enterprise architectures: putting motion, dsi, togaf into the cauldron
DESCRIPTION
Enterprise Architectures: Putting Motion, DSI, TOGAF into the cauldron. Iain Mortimer Architect, Microsoft UK [email protected]. Enterprise Architects and CIOs are having a really hard time out there. Business and industry perceptions The biggest complaints? IT costs too much. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Enterprise Architectures: Putting Motion, DSI, TOGAF into the cauldron
Iain MortimerArchitect, Microsoft UK
Enterprise Architects and CIOs are having a really hard time out there.
Business and industry perceptions
The biggest complaints? • IT costs too much. • It takes too long to deliver benefits or doesn't deliver them
at all. • IT is a commodity that fails to deliver differentiation. It
doesn't line up with business strategy.
• Project failuresFailures
Macdonalds 170 M$FBI: 581 M$
FEMA: 100 M$
The choice of EA framework(s) is a major issue
I’m frequently asked• “is it the right one” • “will it work”
•Tendency for organisations to see an EA framework as a solution, not as a decision to start a dialogue
Enterprise architects are increasingly bewildered by the number of vying frameworks
Organisations look to EA and Architects for many benefits
And Many Many More…….Justification becomes the
focus of much activity
Many frameworks fail to deliver business benefits or resonate with the organsiation
• Seem to work at the wrong level• Lack of business focus• Lack of commercialism• Lots of Technology stuff• An Architecture is not an IT Strategy• Ramp up and Lead times too long for initial benefits• IT people doing Business
Generally summarised as a “communication problem”
For EA to succeed it must refocus itself on to Business problems
• Customer• Cost• Shareholder• Colleague
• Technology• Process • Tooling
£ $ ¥ €
How? – Review current EA practice in a business perspective and apply it to our organisations
• Understand the organisational problems which lead to EA
• Review how EA frameworks have matured and their weaknesses
• Be able to critically assess the business efficacy of a framework. Practical Application
What were the Organisational problems which lead to EA?
The Genesis of EA was in response to clear business problems
Costs were Paradoxical
• Huge investment in technology but Benefits frequently illusive
• H/W refreshes• S/w refreshes
Complex technology Stacks
Complexity was daunting
•There is no one single point of discontinuity where EA complexity problems surface
•Employee size•Number of systems•Number of technologies•Diversity of geographies
Many organisations have been paralysed by the complexity of the business & technology and the rate of change in business & technology.
Increase in IT intensity - drove increase in IT estate leading to chaotic and overly complex solutions
Keeping control over IT was increasingly difficult
•They [CxOs] seem to want some overarching framework within which the various aspects of decision making and development are considered.
•MBAs tend to teach very few IT strategy/Architecture models
Business leaders unable to understand in a non technical fashion what IT is in place and how it can be exploited
Trust between Business partners and IT became increasingly fraught
As organisations grew (eg Customer base, product reach and feature set) the complex interplay between business strategy, decision making and IT came increasingly to the fore
“This is the golden bullet”
How have EA frameworks matured?
EA has a long history
• John Zachman presented his seminal work (1987) • Really a Meta model
• No codification of process• The interlinks are of more interest
EA has a long history
• Zachman’s model useful diagnostic for EA focus and coverage
EA Concerns focus here
Early activity focussed here
There are numerous models of EA maturity
Reduce Complexity & costs
Ret
urn
on In
form
atio
n
Meta Group Maturity assessment frameworkMeta Group Maturity assessment frameworkMeta Group Maturity assessment frameworkMeta Group Maturity assessment frameworkGartner Group Maturity assessment frameworkEtc …
They tend to measure processes, documentation, lots of hard facts.They need lots of informationConsultants
How did EA maturity become so difficult?
• It is amazing for such a top-down strategic discipline that it failed to galvanise Zachman’s thinking. Why?
• Tremendous enthusiasm for EA resulted in the rapid emergence of Dozens of Frameworks• Exploited the IT mind set (iteration, recursion, OODA)• Exhibiting rapid Darwinism• Key personnel occupied on the problem for protracted
periods
Organisational and cultural maturity models may give us a better clue if an approach will work
Power DistanceEmbodies:•Stakeholder scope•Level of concerns•Hierarchy•Alignment•Frustration•Scope of language
If IT matures like cultures then we should be able to predict what we need for the future
Me │Family │Wider Family │Clan │State
Me │F
amily
│W
ider
Fam
ily │
Cla
n │S
tate
EA seems to mature through four stages - tied closely to the maturity of business relationships
“On Us”
“On You”
“On We”
“For them”
1
2
3
4
….. ???
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
Stage 1
Stage 1 – “On Us”
Context:•IT doing things for IT
Frameworks:•UML•OODA
Results:•Component centric •Construction model •Very Now focussed•Over extension for reuse
Problems:•Micro to macro transformations•Business are not finite state machines
Stage 1
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 2 – “On You”
Context:•IT do this for the business•Do not worry about business concerns
Frameworks:•Numerous (OODA legacy)•Patterns Viewpoints emerge to handle complexity problem
Results:•Deconstructive models•Assembly model (Lego)•Very Now focussed
Problems:•Pan Galactic models •Stove Pipes•Little real business context - Communication
Stage 2
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
Stage 3Stage 2
Stage 1
Stage 3 – “On We”
Context:•Organisation as a unified system•Greater focus on Business Dynamics
Frameworks:Complex (Now, To Be Target) - Change Business change planning
Results:Multi function contributionBusiness as a context diagram
Problems:Agreeing language and definitionsProblems over strategy informationOrganisational norms
Stage 3
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
Stage 3Stage 2
Stage 1
Stage 4
Stage 4 - “For them”
Context:•Recognition business centric focus not enough – must be stakeholder focused
Frameworks:•Catalogue of business capabilities•SLA definition
Results:Multi function and stakeholder contributionReal understanding of TCO
Problems:TimingManaging the “ultimate” customers
Stage 4 – concerns ?
Stage 4 SLAsCosts
Contracts
L4 - Stakeholder
L3 - Organisation
L2 - IT
Summary of EA Maturity
L1 -System
An Enterprise Architecture is a description of the goals of an organization, how those goals are realized by business processes, and how those business processes can be better served through technology. Re
ducin
g div
ision
s
Focus of effort on the point of intersection – NOT the whole scope
of the box
L4 - Stakeholder
L3 - Organisation
L2 - IT
EA Maturity is about building on previous Architectural activity not reinventing it
L1 -System
Look for frameworks which have a •Low power distance •Information focus is at the same scope•Reach back to previous models
Practical steps
• 1 – Determine organisational (Power) hierarchy • 2 - Set the tram lines• 3 – Determine the interests, language at each level
• Read the decks they produce• Try the McKinsey method
• 4 – Think about existing frameworks/projects – how would you draw their focus on your model?
Assessing some frameworks
DSI
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
DSI
TOGAF
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
TOGAF
MOTION
IT Divisional OrganisationalSystem Market
System
IT
Divisional
Organ’al
Market
MOTION