Category: Enterprise Architecture

  • Enterprise architecture on the agenda

    Yesterday, our Minister of Science Helge Sander, published an article in B�rsen (Danish FT/WSJ) together with the Chairman of Local Government Denmark Ejgil W. Rasmussen and the Chairman of Danish Regions Kristian Ebbensgaard. The article was called Offentlige it-systemer skal h�nge bedre sammen (Public IT-systems must fit together better). The article presents our white paper and also the new Enterprise Architecture Committee, of which I’m a member and for which I’m going to spend a good part of my time over the coming years. A quote from the article (my translation):

    A government-wide framework for enterprise architecture is a precondition for e-government. All agencies and vendors must support and work within the joint framework if this undertaking is to succeed. E-government is an investment in the future – and a strategic effort that aims at securing the durability of the welfare state.

    I’m going to use this quote in future presentations. I’m going to be doing one tomorrow (oh, today) actually. I was just told my talk has been moved to the main conference rather than a workshop, so I’ve been preparing slides tonight.

    Is it a good or a bad sign that you keep preparing new presentations rather than reusing old, packaged ones? I must admit that in a week where I’ll be doing four presentations before the week is over, I do reuse a lot, but it’s never quite the same.

  • Back to university

    It’s not quite settled yet, but together with my collegue S�ren Mortensen, I plan on giving a course on enterprise architecture at the Danish EBUSS Master course in e-business at the IT University of Copenhagen.

    It’s going to be fun to teach again. I’m inspired by Phil’s Distributed Computing Course, but think my course has to be more business-oriented and less technical. It will be a T-course though, T for Technology, so students will get some geek points.

    The EBUSS masters programme is chaired by professor Jam Damsgaard, whom I look forward to working with. I just found out he’s the chair of the upcoming IFIP WG 8.6 working conference on “The diffusion and adoption of networked information technologies” here in Denmark on October 6 – 8, 2003. I’ll try and make it, at least to paper session 2.

  • EA activities

    Alan: “We need to go back to the data being the asset.”
    Dave agrees and adds: “those people who know how to absorb, analyze and present the data are a valuable commodity”. Dave is also considering creating a database about possibilities with vertical integration. Great idea.

    Speaking of EA, I am putting together an EA-conference in late November here in Denmark. More about this soon. The importance of data and assets will be one important theme.

    Speaking of conferences, META Group and DCI organises The Enterprise Architectures Conference on November 4-6 in Arizona, and a few weeks later, the 2nd Annual GCN Management Enterprise Architecture Conference is held on November 18-19 in Washington, DC.

    My boss Niels Pagh Rasmussen will speak at the seminar IT architecture for IT managers on September 23 at the JAOO 2003 Conference in Aarhus.

  • UK EA

    Alan has moved into the enterprise architecture debates! Great. He defines the mission of the EntArch to be:

    To speed the deployment of customer-focused online services, facilitating the joining up of otherwise discrete departmentally-managed services

    To provide for widespread service offerings through large varieties of intermediaries, each able to offer different and competing value-added enhancements to any service

    To ensure that lessons learnt in any one organisation in the implementation of any part of this or any other EntArch are passed to all other organisations through providing a collaborative learning environment

    To reduce the cost of delivery and maintenance of online services through reuse of systems, components and/or process changes and through rationalisation of the overall number of such systems, components and processes.

    To buy time (and provide funding) for the eventual and full rationalisation of departmental back end systems through constructing a flexible and capable integration layer covering the �ber-organisation

    To facilitate a dramatic and non-linear change in the perception of government service by citizens and businesses.

    Ultimately, to deliver services that citizens want to use, that are consistent in their operation and are easy to use

    Okey. Good start. Looking forward to hearing more.

  • White Paper

    Our national white paper on enterprise architecture has been translated, and is now available in English. We have decided not to print the English version, so get PDF-download. If you read Danish, get a free printed copy here.

  • Stepping stones

    There’s an interesting article in Enterprise Architect: Three Stepping-Stones to Strategic Architecture by Chris Barlow.

    Barlow wants us to define a series of stepping-stones that “both pay for themselves with near-term business impact and lead you toward your enterprise architecture vision”. Hmmmkey. How? We must make each stepping-stone a “stable business platform”, that is, a “series of completed IT and business-process projects where you can pause and reassess the next stepping-stone”. OK, stable and completed. Good. But how? Patterns? Principles? Practices? (hey, three P’s!)

    Barlow suggests three stepping-stones:

    1. Get to basic architecture. A basic architecture is one that supports the current business processes and is characterized by very few duplicate applications, has separation between transactional and archival data, and has a consolidated infrastructure. Also associated with it is an architecture development and management council that defines application, data, and infrastructure standards and checks for compliance against these standards. You know you have a basic architecture in place if you don’t have three e-mail systems, two financial reporting systems, some Unix desktops, some NT desktops, and 15 different company Web sites, all of which look different.

    2. Get to streamlined architecture. A streamlined architecture is one where the business processes and corresponding applications and infrastructure have been tuned such that there are no redundant steps and no choke points that degrade performance. Pick one or two business areas to tune business processes. … Consider an example of trade-offs: do I build a single, consolidated database where all data is in one place and managing and updating data requires doing it in one place? Or do I build a tiered database where the different levels can be optimized for different business needs? …do I use an off-the-shelf enterprise architecture framework? Or do I need to build proprietary connections between applications?

    3. Get to strategic architecture. A strategic architecture is one where your architecture is truly your competitive differentiator. At this point you have examined your application portfolio, differentiated between value-add and nonvalue-add applications/systems, outsourced nonvalue-add applications/systems, streamlined the rest, and defined a portfolio of new investments that will deliver new capabilities and help the business move the needle to value-added differentiators.

    Basic, Streamlined, Strategic. Sure, why not. Good point. It sure sticks to the keep it simple principle.
    Illustration from Three Stepping-Stones to Strategic Architecture. See article for larger version

  • Principles and practices in web architecture

    An update of the W3C Working Draft on Architecture of the World Wide Web was released last week. It’s recommended reading, and worth a longer quote:

    The important points of this document are categorized as follows:

    Constraint
    An architectural constraint is a restriction in behavior or interaction within the system. Constraints may be imposed for technical, policy, or other reasons.

    Design Choice
    In the design of the Web, some design choices, like the names of the <p> and <li> elements in HTML, or the choice of the colon character in URIs, are somewhat arbitrary; if <par>, <elt>, or * had been chosen instead, the large-scale result would, most likely, have been the same. Other design choices are more fundamental; these are the focus of this document.

    Good practice
    Good practice — by software developers, content authors, site managers, users, and specification writers — increases the value of the Web.

    Principle
    An architectural principle is a fundamental law that applies to a large number of situations and variables. Architectural principles include “separation of concerns”, “generic interface”, “self-descriptive syntax,” “visible semantics,” “network effect” (Metcalfe’s Law), and Amdahl’s Law: “The speed of a system is determined by its slowest component.”

    Property
    Architectural properties include both the functional properties achieved by the system, such as accessibility and global scope, and non-functional properties, such as relative ease of evolution, reusability of components, efficiency, and dynamic extensibility.

    This is good. As co-author Tim Bray says, “this is far from finished”, but it’s good to see progress.

    When we talk about the internet, “keep it simple” is a classic architectural principle (section 3.5 in IETF RFC 1958) which we should remind ourselves of more often. It’s nice to see simplicity in practice in the W3C draft. The XHTML document uses simple markup like <p class=”principle”> and <p class=”practice”> for codifying the principles and best practices. That is all Jon Udell needs to wrap up a cool XPath search experiment for visualising the principles and best practices. Nice work, Jon.

    I want to do something similar in our national enterprise architecture framework. Part of the framework programme is to establish guidelines and a so-called Reference Profile (e-GIF).

    Maybe we should use simple but meaningful markup when we publish our documents. I’ll try and adapt the five W3C point classes (<p class=”principle”>Interoperability</p> etc). Maybe we could invent some more classes. Say, if we chose to include RSS, a basic, simple markup system could be something like:

    <p class=”migrateFrom”>RSS 0.91</p>
    <p class=”use”>RSS 2.0</p>
    <p class=”use”>RSS 1.0</p>

    With a style sheet, class=use could be coloured green, class=migrateFrom yellow, and so on. With XPath and stuff we can get all the XML we want, of course.

    The class attributes should be standardised. Maybe we should create a namespace for enterprise architecture and/or interoperability frameworks? Would anyone be interested in such? Or, would we reinvent the wheel? I’m sure there is a lot done already here, but there so little sharing. It’s time to change this!

    Who’s with me?

  • Architects and princes

    On Friday, we launched our White Paper on Enterprise/IT Architecture. The translator is working hard on the English version, which should be available soon. I have put together an article with the main findings and conclusions from the White Paper and a bit of context about our XML-work.

    On related issues, David Fletcher blogged about EA yesterday, with some good pointers. Barbara Haven read one of these, the Industry Advisory Council‘s Succeeding with Component Based Architecture in e-Government and found the Machiavelli quote from The Prince that I mentioned earlier, and which I appearently misquoted a bit then. I think it goes like this (via online-literature.com above):

    …there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.

    We should have used this quote in the White Paper, because it says a lot about architecture.

    Dave also pointed to META Group’s Dale Kutnick and Tim Westbrock who talks about Managing Change Through Holistic Enterprise Architecture. Holistic EA? What they mean is that EA is not just about technology. Did I mention that our White Paper is very inspired by Meta Group’s thinking?

    We are now continuing the architecure programme, and I will have a busy summer and autumn. I wonder if anyone is also interested in e-government architecture, and would like to spend some time together, talking and writing? I have a lot of old air-miles to burn, and can go basically anywhere. I need to spend some holiday time too, so it should be somewhere nice, so I can spend some time off there too. It wouldn’t hurt if you had a summer house or something 😉 Drop me a mail!

  • Voluntary Industry Standards

    While in Washington, I met Bob Haycock, the program manager of the Federal Enterprise Architecture, FEAPMO. His work is important, and is inspirational.

    Today, OMB published the E-Gov Enterprise Architecture Guidance (Common Reference Model, download pdf), which describes a Federal-wide E-Gov target conceptual architecture, about which is said:

    “The architecture is based on the business requirements derived from the initiatives as well as system engineering design best practices. It provides a workable description of the components needed by E-Gov Initiatives and business activities to move rapidly into the web service-enabled business transaction environment.”

    This is a must-read.

    OMB has also just published a CBA (Component-Based Architecture) White Paper, which outlines a set of recommendations encompassing the selection of tools, technologies and standards that should be considered when implementing new systems and/or components to support the 24 Presidential priority E-Gov initiatives. This document is more or less what UK would call an e-GIF.

    Quote:
    “Success can be based on the extent to which the CBA will support the efficient and
    effective development, acquisition, use, and operation and maintenance of IT to support
    business operations. For that, the FEA-PMO has recommended a set of technologies that
    support both industry-proven standards and emerging technologies
    . Together, these
    technologies provide a forward-thinking set of capabilities targeted at completing the 24
    Presidential Priority E-Gov initiatives, while providing a foundation for growth,
    interoperability, integration and expansion. The list is intended as a starter set based on
    their relevancy to E-Gov. It was intended that this serve as a point to begin considering
    relevant standards and to serve as a place wherein appropriate and obvious voluntary
    industry standards can at least be included in an architectural context.”

    It will be interesting to follow how the guidelines and the CBA will be implemented.

    It will also be interesting to see how the preference for open standards will be handled.