Stephen Cohen's thoughts on Enterprise Architecture

Don’t follow the money, lead with it.

Enterprise architects are the one star generals of their business.  They have some authority.  Usually less than their subordinates believe they have, and more than their superiors and peers want them to have.   Ultimately, it comes down to the individual architects vision and their ability to lead others to accomplish the tasks needed to achieve it.

Vision is a key differentiator.  Specifically, those architects with clarity of scope and definition thrive and succeed where others fail to achieve.  Ours is a job centered on communicating complex, frequently abstract, concepts which while providing re-occurring long-term value on what appears to be little more than another wasteful expense in this year's accounting.

How then are we to justify the expansive nature of our goals?

First, don't follow the money, lead with it.  If your architecture is chasing the "funded" projects seeking to ride their fiscal wave, you are doomed to over-promise and under deliver.  As soon as you become a dependency to another project the implied value of an enterprise effort is subverted by the immediate (and very real) needs of the project.  Instead you must fight your own fight and develop a funding stream dedicated to enterprise development.  Only then can you produce components so valuable to the projects that the projects will be drawn to by the obvious savings or ease of development.

Next, it’s not enough to tell those around you about your goals and their obvious value to the enterprise, you must establish and actively pursue a marketing campaign.  Although you will need to advertise both the availability and features of your enterprise architecture, a great deal of the marketing efforts must focus on gathering mind share.  Think political campaign.  You don’t need sales you need support, trust, credibility, and power.  You need to build both a constituency to represent and a majority consensus among those with similar but not necessarily like minded views.

Lastly, Technical users of your enterprise products are swayed by applied technology and cogent discussions of the pluses and minuses associated with a particular choice.  Give it to them.  Armed with working prototypes, running code, metrics on performance, and well documented APIs you will be allowed to begin the conversation.  Don’t for a moment believe you position, title, or self importance will ensure adoption.  Know the current application development process … its value and its warts.  Chances are software has been built and successfully deployed.  Suggestions of change must be complete and compelling.

Published Sunday, April 11, 2004 8:05 PM by Stcohen
Filed under:

Comments

 

Darrell said:

I agree 110%!

In organizational behavior class, we covered this type of situation. The architect might have some authority to enforce certain decisions, but the developers end up implementing (or not) the architects desires. Authority is not the same as leadership, though, and what you write about is how to build a leadership position, not a managerial or authoritative one.

For people used to being techies, the transition to politics is a hard one. The best bet is to get some education (reading books, taking classes is even better).
April 11, 2004 11:02 PM
 

Stephen Cohen said:

I am glad you agree "-)

Education in non-technical areas is a very good thing. I do have a confessed bias for learning under the tutelage of an experienced practitioner over formal education. In part due to my own "upbringing" and in part due to a strong belief that while education provides a broad structured knowledge base ... doing, even doing poorly, will net a better longer lasting understanding.
April 11, 2004 11:28 PM
 

Darrell said:

Agreed that hands-on learning, which in this case is euphemistically termed "experience", is probably the best teacher. :)
April 12, 2004 8:55 AM
 

Person said:

yes.

Is a job-centered education supperior to a liberal arts curriculum?
June 2, 2004 5:04 PM
 

Stephen Cohen said:

I would not say either is superior. Rather both have strengths and weakness. It is truly is up the individual to take advantage of the educational opportunities available absorbing their strengths and seeking to fill in the weaknesses through other sources.

Leverage schools, co-workers, life experience, and personal curiosities, anything ... but do not shirk the burden of placing each in context with your goals and the problems at hand.
June 2, 2004 7:14 PM
 

Stephen Cohen s thoughts on Enterprise Architecture Don t follow the | Paid Surveys said:

May 29, 2009 4:39 PM
 

Stephen Cohen s thoughts on Enterprise Architecture Don t follow the | debt consolidator said:

June 19, 2009 11:42 AM
 

Stephen Cohen s thoughts on Enterprise Architecture Don t follow the | debt solutions said:

June 19, 2009 1:18 PM
Anonymous comments are disabled

© 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use  |  Trademarks  |  Privacy Statement
Microsoft
Page view tracker