Where’s the Satisfaction in Enterprise Architecture?

Throughout history, people have labored and seen the fruits of their labor. Whether as hunter/gathers, farmers, or working on the assembly lines, with hard work, people have been able to see tangible progress and in a sense, savor the results of their work.

Today however, in an information society, we are too a great extent divorced from truly delivering products or services to the end-user.

The Wall Street Journal, 20 February 2008, reports “A Modern Conundrum: When Work’s Invisible, so are its Satisfactions.”

“In the information age, so much is worked on in a day at the office, but so little gets done. In the past people could see the fruits of their labor immediately: a chair made or a ball bearing produced. But it is hard to find gratification from work that is largely invisible…not only is work harder to measure, but it’s also harder to define success…The work is intangible, and a lot of work gets done in teams, so it’s difficult to pinpoint individual productivity.”

Homa Bahrami, a senior lecturer in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business states: “Information-age employees measure their accomplishments in net worth, company reputation, networks of relationships, and the products and services they’re associated with—elements that are more perceived and subjective than that field of corn, which either is or isn’t plowed.”

As enterprise architects, we are in the business of providing information to enable better organizational decision-making. And unlike producing widgets or harvesting the season’s crops, architectural performance may seem hard to measure and their activities unsatisfying.

However, developing enterprise architecture based on a user-centric approach is actually very meaningful and satisfying. In User-centric EA, we develop only information products and governance services that have clear users and uses, and which benefits the organization in terms of enabling sound IT investments, reengineering business processes, and addressing gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities.

EA is a strategic, big picture view of the organization. It is a planning function and with the commitment of leadership can have an enormous influence on the future direction of the organization. This is a big responsibility for enterprise architects and is very satisfying work especially when cost savings are realized, processes improved, information needs met, business outcomes enabled with technology, security assured, and strategic objectives met.

So just because we’re working in information, it doesn’t mean that EA is invisible. It touches the lives of stakeholders across the business and technical domains of the enterprise.

Where’s the Satisfaction in Enterprise Architecture?

Difficult IT Users and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric Enterprise Architecture focuses on serving the business and IT end-user with useful and usable information products and governance services. But what do architects need to know about the types of users they face out there?

ComputerWorld, 4 February 2008, reports on “The 5 Users from Hell: Difficult IT customers can drive you crazy.”

Here are the 5 types of users:

1. “The Know-It-All—he knows a little HTML, and he defragged his hard drive once, so now he thinks he knows more than you. He often refuses to follow policies and instructions and has been known to poke his head into the server room ‘just to see what you’re up to to.’
2. The Know-Nothing—this is the clueless user who looks in vain for the ‘Any’ key when his computer prompts him to ‘hit any key’…requires hand-holding for even the simplest tasks. He demands attention and may need multiple visits. Also, he’s frequently unable to articulate problems.
3. Mr. Entitlement—often heard uttering the phrase, ‘Do you know who I am?’…He may be the CEO…or he may be a peon…who thinks he’s entitled simply because you’re in customer service.
4. The Finger-Pointer—he never thinks (or at least, never admits) that he’s in any way to blame for any of his problems—you are.”
5. The TwentySomething Whiz Kid—“this person has dozens of freeware applications on his computer, along with three IM clients and a passel of unauthorized open-source software, and he knows how to use a proxy web site to bypass the company firewall.”

And the 6 type of user is The Angel—“They take the knowledge you give them to solve one problem and are able to apply it to another problem…My dream user is someone who actually listens to what I have to say.”

Obviously serving any sort of customer is never easy. It means that we have to provide products and services to customers, who may be annoying, rude, arrogant, and less than grateful. They may actually be a “bear” to handle, but it’s our job to deal with them gracefully and provide them top notch service. And so we shall, heads held up high.

Difficult IT Users and Enterprise Architecture

Presentation Style and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric Enterprise Architecture employs principles of communications and design, such as maximizing information visualization in making information products useful and usable to the end-user.

In ComputerWorld , 24 September 2007, Michael Hugos, a principal at the Center for Systems Innovation, presents “Five Diagrams Beat A Victorian Novel.”

The article states: “Consider two methods of collecting and presenting computer system specification [or apply this to presenting enterprise architecture] to users. One is far more likely to result in disastrous development projects plagued by miscommunication and users who are unhappy with the systems that are developed to them.” This disastrous method for presenting IT, Mr Hugos calls the ‘Victorian Novel’ is based on “text specifications for systems development [and] it simply mire readers in a swamp of boring words.”

This method uses Unified Modeling Language (UML)…”they rely on use cases that seem very rigorous yet manage to reduce everything-from trivial details to important processing logic—into a monotonous blur of text that few people can read for more than a minute or two. The only diversions from this text are some abstract charts. UML documents seem to purposely designed to confuse and disengage the typical business user.”

I do believe Mr. Hugos could be equally describing traditional EA “artifacts” that mire the users in eye sore diagrams that cover entire walls or fill boxes and are they typical architecture shelfware that defies general readability, usability, and do not meet end-user requirements for information that adds value!

Mr. Hugos goes on to describe his method for presenting IT information, which aligns beautifully with the User-centric EA approach.

He states as follows: “Instead, I use a method based on the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I use schematics and diagrams that give both business users and developers an easy way to understand the system under development [applies as well to EA].

Here are the five diagrams proposed:

1. Process flow diagram—excellent, get the processes ironed out before automating, and enable business process improvement and reengineering.
2. Logical data model—yes, capture the data requirements as the driver for the system solutions to serve up the information.
3. Screen Map—right on, provide the end-user a storyboard of screens that show how they will interact with the system; that is User-centric.
4. Systems architecture diagrams—nice, what is the technical infrastructure that underlies the system.
5. Software object model—not one that I am familiar with, but sounds like it supports systems interoperability. It “defines the processing logic for the custom code and the data interfaces between custom software objects and packaged software.”

The five diagrams that Mr. Hugos proposes “enable effective communication between business and technical people so the system that gets delivered meets user expectations”.

It is truly wonderful to hear about architecture diagrams that are not typical shelf-ware, that help meet user requirements, that add value, and that are based on sound principles of communication. All too often these areas of architecture development are overlooked and at great expense to the enterprise and the end-user!

Presentation Style and Enterprise Architecture

Leadership, Change, and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture is about planning, managing, and measuring change in an organization. To effect change requires true leadership, and this requires multiple skills.

In the book, The Leadership Triad by Dale Zand, three essential forces of leadership are presented—knowledge, trust, and power. These leadership forces guide constructive organizational change.

“Like three horses pulling a chariot, these forces, if coordinated and working together, provide a swift and exhilarating ride. But if one force is mismanaged or pulls against the others, the ride is bumpy and can end in disaster.”

Effective leaders integrate the three forces of knowledge, trust, and power to drive effective change and maintain efficient operations in their organizations: “They know what should be done, they have the trust of their people, and they use power appropriately:

1. Knowledge—“leaders know or can find out what should be done…they have vision and they know how to fulfill that vision. They set clear, challenging goals, and they know what needs to be done to reach the goals…they know how to gain access to the knowledge of others, and they know how to work with people to convert that knowledge into action.”
2. Trust—“people trust effective...leaders, giving them loyalty and commitment… [They] earn trust by disclosing relevant information, sharing influence, and competently using knowledge. They earn trust by fairness in their dealings with others—fulfilling the spirit of their agreements, sharing rewards and hard times and not abusing their power.”
3. Power—“leaders use their power appropriately. They know how to be directive or to delegate. They know how to review and evaluate constructively. They know how to be consultants, providing guidance rather than issuing commands.”

Why not just lead in a command and control fashion like in the military or law enforcement organization?

“The heroic fantasy of one person at the head of a column and followers shouting ‘charge’ as they mount the battlements is outdated. Instead leaders need to learn to use the sensing, searching, and thinking ability of all people within the organization.”

How are these leadership skills similar to those necessary for implementing enterprise architecture?

Knowledge, trust, and power are the cornerstones of an enterprise architecture program.

1. EA makes information transparent and provides information products to distribute knowledge and enable better decision-making. EA information is critical to decision-making, particularly in terms of ensuring sound IT investment management decisions, IT planning, analysis of problem areas—uncovering gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities--driving business process improvement, reengineering, and the introduction of new technologies to the organization.

“In the twentieth century society crossed…into the information age, marked by the emergence of the knowledge organization.”

“Competitive advantage in the information age is in constant jeopardy—knowledge is fluid, and creative thinkers leapfrog over existing knowledge.”

“Knowledge travels with the speed of thought, but can be blocked by the smallest emotional barrier. It can enlighten the entire organization’s operation, yet it can easily be concealed if people do not want leaders to see it. People throughout organizations continually acquire and create important, critical knowledge about customers, [suppliers], products, technology, costs, and competitors. But that knowledge can remain hidden and inaccessible to leaders. In the new world leaders need to liberate knowledge and creative thinking at all levels and in all corners of the organization. To compete, leaders need to move knowledge from where it is to where it can be used to define and achieve appropriate goals.”

EA helps to synthesize information and liberate knowledge to meet strategic goals.

2. EA is based on the trust of business and technical leaders and staff across the enterprise. EA synthesizes business and technology information. It relies on the trust of divisions, departments, and subject matter experts (SMEs) throughout the organization to share (and not hoard) information and build a results-driven, process-oriented, interoperable, standardized, cost-effective organization, rather than a siloed, ineffective one. In an EA-directed organization, siloed functions and management relinquish their own personal interests and perhaps, selfish motives and instead plan for the good of the overall organization. For example, decisions on IT investments are made based on enterprise priorities and cost-benefit-risk-architecture considerations, rather than who has the money to spend.

“Trust regulates the disclosure of information—how open people are with relevant information…trust regulates mutual influence—how receptive people are to each other’s goals and concerns, and trust regulates control—the intention to fulfill the spirit of a decision and willingness to rely on another person to implement her part of the decision.”

“Mistrust causes people to censor, delay, and distort relevant information. Social uncertainty compounds ambiguity, masks difficulties and deprives leaders of the opportunity to make high-quality decisions

3. The EA Board (chaired by the chief enterprise architect) ensures that proposed new IT projects, products, and standards align to and comply with the enterprise architecture. EA must have the power to mandate and enforce alignment and compliance or else the target architecture and transition plan is just a sham that will not yield enterprise results and achieve stated goals. Additionally, EA must have the ability to require SMEs to contribute regularly to the development, maintenance, and use of the EA. The business and technical SMEs are the owners of the EA content and must be partners with the EA team in ensuring that the architecture is kept current, accurate, and complete.

“Power is the ability to influence others so that they do or do not do something.”

“Leaders have legitimate power to determine the process by which decisions will be made.”

Knowledge, trust, and power are three dimensions of leadership that are the foundation for an effective EA program. EA ensures that the information needs of the organization are met in terms of business and technical baseline and target architectures and transition plans. EA relies on the trust of its organizational partners in the business and technical domains to share information and adhere to architectural decision and standards that are in the best interests of the overall organization, rather than any one individual, group, or function. And finally, EA requires the power to ensure alignment to and compliance with the architecture and the decisions of the architecture board or else EA is just a paper tiger and will fail.

Leadership, Change, and Enterprise Architecture

DoD Enterprise Architecture

In a world where information superiority can mean battlefield victory, enterprise architecture is critical to military transformation and execution.

Military Information Technology, 11 February 2008, reports “Enterprise Architecture: Key to Netcentricity.”

http://www.military-information-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=2328

Why is EA important in general:

“An actionable EA provides organizational leaders information sufficient to make enterprise plans, investment resource and management decisions, and to optimize key operational and support processes.”

Why is EA important to The Department of Defense?

The warfighter relies on information superiority to sense a threat, decide on a course of action, and execute faster than the enemy. This is not much different than survival in America’s Wild West years ago, by those who had the fastest [gun] draw.

Today, “The OODA [observe, orient, decide, act] loop is a 'sense and respond' cycle driven by actionable data and information for superior information management, battlespace awareness, and operational decision-making...when organizational components use rich and timely information, dramatically improved battlespace operations effectiveness can be realized…the single unifying approach that delivers the needed information and insight is enterprise architecture."

What is netcentricity?

Netcentricity or “network-centric operations (NCO) enables military forces to anticipate and adapt rapidly to changes in the environment such as enemy warfare tactics. NCO touches all aspects of department operations and, by integrating organizational networks and information, enables enhanced warfare operations effectiveness. NCO is enabled through dramatic changes in mindsets, processes, IT and access to information and networks.”

“An actionable EA is critical to the DoD realizing netcentric capabilities.”

“Unfortunately DoD is struggling to implement actionable EA. The General Accountability Office (GAO)…in 2006 found that the EA programs of the departments of the Air Force, Navy, and Army were among the four most immature EA programs within the government.

What does DoD need to advance their EA?

GAO found that “strong executive leadership could resolve all the challenges organizations experienced in developing and using actionable EA capabilities.”

Transformational leaders in DoD will provide the “vision, integrity, communication, inspiration, and empowerment.” And they “empower organizational members with human, material, and financial resources to accomplish the vision.”

EA cannot be achieved without management commitment and adequate resources!

What about the DoD leaders who say that EA cannot be implemented “because the organization is too complex”?

This thinking is sort of ironic, because EA is what captures information, analyzes and catalogues it, and serves it up to the end-users to enable better decision-making. EA is what simplifies information and makes it transparent enabling strategic transformation and the realization of netcentric capabilities.

EA is exactly what DoD needs for evaluating itself, planning its future state, and transitioning itself to achieve its goals of battlespace superiority through information superiority.

"Implementing an actionable EA capability can take up to five years and requires...[DoD leaders need to] focus on long-term performance improvements," through enterprise architecture implementation.

DoD Enterprise Architecture

Green IT and Enterprise Architecture

Green computing is the study and practice of using computing resources efficiently [from an environmental and energy perspective]. Typically, technological systems or computing products that incorporate green computing principles take into account the so-called triple bottom line of economic viability, social responsibility, and environmental impact. This differs somewhat from traditional or standard business practices that focus mainly on the economic viability of a computing solution. These focuses are similar to those of green chemistry; reduction of the use of hazardous materials such as lead at the manufacturing stage, maximized energy efficiency during the product's term of use, and recyclability or biodegradability of both a defunct product and of any factory waste. A typical green computing solution attempts to address some or all of these factors by implementing environmentally friendly products in an efficient system. (Wikipedia)

ComputerWorld, 4 February 2008, reports on “Tips for a Leaner, Greener Desktop: Energy efficiency isn’t just for the data center.”

“Although data centers may use more power per square foot, as a percentage of total power consumption, office equipment is the big kahuna...if you look at overall power consumption, you’re seeing almost double for computers and monitors than for data centers.”

“There were an estimated 900 million desktops in use worldwide in 2006…if all of that equipment met the 2007 Energy Star [a voluntary labeling program] 4.0 specification , power consumption would be 27% lower than it would be under 2006 guidelines.”

Here are a number of ways to architect green:

• Power management software—software like NightWatchman or LANDesk puts desktop computers and monitors “into power saving mode after a period of inactivity, overriding any personal setting….another product SMSWakeUp can ‘wake up’ those machines to deliver patches and updates after-hours and then shut them down again when the process is complete.”
• LCD monitors—“dump those CRTS replacing older computers and peripherals with Energy Star-rated equipment can save energy and space, and the decreased power consumption can significantly reduce the need for cooling in office areas. Start with CRT displays. ‘The biggest offenders are the monitors.’”
• Thin clients—“managed thin clients use 30% less energy than nonmanaged PCs...thin clients use less power and space, since they have no disk drives or fans, and the Windows session and applications run on the server.”
• Printing effectively—“Hewlett Packard Co, claims that the energy efficiency of its printers improve 7% to 15% with each new generation. Therefore, replacing older units with new, Energy Star-labeled models can cut costs by as much as 25%...printers are also getting smarter about when to go into low-power mode.” Another method to save energy and paper is to configure printers for duplex mode.

Green IT is good for enterprises and good for the planet. Enterprise architects can help make a difference with green IT solutions for their organizations.

Green IT and Enterprise Architecture

“Fair Trade or Free Trade” and Enterprise Architecture

What is the way ahead for free trade—further globalization and lost jobs for U.S. workers or isolationism and protectionism?

Fortune Magazine, 4 February 2008 reports that “economic anxiety has inspired a backlash against free trade…in the great game of global trade, Americans are increasingly feeling like the losers.”

How did we get to this advanced state of global trade?

“Americans led the works in building a roadmap for global commerce during the 1990’s” with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) “linking the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to create the world’s largest trade bloc.”

Why are Americans reeling from free trade?

“68% of those surveyed say America’s trading partners are benefiting the most from free trade, not the U.S. The sense of victimhood is changing America’s attitude about doing business with the world. We are a nation crawling into a fetal position, cramped by fear. That America has lost control of its destiny in a fiercely competitive global economy. The fear is mostly about jobs lost overseas and wages capped by foreign competition. But it is also fueled by lead-painted toys from China and border-hopping workers from Mexico, by the housing and credit crisis at home, and by the residue of vulnerability left by 9/11 and the wars that followed.”

“We are turning inward. Especially now, as the U.S. economy sputters…median household income in 2006, at $48,201 was barely ahead of where it was eight years earlier. So the prospect of a recession has made the anxious middle class even more so.”

“Most analysts agree that the underlying reason for public anxiety over globalization is the visibility of factory closings and the stagnation of income.

What is the result of the backlash against free trade?

“Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans are willing to pay higher prices to keep down foreign competition.”

With the upcoming presidential election, “the Democratic mantra is now, ‘fair trade, not free trade.’”

“Most Democratic leaders insist they don’t want to, nor believe they can, halt the global flow of commerce. Where they hope to connect with voters is by promising to strengthen the safety net.” This includes special training programs, tax incentives for companies to relocate to where workers have lost jobs, and expanding unemployment benefits.

I agree that we cannot retrench into isolationism, although a little protectionism sounds about right and fair. We need to architect our nation’s role in global trade, so that we are not running huge trade deficits, losing valuable jobs to overseas workers, and buying shoddy products from overseas.

Enterprise architecture is about identifying the baseline and setting a target and transition plan. Well the current baseline, as outlined, is ruinous for the U.S. economy. The target is clearly a more strategic trade policy that protects our vital economic industries, interests, and workers. And the transition plan is to establish the laws and policies to change our wayward direction and quickly.

Finally, businesses must look beyond the quarterly financial statements and daily stock prices of their companies and instead establish longer-term targets that focus on retaining strategic assets and know-how at home here in the U.S., rather than trade it away for a quick buck on the quarterly income statement.

“Fair Trade or Free Trade” and Enterprise Architecture

Bathroom Etiquette and Enterprise Architecture

Every facet of our lives can be enhanced with automation and technology.

The Wall Street Journal, 15 February 2008 reports “Restroom Décor: Germy Doorknobs Inspire Inventors.”

Many people are wary of germs and their disease spewing effects, and no place more so than in public bathrooms (germs “can survive on surfaces for hours or days”).

“A few years ago, after using a filthy gas-station bathroom strewn with soggy toilet paper, Mathew Fulkerson dried his hands under a wall-mounted blower. Then he realized he was trapped: How to leave without touching the door handle?”

The user requirement is clear here; the technology solutions creative (although some are simply using the “pinky pull”, foot pull, or grasping the handle with a paper towel or toilet paper):

• L-shaped handles—the SantiGrasp “can be pulled with the forearm or wrist” for $124.
• Sensors—the Sanidoor opens with the wave of a hand at a cost of $1000 installed.
• Sprays—the HYSO (hygienic Solutions) is a “canister installed above the door handle that sprays it with disinfectant every few minutes…the solution dries instantly.”
• Ultraviolet lights—“Sanihandles, a door connected to a pair of ultraviolet lamps that kills germs.”
• Doors that open out—these can be pushed with the shoulder or butt; “last year Massachusetts state Rep. James Vallee introduced a bill on behalf of a constituent that would require all public-bathroom doors to open outward.”

Is there really a need for these elaborate bathroom solutions?

“In an August 2007 study, study sponsored by the Soap and Detergent Association and the American Society for Microbiology, 34% of males observed in public bathrooms across the country didn’t wash their hands; 12% of females didn’t wash up.”

Are hygienic EA solutions user-centric?

They sure are. “Hygiene is a big seller. There are now antimicrobial bedsheets and bacteria-killing carpets. Last year, American Standard introduced a toilet with an antimicrobial coating that suppose to last indefinitely. At Busch’s a supermarket chain in Michigan [and at many others like Trader Joe's], stores have disinfecting wipes near the shopping carts that people push around.”

William Schaffner, vice president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases says that “It’s good to be clean, but one can become obsessive” He says that he doesn’t avoid touching doorknobs, but I for one don't believe him.

Bathroom Etiquette and Enterprise Architecture

Craigslist and Enterprise Architecture

“Craigslist is a centralized network of online communities, featuring free classified advertisements (with jobs, internships, housing, personals, for sale/barter/wanted, services, community, gigs, resume, and pets categories) and forums on various topics.”

Here’s some basic stats on Craigslist:

• Founded in 1995 by Craig Newmark for the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Incorporated as a private for-profit company in 1999.
• Operates in approximately 450 cities in 50 countries.
• Operates with a staff of 24 people.
• Estimated annual revenue as high as $150 million in 2007.
• Sole source of revenue is paid job ads in [11] select cities [and apartment listing in NYC].
• Over nine billion page views per month, putting it in 56th place overall among web sites worldwide, ninth place overall among web sites in the United States, to over thirty million unique visitors.
• Over thirty million new classified advertisements each month, Craigslist is the leading classifieds service in any medium. The site receives over two million new job listings each month, making it one of the top job boards in the world. (Adapted from Wikipedia)

Craig has taken basic website technology and revolutionized the business of classified advertising, and for the most part making it free of charge!

Why is Craigslist such a success?

I believe it is because of Craig Newmark’s almost complete adherence to user-centric enterprise architecture principles.

Here are some examples of this:

• User Focus-- “In December 2006…Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster told Wall Street analysts that Craigslist has little interest in maximizing profit, instead preferring to help users find cars, apartments, jobs, and dates.” (Wikipedia)
• Customer-driven—“People suggest stuff to us, we do what makes sense, and then we ask for more feedback,” says Craig Newmark.
• Customer-service—Craig Newmark’s official title is founder and customer service representative. When asked where Craig sees Craiglist in five years, he states: We always need to improve customer service. For example, we need better tools to detect and remove spam listings.”
• Rejected annoying banner ads—“At the end of 1997, [we] hit a million page views a month. Then the folks at Microsoft Sidewalk wanted to run banner ads on the side, and at market rates, that would be all the money I needed to live. [But] I figured…I don’t need the money, and many banner ads are pretty dumb.”
• Technology-enabled—“We’re just starting. We have to improve technologies, like multicity search.”
• Culture of service—“We think we have a really good culture of trust and that’s because…we have stood by some core shared values. The fundamental value is that we feel you should treat people like you want to be treated.”

The only non-user-centric EA aspect of Craigslist is the quirky look and feel of the site, which is white, mostly text-based. As Craig acknowledged, “someone said our site has the visual appeal of a pipe wrench.”

(Adapted from ComputerWorld Magazine, 4 February 2008)

If Craigslist would take the leap and make the site more visually appealing, I believe we have a User-centric EA winner!

Craigslist and Enterprise Architecture

Small Is In and Enterprise Architecture

Remember the saying, “good things come in small packages?” In enterprise architecture big is out and small is in. This applies not only to the obvious consumer electronics market, where PDAs, phones, chips, and everything electronic seems to be getting smaller and sleeker, but also to the broader computing market (such as the transition from mainframe to distributed computing) and even to the storage device market.

The Wall Street Journal, 10 January 2008, reports that Mr. Moshe Yanai “was responsible for one of IBM’s defeats in the 1990’s, “when he designed the computer storage disks for EMC Corp. that displaced IBM’s in the data centers around the globe.”

How did Mr. Yanai do this?

He did this by going small. “One point of the architecture is simplicity of management of data…with his architecture, you just add more pieces.”

In creating Symmetrix disk drives, Mr. Yanai developed storage drives that were “cheaper, faster, and more reliable than IBM drives…he pioneered a technology called RIAD-short for redundant arrays of inexpensive disks—that linked dozens of the kinds if disk drives used in PCs together to cheaply provide the same storage capacity as refrigerator-sized drives from IBM. Raid technology has since become a standard throughout the storage industry.”

The small disk drives of EMC beat out the big drives from IBM, jus like the PCs (of Dell and HP) beat out the mid-range and mainframes computers of IBM.

Mr. Yanai, a one time Israeli tank commander, is a User-centric enterprise architect. He recognized the needs of his users for smaller, cheaper, and faster devices and he delivered on this. Moreover, Mr. Yanai put the customer first not only in terms of product design and development, but also in terms of customer service. “Mr. Yanai was known as an expert engineer who also could talk to customers and solve their problems. Mr. Yanai put telephones in each storage device and programmed them to ‘phone home’ when it sensed a part was in danger of failing.”

While Mr. Yanai was removed from his top engineering role at EMC, his company XIV corp. has been bought out by IBM and “locked up” his services. IBM may be a little slow (due to its size—a lumbering giant), but they are not poor or stupid and they can buy the competition. Anyone remember Lotus Corp?

From a User-centric EA perspective, the small and agile often wins out over the large and stodgy. It is a lesson thousands of years old, like the biblical tale of David vs. Goliath, when little David defeats the monstrous Goliath. Small is nimble and big is cumbersome. This is the same thing the U.S. military has found out and is converting to smaller, more agile, and mobile forces. EA needs to do the same in focusing on smaller, faster, cheaper computing devices and on simpler, more streamlined processes. Small is truly bigger than big!

Small Is In and Enterprise Architecture

Fashion, Technology and Enterprise Architecture

I was a little surprised to read a blog in MIT Technology Review online from 31 January 2008 about “the melding of technology and fashion.”

What was surprising to me was not the concept that technology could be used to enhance fashion, because certainly we would expect that technology would enable faster, better, and cheaper processes for manufacturing garments, and perhaps even aid the development of garments from new high-tech materials that can protect from sunlight, remove sweat and odor, or wear better, last longer, and protect the wearer from any and all hazards (fire retardant, bullet proof, maybe even crash resistant).

However, this particular blog was not about any of those things. Rather, the blog was about “wearable technologies” demonstrated at the Seamless: Computational Coulture fashion show.

What types of fashion technologies are we talking about?

1. Shape-changing dresses
2. Music-playing sweaters
3. Jackets that display text messages with light emitting diodes
4. Glow in the dark clothes made from organic solar cells
5. Skirts that use kinetic energy to power gadgets
6. Rings that “display a wearer’s Google hits”
7. Shirts that “reflects Wi-Fi strength

The end of the blog states, the fashion show was “entertaining and electrifying.”

The blog acknowledges that “many of these designs will never reach the market.” Yet, even the very concept of many of these wearable technologies seems useless, if not outright silly. And maybe that’s the point, silly gets attention and that is what fashion designers want.

From a User-centric enterprise architecture perspective give me the Star Trek uniform that can be worn in any weather, atmosphere, or on any planet in the solar system and I call that high-tech fashion. Beam me up Scotty.

Fashion, Technology and Enterprise Architecture

Information Integrity and Enterprise Architecture

We are in an information economy and now more than ever business needs information to conduct their functions, processes, activities, and tasks.

To effectively conduct our business, the information needs to be relevant and reliable. The information should be current, accurate, complete, understandable, and available.

Information integrity is essential for enabling better decision-making, improving effectiveness, and reducing risk and uncertainty.

However, according to DMReview, 8 February 2008, “information within the [corporate] data warehouse continues to be inaccurate, incomplete, and often inconsistent with its sources. As a result, data warehouses experience low confidence and acceptance by users and consumers of downstream reports.”

“The Data Warehousing Institute estimates that companies lose more than $600 million every year due to bad information.”

What are some of the challenges to information integrity?

1. “Complex environments, [in which organizations] constantly generate, use, store, and exchange information and materials with customers, partners, and suppliers.”
2. “Accelerating change in the business environment [and] changing needs of business users”
3. “Increasing complexity of source systems and technology”
4. “Expanding array of regulations and compliance requirements”

“Change and complexity introduce information integrity risk. Accelerating change accelerates information integrity risk. Compliance makes information integrity an imperative rather than an option.”

What are the particular challenges with data warehouses?

1. Questionable input information—“Several source systems feed a data warehouse. Data may come from internal and external systems, in multiple formats, from multiple platforms.”
2. Lack of downstream reconciliation—“As information traverses through the source systems to a data warehouse, various intermediate processes such as transformations may degrade the integrity of the data. The problem becomes more acute when the data warehouse feeds other downstream applications.”
3. Inadequate internal controls—these include controls over data input, processing, and output, as well as policies and procedures for change management, separation of duties, security, and continuity of operations planning.

From an enterprise architecture perspective, information integrity is the linchpin between the businesses information requirements and the technology solutions that serves up the information to the business. If the information is no good, then what good are the technology solutions that provide the information to the business? In other words, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO)!

As enterprise architects, we need to work with the business and IT staffs to ensure that data captured is current, accurate, and complete, that it is entered into the system correctly, processed accurately, and that outputs are distributed on a need to know basis or as required for information sharing purposes, and is protected from unauthorized changes.

Using business, data, and systems models to decompose the processes, the information required for those, and the systems that serve them up helps to identity possible information integrity issues and aids in designing processes that enable quality information throughput.

Additionally, security needs to be architected into the systems from the beginning of their lifecycle and not as an afterthought. Information confidentiality, integrity, availability, and privacy are essential for an information secure enterprise and for information quality for mission/business performance.

Information Integrity and Enterprise Architecture

IT Governance –Value Creation and Accountability

IT governance is something people tend to have a love/hate relationship with. They love it because they know they need it and will benefit from it; but they hate it because they don’t want to do it and be bound by it.

It sort of reminds me of the old TV show, The Little Rascals, when the mother “makes” her kid take the spoonful of awful tasting castor oil because it was good for him. And what a face the kid would make as that spoon glided into his mouth, and then a big smile would emerge.

DM Review, 8 February 2008, reports that enterprises are “Getting Serious about IT Governance.”

Here’s why IT governance is growing in importance:

1. Growing IT expenditures—“Worldwide IT spending has grown 5 percent to 8 percent in recent years and will approach $3 trillion for 2007”
2. IT project troubles—“IT project failures, security breaches, and compliance snafus are still abundant. Gartner estimated that more than $600 billion has been squandered on ill-conceived or poorly executed projects. And according to Standish Group, only 30 percent of projects are considered successful.”
3. Money won’t solve the problem—“Simply pouring more money into IT won’t necessarily fix a company’s problems or mitigate its risks.”

IT governance is a two-fold endeavor:

1. Value creation—“IT governance is about balancing the interests of investors and stakeholders by focusing resources on the creation of value…if the mission of IT is to provide systems the business wants, it is equally important to provide systems the business actually needs.”
2. Accountability—“IT governance is the system by which IT is directed and controlled. It should address the roles and responsibilities of groups and individuals…articulate the rules and procedures for making IT decisions, and provide a structure through which IT objectives are set, attained, and monitored.”

In the Federal IT Investment Management (ITIM) process for Capital Planning and Investment Control, value creation and accountability align well with the phases of Select-Control-Evaluate for IT investments.

• The Select phase supports value creation. It involves the selection of projects based on a combination of the following factors: alignment with mission/business strategy, highest return on investment, lowest risk, and alignment to and compliance with the enterprise architecture.
• The Control phase supports accountability. It involves monitoring and managing IT projects for cost, schedule, and performance parameters. Projects that deviate from their targets risk being reorganized, downsized, or entirely phased out.
• The Evaluate phase supports both value creation and accountability. It is the evaluation of whether IT projects meet their intended performance goals. This provides lessons learned for future IT project selections and for controlling their steady progress, as well as holding accountable the project sponsor and team for their IT project.

IT Governance –Value Creation and Accountability

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Enterprise Architecture

Microsoft offers to buy Yahoo for $44 billion—brilliant play or stupid move?

Some say it’s a brilliant move:

According to techcrunch.com, a combined Microsoft/Yahoo would be a technology behemoth and have $65 billion in revenue, $17.6 billion in profit, 90,000 employees, and 32.7% of the U.S. search market share.

Yahoo owns semi-valuable assets like Flickr, a photo sharing site and del.icio.us, a social bookmark site.

Others say it’s a stupid move:

1. Microsoft/Yahoo would still seriously trail Google’s U.S. search market share of 58.4%!
2. Other corporate acquirers, like Oracle, generally profess acquisitions only if it enables a clear #1 market position like it is with data warehouse management, business analytics, human capital management, customer relationship management, and contract lifecycle management.
3. Fortune Magazine, 18 February, 2008, says “Microsoft is paying too dearly for Yahoo.” Fortune asks “What exactly is Microsoft buying here? Technology? Yahoo has been managing a declining asset since Google invented a better way to do search…Technologists? Talent has been fleeing Yahoo Central since Terry Semel got there…a let’s not even talk about the clash of cultures that such a merger will create.”
4. Yahoo has made serious management missteps, such as backing out of a deal to buy Facebook in 2006 at a $1 billion bargain (Facebook was recently valued at $15 billion) and botching the acquisition of YouTube and losing out to Google.

Fortune concludes:

1. “Microsoft is buying an empty bag.”
2. “Yahoo will be Microsoft’s AOL” (comparing a Microsoft/Yahoo acquisition to the failed AOL/Time Warner one).
3. Microsoft should abandon the acquisition, unbundle itself from search, Xbox, and Zune, and instead focus on improving its core competency, the operating system.

From a User-centric Enterprise Architecture perspective, it’s an interesting dilemma: should companies (like Microsoft) diversify their products and services, similar to the way an individual is supposed to responsibly manage their financial investments through broad diversification in order to manage risk and earn a better overall long-run return. Or should companies do what they do best and focus on improving their core offering and be #1 in that field.

Historically, I understand that most mergers and acquisitions fail miserably (like AOL/Time Warner) and only a few really succeed (like HP/Compaq). Yet, companies must diversify in order to mitigate risk and to seek new avenues to grow. As the old saying goes, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” The key to successfully diversify is to architect a #1 market share strategy, like Oracle, acquire truly strategic assets like Compaq, and not overpay like with Yahoo and AOL.

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Enterprise Architecture

Love and Enterprise Architecture

Valentine’s Day is a celebration of love. For thousands of years, people have demonstrated their deepest expressions about love through intimacy, romance, gifts, song, poetry, and other personal and cultural expressions.

There is an interesting question though about love—what makes certain people (and animals) able to keep love alive and stay monogamous, while others not? Is there a architecture, so to speak, for love?

The Wall Street Journal, 8 February 2008, reports that “neuroscientists are probing why some married couples can maintain the spark for years.”

“Most couples find that the dizzying, almost-narcotic feeling of early love gives way to a calmer bond.” Yet, others seem to be able to maintain a “lifelong passion” and moreover grow their love over time.

My father always said something that I believed was profound about love; that with your life’s partner, the joy in life is twice the joy, and the sorrow, half the sorrow.

According to “one sociological study of marital satisfaction at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Penn State University [that] kept track of more than 2,000 married people over 17 years, average marital happiness fell sharply in the first 10 years, then entered a slow decline.”

Yet, other couples remain in love and full of passion over their lives and this has been confirmed using magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the brain.

What’s really interesting is that lifelong coupling is not only endemic to many people, but also to certain species of animals from the prairie voles to gray foxes, gray-headed albatross, pygmy marmosets.

A neuroendocrinologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago has found a hormonal link in animals for lifelong mating with Oxytocin, “the love hormone.”

“There is much work ahead before scientists can map the human-attachment system and learn what factors affect it.”

So can love be architected?

Over the years many have tried to architect love through matchmakers, forced marriage, the largess of the dowry, and even through the fabled love potion.

However, at its essence, love is a deep emotion that manifests itself in human behavior, thinking, and feeling. While manifestations of love are visible to scientists using brain scans, and maybe even through endocrinology, ultimately love is an expression of the hearts of two people for each other.

Love and Enterprise Architecture

The Paperless Society and Enterprise Architecture

For years, we’ve all heard the promise that technology will soon make us a paperless society—but it hasn’t!

In the book, Sacred Cows Make The Best Burgers, by Kriegel and Brandt, the authors state that “most people’s desks look like they’ve been hit by a paper avalanche.”

Have things gotten better or worse?

Kriegel and Brandt state that between 1983 and about 1996, “shipments of paper actually increased by 51%.”

Further, they state that “a vice president of a major telecommunications company showed us a study that...on average, people got over 90 hours’ worth of “stuff” to read each week! And only 20 percent of that was electronic...the same study showed that despite all the advancements in information technology, the amount of paper received today had not been reduced from ten years ago.”

Do we need all this paper?

Absolutely not. “50 percent of a company’s paperwork could be eliminated without the slightest disruption to business.”

In fact, the authors recount a telling story about how a courageous manager and his/her employees slowly eliminated parts of a costly, time-consuming detailed 10 column monthly report they put together for the management committee, by first eliminating some columns and then more and more until finally they produced only 4 key columns quarterly. Instead of the management committee complaining, no one even noticed anything was missing (the columns or later the monthly report), until after a number of months, the CEO congratulated them on their good work with the new clear and simple quarterly report.

What has the government done to reduce paperwork?

• Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, “one of the principal requirements of the PRA is that organizations must have OMB approval before collecting information from the public (such as forms, general questionnaires, surveys, instructions, and other types of collections).” (http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/reqs_bestpractices/laws_regs/paperwork_reduction.shtml)

• Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 2002 “requires that, when practicable, federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filing, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public, by 2003.” (http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/reqs_bestpractices/laws_regs/gpea.shtml)

What should we do in our organizations to reduce the paperwork?

According to Kriegel and Brandt, if paperwork doesn’t “add value to the customer, increase productivity, or improve morale,” then it should be eliminated.

From a User-centric EA perspective, we need to ask our users and stakeholders if they really need or want the paperwork we’re giving them, and if not we need to update our business processes and enable technology solutions to eliminate the legacy paper-based solutions. To some extent this is occurring already, in other cases, it is not. The more we become an information-based society, the more we need and crave information and some people don’t trust the technology or simply want a hard-copy to read or for their records. Paper is not a bad thing. It is a tried and true method of recordkeeping and communication, but when we have so much that we cannot even keep up with it, then it’s definitely time to reevaluate our true needs and go a little easier on our environment. Why chop down all those trees, for reports, proposals, print-outs, and projections that often just end up, unread in the round file (i.e. the garbage) anyway?

The Paperless Society and Enterprise Architecture

Internet Apocalypse and Enterprise Architecture

It is the 21^st century and we are a nation dependent on everything internet. We rely on the internet for communications, like email, text messaging, and even voice over IP. We also use the internet for getting news and information, social networking, storing and sharing blogs, videos, music, and photos, accessing various applications, shopping, and conducting financial transactions.

What happens if the internet is attacked or otherwise fails us?

This is the question asked in ComputerWorld, 21 January 2008: “If the internet goes down will you be ready?”

ComputerWorld states: “It’s likely that the internet will soon experience a catastrophic failure, a multiday outage that will cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars. Or maybe it isn’t likely. In any case, companies are not prepared for such a possibility.”

The Business Roundtable says: “The threat is ‘urgent and real.’ There is a 10% to 20% chance of a ‘breakdown of the critical information infrastructure’ in the next 1o years brought on by ‘malicious code, coding error, natural disaster, [or] attacks by terrorists and other adversaries.’”

What will be the effect of a major internet interruption?

“An internet meltdown would result in reduced productivity and profits, falling stock prices, erosion of consumer spending, and potentially a liquidity crisis.” It would disrupt our everyday ability to communicate, get and share information, work and conduct transactions. And let’s not forget the effect on the human psyche—there would be chaos.

Why have we not prepared ourselves adequately?

The Business Roundtable says that “business executives often fail to realize how dependent they have become on the public network—for email, collaboration, e-commerce, public-facing and internal Web sites, and information retrieval by employees.”

Where are we most vulnerable?

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) says that “the Internet is pretty robust at the physical layer. There are just too many alternate paths available. But the Internet is not so robust at other layers.” Hence, the risk of operating system failures, penetration by worms, and denial of service attacks.

Is there any reason for optimism?

The CIO of Yuma County, Arizona, reminds us that the Internet “having been based on the Arpanet [from DoD] and designed to keep functioning when pieces are broken, it seems less likely that the entire Internet would stop working.”

What can enterprises do to prepare for the worst?

Of course, all organizations need to fully address security concerns in terms of managerial, operational, and technical controls.

They need the best and brightest security personnel.

Additionally, they need to perform regular risk assessments, vulnerability testing, intrusion detection and prevention, back-up and recovery.

They need to have strict access controls, security awareness training of employees and contractors, and an IT security policy.

Our organizations need a comittment to continuity of operations planning (COOP).

ComputerWorld points out that the financial services sector is out in front in making preparations Here’s some of the architectural preparations that financial companies have undertaken:

• Dedicated networks—“set up dedicated networks independent of phone companies.”
• Guaranteed diverse routing—“negotiate more aggressively with communications companies to guarantee diverse routing.”
• Geographic dispersal—“separate data centers and communications centers more widely geographically.”

In general, enterprises need “diversity and redundancy” of communications.

Most importantly, we need to recognize the risks out there and prepare, prepare, prepare.

Internet Apocalypse and Enterprise Architecture

“National Innovation Strategy” and Enterprise Architecture

I believe most people would say that the United States is one of the most innovative countries in the world. And this in no small way has led to immense wealth creation for the people of this nation collectively.

If you think about most of the modern day conveniences we have, I believe the vast majority were innovated right here in the good ‘ol US of A. For example, think internet, computer, automobile, airplane, and so on.

Nevertheless many have argued that our innovativeness and engineering prowess has declined over the years.

One interesting news blog on CNET on 7 February 2008 calls for the need for a “national innovation strategy,” to get us out from being “stuck in ‘incrementalism.’”


The author, a former Harvard Business School professor, gives a number of reasons that we should be concerned about our innovativeness:

1. Inadequate public education system—this one is not new; people have complained for years about the state of public education in this country. And while the No Child Left Behind initiative has helped, the system is still not where it should be. As the author states, “the U.S. public education system does not adequately prepare students.”
2. Federal grant system—“inconsistent priorities and lacks funding.”
3. Overseas opportunities—“there are more opportunities for students and scientists in places outside the United States.”
4. Fewer doctorates (and engineers)—For example, “Finland has twice as many Ph.D.’s per capita as the U.S.”
5. It’s a free for all—“different countries have different models, ranging from heavy government direction like Finland, to the U.S. style ‘let ‘er rip” system that relies on bottom-up innovation…a better model is a hybrid that involves many parties, including government, academia, business, and entrepreneurs.”

While I agree that we face many problems in retaining our edge in innovation, I do believe that at heart we are a nation of innovators. And this is founded in republicanism, liberty, capitalism, and our market economy, where we are taught from birth that anyone can be anything (even the President of the United States).

Moreover, I have never seen a dearth of good ideas being talked about, but rather the shortage is perhaps more in the ability to execute on those than in the creative process itself.

Enterprise architecture is itself a discipline founded in creativity, and hence the structure of defining the baseline, looking outward and establishing a target state, and planning the transition. This does not have to be about incrementalism, but can in fact represent true enterprise innovation.

“National Innovation Strategy” and Enterprise Architecture

Adding Value and Enterprise Architecture

What is the value-add of enterprise architecture?

In Architecture and Governance Magazine, Volume 4 Issue 1, an article entitled, “Architecture Planning” addresses this issue.

The author proposes that EA must find a balance between the necessity to “build and populate an EA framework with the effort to provide effective project support.”

With the wrong balance of these, the author, states: “you end up with an ivory tower [initiative] that delivers no value, or with a project support service that makes project-level architecture decisions rather than taking into account the enterprise perspective.”

The article sums up: “to reiterate, the architecture plan needs to meet two objectives. One, deliver an EA; two, deliver value to projects.”

From my perspective, the two objectives presented are not accurate. It is not a choice or balance between building EA or adding project value—never! Rather, it is always about adding value.

EA is never done for EA’s sake. That is not an objective.

Everything that EA does is to add value—either by fulfilling insight or oversight needs of the organization.

1. Insight—EA provides valuable information products to end-users in terms of business and technical information. EA captures, analyzes, catalogues, and provides findings and recommendation, which is used to aid IT planning and governance, and decision-making.
2. Oversight—EA provides valuable governance services by conducting architectural reviews of IT projects, products, and standards, thereby enabling sound IT investment decisions and more successful project delivery.

The article proposes that the organization should “initiate two streams of work. One identifies the framework within which enterprise-level information will be captured and shared, and the second focuses on identifying the key areas of need for projects…[i.e.] the need to provide real value to projects”

However, I would suggest that the two streams of work are not developing the EA framework and the need to provide “real value” to projects, but rather that the EA program develop both information products and governance services--simultaneously, both of which benefit the end-users and add value to the enterprise.

Further, the information products and governance services are mutually reinforcing. Technical reviews, conducted as part of the governance services, feed valuable information to the EA information products. And information products are used to conduct the architectural reviews by providing the basis for aligning to and complying with the EA baseline, target, and transition plan.

Adding Value and Enterprise Architecture

Virgin Group and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA establishes the baseline architecture, identifies user requirements, establishes a target architecture, conducts a gap analysis, and develops a transition plan to move from the baseline to the target. In some organizations, these steps are distinct, clear, and sequential; in other enterprises, the transformation occurs more fluidly and in parallel.

Virgin Group is an example of the second type of User-centric EA.

“Virgin, a leading branded venture capital organisation, is one of the world's most recognised and respected brands. Conceived in 1970 by Sir Richard Branson, the Virgin Group has gone on to grow very successful businesses in sectors ranging from mobile telephony, to transportation, travel, financial services, leisure, music, holidays, publishing and retailing. Virgin has created more than 200 branded companies worldwide, employing approximately 50,000 people, in 29 countries. Revenues around the world in 2006 exceeded approx. $20 billion.” (http://www.virgin.com/)

Virgin is run by Richard Branson, a very dominant and visionary leader, who enables the rapid and fluid transformation of Virgin from one initiative to the next. Virgin is constantly identifying new opportunities and going after their targets, and they are not afraid to fail. Failure is viewed as part of being an innovative organization that seeks out new targets, ways of doing business, and new ventures.

The Wall Street Journal, 6 January 2008, provides an enlightening interview with Richard Branson with a callout of a quote as follows: “We’re not afraid of occasionally falling flat on our face.”

“Big-think is part of Mr. Branson’s M.O,” and transformation from current to target architectures is second nature for him.

“When he started Virgin Atlantic Airways, he was a 30-something music exec, and everyone thought he was crazy, including his own board of directors…eventually, Virgin Records, his first business, was sold to help support the growing airline… [and] the sales of his record company in 1992 came at the best possible time, just before the traditional music industry headed into a downward spiral that continues to this current day.”

Baseline architecture to identifying target architecture and successfully through transition—mission accomplished!

How is this enterprise architecture? Branson is planning and executing almost in parallel. He synthesizes business and technology and transforms his current organization to ever-greater endeavors.

For example, Virgin Group is now initiating “Virgin Galactic,” which “plans next year to begin taking tourists to the edge of space in a special aircraft.”

Now with the global credit crisis, Branson and Virgin are again on the EA prowl. They’ve identified Northern Rock (a UK mortgage lender) for possible acquisition. As Branson states, “In times of strife, there are certainly opportunities.”

Branson has set his sights on many other ventures—business, environmental, and philanthropic. In 1994, he launched Virgin Cola, going head-to-head with Coke. Recently, Virgin has committed $100M to their Green Fund for investment in alternate energy. “This year, he launched a service of health workers riding around on motorbikes in Africa to help build an elephant corridor in Kenya.”

Virgin is open to tackling the most difficult of problems. These include: finding ways to incentivize countries not to cut down rain forests, and creating massive inland lakes in Africa and Asia to deal with rising sea levels to prevent flooding and cool the earth, and fertilize deserts. These also include helping to counter climate change, and even, through a group called the Elders, to tackle world peace.

No target or plan is too big or far-fetched for Virgin, and it undertakes change with fluidity and grace. Virgin identifies the needs and opportunities to make a difference, establishes its target, and works creatively to transition to the target and achieve its goal. Failure at the margins is acceptable as long as the aspirations and successes loom large.

Virgin Group is a good example of EA performed fluidly and with great success.

Virgin Group and Enterprise Architecture