Gestalt Theory and Enterprise Architecture

"Gestalt theory is a theory...that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts...This is in contrast to the "atomistic" principle of operation of the digital computer, where every computation is broken down into a sequence of simple steps, each of which is computed independently of the problem as a whole." (Wikipedia)

Gestalt theory and the atomistic principle are important lenses with which to understand User-centric EA. Both gestalt and atomistic views are used to build the enterprise architecture.

• Modeling—“A model is a pattern, plan, representation, or description designed to show the structure or workings of an object, system, or concept.”(Wikipedia) Enterprise decompose the business and IT of the enterprise to view functions and activities, information and data, and manual and automated solutions for supporting those. In modeling the organization and decomposing it into its foundational elements, we view both the distinct parts as well as the relationship between those; this is the atomistic principle is at work. architects develop business, data, and systems models to show the elements and relationships in the enterprise, identify the business processes, information requirements, and technology solutions. To perform this modeling the architects
• Planning and Governance—EA develops the baseline, target, and transition plan, and develops or supports the IT strategic and tactical plans. Further, EA facilitates the IT governance process by conducting IT projects, product, and standard reviews and providing finding and recommendations to ensure business and technical alignment and architecture assessment for the organization. Both of these functions of EA require the synthesis of “boat loads” of business and technical information to develop realistic plans and valuable reviews in support of sound investment and portfolio management. In developing the plans and managing the IT governance for the organization, we are synthesizing information to create a holistic view of where we are, where we going, and how we will get there. This involves bringing together the multiple perspectives of the architecture (performance, business, information, service, technology, security, and hopefully soon to be added human capital) to get a view of the organization that is larger than the sum of its parts. The architecture is more than just a federation of these perspectives, and incorporates the analysis of gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities used to drive business process and technical reengineering and improvement in the organization. This is the gestalt theory at work.

Together, the gestalt theory and atomistic principle show us how enterprise architects decompose or break down the organization into its parts and then synthesize or build it back together again, such that the whole is now greater than the sum of its parts. The ability to do this is the marking of a true enterprise architect master!

Gestalt Theory and Enterprise Architecture

Use Cases and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA fulfills many different needs (as portrayed through Use Cases) in the enterprise.

In the Journal of Enterprise Architecture (JEA), August 2007, the authors of the article “Analysis and Application Scenarios of Enterprise Architecture: An Exploratory Study” (Winters, Bucher, Fischer, and Kurpjuweit) provide a variety of these “application scenarios” for EA.

Use Cases can help us understand the importance and benefits of Enterprise Architecture by showing its application to real-world scenarios. Below is a list of key use cases for EA (adapted from JEA):

1. Adoption of Commercial and Government Off-The-Shelf Software (COTS/GOTS)—informs on enterprise IT products and technical standards for integration, interoperability, and standardization.
2. Business Continuity Planning—identifying the dependencies between business processes, application systems, and IT infrastructure for continuity of operations.
3. Business Process Optimization—reengineering or improving business processes based on modeling of the business processes, the information required to perform those, and the technology solutions to support those.
4. Compliance Management—helps verify compliance with legal requirements such as privacy, FOIA, Section 508, records management, FISMA, and so on.
5. Investment Management—supports Investment Review Board; determines business and technical alignment and architecture assessment of new IT investments.
6. IT Business Alignment—aligning IT with “business, strategies, goals, and needs.”
7. IT Consolidation—“reveals costly multi-platform strategies and wasted IT resources originating from personal preferences of certain IT stakeholders and/or a lack of enterprise-wide coordination.”
8. IT Planning—develops target architecture and transition plan; develops or supports IT strategic plan and tactical plans.
9. Performance Management—Management of IT Operations Costs through the development of IT performance measures to manage IT resources.
10. Portfolio Management—categorizes IT investments into portfolios and prioritizes those based on strategic alignment to the target architecture and transition plan.
11. Post Merger and Acquisition Integration—identifies gaps, redundancies, and opportunities in business processes, organizational structures, applications systems, and information technologies.
12. Procurement Management—aids sourcing decisions; specifies standards, provides reviews of new IT investments.
13. Project (Initialization) Management—specifies projects requirements, looks at the potential for existing systems to meet user needs, and avoids redundant development activities.
14. Quality Management—document business processes, information requirements, and supporting IT; helps ensure performance.
15. Risk Management—managing technology risks; understanding which technology platforms support which business processes.
16. Security Management—documenting business and IT security and defining user roles and access rights.

When done right, EA helps to create “order out of chaos” for the execution of business and IT in the organization.

Use Cases and Enterprise Architecture

Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

There are many schools of thought when it comes to strategic planning in which the organization develops its strategic plan through the following means:

• Design – facilitating a fit between the internal capabilities and external possibilities; strategy is prescriptive.
• Positioning – selecting the competitive positions in the marketplace they desire to occupy (examples include: low cost leader, high quality supplier, niche player, #1 service provider, and so on).
• Entrepreneurial – grounding it on the leader, who is the visionary guiding the organization forward; there is no formal strategic plan.
• Cognitive – understanding and responding to how customers and competitors perceive us.
• Power – Negotiating, persuading, networking, developing alliances, and lobbying; all based on power and politics.
• Cultural – Deriving organizational shared beliefs and social interactions.
• Learning – trial and error based on results of strategy implementation.

(Adapted from American Management Association)

In User-centric EA, it is helpful to understand all these approaches to strategic planning. The schools of though are not mutually exclusive, but rather all affect—to a greater or lesser degree—how the EA target and transition plan is formed.

What I believe is fascinating is that planning is only partially about the plan itself (i.e. what the plan actually contains and prescribes), and that much of planning is about the process for developing it.

The process of planning benefits the organization almost as much as the end-product plan itself, since the process is a journey of self-discovery for the organization. In other words, if the plan was just dropped on the organization—without the process of having developed it—it would be of little to no value. The process of planning teaches the organization what it is currently, what challenges and opportunities it faces, and how to adapt, incrementally change, and occasionally transform itself. The planning process is quite involved and often includes aspects from all the schools of thought, including: designing a capabilities-possibilities fit for the organization, positioning it in the marketplace, incorporating the vision of the leader, identifying perceptions of customers and competitors, navigating through organizational politics, realizing a shared organizational culture, and continuous learning through it all.

Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

Driving Innovation and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2007 reports that “managing innovation is one of the biggest challenges that companies face.” Why? “They not only need to come up with new ideas, but also need to foster a culture that encourages and rewards innovation.”

Douglas Solomon, the Chief Technology Officer of IDEO (an innovation and design consulting firm) provides some insights on how to make a culture more innovative:

In general, “corporations inherently have antibodies that come out and try and kill any innovation.” Small companies don’t have sufficient resources and big companies “don’t always have the thought processes and the skills to really think outside their current business, nor the permission to really do it.”

Here are four things organizations need to be innovative:

1. Degree of discomfort—“there are still people who say, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I don’t think these companies are in a really good position to change…you have to have a certain degree of discomfort in your business to be willing to make the changes that are necessary”
2. Design thinking—rather than analytical thinking extrapolating from the past to the future, innovative thinking requires ‘design thinking’, which is rooted in creativity, optimism and is goal-driven, trying to create new possibilities for a new future.
3. Time to innovate—“you have to actually build processes, you have to support people, you have to give them time…to think on their own…you have to provide a reward system for encouraging innovation.”
4. Risk tolerance—“you have to tolerate risk, if you’re going to try to be innovative.” Doug Merrill the VP of engineering and CIO of Google adds that “Every company in the world says ‘don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness.’ Every company in the world says ‘It’s OK to fail.” And for 99% of them, it’s probably not true.”

In User-centric EA, developing a target state and transition plan for an organization requires innovation. If there is no innovation in your target architecture and plans, then you’re just regurgitating the same old stuff to the enterprise and it’s probably of very limited, if any, value. EA must step outside its traditional box and come to the table with innovative ideas and new approaches to the business; that is it’s real value add.

As we see above, being innovative is hard: It requires sometimes going against the grain, standing out amidst nay-sayers and the ‘old guard,’ looking outside the enterprise for best practices and marketplace trends, and being optimistic and open-minded to future possibilities that are not eclipsed by ingrained thinking and turf battles. Finally architecting the future state must be grounded in present realities (including constraints such as resources, politics, and other priorities and requirements), but innovate we must if we are to make a better state tomorrow than the one we have today!

Driving Innovation and Enterprise Architecture

The Situation in Myanmar and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal, 28 September 2007 reports that “as Myanmar’s regime cracks down on a growing protest movement, ‘citizen journalists’ are are breaking the news to the world.”

Cellphone cameras, text messaging, blogging, and even satellite phones are enabling democracy movements to subvert oppressive governments from restricting communications into and out of their regimes and sanitizing media coverage of their repressive, cruel rule.

While soldiers fired automatic weapons into a crowd of pro-democracy demonstrators, Burmese citizens were sending photos and text messages to news agencies around the world. And the world responded with warnings and sanctions against the Myanmar government, keeping the death toll to only nine people so far.

“Even in countries like Myanmar, the spread of the Internet and mobile phones has meant the footage will always continue to get through and the story will be told, one way or another.”

If only this technology existed when the Nazis where herding the Jews unto cattle cars and taking them to the myriad of concentration (i.e. extermination) camps—perhaps, the shocking, real-time information and brutal photos would’ve moved the world to action sooner.

In fact, even the last time there was a large scale protest in Myanmar in 1988, the technology was not widely available and the result was a military massacre of more than 3000 civilians!

“Technology has changed everything…now in a split second, you have the story.”

From a User-centric EA perspective, we apply technology solutions to meet information requirements of the end-users in the enterprise. The business of EA is information and technology—those things that are opening up democracy in Myanmar. In EA, the results are improved mission execution and results of operation. That’s in a business or government setting. But how does information flow and technology affect geopolitics?

The answer is greatly, as we can see from the events in Myanmar:

Information technology is not only important to business and consumers, governments and citizens, but it is critical to the world’s progress—IT has geopolitical implications, including:

1. Spreading freedom and human rights
2. Feeding the world’s hungry
3. Healing of the world’s sick
4. Imposing peace and order

“Information is power” and this is enabled and magnified by the application of technology and modern communications. If we use the information technology wisely, we can make the world a better place for everyone!

The Situation in Myanmar and Enterprise Architecture

Yin and Yang and Enterprise Architecture

Yin and Yang describe two primal opposing but complementary principles or cosmic forces said to be found in all non-static objects and processes in the universe.

The outer circle represents the entirety of perceivable phenomena, while the black and white shapes within the circle represent the interaction of two principles or aspects, called "yin" (black) and "yang" (white), which cause the phenomena to appear in their peculiar way. Each of them contains an element or seed of the other, and they cannot exist without each other.

Yin is passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night. Yang is active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the daytime.

All forces in nature can be seen as having yin and yang states, and the two are in constant movement rather than held in absolute stasis.

Yin and yang is a process of harmonization ensuring a constant, dynamic balance of all things. Excessive yin or yang state is often viewed to be unbalanced and undesirable.

User-centric EA applies the concepts of Yin and Yang—in terms of balance and harmony─to the way the chief enterprise architect relates to and works with users, the way products and services are developed, and the way architecture plans are formulated. Some examples:

• Working with users: The chief enterprise architect needs to recognize that in planning for the future state of the organization, there are going to be different points of views, diversity of aims and aspirations, and general conflict. The architect can use the principles of Yin and Yang to understand that opposing points of view are complementary and in fact necessary to vet issues and achieve better decision on behalf of the enterprise. The architect works to listen to all viewpoints and reconcile these to achieve a harmonized and optimal way ahead for the organization.
• Developing products and services: User-centric EA provides useful and useable products and services to the end-user. The philosophy of Yin and Yang helps guide the architect to develop information products that are dynamic (actively pushing out information to the end user), balanced (evenhanded, reasonable, and objective,) and where the information flows clearly and concisely. The point is to effectively communicate with users, so that they can access and use the EA knowledge base to make better decisions. EA communicates up, down, and across the organization as well as with outside entity stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, partners, and oversight authorities. In all cases clear and balanced communication is a key ingredient to building and maintaining the architecture and leveraging use for all parties.
• Formulating architecture plans: In developing a User-centric EA plan, the concepts of Yin and Yang help to develop plans that are neither black nor white (absolute) and that are not static (but rather fluid). For architecture plans to be effective, they need to provide “wiggle room” to the organization to adjust to changing needs and environment factors (i.e. plans should not be “black and white”, but should take into account shades of gray or in the case of the Yin and Yang, there is a little Yang in every Yin and vice versa). Additionally, as the flowing symbol of the Yin and Yang indicate, plans need to be fluid and move the organization in phases. You don’t just jump to the next big technology or slice and dice your business processes, but rather you evolve in a careful, planned, and incremental course—flowing from one state to the next and so on.

Yin and Yang and Enterprise Architecture

The Hype Cycle and Enterprise Architecture

“A Hype Cycle (term coined by Gartner) is a graphic representation of the maturity, adoption and business application of specific technologies.

Hype cycles characterize the over-enthusiasm or "hype" and subsequent disappointment that typically happens with the introduction of new technologies. Hype cycles also show how and when technologies move beyond the hype, offer practical benefits, and become widely accepted.

The hype cycle comprises 5 steps:

1. "Technology Trigger" breakthrough, product launch or other event that generates significant press and interest.
2. "Peak of Inflated Expectations" frenzy of publicity typically generates over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations.
3. "Trough of Disillusionment" Technologies fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable.
4. "Slope of Enlightenment" some businesses continue to experiment and understand the benefits and practical application of the technology.
5. "Plateau of Productivity" the benefits become widely demonstrated and accepted. The technology becomes increasingly stable and evolves in second and third generations.

Hype cycles aim to separate the hype from the reality, and enable executives to decide whether or not a particular technology is ready for adoption.” (adapted from Wikipedia)

The Hype Cycle is a tool that can be used by EA to help evaluate new technologies and whether it’s the “right” time to jump in and invest.

The hype cycle teaches us not to be blind, bleeding edge technology adopters, but rather to allow ample time for the technologies and their applications to mature. Often a swift follower can implement a relatively new technology cheaper, faster, and better than those on the bleeding edge: the kinks have been worked out, the patches applied, and the applicability fleshed out. More important, those technologies that were more hype than substance have been eliminated from the mix.

While early adoption can be a winning strategy (and extremely lucrative) for those gifted to recognize and be able to apply real innovations early on, in most cases, the swift follower is the big winner and the bleeding edge adopter the loser.

The Hype Cycle and Enterprise Architecture

Centralized, Distributed, & Hybrid IT Management and Enterprise Architecture

In User-centric EA, users IT needs are met (timely and with quality solutions), while governance ensure that those needs are aligned with mission and prioritized with others across the organization. To achieve these goals, how should IT management best be organized in the enterprise—centrally or distributed?

The debate over a centralized or distributed management model is an age-old battle. A popular theory states that organizations vacillate in roughly three year cycles between a strong centralization philosophy and a strong decentralization philosophy. The result is a management paradigm that shifts from standardization to autonomy, from corporate efficiency to local effectiveness and from pressure on costs and resources to accommodation of specific local needs, and then shifts back again. The centralized system is perceived to be too slow to react to problems in the field or to issues within a particular company department or division, and the decentralized operation is perceived as fragmented and inconsistent.

To address the pros and cons of each model, there is a hybrid model for IT management, which incorporates centralized IT governance and solutions along with distributed IT planning for the line of business and niche execution.

In the hybrid model for IT governance, an IT Investment Review Board (IRB) centrally directs, guides, and authorizes IT investments through enterprise architecture, IT policy and planning, and a CIO governed-consolidated IT budget. At the same time, IT requirements come from the lines of business, and the lines of business develop their own segment (business) architectures. In some cases, the lines of business actually plan and execute niche IT projects for their areas, while the systems development life cycle for enterprise IT systems and customer support are handled centrally.

The hybrid model for IT management is a very workable and balanced solution that demonstrates true business acumen in that it recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches (centralized and distributed management), and capitalizes on the strengths of each in coming up with a best solution for the organization.

Centralized, Distributed, & Hybrid IT Management and Enterprise Architecture

James Madison, the First “Federal Chief Enterprise Architect”

James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. As a leader in the first Congresses, he drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". James Madison also drafted the Virginia Plan, which “called for a national government of three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial…The concept of checks and balances was embodied in a provision that legislative acts could be vetoed by a council composed of the Executive and selected members of the judicial branch; their veto could be overridden by an unspecified legislative majority.” (Wikipedia)

As the Father of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Virginia Plan, James Madison was the original Chief Enterprise Architect (CEA) for the federal government. As the Federal CEA, Madison architected the performance, business, and information perspectives of the federal enterprise architecture (the information technology side of the equation—services, technology, and security—would come later with the post-industrial, technological revolution)

Performance—The mission execution and expected results are laid out in The Preamble to the Constitution, that states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Additionally, the Bill of Rights ensures that the government performs its business functions all the while protecting the rights of its citizens.

Business—The functions, activities, and processes are detailed in the Articles of The Constitution, including the functioning of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, as well as state and federal powers, and processes for amendments and ratification. Additionally, the checks and balances ensure that functions are well-defined and that limits are placed on each branch of the government to protect democracy and forestall tyrannical rule.

Information—The information requirements of the Federal government are provided for in the various branches of government. For example, the legislative branch, Article One provides for free debate (the archetype for information sharing and accessibility) in Congress. Additionally, the checks and balances between the branches, provides for information flow. For example, Congress enacts the laws, and these go to the Executive Branch to carry them out, and to the Judicial Branch to interpret them. Furthermore, the political value system, Republicanism, ensures that the people remain sovereign and that they not only elect their representatives and politicians, but also can provide information and lobby to affect the enactment of laws and regulations that will ultimately affect them. Citizens are asked to perform their civic duties and to participate in the political process, so there is a free-flow of ideas and information throughout the governing process.

James Madison is indeed the original federal chief enterprise architect and a very good one at that!

James Madison, the First “Federal Chief Enterprise Architect”

24 TV Series and Enterprise Architecture

“24, last year’s most Emmy Award-winning television series with five Emmys, including Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series (Kiefer Sutherland) and Outstanding Drama Series, is one of the most innovative, thrilling and acclaimed drama series on television.” (TV.com)

What makes 24 so thrilling?

Well there is the drama, the intrigue, the ever twisting plot and constant terrorist threats, and of course, Keifer Sutherland and the rest of the 24 team.

There is also the technology and its application to track the terrorists, communicate effectively, and the business intelligence to decipher the terrorist plots. While the technology is not perfect and often it is used by the terrorists to thwart CTU as well, it still comes across quite impressively.

On a Bluetooth technology website, I found this:

“Fox's hit television show ’24’ has always displayed the latest in cutting edge technology.CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) agents and terrorists alike. But which model of Bluetooth headsets are they actually wearing?” (bluetomorrow.com) During this season (Day 5) of 24, Bluetooth wireless headsets can be seen constantly being used by both

The technology used in 24 is viewed as cutting-edge and trend-setting (i.e. everyone wants to know which model CTU is using).

On another site, Government Computer News, 7 January, 2007, it states: “Federal superspy Jack Bauer battles fate and countless foes on the hit TV show “24”—a drama unfolding in real time and depicted on several windows within the screen. Like the Bauer character, who himself is the fictional successor to an earlier superagent who liked his tipple “shaken, not stirred,” federal IT users frequently will have to share information quickly if they hope to prevail or even survive in 2007.” (http://www.gcn.com/print/26_01/42874-1.html)

Again, the 24 series is viewed as a model for information technology users and IT sharing.

In the same GCN article, Homeland Security Department, G. Guy Thomas, the Coast Guard’s science and technology adviser for the Maritime Domain Awareness Project, states: “The ultimate goal that technologists and policy-makers should strive for is user-definable interfaces, which would provide a ‘common operational picture [COP] that serves as an interface to a collaborative information environment.’”

The COP contains an operational picture of relevant information shared by more than one command and facilitates collaborative planning and assists all echelons to achieve situational awareness. This type of operating picture is often seen being used in CTU to track and ultimately catch (with Bauer’s help) the terrorists.

For Homeland Security enterprise architecture, 24 can serve as a target state forsynthesizing business process and technology. For example, the integration between the business processes and the technology is virtually flawless in CTU, where business intelligence at the Los Angeles office is communicated and made virtually immediately available to the agents in the field for quickly following up on leads and cornering conspirators.

Additionally, even the character Jack Bauer himself displays not only tremendous heroism and patriotism in his efforts to protect this nation and its citizens, but also his innovative and can-do persona is a model for enterprise architecture development of creative yet grounded target technology states and transition plans for our organizations.

Additionally, from a User-centric EA perspective, we need to look outside our agencies at business and technology best practices in the public and private sectors, and yes, even at fictional portrayals. It is even from dramas like 24, and maybe especially from such visionary elements that EA can adapt information, creativity, and innovation to plan a genuine target state for our enterprises.

24 TV Series and Enterprise Architecture

The Pareto Principle and Enterprise Architecture

In the book, The 80/20 Principle, by Richard Koch, the author states how we can achieve more with less effort time and resources, simply by identifying and focusing our efforts on the 20% that really counts.

The Pareto Principle or 80-20 Rule postulates that 20% cause yields 80% effect!

The corollary is that little of what we spend our time on actually counts, but rather by concentrating on those things that do we can unlock the enormous potential of the 20%.

In User centric EA, we recognize that there are limited resources in the enterprise and to be effective in using technology to enhance mission outcome and planning the future success of the organization, we have to first focus on the 20% where we can have the greatest impact on 80% of the organization.

In User-centric EA, we focus where possible on the low hanging fruit. We don't try to tackle all the problems of the organization at one time, but we implement a phased approach by tackling the issues with the biggest payback first. User-centric EA looks at the users and the enterprise’s pain points and identifies those areas where EA can have “the biggest bang for the buck".

The Pareto Principle and Enterprise Architecture

Getting Performance Metrics Right

Architecture and Governance Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 3 has a great piece on developing “Metrics that Matter”.

The idea is that metrics are a critical management tool for tracking, managing, and ultimately, changing organizational behavior!

All too often, organizations do not develop or keep metrics on anything below a top-level organizational view, and even then just develop metrics that either make them look good (i.e. the metrics are very achievable) or that are easy to measure (i.e. the measures are readily available from existing data).

Organizations cannot really drive improved performance if they do not measure systemically and strategically thoughout the enterprise!

For IT metrics, Architecture and Governance Magazine proposes that we use three core categories of metrics:

1. Strategic Value—The most difficult area to measure, but one of the most valuable from the business point of view; it “identifies the degree of a business unit’s effective use of technology,” to achieve mission execution and and results of operation.
2. Project Management Effectiveness—this should “cover the quality, scope, and milestones…includes schedule adherence, functional delivery requirement specifications, and—the least often measured—return on investment for several years after deployment.”
3. Operational Effectiveness (And Efficiency)—effectiveness, which is the more important metric, involves measuring such things as customer satisfaction, cost-savings, income generation, or ehanced mission capabilities; efficiency, on the other hand, is where IT leaders often “drown executives in operational data such as help-desk resolution times and network uptimes—data that is meaningless to the corporate strategy and cements IT’s reputation as being little more than a janitorial service for technical systems.” Additionally, “if they demonstrate only efficiency, they play into the bean-counter mentality that all that matters is extracting more efficiency from the system. That’s an easy road to continued cuts…‘this cost focus had led to the suboptimatization of IT’…[and] can even lead to the eventual outsourcing of IT.”

In general, emphasize the top 2 categories of measures, and focus only on the 3^rd “if the IT department has a history of failure and thus needs to be closely monitored on the basics.”

Finally, “a good rule of thumb is that there should be less than a half-dozen key metrics provided to executives…if they need more detail, provide the drill-down capabilities, but don’t make it part of the standard report.”

In User-centric EA, performance metrics are one of the primary perspectives of the enterprise architecture (which include performance, business, information, service, technology, security, — and human capital, in the future). The performance measurement view of EA is the pinnacle of the architecture, where we identify mission execution and results of operation goals and then track and manage to these. The performance measures cascade throughout the organization to build performance results, bottom-up, to achieve mission execution and the performance goals set at the highest levels.

Additionally, IT needs to take a front position (i.e. lead by example) in developing and managing to solid performance measures that not only demonstrate the effectiveness of its utility operations, but that demonstrates effective management of new IT investment dollars to bring new and enhanced capabilities to the end-users and most importantly, that it adds to the strategic results of the enterprise.

Getting Performance Metrics Right

David Ben-Gurion and Enterprise Architecture

Ben-Gurion was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Important People of the Century.

“Part Washington, part Moses, he was the architect of a new nation state that altered the destiny of the Jewish people — and the Middle East.”

What made Ben-Gurion the great architect of state of Israel?

1. Vision—Ben-Gurion had a clear vision for the future survival of the Jewish people. “Shocked by anti-Semitic pogroms in Eastern Europe, he saw the creation of an independent homeland for the homeless Jewish people as, first and foremost, a crucial provision for the survival of persecuted Jews.” Further, Ben-Gurion always wanted Israel to become a ‘Light unto the Nations,’ an exemplary polity abiding by the highest moral standards.”
2. Strategy—Ben-Gurion had a strategy to accomplish his vision. “Throughout the tragic years from 1936 to 1947, while millions of Jews were rounded up and murdered by the Germans, denied asylum by almost all nations and barred by the British from finding a home in Palestine, he subtly orchestrated a complex strategy: he inspired tens of thousands of young Jews from Palestine to join the British army in fighting the Nazis, but at the same time authorized an underground agency to ship Jewish refugees into the country…This strategy helped bring about the favorable atmosphere that led to the 1947 U.N. resolution, partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.”
3. Determination—Ben-Gurion was determined to execute his strategy. “Ben-Gurion's iron-will leadership during the fateful 1 1/2 years of that touch-and-go war [after 1948] turned him from ‘first among equals’ in the Zionist leadership into a modern-day King David.”
4. Leadership—Ben-Gurion was a true leader. “The crux of his leadership was a lifelong, partly successful struggle to transplant a tradition of binding majority rule in a painfully divided Jewish society that for thousands of years had not experienced any form of self-rule, not even a central spiritual authority. In the early years of the state, many Israelis saw him as a combination of Moses, George Washington, [and] Garibaldi.”
   

(adapted from http://www.time.com/time/time100)

To me, David Ben-Gurion is a hero who led the Jewish people on a road toward survival and statehood at its darkest hour in history. From the ashes of 6 million Jews murdered in the holocaust, David Ben-Gurion, like Moses, led the people from near total annihilation to rebirth in the promised land.

As an enterprise architect, I can only marvel and be utterly inspired by the building blocks of vision, strategy, determination and leadership that made David Ben-Gurion the “great architect and builder” honored by Time Magazine's 100 Most Important People of the 20^th century.

David Ben-Gurion and Enterprise Architecture

When Information Sharing Becomes Destructive

This week Columbia University hosted a true demagogue to speak.

The Wall Street Journal 25 September 2007 states in the editorial “Columbia’s Conceit” that the the acting dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, not only defended having this horrific demagogue speak to the students of Columbia University, but he remarked that “if Hitler were in the United States and…if he were willing to engage in a debate and discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.”

I assume even Osama Bin Laden would be welcome to discuss his views on killing 3000 Americans on 9-11. Free and open debate of ideas, right?

How unbelievably low Columbia University has sunk!

I grew up on the Upper West Side in Manhattan, and I fondly remember as a child taking many wonderful strolls through the the Columbia University campus. With its magnificant buildings, monuments, landscaping, and courtyards, I walked with awe and amazement up and down the paths of what I then believed to be a noble and prestigious higher learning institution.

With utter shock and dismay, I watched this week as this world demagogue and grand enemy of the United States and Israel was welcomed to Columbia and given a platform and opportunity to share his hatred and distort the truth about the nature of this country, Zionism, and even the horrific events of the Holocaust.

Columbia’s president stated “Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas.”

Well, when does confronting ideas and sharing information go from constructive to destructive? Is there a point, when allowing anyone to say anything they want, even if it is full of hatred and lies, goes beyond the point of rational ‘debate and discussion’?

I am not a lawyer, but even in this great and free country, we do not allow someone to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Nor, do we allow people to incite others to violence. There are limits to free speech and the sharing of baseless hatred and distorting the truth. In fact, our justice system is supposed to be dedicated to truth and our vast news reporting to keeping the public duly informed.

I understand now that Columbia University has agreed to invite the devil himself to speak to its students and faculty (for lively debate and discussion). The only condition placed on the devil is that he leave his pitchfork outside the campus limits. Apparently, Columbia University has not only invited the devil, but has decided to sell their soul to him as well.

So much for the great and noble institution of higher learning that a little boy once looked upon and marveled at.

As a professional enterprise architect, I believe that there are a couple of lessons here:

• In building the architecture and plans for the enterprise, full and open debate and vetting of ideas is not only encouraged, but absolutely necessary to get the best product. However, when constructive debate turns to venting, naysaying, personal insults, and destructive criticism, then the time for debate is over.
• The enterprise architecture is a knowledge base for the organization, and it is the role of the architects in conjunction with leadership, stakeholders, and end users to ensure that the knowledge base has integrity. Bad data just enables bad decision-making.

When Information Sharing Becomes Destructive

Take Care of Your Employees and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA is focused on the users, but also on the employees in the organization.

In Fortune Magazine, 3 September 2007, Kip Tendell the CEO of the super successful Container Store states “Put Employees Before Customers: If you take care of your employees, they’ll take care of the customers—and that will take care of the shareholders. To myopically focus on the shareholders is wrong. So we invest heavily in our employees.”

Applying this to the government is somewhat different than the private sector for a few reasons:

• Citizens versus customers: We don’t have customers in the traditional sense of people purchasing goods or services, but we do have our citizens whom we serve by delivering services that they pay for through taxes.
• Stakeholders versus shareholders: We don’t have shareholders to be concerned about, but we do have plenty of stakeholders, including lots of oversight from the Department (to which the agency reports), the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office (GAO), The Hill, the media, and so on.
• Essential services: The nature of the services being provided are of a different caliber than most in the private sector (this is not a put down to the private sector—in fact, I came to the government from the financial services industry). The services that the government provides such as law enforcement, defense readiness, consumer safety, health management, social services, and so on are absolutely critical to the functioning of an orderly society.
  

Based on these differences between public and private sectors, I do not think that government can afford to put employees before citizens (given the critical nature of the services provided to all of us). However, I do believe that treating employees well is a prerequisite to them providing good service and to meeting performance objectives and achieving mission execution.

Let’s face it, people respond better to honey than to vinegar. Institute market based pay, a culture of merit, pay for performance, and in general treat employees fairly and with respect, and they will deliver for the citizens of this country.

Every EA plan should include goals, objectives, and strategies that promote the employee, since they are the enterprise’s most critical asset in achieving the mission.

Take Care of Your Employees and Enterprise Architecture

Sigmund Freud and Enterprise Architecture

“Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856 – September 23, 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology. Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind.”

Freud is probably one of the best known and most influential psychiatrists of all time.

What are some of Freud’s major contributions to understanding human behavior?

1. Unconscious mind—Perhaps the most significant contribution Freud made to Western thought was his argument for the existence of an unconscious mind…he proposed that awareness existed in layers and that some thoughts occurred "below the surface.
2. Id, Ego, and Superego—Sigmund Freud's "structural theory” introduced new terms to describe the division between the conscious and unconscious: 'id,' 'ego,' and 'super-ego.' The “id” (fully unconscious) contains the drives and those things repressed by consciousness—it is dominated by the pleasure principle; the “ego” (mostly conscious) deals with external reality—its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality; and the “super ego” (partly conscious) is the conscience or the internal moral judge.
3. Psychoanalysis—Freud is the father of psychoanalysis (free association), is which the analyst upon hearing the thoughts of the patient, formulates and then explains the unconscious bases for the patient's symptoms and character problems. Through the analysis of resistance (unconscious barriers to treatment often referred to as defense mechanisms) and transference unto the analyst, expectations, wishes and emotions, from prior unresolved conflicts is often unearthed, and can be quite helpful to the patient. (Adapted from Wikipedia)

How can Freud’s contributions help us be better enterprise architects?

• Developing a deeper understanding of stakeholders—Understanding that leaders, subject matter experts, end-users, and other stakeholders don’t always communicate what’s on their mind or even know fully what’s on their mind (because some of it is in the unconscious), can help us as architects to dig longer and deeper to work with, question, and seek to understand our stakeholders and their requirements. Very often open-ended questions (or free association) works best to let user get to what they truly want to communicate, while at other times closed-ended type questions may get more quickly to the facts that are needed.
• Not everything the users want is for the ultimate good of the organization—While most users have the very best intentions at heart, there is a component in all of us called the id, that are unconscious desires driven by the pleasure principle. “The id is the primal, or beast-like, part of the brain…the prime motive of the id is self-survival, pursuing whatever necessary to accomplish that goal.” The id can drive some users to pursue “requirements” that are good for their own selves, careers, ego, or training goals, but may not be ‘right’ for the enterprise. For example, some users may want to purchase a technology that “they know” (or are familiar with) or that will make their functions or departments more important or powerful in the organization, or to show “what they can do”. While this is not the rule, I think we can all probably relate experiences at work to this. (Thank G-d for Investment Review Board and EA Boards to catch some of these and put them back in their boxes.)
• People are resistant to change and have all sorts of defense mechansims that can impede progress—“When anxiety [between the selfish id and moral superego] becomes too overwhelming it is then the place of the ego to employ defense mechanisms to protect the individual” However, while mechanisms such as denial, repression, rationalization, and so on can help protect the person, they often hinder progress at the organizational-level. Just because a person can’t get what they want (technology toys, resources, turf, prestige…), they “act out” to protect their own self interest and thereby also impede the organization. As architects, we are not psychoanalysts nor psychiatrists, so we can not resolve people’s underlying internal battles or unfilled desires. But what we can do is recognize and call attention to these mechanisms and their impact, and work to focus the architecture on the good of the organization versus the good of any particular stakeholder.

Sigmund Freud and Enterprise Architecture

Corporate Culture and Enterprise Architecture

Organizational or corporate culture is “the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. Organizational values are beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another” (Wikipedia).

The Wall Street Journal, 13 August 2007, states that “New leaders typically reshape their senior executive team and the company’s growth strategies. The most wrenching adjustment occurs when a CEO changes the corporate culture—the core values and ways of doing things that bind people to their jobs…yet few CEO’s take the time to learn about the culture they inherited. They need to understand both the traditional purpose of a company and it’s philosophy—or why, precisely, employees feel the work they do is important, and how they believe their approach distinguishes them from others.” If changing culture is necessary, then the CEO needs to explain this to the employees, so that work quality and productivity does not suffer.

As enterprise architects, we can learn from the mistakes of others (even CEOs) in not understanding or respecting the culture of the organizations they serve. User-centric EA needs to respect the organizational culture in developing the target, transition plan, and strategy. The chief enterprise architect needs to learn and understand the values, norms, guidelines, and expectation that prescribe behavior in the enterprise if they wish to stand any chance of successfully shaping the future of the organization. This can be done by the chief enterprise architect spending time with and talking to “the troops.”

Enterprise architecture can not be successful as an ivory-tower exercise. All too often, however, it is done like an academic or textbook endeavor rather than as a genuine
attempt to understand both internal and external drivers for change. (At the same time, the reality is that the function of enterprise architecture is usually short on resources and cannot achieve its potential as it would if it were fully funded and resourced.) It is imperative that organizations provide adequate resources, so the architects can go and visit frontline employees and leadership across the organization to learn the culture, the functions, requirements, and pain points. Translating this information into future plans and strategies for the organization will then be much more meaningful and effective.

Corporate Culture and Enterprise Architecture

Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Application Development and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2007 reports that “new [DIY] tools let businesspeople avoid the IT department and create their own computer applications…and no knowledge of computer code is required.”

How does this benefit users?

• “Users say they are saving time and money by creating their own applications”
• They “are able to build exactly what they want, without having to explain what their looking for to someone else.”
• “Others like being able to wite programs that would have been too minor or personalized to bother the IT department with.”
• “Adjusting DIY programs…can also be simpler than asking the IT department for program tweaks or updates.”

What are the downsides?

• “There is some risk in the lack of a track recod for such companies [offering these DIY services], and in the possibility that a provider will fail, leaving its customers without access to the applications they developed online.”
• “Some businesspeople may underestimate the effort required to write their own programs.”

Strangely enough, the article leaves out some of the biggest gaps with DIY application development, such as:

• Approval by the organization’s IT governance to ensure that the ‘right’ projects are authorized, prioritized, funded and monitored for cost, schedule, and performance.
• Compliance with an organization’s enterprise architecture to ensure such things as: business alignment, application interoperability and non-redundancy, technology standardization, information sharing, and strategic alignment to the target architecture and transition plan.
• Assuring IT security of applications systems, including confidentiality, integrity, availability, and privacy.
• Following a defined, repeatable, and measurable structured systems development life cycle (SDLC) approach to application development.

The WSJ article actually compares DIY application development to when businesspeople learned to create their own PowerPoints presentation rather than having to run to the graphics departments to build these for them.

While there may be a place for DIY application development for small user apps (similar to creating their own databases and presentations), from a User-centric EA perspective, we must be careful not to hurt the enterprise, in our efforts to empower the end-users. A balanced and thoughful approach is called for to meet user requirements (cost effectively and quickly), but at the same time protect enterprise assets, meet strategic goals, and assure overall governance of IT investments.

Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Application Development and Enterprise Architecture

Effective Teams and Enterprise Architecture

In User-centric EA, not only is human capital (individuals) important to the organization’s growth and development, but also groups or teams of people are vital to getting the most difficult of jobs done.

The Wall Street Journal, 13 August 2007, states that the CEO of ICU Medical Inc. “had an epiphany watching his son play hockey. The opposing team had a star, but his son’s team ganged up on him and won.” The lesson for the CEO was that “the team was better than one player.” The CEO used this lesson about the importance and strength of teams encourage teaming in his organization, and in general to delegate better to his employees, and getting their input on decisions

While EA is a program often associated with and reporting to the Chief Information Officer, and is thus considered somewhat technical in nature, a large part of architecting the enterprise is understanding and believing in the importance of people—individuals and teams—to getting the job done and getting it done right.

Moreover, teams can accomplish what individuals cannot. There is strength in numbers. Like the CEO of ICU Medical learned, a great player can be overcome by even a mediocre team.

Effective Teams and Enterprise Architecture

On Demand Software and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), 19 September 2007 reported that SAP, the German technology giant (and world’s largest business software company—especially known for its enterprise resource planning software), will be offering on demand software to help capture more business among faster growing small and medium size firms. The advantage of this internet based appplication service model is that smaller companies who don’t have the money to purchase the otherwise pricey software, can now purchase on a pay as you go subscription service model.

Interestingly, the WSJ article does not identify this model as an application service provider (ASP), which is a business that provides computer-based services to customers over a wide area network, even though this is exactly what it is!

In general, there are a number of benefits touted to a organization using ASP services, and these are:

• The ASP service provider owns, operates, and mainains the software and servers.
• The ASP service provider adheres to service level agreement for availability, accessibility, and security.
• The ASP provider ensures regular updates to the application software
• Costs are spread on a pay as you go basis.

However on the downside, using ASP model limits (or excludes) your ability as a customer to customize the software or to integrate it with other non-ASP systems. Additionally, the customer organization may experience a general sense of loss of control by “outsourcing” the application, underlying technology infrastructure, and data store to an outside vendor.

ASP were a big deal around the turn of the 21st century when “the ASP Industry Consortium was formed in May 1999 by 25 leading technology companies. Founding companies included AT&T Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Compaq Computer Corp., GTE Corp., IBM Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc., and UUNET Technologies.” (adapted from http://ecommerce.hostip.info)

For some reason, ASP seems to have become a “dirty word”. Even the latest market estimates for ASPs in Wikipedia dates back to 2003. Also, a quick Google search for applications service providers brings up a lot of information dated between 1999-2003. Even the current aspindustry.org website looks like crap. Apparently ASPs have all but fallen off the map in the last 4 years!

From a User-centric EA standpoint, the (ASP) model for on demand software is an option that should be carefully considered, based on the pros and cons for your particular organization, in developing target architecture for the enterprise. Indeed, many applications (like SAP) are being deployed using the ASP web application model, and we can expect this service to grow as an option, whether or not it is called an ASP in the future. Hey, maybe that’s what happened to A-S-P – it got transposed to S-A-P!

On Demand Software and Enterprise Architecture

Jonah and Enterprise Architecture

There was an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal, 19 September 2007 about the Book of Jonah (that we read on Yom Kippur). Jonah was commanded by G-d to exhort the people of the city of Ninveh to repent or face G-d’s wrath. But Jonah flees and we all know what happens with him and the whale.

Jonah was concerned that he was in a catch 22. On one hand, if he warns the people of Ninveh and they repented and nothing happened (i.e. they were spared), then they would “assail Jonah for forcing them to make needless sacrifies.” On the other hand, if Ninveh did not repent and was destroyed, the Jonah would be a failed Prophet. (Yes, I know Jonah should’ve had faith that everything would be okay.)

Jonah’s dilema is repeated throughout history. During crisis, leaders frequently encounter this catch 22—no win dilema.

• “Winston Churchhill, for example, prophetically warned of the Nazi threat in he 1930’s, but if he had convinced his countrymen to strike Germany pre-emptively, woul dhe have been hailed for preventing WWII or condemned for initiating an unnecessary conflict?”
• Similarly, “Harry Truman predicted that Japan would never surrender and that a quarter of a million GIs would be killed…and so he obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki only to be vilified by many historians.”
• This type of denounciation, for prevening an unknown, is what President Bush is experiencing for invading Iraq after 9/11 to stave off another terrorist attack in the United States.

What’s the leadership lesson here?

“This is the tragedy of leadership…policy makers must decide between costly actions and inaction…they will be reproved for the actions they take to forestall a catastrophe, but may receive no credit for averting cataclysm that never occur.”

In User-centric EA, like in all planning endeavors, we face a similar crisis of leadership. EA develops the enterprise’s target and transition plan, yet whatever actions (or inactions) that the target state and plan take, the architects are wide open for criticism.

• If their planning in any way helps avert a future corporate crisis, no one will recognize them for some unknown that did not occur.
• And if the plans in any way misses the mark (and no plan is perfect), then the architects are villified for the “errors of their ways”.
• Finally, even with the best laid plans, who can definitely make the causal relationship between the plan and results.

So, architects, like Jonah, are in tough spot—hopefully, we don’t get swallowed by the whale of nay-sayers and critics. Of course, its always easier to criticize than to be constructive.

Jonah and Enterprise Architecture

Can Information Sharing Cure Cancer?

How powerful is the concept of information sharing—can information sharing even cure cancer?

The Wall Street Journal, 18 September 2007 reports that two hedge fund managers have “agreed to put up $1 million of their own money every year to fund the Gotham Prize for Cancer Research…the prize will go to the person who posts the best new cancer-research idea…the winner of the Gotham prize doesn’t have to present a shred of evidence that the premise will work. To attract ideas from people outside the field of cancer research, there is no requirement that the winner be capable of seeing the idea through. And the prize money is earmarked for personal use.”

These “efforts are focused on overcoming the reluctance to share ideas,” since there is “a culture that discouraged the sharing of promising ideas. If you have a great idea, but someone else publishes first, you get no credit, professionally or financially…and ‘ideas are currency.’”

Additionally, “getting grants…forces people to do somewhat mundane experiments that follow up on other experiments rather than thinking creatively.”

The Gotham Prize site for cancer fighting ideas “will serve as a kind of marketplace of ideas,” so we can beat cancer with new ideas either never thought of or shared before.

Wow, this is truly amazing! The notion of people sharing information across the globe to defeat cancer. Think about it. Rather, than hoarding information for financial or professional gain, people share information to overcome one of the biggest scourges of our time.

And cancer is just one disease (although a horrific one), what if this was applied to defeating them all! And to other problems facing humanity. War, terrorism, famine, poverty, pollution, energy resources, and so on. Aren’t we better off pooling information, talent, and the power of numbers rather than hoarding information for self interest?

Yes, I know capitalism and market competition is a great motivator for moving things forward. But what if like with the Gotham Prize, we adopt the power of self interest and apply it to sharing ideas—rather than hoarding ideas—to improve life for everyone.

In User-centric EA is one way to drive information sharing in the enterprise. A core principle of User-centric EA is information sharing and accessibility. EA’s notion of information sharing includes creating a common lexicon, describing the data (metadata), registering the data so that it is discoverable, and enabling the exchange of information when and where people need it.

But it’s tough to get people to share information, since “information is power” and “information is currency”, but let’s turn the standard model on its head and create incentives for people to share and disincentives to hoard—then the world may be a better place for all of us!

Can Information Sharing Cure Cancer?