Presentation on theme: "Enterprise Architectures: Putting Motion, DSI, TOGAF into the cauldron Iain Mortimer Architect, Microsoft UK"— Presentation transcript:
Enterprise Architectures: Putting Motion, DSI, TOGAF into the cauldron Iain Mortimer Architect, 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 failures Failures 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 Return on Information Meta Group Maturity assessment framework Gartner Group Maturity assessment framework Etc … They tend to measure processes, documentation, lots of hard facts. They need lots of information Consultants
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 Distance Embodies: 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
EA seems to mature through four stages - tied closely to the maturity of business relationships “On Us” “On You” “On We” “For them” ….. ???
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket 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
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket 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
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket System IT Divisional Organ’al Market Stage 3 Stage 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 contribution Business as a context diagram Problems: Agreeing language and definitions Problems over strategy information Organisational norms
Power Distance has been a real issue for EA ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket System IT Divisional Organ’al Market Stage 3 Stage 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 contribution Real understanding of TCO Problems: Timing Managing the “ultimate” customers
Stage 4 – concerns ?
Stage 4 SLAs Costs 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. Reducing divisions 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 ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket System IT Divisional Organ’al Market DSI
TOGAF ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket System IT Divisional Organ’al Market TOGAF
MOTION ITDivisionalOrganisationalSystemMarket System IT Divisional Organ’al Market MOTION