Blog powered by TypePad

Feeds & Email

  • Feeds and Lists
  • FeedBlitz
    Enter your Email


    Powered by FeedBlitz

Links

  • Sitemeter
  • BlogRoll
My Squidoo Lens

StatCounter


Markets over Technology

Steve Jones attended JavaOne recently and hears arguments about Web 2.0, SaaS, cloud computing, and social networking that ring true to those made circa-2000 by long-cold .com corpses. He writes of the "buzz" at the conference:

"Now in 2008 I got exactly the same feeling I had back then "umm really?", what I saw then and now was some potentially useful technologies and a few great business ideas applying the technologies but lots of crap business ideas based purely on the technology.  Web 2.0, SaaS and Cloud Computing are all things that could be useful and there will be some business models that come out of them but lots of the current ideas are just hype and nonsense."

A wise old sage from my past, an astute businessman as well as a technologist, advised me back then that business success largely stems from embracing markets, not products or technologies looking for a market. A market exists or appears, and firms develop and compete to meet those needs. Developing the product or the technology first, and then hoping that a market shows up on your doorstep begging to buy, is more than risky, it is often no more than dreaming. Too bad a lot of otherwise competent dreamers erroneously use that as a business model.

Steve goes on to say: "I'm not saying that Web 2.0, SaaS and cloud computing aren't decent changes in the way IT works, what I'm saying is that this isn't an over-throw of the old world order and it is hard to see the numbers living up to the hype."

Here's an interesting bit of data that reinforces his comment: craigslist.org, the classified ad/community website, is estimated to take in $150 Million USD per year with 24 (that's right, 24) employees.  That's approximately $6.25 M USD per employee, per year from a website that has been described as "having the visual appeal of a pipe wrench."

Now, lets look at one of the poster children of Web 2.0, whiz-bang interface technology: Facebook. TechCrunch reported early in 2008 that Facebook's 2007 revenue is estimated at $150 M, but it has over 150 employees, and counting (the employees, that is).

Craigslist might have the "visual appeal of a pipewrench," but it is difficult to argue with the above math. What they did successfully at Craigslist was to offer a viable alternative to local newspaper classified advertising. Competing in, and in a way, redefining, an established market - that for short-term locally-based advertising by individuals or small businesses. Not only is that market established, but it is sustainable long-term. Technology by itself, focused on a narrow niche, is always replaced by something else, and nowadays, usually very quickly.

I agree that, as Steve relates, Web 2.0/SaaS/etc. are great technologies, but aren't sustainable markets in and of themselves. The real test of that statement aren't abused metrics such as "eyeballs" and click-thru rates on ads. Rather, as boring as it may appear, it's cash flow and profit based on servicing markets sustainable longer than a few years.

If you're going to be seduced, get seduced by markets, then apply the technology to serve those markets, not the other way around.


The Enterprise Architecture Definition Collection - Part II

This is Part II of my collection of enterprise architecture definitions. Part I can be viewed here.

It's interesting, at least to me, to get a sense for all the different definitions of enterprise architecture out there. So, over time, I will post other people's definitions of enterprise architecture (and their sources) as I run across them in the literature, blogs, and websites. Updated May 12, 2008.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An enterprise architecture (EA) is a blueprint that describes an organization’s or a functional area’s current and desired state in both logical and technical terms, as well as a plan for transitioning between the two states. As such, it is a recognized tenet of organizational transformation and IT management in public and private organizations. Without an EA, it is unlikely that an organization will be able to transform business processes and modernize supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability.

...

An enterprise can be viewed as either a single organization or a functional area that transcends more than one organization (e.g., financial management or homeland security). An architecture can be viewed as the structure (or structural description) of any activity. Thus, EAs are systematically derived and captured descriptions depicted in models, diagrams, and narratives.
More specifically, an architecture describes the enterprise in logical terms (such as interrelated business processes and business rules, information needs and flows, and work locations and users) as well as in technical terms (such as hardware, software, data, communications, security attributes, and performance standards). It provides these perspectives both for the enterprise’s current, or “as-is,” environment, and for its target, or “to-be,” environment, and it provides a transition plan for moving from the “as-is” to the “to-be” environment.

The importance of EAs is a basic tenet of both organizational transformation and IT management, and their effective use is a recognized hallmark of successful public and private organizations. For over a decade, we have promoted the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means to a challenging end: optimized agency operations and performance. The alternative, as our work has shown, is the perpetuation of the kinds of operational environments that saddle many agencies today, in which the lack of integration among business operations and the IT resources that support them leads to systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface. Employed in concert with other important IT management controls (such as portfolio-based capital planning and investment control practices), architectures can greatly increase the chances that organizations’ operational and IT environments will be configured to optimize mission performance.

United States Government, Government Accountability Office, "DOD Business Systems Modernization:  Military Departments Need to Strengthen Management of Enterprise Architecture Programs" GAO-08-519, May 12, 2008. PDF abstract can be downloaded here, and the full version can be downloaded here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that sometimes its hard to spot the difference between the prat who doesn't understand and is diminishing the importance of technology and the superlative architect who is diminishing the importance of technology because he knows what needs to be delivered but has to get everyone else bought in.

Steve Jones, in his blog, April 4, 2008

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Enterprise Architecture consists of the vision, principles, standards and processes that guide the purchase, design and deployment of technology within an enterprise. An Enterprise Architecture describes the interrelationships between business processes, information, applications and underlying infrastructure for that enterprise, and provides best practices for technology purchase, design and deployment.

Enterprise Architecture structures and processes govern adherence to an organization’s technology strategy and provide a managed environment for the introduction of new technology.

CoBiT Expert, September 11, 2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In user-centric EA, the impact of mechanistic organizations and bureaucracy is recognized as an impediment to change and growth of the enterprise, the ability of the organization to meet its full operating potential, and the valuation of its people as its greatest asset. EA is dedicated though to unleashing human capability and building a better organization for the future.

How does EA do this? By capturing and analyzing the as-is environment, and formulating a to-be environment and transition plan, EA not only shows the organization where its gaps, redundancies and inefficiencies are, but also facilitates a proactive solution to resolving them.

Further, EA provides two valuable assets to facilitate organizational change. The first is that EA provides business and technical information to all levels of the organization. This information can be used to enable decision-making by all. Secondly, EA provides a mechanism for governance, so that there is a structure and process for enterprise decisions to get made across traditional stovepipes.

By envisioning what could be, rather than just what is, EA challenges the status quo (even a highly mechanistic one) and continues to chip away at it, slowly but surely—working to eliminate stovepipes, build integration, interoperability, information sharing, and an open environment where people can innovate, create, and truly contribute to its success.

Andy Blumenthal, in his blog, August 10, 2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...The final point of discussion was around the role of education in Enterprise Architecture. The panelists all agreed that experience was a critical factor, and that you can’t teach experience, however there are aspects that can be taught. One panelist gave the example of a course on TOGAF. The one subject that didn’t come up in this or the discussion around the career path to EA was the ability to be a big picture thinker. For me, this is a must have for anyone in the EA role. Enterprise architecture is about the enterprise.  If you can’t see the forest for the trees, you’re going to struggle.

Todd Biske, in his blog, June 12, 2007.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An enterprise architecture is a blueprint that describes the current and desired state of an organization or functional area in both logical and technical terms, as well as a plan for transitioning between the two states. Enterprise architectures are a recognized tenet of organizational transformation and IT management in public and private organizations. Without an enterprise architecture, it is unlikely that an organization will be able to transform business processes and modernize supporting systems to minimize overlap and maximize interoperability.

United States Government, Government Accountability Office, "Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational Transformation," August 2006. An abstract of the work (with links to the full version) can be viewed and/or downloaded here. Posted February 10, 2007.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enterprise Architecture should never be the goal, it should aim to guide and steer and help to select the good from the bad. This should not be done against some grand IT or technology vision but should be done against the business value that elements will derive. The reality is that this will change significantly over a 5 year period, let alone more, and so any decisions that are made today on the basis of progression towards the mythical enterprise architecture are going to be an increased burden which is done to achieve something that won't happen.

Note here I'm talking about enterprise architecture. If you have a 5 year programme of work to deliver against a new business area or goal than that is fine, because that isn't an enterprise thing, its a solution thing.

Enterprise Architecture isn't a goal, in the same way as IT strategy isn't a goal, the point is that the business changes and IT needs to adapt in line with the business and someone needs to herd the cats to make things consistent. This is why the key skills in EA are not the creation of big documents that try and define some vague future but the ability to influence people and to help them reach the right choice for their current solution that also makes sure that the next thing down the line isn't going to be screwed.

Steve Jones in his blog, January 31, 2007. Updated January 31.2007.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evil Processes

Mike Kavis tells the story of his journey to France on USeless US Airways and details the problems he faced getting there and the Business Process Opportunities (BPO) he suggests that would have made his trip a lot better for all concerned.

I fly over 125 K miles per year, mostly on business, and while Mike's diagnoses are spot-on, airlines are a breed apart from other businesses. In essence, they are the only business I know of that can legally take your fare money, not deliver what they promised, and either charge you more money for alternatives or finally deliver on their promises almost completely on their terms. Whether or not you are inconvenienced by their performance or worse, it doesn't matter to them.

You can find much further information on what I'm about to discuss from an airline standpoint on numerous travel websites. You can also google "[fill-in-airline-name-here] sucks" in most cases and uncover lots of dirt on just about any air carrier on the globe. That being said, here's the basic premise of my argument with respect to airlines:

Airline business processes are, in almost all cases, evil, because they only benefit the airline. Not the passengers, and in most cases, not the front-line employees at counters, gates, or on-board either.

Because almost all of the issues Mike mentions are skewed toward the airlines advantage, I classify them as evil because they are also coupled with intent...as in, the airline has no intention of making things "right" by passengers if it is disadvantageous to them - particularly if it costs them money, as vouchers and hotel rooms obviously do. And in almost all cases, they can legally get away with such behavior.

How is this so? In a nutshell, when you purchase an airline ticket by any means, you are agreeing the the airline's Contract of Carriage (also sometimes referred to as the Conditions of Carriage). This agreement delineates the airline's responsibilities to you with respect to the fare that you paid them. Needless to say, this agreement is totally skewed towards the airline's advantage, not yours. There is not an airline on this planet that will not utilize this agreement - or stretch the truth to suit their needs - to relieve themselves of responsibility when things go awry on your itinerary, as happened to Mike and has happened to me quite a few times over the course of my flying career.

The absolute worst is when airlines lie to your face about the real issue why you can't get to your destination. Last summer, I had repeated problems getting out of Minneapolis on connecting flights because of, according to the airline "weather-related" problems in Minneapolis and at my destinations. Problem was, the sun was shining in Minneapolis AND at my destination, so I really had to reach to understand why my connecting flight was leaving 7 or 8 hours after it was supposed to. After this happened 3 times in the course of the summer, it dawned on me that the events always seemed to occur at the end of the month (June, July, August). Of further interest was reports that this particular airline's crews had maxed-out their allowed flying hours for the month. Connect the dots, and there weren't weather issues at all...more like crew availability issues with the airline.

Under the Contract of Carriage, that would mean they would have to make amends somehow, like putting me on another carriers flight, or give me vouchers for food and perhaps lodging. However, their evil business process dictated that they concoct fantasies about weather, which relieves them of responsibility. How convenient.

Again, Mike's BPO advice in this case is spot on, but the organization either has to be willing, or be forced by law or government, to change and adopt better methods of handling these issues. Unless they're given incentive, or a kick in the rear by the courts or government to do so, I would bet even money that it won't happen in our lifetime...unfortunate as that is for the flying public.

Of course, platitude-spewing, pathologic dilettantes masquerading as enterprise architects would surely suggest that writing some more code and producing that ever-elusive "working software" solves these issues in a heartbeat.

It isn't that simple, when the desired business results are to abdicate responsibility for actions and policies in the first place.








Carnival of Enterprise Architecture #9 - March 4, 2008

Welcome to the March 4, 2008 edition of Carnival of Enterprise Architecture.

Business Process Management

Pushpa Sathish presents LockBox Computing: 25 Free Tools To Encrypt Literally Everything posted at Virtual Hosting.

Neelakantha presents The Top 50 Proprietary Programs that Drive You Crazy ? and Their Open Source Alternatives posted at WHDb.

Enterprise Architecture

Michael Lemm presents What Are The Advantages Of T1 Bandwidth Over DSL? posted at BroadBand Nation, saying, "Practical Tips, Insights, News, And Resources For The BroadBand Generation. Covering DSL, T1, DS3, And OCx Bandwidth, Cellular, WiFi, WiMax, VoIP Technology, BroadBand Phones, IP PBX, Gigabit Ethernet....And More."

George Ambler presents The importance of reference architecture posted at Architecture and Change.

Craig Brown presents Nick Malik on Enterprise Architecture posted at Better Projects, saying, "I asked Nick Malik to explain Enterprise Architecture to my blog readers, who are mainly PMs and BAs.  This is what he had to say."

farid Rachmansyah presents Communication idea for architect, problem know how posted at ArchitectNote.

Craig Borysowich presents Conceptual Architecture Checklist posted at Tech Architect.

John Wu presents LEA to overcome the challenge of buy-in from stakeholders posted at LEA.

Robert McIlree presents Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Processes posted at Technology Architecture & Projects.

Robert McIlree presents Evaluating EA Processes Factor 1: Is EA a Distinct Function Within the Organization? posted at Technology Architecture & Projects.

Robert McIlree presents Evaluating EA Processes Factor 2: Group Functional & Technical Responsibilities and Actionable Outputs posted at Technology Architecture & Projects.

Robert McIlree presents Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Processes Factor 3: How is EA Specifically Funded? posted at Technology Architecture & Projects.

Robert McIlree presents Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Processes Factor 4: How are EA Outputs Received and Utilized by the Organization? posted at Technology Architecture & Projects.

Other Articles

Cassanova presents Intel developer forum : new technolgies on the way ..! posted at SEO is always welcome !.

Paul Wallis presents If IT does not alter an outcome, its role is meaningless posted at Keystones and Rivets, saying, "This article argues that if IT does not exist within a sequential process which alters an outcome, its role is meaningless."

Pushpa Sathish presents Linux for Business: 50 Apps to Get your Office on Open Source posted at Virtual Hosting.

Michael Lemm presents Disaster Recovery And Data Centers posted at BroadBand Nation, saying, "Practical Tips, Insights, News, And Resources For The BroadBand Generation. Covering DSL, T1, DS3, And OCx Bandwidth, Cellular, WiFi, WiMax, VoIP Technology, BroadBand Phones, IP PBX, Gigabit Ethernet....And More."

Project Management

Raj Sheelvant presents Managing Complexity due to Globalization posted at IT Strategy, saying, "Managing rise in complexity due to globalization"

Sam Carrara presents Product Life Cycle- Overview posted at Sam Carrara's Marketing Education.

SOA

Craig Borysowich presents The Service Oriented Enterprise (SOE) - A Preview posted at Tech Architect, saying, "Would appreciate some comments and feedback on this preview!"

System Architecture

ElTio Rob presents Open Source - essential to success? posted at Hortal.com, saying, "Open Source gives PayPal that rarest form of competitive advantage: control. With it, they’ve taken to change the world, redefining financial services for consumers worldwide. Banks, insurance companies and the rest of the eBusiness world better take notice."

Michael Lemm presents How To Predict Bandwidth Consumption In An ISP Network posted at BroadBand Nation, saying, "Practical Tips, Insights, News, And Resources For The BroadBand Generation. Covering DSL, T1, DS3, And OCx Bandwidth, Cellular, WiFi, WiMax, VoIP Technology, BroadBand Phones, IP PBX, Gigabit Ethernet....And More."

jess presents J2EE Application Environment Optimization Checklist posted at GrokCode.

That concludes this edition.  Submit your blog article to the next edition of Carnival of Enterprise Architecture using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Reminder: Carnival of Enterprise Architecture #9 Coming March 4, 2008

A friendly reminder that the ninth Carnival of Enterprise Architecture that I host through Blog Carnival is coming up on March 4, 2008, with submissions due by March 2, 2008. If you have an EA- or IT-related post that you'd like featured through the Carnival, you can submit the Permalink URL and related information here.

This is a very easy and effective way for EA and IT bloggers to get their messages across to a wider audience, and I hope that EA and IT bloggers will consider submitting their best pieces to the Carnival.

A few pointers for article submissions to the carnival:

* Spam, which includes pitches for commercial software or services, content spam, and off-topic material will be not be published.

* Feel free to nominate blog posts of others for the Carnival, but make sure to identify the author!

* Material posted in previous editions of the Carnival will not be re-published.

Again, the deadline for submissions is March 2, 2008, and the carnival will be published on March 4,2008. I look forward to your contributions!

Why 'Done' Matters More in the End

In watching the sports channels after the New York Giants defeated the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII last night, I noticed that almost all commentators mentioned the 18-1 Patriots as a 'failure,' 'incomplete,' 'unsatisfactory,' and other negative adjectives to describe an otherwise brilliant season - until that final championship game. Strange thing is, had New England suffered that loss during the regular season, breezed though the playoffs, and won the Super Bowl last night, that loss wouldn't mean much because the journey to the NFL Championship was still successfully completed.

New England played an awesome NFL season, but in the end, couldn't seal the deal with an undefeated season and a world championship. The 18 straight wins will certainly be remembered and acknowledged, but the failure in that 19th game - the Super Bowl - against a team many felt would not give them very much of a contest, is what matters more. Unfortunate as that may be, particularly to the Patriots' faithful, that's how we remember history. This is no exception.

This is very also instructive to project managers. Say you have 18 milestones on a project and the 19th is delivery to the customer, and production go-live. If you and your team, for whatever reason within your control or not, blow that 19th milestone - delivery, done, go-live, complete, whatever you wish to call it, those 18 milestones that you and the team met along the way mean little in the end if satisfactory closure isn't obtained and successful delivery made. People mostly remember the end of any particular project, not necessarily the journey, even though the journey counts a great deal to those that were on it, and should - to a point.

That's why it's critical to all projects that the definition of 'done' or 'complete' on projects is firmly established whether it's at the end of an Agile iteration destined for production or any phase of an SDLC/waterfall approach. That definition, and its achievement by the project team, means far more in the end to most involved that incremental milestones. A project that is "80 or 90% complete," and stays there in perpetuity, doesn't have much value. It only matters to others when the project completes and delivers the value to the business that was committed to. A project team could have difficulties meeting intermediate milestones along the way to completion, but if they deliver what was promised, those issues eventually fade away because the end was satisfactory to all concerned.

In the end, that's how the project will be remembered, not the 18 milestones along the way, but that 19th milestone...successful delivery; working software; go-live...

The championship.

Carnival of Enterprise Architecture #9 Coming on March 4, 2008

After a hiatus, I'm pleased to announce the 9th Carnival of Enterprise Architecture that I host through Blog Carnival is coming up on March 4, 2008, with submissions due by March 2, 2008. If you have an EA- or IT-related post that you'd like featured through the Carnival, you can submit the Permalink URL and related information here.

This is a very easy and effective way for EA and IT bloggers to get their messages across to a wider audience, and I hope that EA and IT bloggers will consider submitting their best pieces (or those of others that they particularly like) to the Carnival.

A few pointers for article submissions to the carnival:

* Off-topic material, pitches for products & services, and content spam will be not be published. Every month, I delete a number of pieces of obvious spam, vendor ads, and off-topic material prior to publication. Please don't waste your time or mine and thanks in advance.

* Feel free to nominate blog posts of others for the Carnival, but make sure to identify the author!

* Material posted in previous editions of the Carnival will not be re-published, regardless of who submitted it and when it was originally submitted.

Again, the deadline for submissions is March 2, 2008, and the carnival will be published on March 4, 2008. I look forward to your contributions!

Requiem for a Lightweight?

OK, I chose to title this post to attract attention, but we collectively need to put the Heavyweight = bad, Lightweight = good arguments aside. Because that isn't really the issue that's troubling organizations.

As with any methodology, use of Agile processes such as Scrum and XP come with costs, such as learning curves and changes in the way organizations manage projects and, obviously, manage and motivate people. Agile methods provide a different path to get to the endgame - a completed, working project delivering business value (i.e. "done"). They do not, in and of themselves, provide resolutions to every project-related problem that could be encountered. No PM methodology does that, or ever will.

Let's take a look at some problems and issues with lightweight processes as reported by noted bloggers. First up is Johanna Rothman, who reports on Agile-related problems that some of her clients are facing:

“When I want to use timeboxes to focus the attention of the project team on the project, my boss won’t let me.” — a Project Manager

Here we have the issue that "self-directed teams" does not mean "self-managed teams." This boss might be an idiot, a control freak, or a micro-manager. Or he might have valid concerns, such as needing the project resources for other ongoing work like support, enhancements to other systems, etc. While we aren't told the reason for the boss' objection to timeboxing, his response effectively shoots this "lightweight" process in both feet. I don't know too many managers that would abdicate complete control over their charges because some process requires it. That is a dilemma, not a problem that goes away after some type of "fix."

“Our Product Owner can’t decide on a backlog before the sprint starts. How can we possibly commit to anything?” — a Scrum Master

The simple answer here to this Scrum Master is: you have no prayer of committing to anything. Since team and customer interaction is replacing "comprehensive documentation" and "requirements gathering," the product owner must take as much responsibility for the project as the team does. If they can't or won't, you don't have a project. Another "lightweight" process taken to an early and unfortunate demise.

“Our Product Owner thinks that reviewing the backlog and have a demo and retrospective every 4 weeks is too frequent, so our sprints are now 8 weeks.” — technical lead working as a Scrum Master

While not as potentially lethal to projects as the first two examples, increasing iteration times, especially increasing them as time passes, makes an Agile project start to appear more like an SDLC/Waterfall/Heavyweight Process-based effort. Product owners have a dilemma: they participate heavily in the project, and they usually also have to perform their "real" jobs. That's pretty tough for most people to pull off successfully, and its usually not a matter of competence, but more about being stretched past the limit of one's ability to accomplish all of the work in a timely manner.

Joe Little reports the following episode from a recent Scrum project:

"Yesterday I was teaching a class where many of the attendees were from the same company. They had one major issue: Almost every sprint, either the Product Owner or a Stakeholder would add one or more stories in the middle of the Sprint. I find this is a common problem."

Finally, you can get a synopsis of objections to Agile that I routinely receive, and my responses to them, here.

Dogmatic viewpoints of process, in that a process (or set of them) can be used in all situations and all projects introduces risks to such efforts that are often fatal to achieving positive outcomes. How we get to producing working software delivering business value, or "done" for other types of projects is, as Johanna relates, a function of selecting the right processes for the job and then controlling them appropriately -which is what good PMs, Scrum masters, etc. do. Light or heavy process isn't the point, positive outcomes are.

Ask yourself this: how "light" are certain Agile processes if they aren't accepted by an organization or its management? Or if they are usurped, countermanded, or negatively modified by key players on the project team, such as Product Owners? My take is that if elaborate and constant defenses and justifications of "light" processes are necessary to get them accepted, adopted, and utilized by organizations, they gain girth rather quickly because of the efforts involved in such activities.

Of course, if all one has is a hammer, not only does everything look like a nail, but there are usually various agendas present that have little to do with positive project outcomes. Positive project outcomes must always drive process definition and selection, not dogma.

Evaluating Enterprise Architecture Processes Factor 4: How are EA Outputs Received and Utilized by the Organization?

Continuing my discussion of 10 factors to consider when evaluating how effective enterprise architecture is within organizations. This post focuses on how enterprise architecture work products (also called artifacts or outputs) are received and utilized within the business and IT.

Enterprise architects serve multiple constituencies in both the business and technical sides of the organization. This makes the tasks of communicating architecture, strategy, plans, ideas, etc. with various groups a complex task. As with any other function in the organization, what is produced and communicated by EAs must be actionable by those receiving work products - whether it be models, presentations, specifications, etc.

There are certain assumptions made when evaluating how well EA's and their work products convey actionable information:

  • What is being said, specified, designed, etc. is far more important than how the work is accomplished. Thus, noted objects of angst such as Powerpoint, modeling toolsets, and other EA "appliances" don't matter as much as content and abstraction.
  • The enterprise architect activities are performed by a group, and not a single individual.
  • The EA's are actually performing EA, not straightforward business analysis, or software development, or IT operations.

Another issue of interest when evaluating EA work products is the knowledge base across the EA group. Very few, if any of us, practiced EA our entire careers. We grew into the role from the business and/or technical ends, and became proficient in areas we hadn't had much exposure to in the past. It isn't realistic that individual enterprise architects are experts in every possible topic (including technical) that concerns IT and business. A lot of us specialize in certain technologies, and in specific industries. My point here is that a good-to-excellent EA group contains people originally from both sides of the house, and the locus of their interactions as a group produces quality EA work products.

Now comes the difficult part: how to evaluate EA work products. The key issues here are: a) proper level of abstraction such that the work drives, in whole or in part, action by recipients; and b) comprehension and acceptance by the recipients of the work product.

Let's take work product abstraction first. This represents a thorny problem for many EAs' because of the diverse nature of the constituancies being served. If a work product is overly technical and detailed, the business-types will be checking watches and Blackberry's in short order. The opposite is true when dealing with IT and developers. Finding the proper level of abstraction is key, and admittedly hard to do, at least at first.

The best explanation I've run across describing abstractions, albeit in the realm of business intelligence and data warehousing, is Malcolm Chisholm's article "The Twin Towers of BI Babel" in the December, 2007 issue of DMReview (registration required). Malcolm describes architectural abstraction issues in terms of the "Abstraction-Translation paradigm" as follows:

"[the Abstraction-Translation Paradigm] visualizes the processes by which applications are created as passing through successive layers of abstraction and translation that ultimately enables business information to be stored as binary representation of facts in implemented databases. This data can then be moved into data marts for use in BI applications. However, it is still a binary representation of facts. To be used, it has to be transformed and translated through the same layers required in the creation of the operational application that produced it. Finally, it emerges back at the business level as information again."

In a great graphic accompanying the article, Malcolm divides abstractions into the following categories (from business side down to technical):

  • Business
  • Conceptual
  • Logical
  • Physical
  • Implementation
  • Infrastructure

While the middle layers (logical and physical) primarily apply to data-related and database systems, the point here is that EA groups should have similar levels of abstraction for work products. Some are targeted to business, others to IT management, and others to developers, their team leads, and IT operations folks. This type of delineation assists EAs' in producing work product that is absorbed and acted on, in the proper context.  The business gets information they need to make decisions and approve and fund work. The IT side gets the specs and other direction necessary to built architecturally-compliant systems. The architects get their points across and contribute to the organization as originally intended. So, a key indicator in this factor is recognition and use of proper levels of abstraction.

A further indicator regarding proper abstraction is the diversity of work products across the spectrum given above. This is situational in most instances. However, if there is a large quantity of work products addressing some of the categories above, and very little in others, it would indicate that something is amiss in the relationship between EA and the constituencies that could utilize such work.

Another key indicator is comprehension and acceptance of EA work products by constituents. We've all seen or heard about "ivory tower" EA and box-and-arrow presentations that have the room full of business folks snoozing or checking watches and Blackberrys within 5 minutes. These scenarios represent the default "get help and refactor EA now, or shut it down" condition.

Determining comprehension and acceptance of EA work products is straightforward: always solicit candid feedback from recipients and constituents about the quality of the work. Did they understand what they were examining? Did they agree with the results of the work? Did it enable them to make better-informed decisions and designs? What, if anything, could be improved? The relationship between EA and constituents is a two-way street, and EA groups should not be afraid to solicit feedback in order to improve work products, including their delivery and use by others. Use of surveys or comment forms are handy in this regard to do the measuring of this indicator, and they aren't difficult to produce or have produced for the group.

Gauging this factor reveals a lot about how an EA group functions and how their work is viewed. If I could only pick 1 or 2 factors to evaluate out of the 10 that I proposed, this would be one of them.

The next post in this series is Factor 5: How skewed are EA efforts toward specific vendors and/or integrators?

How Much Do Processes Weigh?

The Leader in Platitude Dispensation spends a great deal of his allegedly valuable time lambasting me for loving "heavyweight" processes and my epicurean flair for creating and enjoying "process weenies." Which led me to start thinking about the question titling this post: how much do processes really weigh, and of further importance to enterprise architects and project managers, does it matter?

First, some history is in order. The terms "lightweight" and "heavyweight" processes got started back in the day (1980s) in terms of describing execution threads and processes on Unix-based systems. Around the time of the creation of the Agile Manifesto (circa 2001), the terms were used to describe project management processes that, as best as I can reckon, took a long time based on a calendar basis, or didn't.  Value of such work products (to anyone) never seemed to enter such equations.

"Wait a minute," I can hear you think, "what about 'comprehensive documentation?' Or 'working software?' Or 'people over process?' And don't forget that 'strong technical leadership' always saves the day, regardless if that 'leadership' can't (or won't) discern overall success from failure?"

Here's the deal: there is no formal, commonly-accepted definition of heavyweight or lightweight processes. It's all in the eye of the beholder, especially those that write books, deliver presentations, offer and deliver consulting services, or post misguided (at best) representations in their blogs. Without commonly-accepted definition(s), it's difficult to judge any process as 'lightweight' or 'heavyweight'; in fact, such judgments have to be taken in the context of the specific situation being applied.

An interesting abstract from a panel discussion conducted at the 2002 ACM International Conference on Software Engineering makes this point clear:

"Interest in the use of processes to provide assistance in software development activities remains at a high level. But the focus of attention has shifted in recent years. Early work emphasizing the study of languages for defining processes was rapidly eclipsed by process evaluation and improvement work, most notably the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). As process improvement has matured as a strategy and philosophy it has also given rise to a strong reaction to the perception that it is unduly ponderous and constraining. Movements such as Extreme Programming (XP) have cast themselves as lightweight alternatives, emphasizing the primacy of freedom and flexibility. Both philosophies and communities continue to grow in size, development, and depth of understanding. ... But the focus of the panel will be on understanding the nature of the differences in approach, and the reasons for these differences. Similarities will be sought as well. An underlying hypothesis of the panel is that the differences in approach arise in large measure from differences in objective and differences in assumptions about the software development context. Thus, for example, one approach may be intended to support very long range organizational objectives, while the other may be more tactically oriented. One approach may assume that (sic) evolvability is an overriding objective, while another may be more focused on speed to market. One may make stronger assumptions about the skills and training of project personnel. The panel will attempt to delve into these issues to see if it may be possible to suggest criteria for suggesting which approach (and possible adaptation) should be selected for a given development situation."

These guys nailed it: what ultimately occurs, or is sustained, in organizational process depends almost entirely on the specific situation. As I have ranted in the past, if one practices dogmatic approaches to all situations, the result is oftentimes a sub-optimal solution to the project or problem at hand.

There are no solutions to this problem that encompass all situations, all of the time. However, what is measurable in the context of our day-to-day work are techniques that help us achieve the outcomes we seek, collectively and individually. We cannot put processes on a scale, weigh them, and make judgments on their effectiveness. Even if we could weigh them, we may come to the wrong conclusions if we discount the context and semantics involved in the situations to which we apply such judgments.

Anybody that tells you otherwise usually has a different agenda or problem, such as pathological dogmatic delusions, selling books, self-promotion in a blog, or just being a pain in the you-know-what. That is precisely what these people want you to believe, because the end result that they usually seek is to be relieved of accountability while retaining authority.

Run as far away as you can from situations like that.