Enterprise Architecture

IT-Unversitetet

Announcing: Third Annual Enterprise Summer School

0

Week 31 is for students and researchers as well as practitioners in the field of enterprise architecture, who want to spend a pracademic week together and share and learn more about EA. 

Dates: 30 July – 3 Aug 2012
Location: IT University of Copenhagen

REGISTER NOW

Themes:

  • EA as a Discipline and a Profession
  • Trends in Enterprise Architecture Practice and Research
  • Selected Industry EA developments
  • The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture (US) and other recent developments in government EA

Workshops on:

  • Enterprise Roadmapping
  • Collaborative Planning
  • The Social Enterprise
  • Out-of-the-box vs Boxes-and-Arrows: Innovation and Architecture
  • Documentation, Models and Artifacts: Common Meta Models?
  • Business and Information Systems Engineering Curriculum & Philosophy of Computer Science
  • … (suggest a workshop!)

Read more at 2012.internationaleainstitute.org

garyhamel

Management Architects and Enterprise Architecture

0

Gary Hamel’s new book, What Matters Now: How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, is marketed as “an impassioned plea” to “reinvent management as we know it” and “rethink the fundamental assumptions we have about capitalism, organizational life, and the meaning of work”.

In this important book, Hamel continues the argumentation known from his 2007 bestseller The Future of Management. There, Hamel discussed the various forms of innovation – operational innovation, product innovation, strategy innovation, and, of course, management innovation. The new book continues in the same direction. His argument is that innovators “pay close attention to emerging trends”, to “the nascent discontinuities that have the potential to reinvigorate old businesses or create new ones”.

He lists five questions that can help a team to zero in on potentially important discontinuities:

  1. As you think about culture, politics, technology, and so on, what are the things you’ve read, seen, or experienced in recent months that have been surprising, perplexing, or disconcerting?
  2. Which of these anomalies seem to have some momentum behind them? When you look across the world, or back over the last few months, do you see these trends expanding in scope or accelerating? Are they blooming if not yet booming?
  3. If you ‘‘run the movie forward,’’ how might these discontinuities play out? What are the chain reactions that might be set in motion?
  4. Which of these discontinuities aren’t yet topics of conversation within your industry? Which ones were missing from the agenda of the last industry confab you attended?
  5. How might we exploit these discontinuities in ways that would wrong-foot our competitors?

The challenge is that people need to view the world around them with fresh eyes:

 I can’t state the point strongly enough: the first and most important step for any organization intent on building a capacity for continuous, gamechanging innovation is to teach its people how to view the world around them with fresh eyes.

The book is structured around five aspects of what Hamel thinks matters now: Values, Innovation, Adaptability, Passion, and Ideology. Hamel deals with these five ”big, thorny issues” quite straightforwardly, based on stories and own experiences rather than scholastic literature reviews and academic rigor, because as he says: “The average business book is a Harvard Business Review article with extra examples,” so he gives us “the pared-down, no-added-fat version” of his “manual for future-proofing your company”.

If I were to highlight two more central quotes, these would have to be:

To put it bluntly, the conversation about “where to go next” should be dominated by individuals who have their emotional equity invested in the future rather than the past. It needs to be led by individuals who don’t feel the need to defend decisions that were taken ten or twenty years ago.

And from the conclusion, with reference to Vineet Nayar:

The world has become too complex for the CEO to play the role of “visionary-in-chief.” Instead, the CEO must become a “management architect” – someone who continually asks, “What are the principles and processes that can help us surface the best ideas and unleash the talents of everyone who works here?”

“Management architect” is a great concept, I think. Hamel doesn’t provide more details about what he sees in this role, unfortunately. Nor does Nayar, as far as I can see.

Both gentlemen – and readers of their books – really should look into enterprise architecture.

As an enterprise architect, most of my emotional equity is invested in the future, but I am also deeply concerned about the present, but not so much about the past. My mission: future-proofing enterprises. My vision: The coherent enterprise which thrives on discontinuities in a continuous way.

In a recent memo for the federal CIOs, the US Federal CIO, Steven VanRoekel, launched a set of important management documents, including the so-called Common Approach, which states:

The role of an enterprise architect is to help facilitate and support a common understanding of needs, help formulate recommendations to meet those needs, and facilitate the development of a plan of action that is grounded in an integrated view of not just technology planning, but the full spectrum of planning disciplines to include mission/business planning, capital planning, security planning, infrastructure planning, human capital planning, performance planning, and records planning. Source: FEAF-II 

 

I wonder when EA will be discussed in Hamel’s new initiative, Management Innovation eXchange. Hopefully soon.

 

aea

Journal of Enterprise Architecture May 2012 and Onwards

0

The next number of JEA will contain around 41859 words! We are still working on getting it all together, aiming at getting it out in early-mid May.

I am very pleased to announce that JEA has been awarded formal ISSNs by the US Library of Congress:

ISSN 2166-6792 (Online)
ISSN 2166-6768 (Print)

The content of the May number is a great mix of contributions from both academics and practitioners:

Editor’s Corner
John Gøtze introduces this number.

Architect in the Spotlight: Tom Graves
Interview with Tom Graves.

Reinterpreting TOGAF’s Enterprise Architecture Principles Using a Cybernetic Lens
Mohammad Esmaeil Zadeh, Gary Millar and Edward Lewis
In the literature, there are many definitions of Enterprise Architecture (EA), but most of them have three items in common: elements, relationships and principles. Among these, principles represent an essential element in the definition of EA, and some researchers posit that they are the main element in this definition. However, despite the recent advances in defining enterprise architecture principles (EAPs), this notion is suffering from the lack of a theoretical foundation that provides a logical framework for defining them. Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM) and its application to IT governance, the Viable Governance Model (VGM), have shown to be comprehensive blueprints for designing viable organizations and IT governance arrangements, respectively. Similarly, in recent realizations of EA, the design of the whole organization, and not just the IT, is brought into consideration. Therefore, this paper aims to establish whether the laws and principles of cybernetics, especially those embodied in the VSM and the VGM, can provide a sound theoretical basis for deriving EA principles. This paper investigates the principles defined in the Open Group’s TOGAF based on the theoretical concepts drawn from the VSM/VGM and cybernetics more broadly. This investigation demonstrates that the principles in TOGAF can be derived from the laws and principles of cybernetics.

The Social Dimension of Enterprise Architecture in Government
Jouko Poutanen
Citizens’ rising demands and expectations concerning both the quality and equality of public services are increasing pressure on the Finnish public administration to improve its efficiency and responsiveness. An enacted act on Information Management Governance in public administration declares Enterprise Architecture (abbreviated EA) as a central tool for developing administration’s services. EA is seen as a strategic management tool standardising the development of administration and exploitation of Information and Communication Technologies (abbreviated ICT). The new act demands agencies to apply EA yet there exists relatively limited knowledge and experience of the concept. Since EA is an abstract and complex tool there is great risk that the expectations put on EA are not met. The large numbers of agencies demanded to apply this tool increases the significance of the problem. This article is based on a case study research where the goal was to identify issues of EA use and adoption, to gain understanding why these issues exist and to recommend ways of improving the perceived value of EA. The focus was on the social dimension of alignment since most existing studies have emphasised the technical dimension. The study approaches the problem from the perspective of strategic management and organisational learning. EA is treated as a mechanism and a strategy tool to enable alignment of business and IT. EA adoption presents a learning challenge to an organisation – it has to learn the intellectual content but more importantly, it has to learn how to cooperate and share information across functional, hierarchical and professional boundaries.

Measuring the Realization of Benefits from Enterprise Architecture Management
Matthias Lange, Jan Mendling and Jan Recker
Enterprise architecture management (EAM) has become an intensively discussed approach to manage enterprise transformations. While many organizations employ EAM, a notable insecurity about the value of EAM remains. In this paper*, we propose a model to measure the realization of benefits from EAM. We identify EAM success factors and EAM benefits through a comprehensive literature review and eleven explorative expert interviews. Based on our findings, we integrate the EAM success factors and benefits with the established DeLone & McLean IS success model resulting in a model that explains the realization of EAM benefits. This model aids organizations as a benchmark and framework for identifying and assessing the setup of their EAM initiatives and whether and how EAM benefits are materialized. We see our model also as a first step to gain insights in and start a discussion on the theory of EAM benefit realization.

Enterprise Architecture, IT Service Management and Service Oriented Architecture: Relationships, Approaches and Operative Guidelines. Part 1
Carlo Randone
Enterprise Architecture, IT Service Management (and Governance) and Service Oriented Architecture are current topics, widely discussed in the information technology departments and professional publications. In addition, many companies have been (or are) involved with the adoption of at least one of these innovations. While each of these elements can be considered in its own right, it is in their relationships, and more or less strong intersections, that interesting opportunities and synergies can emerge, potentially even with some specific issues to manage. The focus of this two-part article is just that: to show the relationships, approaches and operative guidelines related to the synergic adoption in an IT organization and/or in an Enterprise of concepts from the Enterprise Architecture (EA), IT Service Management (ITSM) and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) domains.

An Enterprise Framework for Operationally Effective System of Systems Design
Joseph Bobinis and Thomas Herald
This paper proposes a transformation of traditional engineering design methods for Enabling System Design from “influence” to “synthesis” through an enterprise focus of both the primary system functionality as well as the required enabling systems, concurrently during design. An architectural transformation is required to improve the affordable, full life cycle operational effectiveness of customer solutions. Challenged is the notion of the primary and enabling support systems as separate in achieving enterprise operational effectiveness. Enterprise-level, integrated requirements and trade studies drive optimal user performance while still embracing the independent development of each system. This work proposes that operational effectiveness can be enhanced through leverage of an enterprise framework of primary and enabling systems entitled: Systems of Systems – System Design for Operational Effectiveness (SOS-SDOE). The initial driver of this research began with improving the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition and sustainment of complex and network-centric systems. The description of traditional approaches to design are framed by industrial and commercial methods, the International Council on Systems Engineering methods and the recent evolution for sustainment represented by System Design and Operational Effectiveness (SDOE) model from military and academic literature. The framework proposes performing a System of Systems (SOS) trade-space analysis as a logical extension of proven traditional methods. To convey this message, a soft system analysis, using systemigram methods developed by Dr. John Boardman, is implemented to examine the transition from the traditional practices to address customer and user needs with SOS-SDOE. The SOS-SDOE enterprise framework emerges from expanding the system design boundary to capture the causal relationships, which are relevant to system operational effectiveness. There is a shared contribution of primary and enabling systems and in the framework, creates a more complete trade space that facilitates improved long-term user effectiveness. The SOS-SDOE architectural framework embraces and captures the emergent system behaviors of the combined enterprise in addition to the traditional behaviors of the independent systems. In an attempt to address the historically persistent problem of measuring and improving operational effectiveness, this approach embraces the fundamentals of an enterprise system framework: 1. Structured and explicit relational views, through the use of Systemigram representations, which provide an accepted methodology for communicating information about the relationships, which are relevant to the architectural objective of managing the causal mechanisms which effect operational outcomes of an enterprise; 2. Explicit methods and trade space definitions which enable the system design discipline to gather and organize the data and construct the design solution in ways that help ensure integrity, accuracy and completeness of the design over its life cycle; and 3. Abstracting of empirical and heuristic phenomenon (system behaviors) in support of the method and as a utility verification of the framework.

Making Use of a Target Technical Architecture to Support Acquisition Business Decisions
Russell S. Boyd and Brian Boynton
Enterprise architecture (EA) documents current conditions, future visions, and the transition plan between them. It pertains to and encompasses one or all of the following: programs, offices, segments, solutions, departments, lines of business, and agencies. IT acquisition management (ITAM) includes the set of tasks required to accomplish the directed and funded efforts to provide a new, improved, or continuing information system or services capability to satisfy a business need. Thus, an EA contains business operation information for decision support and communication and informs decision-makers about what technology to acquire and when. This article illustrates how a technical architecture can both provide a clear picture of the technical goals that lie ahead for the enterprise, as well as providing decision support to selecting and acquiring a product that will help satisfy the organizational requirements and scheduling needs.

Book Review: Managed Evolution
Michael Linke reviews Managed Systems: A Strategy for Very Large Information Systems by Stephan Murer and Bruno Bonati.

Onwards

As a quarterly journal, JEA is always open for new contributions. JEA reaches a large number of enterprise architects, and is a great platform for sharing experiences and contribute to the growing body of knowledge in enterprise architecture as a discipline and profession.

When preparing your manuscript, please follow the format guidelines. And when submitting it, please fill out this submission form.

 

Journal of Enterprise Architecture, February 2012

Journal of Enterprise Architecture, February 2012

0

The February number of Journal of Enterprise Architecture (Volume 8, Number 1) will be published early next week, and be available for download by members of the Association of Enterprise Architects.

Journal of Enterprise Architecture, February 2012

FEATURES
Editor’s Corner: John Gøtze
Architect in the Spotlight: Mark Perry

ARTICLES

SEA Change: How Sustainable EA Enables Business Success in Times of Disruptive Change
Leo Laverdure and Alex Conn
Enterprise Architecture (EA) is a key tool to help businesses transform themselves to meet changing business challenges. To do so, however, architectural methods must themselves be adapted to focus less on technology per se and more on how these technologies enable the business to survive and thrive over the long term – to be sustainable – in the shifting, uncertain business context. We call this shift to Sustainable Enterprise Architecture (SEA) a “SEA change”. The practice of SEA differs from the usual practice of EA in a number of ways. Sustainable architecting emphasizes the long-term perspective, focusing on how the enterprise can identify and respond effectively to a range of strategic disruptions. It is based on systems thinking; is continuous, iterative, and adaptive; and calls for integrated strategic planning, architecting, governance, and learning. It considers sustainability the primary system quality and organizes other system qualities in support of sustainability. The enterprise’s approach to sustainability is recorded in a formal sustainability architecture, which describes the threats to sustainability in the business context and defines sustainability goals, models, principles, policies, and standards to address them. It pays close attention to strategic resources and the pragmatic integration of societal, economic, and environmental considerations. It recognizes that sustainable architecting is a cultural change, and provides a set of essential checklists to guide that change.

Maturity Matters: Generate Value from Enterprise Architecture
Jeanne W. Ross and Cynthia M. Beath
This two-part article is an introduction to MIT’s EA maturity research. This first article[1], introduces a series of research studies at MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research, including survey results from 2004, 2007, and 2010. In the second article, in the next number of JEA, the findings from the 2011-2012 update of the research will be presented.

Improving Government Enterprise Architecture Practice – Maturity Factor Analysis
Adegboyega Ojo, Tomasz Janowski, and Elsa Estevez
Recognized as a critical factor for the whole-of-government capability, many governments have initiated Enterprise Architectures (EA) programs. However, while there is no shortage of EA frameworks, the understanding of what makes EA practice effective in a government enterprise is limited. This article presents the results of empirical research aimed at determining the key factors for raising the maturity of the Government Enterprise Architecture (GEA) practice, part of an effort to guide policy-makers of a particular government on how to develop GEA capabilities in its agencies. By analyzing the data from a survey involving 33 agencies, the relative importance of the factors like top management commitment, participation of business units, and effectiveness of project governance structures on the maturity of the GEA practice was determined. The results confirm that management commitment and participation of business units are critical factors, which in turn are influenced by the perceived usefulness of the GEA efforts.

Architecture Styles
Indranil Bhattacharya
Architecture styles are derived from the design and management criteria used to realize, operate, and evolve enterprise systems. By applying different architecture styles, Enterprise Architects can decide on relevant functional features, extent of process automation, the appropriate management style, and optimal technical infrastructure for an application landscape. As the first part of two, this article provides a theoretical foundation for developing architecture styles by considering the characteristics of an architectural style, some analogies that are useful in explaining architecture styles, and considerations for implementing style diversity in enterprises.

The Impact of Enterprise Architecture Principles on the Management of IT Investments
Mats-Åke Hugoson, Thanos Magoulas, and Kalevi Pessi
The strategic role of IT and its significance throughout the organization increases complexity, variety, and the need forchange. Hence, IT management must deal with uncertainties derived from different, conflicting, and ever-changingdemands. In this sense, Enterprise Architecture (EA) is playing an increasingly important role in improving ITmanagement practice. If contemporary organizations do not succeed in managing architectural issues, there is a clear risk that considerable resources will be invested without achieving desirable effects. This article investigates how EnterpriseArchitecture Principles impact the management of IT investments in the context of large organizations. The purpose of the article is to provide a deeper insight into the relationship between EA and management of IT investments through theelucidation of two significant types of principles: Delineation (differentiation) principles and Interoperability (integration)principles. Our conclusion is that the choice of architectural principles has a major impact both on alignment betweeninformation systems and business demands, and on the management of IT investments. This impact concerns at least four aspects: the responsibility for IT investments; time to value; long-term alignment; and coordination of investments ininformation systems with changes in business processes.

Can a Re-Discovery of Open Socio-Technical Systems Strengthen EA?
James Lapalme and Donald W. de Guerre
Recent publications by reputable market research firms affirm that IT organizations and Enterprise Architecture groups are not doing very well: high project failure rates and low acceptance of the Enterprise Architecture group. These challenges can be attributed to the “mechanistic” worldview of current IT organizations according to socio-technical systems theory, a theory from the 1950s which has only recently started to be integrated in IT. Over the last decade, there has been a quasi-exponential growth in the use of the term “socio-technical systems” in the IT literature. From this, one could suggest that a possible paradigm shift is occurring in the IT space: a shift from a mechanistic view of organizations to a socio-technical one based on the rediscovery that organizations are open socio-technical systems.

CASE STUDY

The Enterprise Architecture Approach to Support Concept Development in a Military Context: A Case Study Evaluation of EA’s Benefits
Jukka Anteroinen and Juha-Matti Lehtonen
The importance of Enterprise Architecture (EA) to enterprise transformation has been identified by an increasing number of companies as well as public sector actors. However, the literature to date does not provide much empirical evidence of the benefits of EA. In this article, we evaluate empirically the potential benefits of the EA approach in Concept Development and Experimentation (CD&E), which is considered a tool to drive strategic transformation in the military community. The DeLone and McLean information system success model is used as an evaluation framework. The research method in the article is a case study. The results of the case study are analyzed statistically. The results suggest that the EA approach could benefit CD&E. The EA approach supports the further utilization of the military concept, which is a life-cycle stage preceding military capability development. The applicability of the evaluation framework needs further research.

BOOK REVIEW

Thinking in Systems: A Primer
Review by Leonard Fehskens

Go to Top