In Enterprise Architecture, one of the most important aspects of the job is not only to communicate, but to lead change. In other words, it is great to have the data to point to a problem in an enterprise. It is better to help that enterprise overcome it by changing something (processes, technology, training, staff levels, departmental structures, roles and responsibilities, artifacts, governance mechanisms, etc). Change requires more than simple communication. It requires a kind of in-person, face-to-face, listening and hearing and absorbing interaction that is difficult or impossible over written mechanisms like e-mail, word documents, and powerpoint presentations.
Our technology has led us to the point, in modern business, that we consider outsourcing and remote work to be a net benefit for all involved, but each of these “distance” mechanisms introduces the RISK of poor communication. That risk is magnified when the person on one end of the line is hoping to change something that the person on the other end is doing. Change is harder across distance, and that difficulty becomes magnified when dealing with the array of different interactions that are needed at the enterprise level.
I wonder if the PC revolution, that brought us personal access to written communication, has created a deep reliance on written communication in corporate processes. I wonder, further, if that access to technology isn’t directly harming our ability to look a person in the eyes and communicate with them.
As a culture, we have moved from the age of face-to-face all the way to text-messaging-someone-in-the-same-room in the course of a single generation.
Enterprise Architecture is more difficult because of this shift in communication patterns. All forms of face-to-face communication are hampered by it.
Modern technology has done more to damage interpersonal communication than any other paradigm shift in human history.
This worries me.
As an architect involved in an agile implementation (my current gig), you can imagine how interested I was to see that there’s a new book on Agile Architecture, and perhaps how disappointed I was to see that it focused on SOA and Cloud. That’s not to put down SOA or the cloud. I’m a huge fan of both. But it wasn’t the area of agility that I was hoping that a book, with that title, would address. The misunderstanding was mine, not the authors. I haven’t read the book yet, but I’m sure I will.
That moment of misunderstanding crystallized a thought: how even a two word phrase like “agile architecture” had two completely different meanings. The opening scene of the movie “The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey,” puts a rather humorous twist on this idea, when Gandalf introduces himself to Bilbo Baggins (who has apparently forgotten having met him as a boy).
Bilbo: Good Morning Gandalf: What do you mean? Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; Bilbo: <stunned silence> Gandalf: Or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on? Bilbo: All of them at once, I suppose.
Bilbo: Good Morning
Gandalf: What do you mean? Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not;
Bilbo: <stunned silence>
Gandalf: Or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?
Bilbo: All of them at once, I suppose.
Of course, in Enterprise Architecture, we have the same problem. Does Enterprise Architecture mean “the practice of using technology architecture at an enterprise-wide scale,” or does it mean “the practice of using architectural ideas to shape the enterprise itself?”
And after a bit of stunned silence, perhaps it means
“Creating an architecture to describe the externalities of an enterprise to set its context and improve the relationships it has with customers, partners, and suppliers?”
All of them at once, I suppose.
Having just re-watched the Hobbit movie on my morning flight, these bits connected up in my head.
I’m proud to be both an architect of agility (applying the principles of agility to the processes of a business so that the business achieves the ability to change its own processes in response to agile demands), as well as a person who can craft technology architecture that reflects the notion of agility itself (technology that can be set up to change rapidly in response to business events).
As a lot, Enterprise Architects are not terribly humble people. We name frameworks after ourselves, and sometimes go to great lengths to correct the “misinterpretations” of others who describe our work in a way that we don’t agree with.
Yet, recognizing that the field is young requires that we should be willing to change as the field of EA changes; that we should be willing to look back on our models, developed in the past, and admit that we missed a few steps that we wouldn’t miss today.
I recently had the opportunity to discuss, on LinkedIn, a blog post that I made five years ago. I look back on that blog post and must admit that my opinions are a bit different now than they were five years ago. I still agree with my post, but I would certainly use different words today than I used in the past. I am more than willing to admit it.
I also look at the efforts of Alexander Osterwalder whose Business Model Canvas has proved both practical and flawed. He missed the fact that he needed to create a differentiation between the customer’s needs and the value proposition of the business offering to fill some of those needs. Did he go back and create an updated canvas? Nope. He created a new canvas to describe demand as though it fits with his older one (hint: it’s a mess).
The venerable John Zachman, probably one of the most humble men I’ve met, also made this same mistake. While his original model was only a couple of columns, and was updated only a few years later into the table we see today, the field of EA has changed. The table is no longer representative of companies with multiple business models (most of them) and the lack of a “customer” row simply relegates his "ontological table” to the dust bin.
Neither man will change. They have “legacy” models, with their names attached. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, humble is as humble does.
I would like to think that my willingness to upend my EBMM and replace it periodically with new versions shows my willingness to admit that (a) I’m often wrong, and (b) I’d rather learn than become stale. That said, I’m no paradigm of humility, myself.
After all, a truly humble EA would not have written this blog post.
(As my teenage daughter would say: Oh snap, you pwned yourself!)
In the Open Group conference at Newport Beach, I listened to a series of presentations on business architecture. In one of them, the presenter described his practice of using Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas to create a model of his program’s environment after a business program (aka business initiative) is started. He felt that the canvas is useful for creating a clear picture of the business impacts on a program. There are problems with this method, which I’d like to share in this post.
Let me lay out the context for the sake of this post since there is no business architecture “standard vocabulary.”
A “business program” is chartered by an “enterprise” to improve a series of “capabilities” in order to achieve a specific and measurable business “goal.” This business program has a management structure and is ultimately provided funding for a series of “projects.” The business architect involved in this program creates a “roadmap” of the projects and to rationalizes the capability improvements across those projects and between his program and other programs. For folks who follow my discussions in the Enterprise Business Motivation Model, I use the term “initiative” in that model. I’m using the term “program” for this post because the Open Group presenter used the word “program.” Note that the presentation was made at an Open Group conference but it does NOT represent the opinion or position of the Open Group and is not part of the TOGAF or other deliverables of the Open Group.
A “business program” is chartered by an “enterprise” to improve a series of “capabilities” in order to achieve a specific and measurable business “goal.” This business program has a management structure and is ultimately provided funding for a series of “projects.” The business architect involved in this program creates a “roadmap” of the projects and to rationalizes the capability improvements across those projects and between his program and other programs.
For folks who follow my discussions in the Enterprise Business Motivation Model, I use the term “initiative” in that model. I’m using the term “program” for this post because the Open Group presenter used the word “program.” Note that the presentation was made at an Open Group conference but it does NOT represent the opinion or position of the Open Group and is not part of the TOGAF or other deliverables of the Open Group.
The practice presented by this talk is troubling to me. As described, the practice that this presenter provided goes like this: Within the context of the program, the business architect would pull up a blank copy of the business model canvas and sit with his or her executive sponsor or steering committee to fill it out. By doing so, he or she would understand “the” business model that impacts the program.
During the Q&A period I asked about a scenario that I would expect to be quite commonplace: what if the initiative serves and supports multiple business models? The presenter said, in effect, “we only create one canvas.” My jaw dropped.
A screwdriver makes a lousy hammer but it can sometimes work. The wrong tool for the job doesn’t always fail, but it will fail often enough to indicate, to the wise, that a better tool should be found.
The Osterwalder’s business model canvas makes a very poor tool for capturing business forces from the perspective of a program. First off, programs are transitory, while business models are not. The notion of a business model is a mechanism for capturing how a LINE OF BUSINESS makes money independent of other concerns and other lines of business. Long before there is a program, and long after the program is over, there are business models, and the canvas is a reasonable mechanism for capturing one such model at a time. It is completely inappropriate for capturing two different models on a single canvas. Every example of a business model, as described both in Osterwalder’s book and on his web site, specifically describe a single business model within an enterprise.
I have no problem with using business models (although my canvas is different from Osterwalder’s). That said, I recommend a different practice: If the business initiative is doing work that will impact MULTIPLE business models, it is imperative that ALL of those business models are captured in their own canvas. The session speaker specifically rejected this idea. I don’t think he is a bad person. I think he has been hammering nails with a screwdriver. (He was young).
Here’s where he made his mistake:
In the oversimplified value stream model above, Contoso airlines has three business models. The business owners for these three businesses are on the left: Bradley, Janet, and Franklin. Each are primarily concerned with their own business flows. In this oversimplified situation, there are only two programs, each with one project. If the session speaker were working on the Plantheon program, his idea works. there is only one business model to create. That nail can be hammered in with a screwdriver. Lucky speaker. Showing Franklin his own business model is a good thing.
But if we are working on the Flitrack program, what do we show Franklin? if we create a “generic” canvas that includes cargo, he will not recognize the model as being applicable to his concerns. He will not benefit and neither will the program. In fact, Franklin will think us fools because he had a presentation from Plantheon yesterday showing him an accurate model… don’t you people talk?
Program Flitrack should have one-on-one conversations with Bradley and Janet to develop their business models. The business model that Franklin cares about does not need to be created again. It can come out of the repository. The Flitrack program would consider all three models as independent inputs to the business architecture of the organization impacting the program.
Anything less is business analysis, not business architecture.
I heard some very interesting talks today from Len Fehskens and Jeff Scott at the Open Group conference. One thing that I picked up in a meeting yesterday was the notion that TOGAF 9.1 is built on “best practices.” Today, as Jeff spoke about the transformation of a technical architect into a business architect, and as Len spoke about the challenges of communicating complex ideas, the notion of a “best practice” kept bothering me, and I cross-pollinated my concerns with the concepts that they were sharing.
I agree that the intent of the people who shared their practices with the Open Group was to provide practices that can be taught and followed. I even agree that the people on the TOGAF committees that accepted the content felt that the practices represented the best that the industry had to offer at the time. But I wonder if any of the work done in framework committees of any stripe (not to pick on the Open Group) can be held to the standard of being a “best practice.”
Are the practices in the TOGAF framework truly “best” practices? Are these practices the best ones that the EA field has to offer?
I guess I would have to follow the EA rabbit hole and ask “what criteria do we use to judge if a practice is the best one?”
After all, when Jeff Scott talks about business architecture using capability modeling, he believes that the practice of capability modeling is the best one to use for the results he is trying to achieve. (I nearly always agree with Jeff, BTW. We sometimes differ in language, but nearly never in approach). That said, as much as Jeff and I agree, our agreement does not mean that the practice should be considered a “best” practice. Who are we to say? We are practitioners. While that is good, it is not enough in my mind to qualify the practice as “best.”
To be a best practice, in my opinion, a method or approach has to meet a higher bar. There has to be evidence that it is, in fact, better than just a “good practice.”
I think a best practice should have:
I wonder if we went through most of our frameworks and highlighted the text that is able to meet a higher bar, like the one I describe, how much of the text would we cover? 2%? 10%?
Is 10% coverage enough to say that a framework is based on best practices?
I explained to one of my clients recently that there is a perception of animosity between the Enterprise Architecture community and the Agile community. Both sides make assumptions about the other, often assumptions that are simply unfair. For example, many in the EA community think of “agile practices” as an opportunity to develop software without any architecture at all, while many in the agile software development community think of architecture as one of the “big design up front” guys who oppose their principles and practices. Of course, it is not difficult to find people who fit those unfair descriptions, but I’d like to point out how these two viewpoints are similar.
I believe that effective Enterprise Architecture must be approached from an agile standpoint.
First off, what does it mean to be agile? We can always look to the agile manifesto for some guidance, but more recent publications do a good job of filling in some of the details as well. I include a number of things in the notion of “being agile.” These are not just from the agile manifesto, but also Kanban and the Theory of Constraints, Systems Thinking, Six Sigma, Scrum, eXtreme Programming, and value stream analysis.
I follow the terminology of Sam Guckenheimer in calling this the “Agile Consensus.”
We have to recognize that the "agile consensus” is an approach, not a methodology. It is a way of thinking about dealing with problems. More importantly, it is a way for dealing with complex problems. The diagram below comes from Ken Schwaber (inventor of Scrum) who adapted it from Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, by Ralph D. Stacey.
When we look at the problems that software is being used to address, and if we look at the process of writing software itself, we have to recognize that both areas of problems typically fall into the category of “complex.” Not always. Some software is simply configured and configured simply. Some problems that software addresses are simple problems. However, most of the discussions around software development are fueled by people addressing complex problems because that is where most of the software development community works. It is the bread and butter of software development: solving complex problems in a complex way.
Enterprise architecture also deals with complex problems. EA models and information are also complex to build and manage. In this way, EA is very similar to software development. EA solves complex problems in a complex way.
In order for EA to be effective, it has to use the same mentality as agile software development.
When I speak with enterprise architects who are actually doing the job of EA, big themes quickly arise:
If this looks like the list above, that is intentional. I am trying to point out that Enterprise Architects use agile ideas, even if they often don’t use the term “agile” to convey the message.
Why use these techniques? They work for complex problems.
Can someone think of a more complex problem than helping to move an organization towards their goals?
EA addressed complex problems. Agile thinking helps them to do it.