characterize an object used by the business to support the business capabilities.  These are the things the business acts upon: products, services, programs, invoices, orders, shipments, payments, and many more.  Every ERP system vendor understands the concept of the document.  It is at the heart of what they manage.

    And then the mother: the business event ontology 

    And just as the father of the twins is data, the mother is the business event.

    A business event is an event that defines the boundaries between business processes.  At the instant that a business event occurs, a business document changes state. 

    If you truly want to create a rational heirarchy of business processes, and you want to look for both commonalities and variations, you have to know where a process starts and where it ends.  Otherwise, you could find yourself comparing a single apple to a grove of apple trees. 

    To compare two processes, they must both start with the same starting event and traverse to the same ending event.  We do this in our language when we say "Let's look at the Order to Cash process" meaning "Let's look at the process that begins with the creation of the order (event) and ends with recognition of revenue (event)."  You need the ontology of events.  This is often left out of literature on Business Process Management, because you can diagram a process that spans "from anywhere to anywhere."  That's great, if you want to create a diagram.  But if you want to capture knowledge, and you want to rationalize or simplify processes from around the company, you need these events as your boundaries. 

    Marriage of the two

    Before you manage the processes, and before you design your services, you need these parents.  They have to have time to grow up and become mature, or their children will have no direction, so get consensus that the data entities are correct and their relationships are correct.  Get consensus that the heirarchy of events is correct and the names of the business documents are consistent.  There is no point in doing BPM if you don't know what your data is, and you don't know what the events are.  The same holds for SOA. 

    This is not a top-down design, but it is a top-down constraint.  If you build your SOA before you understand the data, you are creating multiple versions of the truth.  If you attempt BPM before you identify your events, you will burn huge efforts to compare apples to apple trees, producing no value.

    Now, let's all sit together and share a meal

    Like all brothers, SOA and BPM don't always get along.  They will have different viewpoints of both data and business events.  These two activities are usually performed by different people, in different parts of the organization.  Frequently, the are not connected in any specific way.  Their managers may be different, and their measurable metrics may be different.  Sometimes, they don't even see how closely related they are.  Yet, there is a link, like the link between twin brothers.  An obstacle for one is an obstacle for both, and victory for one directly benefits the other.

    Who works to get these two brothers to agree?  The Enterprise Architect does. 

    Through both SOA and BPM, we get exceptional value for the enterprise.  Understanding how they are related helps to build the common shared understanding that these two activities need to truly succeed.

  • Inside Architecture

    Should corporate bloggers go "internal only?"

    • 1 Comments

    Todd Biske asks a good question about corporate blogging: how do you build sufficient trust to allow for corporate blogging? 

    It's a good read.  Working for a technology company that is very large allows me a level of freedom not seen by my typical peer.  It is one reason I love working for Microsoft.  Innovation has a place here.

    Not every Enterprise Architect can write a blog.  As an EA, I know a lot about company policy, strategy, and direction.  I tell none of that to folks outside the company.  On the other hand, most of the other folks who know the same information do not have a blog: Directors, General Managers, etc.  In most companies, having someone know what I know, and still trusting them not to spill the beans in a blog, requires a level of trust that would be difficult to reconcile.  Microsoft has trusted me and I take that trust seriously.

    On the other hand, it is useful to be very open about Enterprise Architecture in general.  I want to improve the craft of Enterprise Architecture through sharing and discussing good ideas.  I want to nudge our industry in particular directions through tools, techniques, and good ideas. I can do a lot of that through working with my friends and collegues inside the amazing Microsoft machine.  On the other hand, I find it valuable to water down the Microsoft kool-aid by taking advice, sharing ideas, and being generally collaborative with folks who work on other platforms and share other concerns.

    It's a fine line.  Many companies are not comfortable allowing their practitioners to walk it. I can do nothing about that except to provide a counterpoint: EAs can be trusted to share without screwing up.  I hope it helps.

  • Inside Architecture

    All models are wrong, some models are useful

    • 3 Comments

    A collegue reminded me of one of my favorite "architecture" sayings yesterday, which I had on my door for a couple of years:

    All models are wrong.  Some models are useful

    The point is that we don't create a model to be an exact replica of reality.  We create a model because it is quick and easy and guides us towards reality. 

    That goes as much for models that are diagrams, models that are proofs of concept, and models that are communities.  That's right: communities.

    I am part of three communities at work that I value.  A group of SOA experts from around the company, a group of SOA experts in Microsoft IT, and the general Architects community in Microsoft IT.  All three give me things that I could not get on my own: a chance to learn, an opportunity to share, an place to discuss things that I find important, and last but not least, a place to build influence towards solving problems that slow us down.

    But a community is a model.  It does not contain every person that SHOULD be there, and certainly not every person who COULD be there, and probably a person or two who should NOT be there.  It is a facsimilie of the real constituency that it represents: a non-scientific subset self selected by passion, support from management, and incentive.

    So by extension,

    All communities are wrong.  Some communities are useful.

    It is up to the members of a community to make it useful. 

    I commit to this: I'll do my best.

Page 1 of 4 (20 items) 1234