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?

Murphy’s Law and Enterprise Architecture

Murphy's law is an adage in Western culture that broadly states that things will go wrong in any given situation, if you give them a chance...It is most often cited as "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong" (or, alternately, "Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way”)...The saying is sometimes referred to as Sod's law or Finagle's law which can also be rendered as "Anything that can go wrong, will—at the worst possible moment". (adapted from Wikipedia)

Well Murphy’s Law is pretty pessimistic and ominous, but I guess for those of us who are old enough to have lived through some of life’s up’s and down’s (and Murphy’s Law would probably say they’re mostly downs), then the adage is not only meaningful, but also a cautionary tale for how we conduct ourselves.

No, It’s not about being paranoid or schizoid or any of those things.

But probably more a big “WATCH OUT!” or “KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN!” sign plastered along the bumpy, curvy road of life.

One of my old pals has a spin of Murphy’s Law (although I don’t think he see it quite that way) that goes like this: “Man plans and G-d laughs.”

As a manager, I see Murphy’s Law as part of good program and project management. It’s about planning, planning, and more planning (sustained and determined), with plenty of risk management built in as you execute and deliver to the customer on behalf of the enterprise.

But even with planning and risk management, you can never cover every eventuality. What you can do is try to prevent or avoid certain risks, mitigate others, and accept the ones you can’t avoid or mitigate. Pretty much, simple as that.

User-centric EA is a process for the enterprise to plan and manage risk—all those inherent in Murphy’s Law. EA does this by formulating, documenting and communicating where the organization is at, where it is headed, and how it is going to try and get there. Furher, it vets these plans with leaderhip and subject matter experts, builds consensus, and drives positive, incremental change. EA helps the organization adapt to changes internally and externally. EA is a bulwark against the law of “anything that can go wrong, will.”

Murphy’s Law and Enterprise Architecture

Microsoft and Enterprise Architecture

Microsoft—with 79,000 employees in 102 countries and global annual revenue of $51.12 billion as of 2007—is the company every consumer loves and hates.

On one hand, Microsoft’s products have transformed the way we use the computer (yeah, I know Apple got there first, but it’s the Microsoft products that we actually use day-to-day). Everything from the Microsoft operating system, office suite, web browser, media player, and so on has made computers understandable, and useable by millions, if not billions of people around the world. The positive impact (excluding the security flaws and pricing) has drastically made our lives better!

On the other hand, Microsoft is a “near-monopoly” with estimated 90%+ market share for Office and Windows O/S. Near-monopolies, like Microsoft are feared to stifle competition, reduce innovation and consumer choice, and drive up prices.

Microsoft has been convicted by the European Commission of having “improperly bundled a media player with its Windows operating system and denied competitors information needed to make their computers work with Microsoft software…fines and penalties could reach…$2.77 billion. “EU officials praised the decision…for protecting consumers.” While “Microsoft backers said, the ruling will stifle innovation by making it tougher to design products with new features.” Additionally, “the EU is reviewing complaints about Microsoft’s Office Software and concerns over how Microsoft bundled encryption and other features in its new Vista operating system.” (Wall Street Journal, 18 September 2007)

From a User-centric EA perspective, there is a similar love-hate relationship with Microsoft. As architects, we believe and preach standardization, consolidation, interoperability, and integration—all things that Microsoft’s array of products help us achieve ‘relatively’ easily (imagine, if instead of an integrated Office Suite, as well as mail, calendar, task list, and underlying operating system, we had to use an array of non-integrated products-yikes!). However, also as architects, we look to be able acquire innovative technology solutions for our organizations that will help us achieve superior mission performance, and to acquire products at prices that produce the best value for the enterprise—to achieve that we need a marketplace based on healthy competition that drives innovation and price competition.

So we love and need Microsoft, but we fear and loathe the ramifications of such market dominance.

Microsoft and Enterprise Architecture

Leetspeak and Enterprise Architecture

Leetspeak is the new online language of the internet world, where words are misspelled (based on striking neighboring letters to the correct one) or symbols or numbers substitute for similar-looking alphabetical letters. So for example, leetspeak could be written as 133t 5p34k.

The Wall Street Journal, 23 August 2007 reports that “leetspeak stemmed partly from wanting to find faster ways to express themselves online. As with other forms of jargon, it also enhanced a sense of belonging to a community.”

Leetspeak, as the new lexicon for the hip and cool of the internet generation, represents a way of communication faster and expressing oneself better (although many would say this is actually worse) in the sense that you do not limit yourself by grammar, capitalization, or punctuation.

In User-centric EA, lexicon is a critical component of developing an enterprise architecture. The basis for information discovery, exchange, and overall sharing is that there is a common lexicon that we use with common definitions and standards for usage. Metadata (or data about data) helps us develop these standards to facilitate information architecture. So while leetspeak is cool and maybe convenient, I think even some of our super computers may have a hard time deciphering it.

So do you think there a place in EA for leetspeak?

Leetspeak and Enterprise Architecture

Competitive Advantage and Enterprise Architecture

Competitive Advantage—“When a firm sustains profits that exceed the average for its industry, the firm is said to posses a competitive advantage over its rivals. The goal of much of business strategy is to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.”

“Michael Porter identified two basic types of competitive advantage:

• Cost advantage
• Differentiation advantage”

“A competitive advantage exists when the firm is able to deliver the same benefits as competitors but at a lower cost (cost advantage), or deliver benefits that exceed those of competing products (differentiating advantage). Thus, a competitive advantage enables the firm to create superior value for its customers and superior profits for itself.”

Cost and differentiation advantages are known as positional advantages since they describe the firm’s position in the industry as a leader in either cost or differentiation.” (quickmba.com)

In User-centric EA, the target state and transition plan in a for-profit, private sector company should be one that develops competitive advantage for the organization and thereby superior profitability. This is done either through business process reengineering/improvement or through technological differentiation. In technological differentiation, information technology solutions are adopted that align to business needs and help it to create either cost or differentiation advantage. IT is used to create cost efficiencies through automation or to developing differentiation advantage through the development of products that are more technologically advanced than its competitors. In essence, the organization employs cutting-edge technology to leap over its competitors in terms of cost or product.

In not-for-profit organizations or government, EA target state and transition plan does not set the stage for competitive advantage in terms of delivering superior profits, but rather in terms of delivering superior value to its stakeholders. Again, either business process or technology enhancements can help the enterprise develop the superior value. Additionally, there is not the same notion (if any) of competition (i.e. so ‘competitive advantage’ should really be more just ‘advantage’—to the enterprise and stakeholders—without the ‘competitive’ in it).

In any case, competitive advantage in terms of continuous improvement vis-a-vis efficiency and effectiveness of mission execution, and performing better, faster, and cheaper on behalf of stakeholders is the end game.

Competitive Advantage and Enterprise Architecture

Performance Metrics and Enterprise Architecture

In User-centric EA, we are focused on delivering value to the end-user, and to do this we measure and track our performance results to ensure that we are meeting EA program and end-user goals.

In general, you can’t manage, what you don’t measure.

In User-centric EA, we measure both program and product metrics.

• Program metrics—measures of the major program areas in EA; these include development, maintenance, and use of architecture products and governance services. Examples of program measures includes: information products developed per time period, total information products under maintenance (‘the maintenance burden’), and under usage—EA system reviews conducted at the agency, Product and Standard reviews conducted at the agency, end-user information requests fulfilled, departmental decision requests supported, external data call responded to, EA website hits, and so on.
  
• Product metrics—measures of the amount of data (functions, information objects, systems, technologies, etc.) and their attributes in the EA products and repository; this is used to understand that breadth and depth of the architecture information being provided to end-users and to ensure that it is the ‘right’ information in terms of its scope to enhance decision-making. Additionally, the product measures help understand the general complexity of the information areas, and the challenge of maintaining them and keeping them relevant in terms of currency, accuracy, and completeness.
  

One of the perspectives or views of information in the EA is performance measures for the enterprise. EA is not only the repository for those corporate measures, but EA itself develops and uses performance measures to ensure that it is meeting enterprise goals and end-user requirements.

Performance Metrics and Enterprise Architecture

Organizational Awareness and Enterprise Architecture

In User-centric EA, we are focused on the end-user and that means that we are not only aware of the needs of the end-users, but that we are organizationally aware as well. This situational awareness includes an understanding of the actors as well the formal and informal structures they play in and the influence they wield.

The Wall Street Journal, 21 August 2007 reports that “one of the competencies in every study of outstanding leaders is their degree of organizational awareness—reading the informal networks, like influence in the organization.…misreading the choke points, sources of influence, or all of those whose rings need kissing, can spell disaster.”

The chief enterprise architect is responsible for identifying the baseline and establishing the target and transition plan. Setting targets and establishing transition strategies that will really be adopted by the organization (and hence really work) requires a keen sense of the organization, the stakeholders, and the networks (formal and informal).

You can't just plop a plan down and say “here it is, follow it!” Instead, the plans and strategies must truly reflect the people of the organization, their needs and requirements, and be accepted by its power brokers at all levels.

Organizational Awareness and Enterprise Architecture

Stretching Leadership to the Limits and Enterprise Architecture

The Wall Street Journal, 13 September 2007 reports as follows: “This has been a tough year for Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co. Accustomed to accolades for his bold approach to corporate turnarounds, Mr. Ghosn of late has endured criticism for slumping profits at both companies, sliding U.S. sales at Nissan, and persistent doubts that even a man of his prodigious energy can run two sprawling auto companies.”

From a User-centric EA approach, we are always looking for opportunities to fill gaps, reduce redundancies, improve processes, and fulfill user requirements. Often mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are viewed by the financial markets as an excellent way to accomplish one or more of these—as we often see the stocks of companies rise after an M&A announcement. Why does this happen? Because the two companies together form a kind of new target architecture that creates synergy as follows:

• Filling in each other’s gaps (they complement each other)
• Allowing them to consolidate operations and reduce overhead (where they overlap)
• Using the best engineering prowess from each to improve processes
• Better meeting customer requirements with a broader product set and greater customer reach.

Does a leader that spans across two companies, like Carlos Ghosn produce similar results like in M&A or are we simply stretching the ability of a leader beyond human means?

The answer is yes and yes. While the two companies have seen benefits from having the same leader for example, “Noting recent moves by Nissan and Renault to jointly develop engines and to expand car production in merging markets, Mr. Ghosn added, ‘all these synergies are facilitated by having a common CEO.’” On the other hand, “some industry analysts have questioned his decision to try and lead two car companies simultaneously.”

Like a rubber band holding these two car companies together, the question is will the rubber band hold and see the companies through to achieve the benefits of some degree of M&A or will the rubber band break because of the strains of leadership going too far.

Stretching Leadership to the Limits and Enterprise Architecture

A Real-Life Example of Enterprise Architecture at Work

The Wall Street Journal, 13 September 2007 reports that “the House and Senate are working on legislation that over the next seven years would phase out the conventional light bulb, a move aimed at saving energy and reducing man-made emissions believe linked to climate change.”

“The U.S. which has four billion electric lights using such bulbs, represents about a third of the world market. Installing more-efficient incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs would save abut $6 billion a year in energy costs.”

“General Electric Co., and Philips Electronics NV of the Netherlands and other manufactures have been meeting with conservation and environmental groups and say they are close to agreement on the general terms of a phaseout.”

“GE and the other two big light bulb makers, Philips and Osram Sylvania, also are looking at light emitting diodes, or LEDS as new sources of residential lighting. ‘We’ll fill in any gaps with other technologies’ says Earl Jones, says senior counsel for GE’s consumer-and-industrial unit.”

I read this and thought what great example of User-centric EA at work:

• The baseline architecture is the incandescent bulb.
• The user requirement is for more energy efficient and lower polluting electric lighting.
• The target architecture is to go to more-efficient incandescent or fluorescent bulbs.
• The transition plan is to phase in to phase in the new and phase out the old over the next seven years.
• Our partners and stakeholders are working together to make it happen.
• Future needs are being addressed through the development and evaluation of new technologies beyond the said target (i.e. EA is a cycle of baseline, target, and transition which is ongoing).

Now that’s the way to do User-centric EA!

A Real-Life Example of Enterprise Architecture at Work

SOA – Does the Emperor Have Clothes?

Architecture and Governance Magazine, Volume 3 Issue 3, reports that one of the Top 10 Challenges in Enterprise Architecture is “Getting Ready for Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)”.

- Why is SOA proving to be such a challenge?

The article reports that “most architects have not done much of either substance or significance in this area.” Further, “most of what enterprise architects have addressed in this space concerns aligning IT with the business and governance”—and this is something that EA has been doing all along anyway.

- So what has SOA changed?

“What has changed is the promise of abstracting services that can be reused.”

However, some have questioned SOA:

1. Is SOA “just a revival of modular programming (1970s), event-oriented design (1980s), or interface/component-based design (1990s)”?
2. Is SOA “just another term for Web Services”?
3. Is SOA “merely an obvious evolution of currently well-deployed architecture (open interfaces, etc.)”? (Wikipedia)

Others have questioned if SOA and EA are even distinct disciplines?

“So, has SOA in fact evolved into EA? A to question to which the answer is yes and no." The author continues, “essentially there are three evolutionary paths:

1. EA is absorbed by SOA
2. SOA is absorbed by EA
3. EA / SOA merge into a new concept”

Finally, the authors propose #3 merging EA and SOA as follows:

“SOA-A+EA = SOEA”

With the conclusion that “in order to create this holistic view EA and SOA must not be seen as separate disciplines, but to see the two as one will bring changes on such a scale that we are now talking about SOEA Service Oriented Enterprise Architecture.” (Journal of Enterprise Architecture, August 2007, Rasmus Knippel and Bo Skytte)

While the authors apparently seems to think SOA is important (although they call it "increasingly more abstract"), the relationship to EA is changing and unclear—Not sure this idea about SOEA is helpful at this juncture!

- How helpful to SOA development is the guidance from the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Service Reference Model (SRM), which talks about services and capabilities?

Not very! The SRM is supposed to “provide a high-level view of the services and capabilities that support enterprise and organizational process and applications.” (FEA, SRM). However, the service domains, service types, and capabilities listed in the FEA SRM are quite muddy, at best. Here is an example:

• The domain of Process Automation is defined as “the set of capabilities that support the automation of process” [hasn’t every 5^th grader been taught not to define a term with the same term?]
• And it continues “and management that assists in effectively managing the business” [well that is a pretty broad definition— can’t all services assist in effectively managing the business?].
• Then after the definition, you’re expecting some pretty extensive process automation services, but the SRM lists just 2 components:

1. Tracking and Workflow (which includes capabilities like case management [what’s that doing here?] and conflict resolution [isn’t that a leadership skill set?])
2. Routing and Scheduling, which includes just Inbound and Outbound Correspondence Management [so where the scheduling piece like calendaring or time management that one normally associates with scheduling and how does the routing as in Routing and Scheduling reflect the routing inherent in Tracking and Workflow category above—seems like some category overlap]

I’ll let you look at the SRM yourself to see evaluate the clarity of the other categories, but they are pretty much the same. Ok, I can’t resist, here’s one more:

• The domain called Business Management Services, after the domain of Process Automation, actually has a service type in it called management of process {why isn’t this in the process automation domain?].
• The other service types in this domain include Organizational Management [that includes workgroup/groupware and network management, huh?]
• And Investment Management [ok]
• And Supply Chain Management [which includes things like procurement, Warehousing, and Inventory Management— so why isn’t this part of back office services, like Finance, Human Capital, and Asset/Material Management?]

If this looks confusing, you’ve got my point, it’s because the FEA SRM is confusing.

- So what’s an enterprise architect to do?

Architecture and Governance Magazine says, “enterprise architects need to take back the high ground here—and that must be done in 2007…today’s enterprise architect must re-engage with all the principals in the enterprise by making a case for seeing service and technology architectures as one.”— this is good advice, I suppose, but also more than a little vague!

I’ve seen a bunch of presentations (including a recent one from Department of Education) where EA has tied IT services (pretty much their IT portfolio) to requested business capabilities—again it seems pretty much like what EA is or should have been doing all along, aligning business and technology investments with a focus on reducing gaps, redundancies, and inefficiencies.

I’ve seen other people including some prominent computer and consulting vendors present this topic as well, and aside from pushing there wares, have seen them fall all over themselves tying to define and explain SOA. Honestly, it was pathetic!

Finally, I have seen one impressive implementation at a government agency, and it did actually have savings associated with it, but the application was done a few years back, was relatively small, and there has been little to no movement on further SOA development since (except for the purchase of an enterprise service bus) even though there is a mandate in this agency to implement SOA.

In fact, at a recent meeting with the business side from operations, the presenters said that they were going to spend oodles of money rewriting one (if not the) major operational application for the agency (over 1.2 million lines of code and growing) to make it .NET compliant. I asked the business if they were going to take this opportunity to do this using SOA, and they said no, they just want the same functionality as before!

So in the end, if the business doesn’t want it and the vendors and consultants can’t explain it, the final question with SOA is does the emperor really have clothes?

SOA – Does the Emperor Have Clothes?

Tower of Babel and Enterprise Architecture

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech…and they said, go to, let us build us a city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven…and the Lord said…the people is one and they have all one language, and this they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do…[and he] confounded their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from then upon the face of all the earth.”

Am amazing story from the Torah (Bible)!

As an enterprise architect, some lessons that are striking to me are the following:

• LEXICON: When everyone has a common language or lexicon (something we strive for in EA), “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”—i.e. with a common enterprise lexicon, data standards, and mechanism for discovery and exchange, we can do great things and our imagination is the limit.
• EA PLANNING: When everyone functions together (“the people is one”) to undertake a tremendous task (such as building a city and a tower), they can really get things going. As the adage states: there is power in numbers. From an enterprise architecture standpoint, when the enterprise is unified in its planning and governance, they can achieve amazing business and technical feats.

A major question that I am left with is…

Why is G-d displeased when people work together, communicate (the same language), and undertake to follow their imagination (have a vision) and achieve great things (“build a city and a tower”)?

From a religious didactic stand point, I understand that G-d wants us to be humble and not think that we have any real power to take on these tasks without him! And that we have to recognize and worship him (where all power and vision ultimately comes).

From a User-centric EA perspective, the ideals of unifying the organization towards common business and technical plans, goals, standards, solutions, lexicon, and so on, helps us build a better, stronger organization that can achieve great things (as long as we always remember that we are doing HIS bidding).

Tower of Babel and Enterprise Architecture

Adam Smith and Enterprise Architecture

Adam Smith, known as “The Father of Economics”, is best known for his "laissez-faire" economic theory. Smith believed in the right to influence your own economic progress freely, without the puppet strings of guilds and/or the state. His theory caught on and changed much of Europe into a free trade domain, allowing the emergence of the entrepreneur. Smith's work helped to build the foundations of free market economics that includes:

• Capitalism (an economic system in which the means of production—land, labor, and, capital—are privately owned and operated for profit, and in which production and distribution of goods and services are determined through the operation of a ‘market economy’—free markets and free pricing system)
• Libertarianism (belief that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property)
• Free Trade (trade in goods and services between or within countries flow unhindered by government) (Adapted from Wikipedia)

“Smith laid the intellectual framework that explained the free market and still holds true today. He is most often recognized for the expression "the invisible hand," which he used to demonstrate how self-interest guides the most efficient use of resources in a nation's economy, with public welfare coming as a by-product. To underscore his laissez-faire convictions, Smith argued that state and personal efforts, to promote social good are ineffectual compared to unbridled market forces.” (lucidcafe.com)

Here’s the User-centric EA question…

Based on Adam Smith’s framework for an efficient free market unencumbered by the state, how are we to view enterprise architecture planning and governance “hindering” the organizational end-users from making the ‘best’ choices for what systems, products, and standards they want to purchase or use? Based on Smith’s notion of "laissez-faire", doesn’t the end-user know best? And won’t they make the most efficient use of corporate resources? Why does EA ‘interfere’?

The answer is…

The end-user does know best and we do need to let them ‘guide’ decision-making. However, there is a difference between letting them guide decisions and pursuing their own interests completely unimpeded. We do not have to use a great amount of imagination to recognize the wasteful spending on redundant solutions, stove-piped data and applications, and inefficient processes that would exist.

• Taken to an extreme, if all users in the enterprise would purchase and implement whatever business and technology solutions they desire, without any form of governance what-so-ever, you would have total chaos!

So the User-centric EA view is that we put the user front and center in the decision process. We work diligently and ongoingly to understand user requirements. And as architects, we work to satisfy those requirements by rationalizing them, enforcing enterprise standards, developing enterprise solutions, and looking out for the greater good of the enterprise. This is the great EA balancing act!

Adam Smith and Enterprise Architecture

Building a Winning Team and Enterprise Architecture

To build a winning team for developing and maintaining a successful User-centric EA program, there are 7 key positions:

1. Chief Enterprise Architect (CEA)—The CEA is the executive responsible for leading the enterprise architecture program; the CEA has the vision and the ability to communicate and execute on that vision.
2. Requirements Manager—The requirements manager is the individual who is responsible for understanding the users’ requirements for EA information, planning, and governance.
3. Solutions Manager—The solutions manager is responsible for developing EA products and services to fulfill (superbly) the requirements of the end-users.
4. Configuration Manager—The configuration manager maintains the relevancy of the EA products by ensuring they remain current, accurate, and complete.
5. Communications Manager—The communications manager markets and communicates all EA products and services, and is responsible for end-user training and outreach.
6. Technical Writer—The technical writer produces EA product textual content for all EA communications media (such as the website, printed handbook, policy, practices, and so on)
7. Graphic Designer—The graphic designer creates innovative visual and graphics displays for EA products, especially profiles (high-level, strategic views of the EA) and models (mid-level EA views that show relationships of processes, information flows, and system interoperability.

Of course, there are many others on the EA team that contribute to its success, including all the architects, analysts, planners, and data specialists.

Together, the 7 key positions and various specialists develop the organization’s User-centric EA and focus on helping the organization execute its mission and generating value to the enterprise through information, planning, and governance.

Building a Winning Team and Enterprise Architecture

Getting People to Use Enterprise Architecture

There is a terrific white paper from the National Institute of Health (NIH) called Enterprise Architecture: Engaging and Empowering People while Creating Opportunity for Change.

NIH conducted a qualitative research study involving 15 users to understand how user behave and work in order to identify opportunities to foster adoption of EA.

First, NIH identified a clear mandate to not only develop and maintain EA, but for its end use:

“Enterprise Architecture (EA) is a critical part of IT strategy in any organization. However, just defining enterprise architecture doesn’t bring its true value of efficiency to the organization nor support for the organization’s strategic objectives. In the EA Assessment Framework 2.0 published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in December 2005, three capability areas, Completion, Use, and Results are defined as primary objectives of every government agency’s EA program. It is clear that EA is not just an assignment for CIOs to document architecture standards for the agency—for the future value to be realized, it must be used to achieve results.”

Second, NIH identified 3 user segments that are each looking toward the architecture for satisfying different needs. (While the study views all three segments as belonging to EA, I believe that only the first is EA, while the other two are segment and solution architecture.)

• Trend Finders—want to know “where we are going?” They are interested in understanding the current and future business and IT landscape. (I believe this equates to enterprise architecture and its focus on developing the as-is, to-be, and transition plan.)
• Fit Seekers—want to know “Does it fit my projects?” They want to find a solution for the project. (I believe this equates to segment architecture and its focus on developing solutions at the line of business (LOB) level.)
• Fixer-Doers—want to know “How to make it work?” They want to build, maintain, or support a project. (I believe this equates to solutions architecture and its focus on developing technical project solutions for the end-user.)

While the study posits that user segments are not mutually exclusive and that users can actually evolve from one segment to another (and of course this is possible in some cases), I believe that generally speaking the segments do represent unique architecture perspectives in the organizations (enterprise, segment, and solutions architectures as defined in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Practice Guidance, December 2006).

In summary, architecture users are looking to understand the big picture (the EA and IT strategic plan), justify decisions (develop segment architectures that are ‘justified’ by aligning to and complying with the overall EA), and make it work (develop solutions architecture using technical details from the enterprise and segment architectures).

User-centric EA can satisfy the various segment needs by following the opportunities identified in the study to improve EA use. These are as follows (modified to more accurately represent what I believe is their correct application to users.)

For trend seekers/EA:

• Show the big picture—high-level, non-technical information about the EA (this equates to EA profiles) and the direction of overall business and IT initiatives (this is the business, EA, and IT strategic plans)
• Provide access to the source—ways to find more information and points of contact

For fit-seekers/segment solutions:

• Lead to the right information—clear guidance through understandable nomenclature and information structure

• Provide proof—through IT investment Review Board and EA reviews that include findings and recommendations.

For fixer-doers/solutions architecture:

• Give specifics for immediate help—through more detailed EA models and inventories as well as SDLC job aids.

For all:

• Share and enhance—capture performance metrics on EA program and products, especially use of EA information and governance services.

At the end of the day, EA needs to fulfill user’s requirements and empower them to leverage use of the information and services.

Getting People to Use Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Architecture Filters the Technology Landscape

User centric EA helps to filter out those technologies that seem “new and cool”, but are often really quite useless to the enterprise.

In the Wall Street Journal, 17 August 2007, it is reported that of the more than 442,000 new patent applications filed in the U.S. last year, few of them qualify as a success (i.e. those that sell 100,000 units or more).

The fact that few new innovations are actually successful is one reason that EA must filter out the ‘good’ ones from the ‘bad’ ones.

Any modern day organization can be easily inundated with evaluating the fast and constantly changing technology landscape (especially one where innovations number in the hundreds of thousands annually). It is the role of EA to help manage the governance process for approving new IT systems, products, and standards, and for developing the target and transition plan to phase in organizational change in a structured and deliberate manner.

Of course, the organization cannot afford to purchase, incorporate, and maintain every new technology "toy" that its employees identify in either IT magazines or trade shows or from vendors making cold calls. Rather, new technology investments need to be closely aligned with the mission, and be prioritized for best value results.

Enterprise Architecture Filters the Technology Landscape

The Peter Principle and Enterprise Architecture

The Peter Principle—Formulated by Laurence J. Peter, the Peter Principle states that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." More generally speaking, anything that works will be used in progressively challenging applications until it causes a disaster (i.e. ‘The Generalized Peter Principle’).”

How does the Peter Principle work?

“The Peter Principle's practical application allows assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion based on performance in the current job, i.e. members of a hierarchical organization eventually are promoted to their highest level of competence, after which further promotion raises them to incompetence. That level is the employee's ‘level of incompetence’ where the employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching his or her career's ceiling in an organization…One way that organizations attempt avoiding this effect is to refrain from promoting a worker until he or she shows the skills and work habits needed to succeed to the next higher job. Thus, a worker is not promoted to managing others if he or she does not already display management abilities.” (adapted from Wikipedia)

The Peter Principle demonstrates various human capital issues in the organization that range from performance management to leadership development. While there are no simple answers, there is clearly a need to focus on these issues and for them to be included as part of overall enterprise architecture planning and governance. Perhaps (a far-fetched idea, although one that the military successfully uses) promotions—like new IT systems, products or standards—would be managed through a human capital review board that would catch some of these faulty promotions before they turn into disasters for the employees and the organization.

Let’s add a Human Capital Perspective to the FEA:

To clarify, EA is not only a technology function but is a business function, and as part of the business function, I am calling for the addition of a human capital perspective to the Federal Enterprise Architecture!

Further, while some erroneously consider EA an information or documentation endeavor, it is much more than that—it is a planning and governance mechanism for the organization. And to effectively plan and govern (to execute on mission and achieve success), EA must include a human capital perspective, since people are our organization’s most valuable asset.

In User-centric EA, issues like how to mitigate negative effects of the Peter Principle could be addressed with the addition of a human capital perspective (see usercentricea.blogspot.com posting for 29 July 2007), which would deal with the many behavioral, cultural, and managerial issues regarding human capital facing the enterprise.

A Human Capital perspective to EA would include the following types of information:

• Professional and management development
• Leadership development
• Succession planning
• Performance management
• Skills management
• Training
• Team building
• Labor relations
• Recruiting
• Retention
• Morale

I encourage and call for the adoption of a human capital perspective to the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA).

The Peter Principle and Enterprise Architecture

Segway and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA is based on business driving technology, rather than technology for technology’s sake.

An example of technology for technology’s sake:

Segway today is an example of technology for technology's sake: The basic model has no weather protection or ability to carry family members or luggage. It is innovative and seems like it has a lot of untapped potential, but as of now, has not been aligned with the needs of its potential users.

Requirements should come first.

From a User-centric EA approach, rather than starting with hundreds of new technology patents, Dean Kamen the founder of Segway and his organization should have started with an ethnomethodological study of individual and social mobility and the requirements for the individual and society for transporting people and property under various environmental and personal situations.

There is an important place for innovation.

Mr. Kamen and Segway have developed some innovative and helpful technology: Segway has helped in the energy efficient and personal mobility marketplace. Segway has especially helped disabled people with its amazing stairclimbing technology. So certainly, there is a place for pure innovation and creativity by the engineering community, like the approach Segway has pursued. However, for Segway, the market penetration and potential for benefiting greater numbers of people remains somewhat at a distance.

In contrast to Segway’s pure engineering approach, in User-centric EA, innovation is critical, but user requirements are primary!

Segway and Enterprise Architecture

Culture of Merit and Enterprise Architecture

While User-centric EA is focused on the user and meeting their requirements, user-centric EA is not for a culture of entitlement in the organization.

• Meeting user requirements is driven by the relative merit of those requirements and ultimately, their value to the enterprise.
  

In the book, Up Your Business by Dave Anderson, the author states that to achieve organizational excellence, we need to "replace your culture of entitlement with a culture of merit."

• In general, while equity and fairness in the workplace is a core value, organizations can only thrive in a culture of merit.
  

For organizations to achieve excellence, they must foster an environment that promotes and rewards excellence:

• Entitlement equates to mediocrity; merit equates with excellence!
  

In User-centric EA, requirements are fulfilled based on their merit and alignment to mission, and individuals are motivated and rewarded based on merit, contribution, and the achievement of results.

Culture of Merit and Enterprise Architecture