Disaster Preparedness and Enterprise Architecture

There are several disaster preparedness exercises that test and train our government and private sector partners’ ability to respond to incidents that could have catastrophic consequences. These exercises can be supported by a robust enterprise architecture; here is a brief description followed by a sketch of how EA can support disaster preparedness.

TOPOFF

“Top Officials (TOPOFF) is the nation’s premier terrorism preparedness exercise, involving top officials at every level of government, as well as representatives from the international community and private sector. Thousands of federal, state, territorial, and local officials engage in various activities as part of a robust, full-scale simulated response to a multi-faceted threat.” [Exercises have tested responses to chemical, biological, and radiological attacks.]

(http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179350946764.shtm)

Cyber Storm

“The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) successfully executed Cyber Storm, the first national cyber exercise Feb. 6 thru Feb. 10, 2006 [and a second biennial exercise was conducted in March 2008]. The exercise was the first government-led, full-scale cyber security exercise of its kind…Cyber Storm was designed to test communications, policies and procedures in response to various cyber attacks and to identify where further planning and process improvements are needed.”

(http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1158340980371.shtm)

Government Computer News, 14 April 2008 reports on the Cyber Storm II exercise in which DHS “hosted federal, state, local, and international government agencies along with more than 40 private-sector companies” in these “high-stakes war games.”

Carl Banzhoff, the vice president and chief technology evangelist at McAfee summed it up as follows: “when the internet burns to the ground, how are you going to get updates?”

“The goal was to test communication coordination and partnerships across sectors.”

Bob Dix, the vice president of government affairs at Juniper Networks said that “the greatest impediment to sharing information still is trust.”

Whether the preparedness tests are for terrorism or cyber security, the essence is to test our ability in preparing, preventing, responding, and recovering from security incidents. This involves building capability for uninterrupted communications, information sharing, and coordinated response.

How can enterprise architecture support disaster preparedness?

1. Requirements—EA can capture strategic, high-level requirements from mission areas across the many functional areas of homeland security and weave these into a core map of capabilities to build to. For example, we have a requirement for system security that is mandated by law and policy, and securing our communications and infrastructure is a core capability for our information systems that must be executed. The weakest link in security has the potential to jeopardize all components and their response capability.
2. Planning—EA analyzes problem areas and uncovers gaps, redundancies, inefficiencies, and opportunities and uses these to drive business process improvement, reengineering, and the introduction of new technologies. Improved business processes and enabling technologies can enable integration, interoperability, standardization, modernization, and information sharing that can enable a better prepared homeland security infrastructure. For example, identifying shared mission communities and building information sharing and collaboration among stakeholders in these improves our preparedness abilities.
3. Governance—EA brings the various stakeholders to the table to vet decisions and ensure sound business process improvement and IT investments. Governance involves sharing information, building trust, and making decisions towards a unified way forward. For example, through the DHS Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB), the CIOs of all components can collaborate and engage in developing targets that will lead to implementation of best practices and standards across the Department that will improve overall efficiency of all components.

Of course, EA is not the be-all and end-all for preparedness, but it provides critical elements of requirements management, planning, and governance that contributes to disaster preparedness.

Disaster Preparedness and Enterprise Architecture

Fear, Greed and Enterprise Architecture

Fear and greed can have a huge influence on our decision making processes. Rather than making rational, informed decisions, we are driven by fear and greed and herd mentality to do stupid things.

Irrational decisions driven by fear and greed are the antithesis of rational, well-thought out decisions driven by enterprise architecture planning and governance.

In an interview with Fortune Magazine 28 April 2008 (and on a day of teaching students from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business), Warren Buffet stated: “when people panic, when fear takes over, or when greed takes over, people react just as irrationally as they have in the past.”

Similarly, in The Wall Street Journal 18 April 2008, an MIT financial economist, Andrew Lo, stated: “You have to understand the mechanism of how fear and greed impact market decisions.”

Fear and greed are affected by our endocrine system. According to Andrew Lo, “for better or for worse, biochemistry makes money go to our heads. ‘We need to understand that physiological aspects of brain behavior really impact financial decisions.”

Testosterone is the hormone that makes us irrationally exuberant, confident and greedy, and another hormone, cortisol, causes us to feel fear and gloom.

Do these hormones and the resulting emotions we feel impact our decisions and behavior?

Your bet!

“Among males and females, testosterone is a natural component in the chemistry of competition…it enhances persistence, fearlessness, and a willingness to take risks. Among athletes it rises in victory, and falls in defeat. “

Endocrinologists have identified “the ‘winners’ effect,’ in which successive victories boost levels of testosterone higher and higher, until the winner is drunk with success—so overconfident that he can no longer think clearly, assess risk properly or make sound decisions.” On the opposite side of the spectrum, “too much cortisol, secreted in response to stress, might in turn make them overly shy of risk.”

In the face of fear and greed, decision making is impaired and becomes irrational. Decisions are no longer driven by the facts on the ground or by judicious planning or sound governance that comes with disciplines like enterprise architecture. Instead, people become slaves to their hormones and emotional effects.

In Fortune Magazine, Warren Buffet warned against falling into the fear/greed trap of decision making. He stated: “I always say you should get greedy when other are fearful and fearful when others are greedy. But that’s too much to expect. Of course [at a minimum] you shouldn’t get greedy when others get greedy and fearful when others get fearful.”

Rather than optimizing decision making, our fears and greed destabilize our ability to think clearly and rationally. When this happens, we need to rely more than ever on our enterprise architecture target and plans and on our governance processes, so that we stay focused on our goals and path to them and not be sidetracked by, as Alan Greenspan stated, “irrational exuberance” or irrational fears.

Fear, Greed and Enterprise Architecture

Requirements Management and Enterprise Architecture

Requirements management is critical to developing enterprise architecture. Without identifying, understanding, and rationalizing the organization’s requirements, no meaningful enterprise architecture planning can occur.

“The purpose of Requirements management is to manage the requirements of a project and to identify inconsistencies between those requirements and the project's plans and work products. Requirements management practices include change management and traceability.”

Traceability is the identification of all requirements back to the originator, whether it be a person, group, or legal requirement, or mandate. Traceability is important to ensure alignment of end products with the origination of the requirements, prioritization of requirements, and determining requirements’ value to specific users. Traceability should ensure that requirements align to the organization’s mission (intended purpose) and its strategic plan. (Wikipedia)

How is requirements management done?

1. Stakeholders—identify program/project stakeholders.
2. Requirements—capture, validate and prioritize stakeholder requirements.
3. Capabilities—analyze alternatives and plan for capabilities to fulfill requirements.
4. Resources—ascertain resource needs for capability development
5. Activities—perform activities to develop the capabilities to meet the requirements.
6. Measures—establish measures to demonstrate requirements have been met.

How does EA bridge requirements and capabilities?

Enterprise architecture captures strategic requirements—high-level mandates or needs. It uses this to establish an integrated set of functional requirements areas or cross-cutting categories of requirements. These drive strategic capability development to meet mission needs and achieve results of operation. Strategic capabilities are reflected in the enterprise architecture in the target and transition plan. This is used to evaluate proposed new IT projects, products, and standards to ensure that they align to and comply with the EA.

EA is the glue that binds sound IT investment decision making to strategic requirements and technical alignment.

Requirements Management and Enterprise Architecture

Port Security and Enterprise Architecture

[This Blog is based entirely on public information and represents my views alone and not those of the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, or other Federal agency.]

Maritime and port security is critical to this nation, particularly after the events we witnessed on 9-11.

The largest border for the United States is our coastline at 95,000 miles. Moreover, there are approximately 361 major ports (according to the Council on Foreign Relations). Securing the maritime border is the purview of the United States Coat Guard (USCG), for which I have the privilege to work, and securing the ports is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Justice, and state and local law enforcement.

National Defense Magazine, April 2008, reports that “under project SeaHawk [a pilot project], port security officials during the past three years have developed the software, sensors, and communications infrastructure needed to maintain a 24/7 watch on this regional port [Charleston, S.C.]—the sixth largest in the United States.”

From an enterprise architecture perspective, the keys to the success of SeaHawk are business process integration, information sharing and collaboration.

“Before SeaHawk it wasn’t uncommon for the different agencies with jurisdiction in the port to duplicate their efforts, said CAPT Michael McAllistar, Coast Guard sector commander and Charleston’s captain of the port. “’My boarding teams would run into Custom’s boarding teams at the bow of a ship.’ Today, boardings are carried out in a more efficient manner that allows the different agencies to make better use of their limited resources.”

The Safe Port Act of 2006 calls “for the creation of similar operational centers at ‘high priority’ ports by October 2009.”

National Defense Magazine identifies the many components comprising the successful architecture for port security:

• Advance Notice of Arrival— provides the captain of the port the information of ships due to arrive, their cargo, and their people 96 hours in advance.
• Automated Identification System (AIS)—“is a beacon that transmits the ship’s identity and bearing.”
• Radar—tracks the ship as it approaches.
• Law Enforcement Dossier—law enforcement—USCG, CBP, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—compile a dossier that identifies whether any of the crew have criminal records, “whether a ship recently changed ownership or flags, and whether it has been caught with contraband before.”
• Risk Analysis—vessels of interest are color coded and tracked and decisions are made whether to conduct a boarding by USCG and/or CBP or “dispatch CBP canine units that specialize in either drugs or explosive detection.”
• Cameras—“as the ship approaches the port, it is captured by long- and medium-range electro-optical and infrared cameras.”
• Hawkeye System—“combines the data from cameras, radar, and AIS into a common operating picture [COP]. If the ship suddenly veers off course that would raise a red flag.
  
• Wall of Knowledge--“like most modern operation centers, all these cameras, sensors, and tracking systems are displayed on a series of monitors spread across a wall”.

According to the article, one of the architectural challenges is standardizing the technologies and business processes for the various ports, given the challenge that “each port is different” in terms of geography and law enforcement risks (for example, some ports, like Charleston, emphasize port security while others, like in Florida, have a higher risk factors for drugs and illegal immigration). SeaHawk has been successful in this standardization with an 85% solution—“the information software portal has already been adopted by the Coast Guard’s captains of the ports.”

In the future, we can all look forward to seeing SeaHawk rolled out to other major ports, enhancing the security of our nation.

Port Security and Enterprise Architecture

Don’t Get Put Out To Pasture and Enterprise Architecture

When an organization and its people don’t meet the needs of their users, they are sidelined; users will get their needs met elsewhere. It’s the nature of competition and the free market. And as enterprise architects, we need to make sure that our organizations are always meeting our users’ needs. The target architecture must reflect changing consumer tastes, needs, desires, and requirements.

The Wall Street Journal, 29-30 March 2008, reports that in India, milkmen, who used to be respected and productive civil services, have been put “out to pasture.”

In Mumbai, 300 milk delivery drivers show up for work each day, only to sit idle for their eight hour shifts—they read, nap, or play cards or sudoku. “The state government lost its monopoly on milk and consumer tastes changed. But because Indian work rules strictly protect government workers from layoffs,” the workers remain in a perpetual state of limbo.

In 2001, “private careers with higher quality milk swiftly won customers [away from the government dairy] by delivering milk to doorsteps [instead of to curbside milk stalls like the government milkmen did].”

Once the customer got the taste of the better milk and more convenient delivery, they “swiftly deserted.” The bar had been raised and now the consumers wanted, no demanded, the better product and service.

In the past, milkmen “lived in government housing near work, retired with a pension and often passed their jobs to their sons. ‘We enjoyed doing our work because it was a public service. Time flew by.”

But the government milkmen don’t meet the consumers’ needs anymore and now “most of the deliverymen, plus around 4,000 other dairy workers statewide” are on the “surplus list.”

“The dairy used to deliver around 250,000 gallons of milk each morning. Now it sends less than a quarter of that, delivered by private carriers, since the milk trucks were sold.”

One milkman stated: “We want work. Just give us something to do and we will work 10 hours a day instead of eight. I really miss my truck.”

The lesson is clear for organizations and their workers: deliver exceptional products and services to your customers and meet their every realistic need or they will go elsewhere (to the competition) and you will soon be joining the Indian milkmen and missing your delivery truck.

Don’t Get Put Out To Pasture and Enterprise Architecture

“I Am Legend” and Enterprise Architecture

Sometimes, when we architect change, we can make mistakes and people and organizations end up getting hurt.

In the movie I Am Legend, mankind architects a way to use a virus to kill cancer—seemingly, the cure that we’ve all been hoping for; but something goes terribly wrong and 90% of the world ends up dead, while another 9% end up as zombie cannibals feeding off of the remaining 1% of the population that is immune to the virus.

“Viral diseases such as rabies, yellow fever and smallpox have affected humans for centuries…Examples of common human diseases caused by viruses include the common cold, the flu, chickenpox and cold sores. Serious diseases such as Ebola, AIDS, avian influenza and SARS are caused by viruses…The ability of viruses to cause devastating epidemics in human societies has led to the concern that viruses could be weaponized for biological warfare.” (Adapted from Wikipedia)

So is there such a thing as a good virus?

Now scientists have architected, they believe, a way for viruses (bacteriophages) to kill bacterial infections (hopefully, not a repeat of the I Am Legend plot!)

MIT Technology Review, 15 April 2008, reports that “in the fight against infection, viruses take up where antibiotics leave off.”

Superbug bacteria infects up to 1.2 million patients a year in the U.S., particularly in hospitals where bacteria can spread from countertops, stethoscopes, and catheters.

Scientists have developed “nylon sutures coated with bacteriophages—viruses, found naturally in water, that eat bacteria while leaving human cells intact.”

Bacteriophages were used in World War II to treat soldiers with dysentery and gangrene, but this was soon overcome by rising interest in antibiotics. But “it takes time to get new classes of antibiotics onto the market, whereas bacteriophages can be easily isolated from environmental sources such as sewage water.”

How do the bacteriophages work?

“In water, these natural born-killers are extremely effective at eating up bacteria. The virus binds to bacteria and injects its DNA, replicating within its host until it reaches capacity, whereupon it bursts out, killing the bacteria in the process.”

What is the advantage to using bacteriophages?

“Antibiotics are broad-spectrum, and for certain bacterial strains, it’s easier to use bacteriophages if you know exactly which bacterium is causing the infection. You can target one strain, and it wouldn’t affect any other bacteria that may be protecting cells.”

Aside from sutures, how else might bacteriophages be applied?

They can be incorporated into sprays and creams.

Additionally, bacteriophages, aside from use in fighting bacteria, may be useful in detecting bacterial infection.

From an enterprise architecture perspective, the baseline for fighting infection has for many years been through antibiotics. Now, the target architecture includes viruses that can kill the bacteria. However, as in the case of the virus that is supposed to help cure, but instead causes a lethal epidemic, there is always the potential for things to go off course, when we architect change in the enterprise.

Catastrophic consequences from change can occur for example, when we make changes to products, processes, people, and technologies in organizations. These can result in unintended consequences like defective products, inefficient processes, accidents to employees, and failed IT implementations to name just a few.

The point is that enterprise architecture is not a bacteriophage or antibiotic cure-all. As architects, we need to be cognizant of the risks inherent in change (as well as in maintaining the status quo) and manage change thoughtfully, carefully, and with an eye toward risk management all along the way.

The last thing we want to be is Lieutenant Colonel Robert Neville (in the movie I Am Legend) left as the last healthy human along with his trusty dog in New York City and possibly the entire world.

“I Am Legend” and Enterprise Architecture

Honda and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture helps to define, structure, and govern the business processes and enabling technologies of the organization. It packages this into an identification of the as-is, to-be, and transition strategy. EA is a methodology for planning and governing.

Some companies though, such as Honda, function more by a seat-of-the-pants approach than by EA.

Fortune Magazine, 17 March 2008, reports that “the automaker’s habit of poking into odd technical corners sets it apart—and gives it a big edge on the competition.”

Honda is a huge, highly successful company. “Since 202 its revenues have grown nearly 40% to $94.8 billion. Its operating profits with margins ranging from 7.3% to 9.1% are among the best in the industry. Propelled by such perennial bestsellers as the Accord, the Civic, and the CR-V crossover, and spiced with new models like the fuel-sipping Fit, Honda’s U.S. market share has risen from 6.7% in 2000 to 9.6% in 2007.”

What is Honda’s secret to success?

The wellspring of Honda’s creative juices is Honda R&D, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honda Motor.”

"Honda R&D is almost the antithesis of EA’s planning and governance."

Honda R&D “lets its engineers, well dabble,” so much so that even the president and CEO of Honda says “I’m not in a position to give direct orders to the engineers in R&D.” Honda gives a lot of latitude to its engineers to “interpret its corporate mission” to the extent that their engineers have been known “to study the movement of cockroaches and bumblebees to better understand mobility.” R&D pretty much has free rein to tinker and figure out how things work, and any application to business problems is almost an afterthought.

This “more entrepreneurial, even quirky” culture has helped Honda find innovative solutions like fuel cells for cars that are “literally years ahead of the competition”. Or developing a new plane design “with engines mounted above the wings; this has made for a roomier cabin and greater fuel efficiency.”

At the same time, not having a more structured EA governance approach has hurt Honda. “When Honda launched the hybrid Insight in 1999 for example, it beat all manufacturers to the U.S. market (the Toyota Prius came six months later). But while the Prius looked like a conventional car, the Insight resembled a science project; it didn’t even have a back seat. Honda halted production in September 2006 after sales dropped to embarrassing levels. Toyota sold more than 180,000 Priuses last year.”

Honda is learning its lesson about the importance of planning and good governance, and now, they “tie [R&D] more closely to specific business functions” and “as a project approaches the market, the company is asserting more supervision.”

R&D and innovation is critical, especially in a highly technical environment, to a company’s success; however even R&D must be tempered with sound enterprise architecture, so that business is driving technology and innovation, rather than completely doing technology for technology’s sake.

Honda and Enterprise Architecture

Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture develops the organization’s IT strategic plan and influences its business strategic plan. In order to do this, EA itself must have a strategic roadmap.

Harvard Business Review, April 2008, states that “companies that don’t have a simple and clear statement of strategy are likely to fall into the sorry category of those that have failed to execute their strategy or, worse, those that never had one. In an astonishing number of organizations, executives, frontline employees, and all those in between are frustrated because no clear strategy exists for the company or its lines of business.”

Elements of a strategic plan

What are the elements of a strategic plan?

1. Mission— “why we exist;” this is the purpose of the organization
2. Values—“what we believe in and how we will behave”
3. Vision—“what we want to be
4. Strategy—“What pour competitive game plan will be; this includes the following: A) Objectives—what we want to achieve: goals and objectives B) Scope—“the domain of the business; the part of the landscape in which the firm will operate.” C) Advantage—the means or initiatives that define how you will achieve your objectives; “what your firm will do differently or better than others,” defines your competitive advantage.
5. Balanced scorecard—“how we will monitor and implement that plan” A strategic plan for EA
   According to the American Management Association, the mission statement defines what the ultimate purpose of the organization is. It tells who you are, what you are, what you do, who do you serve, and why do you exist.
   The mission statement takes the form of: The [blank] is a [blank] that [produces blank] for [blank] to [help blank].
   For example, the mission statement for enterprise architecture:
   The [enterprise architecture program] is an [office of the CIO] that [develops information products and governance services] for [the employees of ABC organization] to [improve decision-making].
   The values of EA are: driving measurable results, aligning technology with the business, information-sharing and accessibility, service interoperability and component reuse, technology standardization and simplification, and information security.
   The vision of EA is to make information transparent to enable better decision-making.
   The strategy provides the conceptual way you will pursue your mission and vision.
   “Defining the objective, scope, and advantage requires trade-offs, which Porter identified as fundamental to strategy.” For example, a growth or market size strategy may obviate profitability, or a lower price strategy may hinder fashion and fit. The point is that an organization cannot be everything to everybody! Something has got to give.
   So for example, in EA, we must trade off the desire to be and do all, with the reality that we must focus on entire enterprise. Therefore, we distinguish ourselves from segment architecture and solutions architecture. In EA, we focus on strategic outcomes and delegate line of business architectures and systems architectures to the lines of business and solution developers.
   Finally, EA implements a balanced scorecard by instituting mechanisms for monitoring and implementing its plans. These include performance metrics for both information products and governance services.
   In sum, to get a meaningful EA plan in place, we have to answer these fundamental elements of strategy for the EA program itself.

Strategy and Enterprise Architecture

Robot Swarms and Enterprise Architecture

In the not-too-distant future, battlefield engagements will involve swarms of robots overcoming traditional warfighters.

This notion is no longer only the domain of Hollywood writers and producers for movies like iRobot, Battlestar Galactica, and the Terminator. The vision is becoming a reality and potentially a devastating one for our adversaries.

The Gulf Times, 8 April 2008, reports: “Robot Troops on the March.”

“Now ground, air, and sea-based robots of all kinds are playing an increasing role in warfare. Pilotless robots are used for reconnaissance, targeting, and missile guidance. Some of them can even destroy targets. Ground-based robots are used for mine clearing and breaching barriers. Many of them are armed and can be used in warfare in high-risk urban environments."

“There will be a time when robots will become the best value for the money. When this happens, a couple of battalions will be able to destroy an enemy tank division.”

What’s the vision or target architecture for robots to fight?

“Each robot will be armed with two-guided missiles and a machine gun [or two]. Equipped for a total of 1,200-2,400 robots controlled by 200-300 operators from a distance of several kilometers, these two battalions will be able to inflict heavy losses on enemy divisions, and destroy most of their tank and infantry combat vehicles.”

Similarly in the air and at sea: “enemy aircraft will be destroyed not by fighters, but by [swarms] of pilotless flying vehicles controlled from flying command posts.” [And] “Nuclear-powered submarines…will encounter the massive use of relatively compact underwater robots capable of carrying torpedoes.”

What are the primary benefits to robotic warfare?

1. Minimal loss of human life, at least on the robot side of the battlefield
2. Minimal financial cost in losing relatively inexpensive robots.
3. Stealth and precision of robots

What are the major limitations?

1. Robots do not have “high-level artificial intellect” that enables prompt reactions to ever changing situations. “This is why remote controlled rather than fully autonomous robots are used.”
2. Robots’ optical systems are inferior to the human eye-brain coordination.

I find this target architecture for the military to be on one hand fascinating and on the other hand frightening.

The potential of robotics for both helping and hurting people is enormous.

ComputerWorld, 12 April 2008, reports that "Robots are really an evolution of the technology we have now...they are evolving into something you will engage with and will serve you in your life somehow."

Robots can work on the assembly line and produce the goods we need to survive; they can work jobs that are dangerous and dirty; and they can provide caretaking tasks and alleviate suffering and the physical demands on people. David Levy, a British Artificial Intelligence specialist even goes so far to predict that by the year 2050, humans will have not only emotional relationships with robots, but even love and intimacy. (OK, this is a little extreme!)

At the same time, robots are inanimate machines, without dictates of conscience or emotion; they can kill people or destroy things without hesitation or remorse. The clincher is that both these potential uses for robots (good and bad) are in the making and will come to fruition. The potential benefits as well as devastation to humanity are enormous.

Reflecting on this, I believe that EA plays an important role in ensuring that IT projects (like robots in warfare) are implemented with careful thought as to the potential consequences and managing the risk of these.

How can EA help with this?

Robots are a target architecture with commercial and military applications. Robots can be used in both positive and negative ways. In a sense, robots are like nuclear energy, which can be used to power the country or for developing weapons of mass destruction.

These targets architectures need to be planned and governed effectively to ensure safety and security. Through planning you develop the requirements, use cases, and develop the technologies, and through governance you make certain that they are implemented responsibly and effectively.

The EA functions of planning and governance are mutually reinforcing and self-correcting. EA plans are a strategic information asset for enhancing governance, while IT governance is the enforcement mechanism for EA plans. In this way, governance can be a counterbalance to planning, so that plans are thoroughly vetted and rationalized. Through governance, we enhance the organization’s decisions and plans and ensure that they are making the “right” investments, that they are wisely selected, implemented, and controlled.

So for example, with robotics, the planning element of EA provides the goals, objectives, and strategies for robotics in the target architecture, while the governance aspect of EA would ask relevant questions about the benefits, risks, strategic alignment, and architecture and ensure a clear way ahead.

EA planning is strategic, while EA governance is tactical.

Robot Swarms and Enterprise Architecture

Google and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric Enterprise architecture is about capturing, processing, organizing, and effectively presenting business and technology information to make it valuable and actionable by the organization for planning and governance.

Google is a company that epitomizes this mission.

After reading a recent article in Harvard Business Review, April 2008, I came to really appreciate their amazing business practices and found many connections with User-centric EA.

1. Organizing information--Google’s mission [is] ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’” Similarly in User-centric EA, we seek to organize the enterprise’s information and make it useful, usable, easy to understand, and readily accessible to aid decision making.
2. Business and technology go hand-in-hand—“Technology and strategy, at Google, are inseparable and mutually permeable—making it hard to say whether technology is the DNA of its strategy or the other way around.” Similarly, EA is the synthesis of business and technology in the organization, where business drives technology, rather than doing technology for technology’s sake.
3. Long-term approach—“CEO Eric Schmidt has estimated that it will take 300 years to achieve the mission of organizing the world’s information…it illustrates Google’s long-term approach to building value and capability.” Similarly, EA is a planning and governance function. EA plans span many years, usually at least 5 years, but depending on the mission, as long as 20 years for business/IT projects with long research and development cycles like in military and space domains.
4. Architectural control—“Architectural control resides in Google’s ability to track the significance of any new service, its ability to choose to provide or not provide the service, and its role as a key contributor to the service’s functional value.” This is achieved by network infrastructure consisting of approximately one million computers and a target audience of 132 million customers globally on which they can test and launch applications. In EA, control is exercised through a sound governance process that ensures sound IT investments are selected or not.
5. Useful and usable—“The emphasis in this process is not on identifying the perfect offering, but rather on creating multiple potential useful offerings and letting the market decide which is best…among the company’s design principles are…usefulness first, usability later.” In User-centric EA, we also focus on the useful and usable products (although not in sequence). The point being that the EA must have clear value to the organization and its decision makers; we shun developing organizational shelfware or conducting ivory tower efforts.
6. Data underscores decision making—“A key ingredient of innovation at the company is the extensive, aggressive use of data and testing to support ideas.” EA also relies on data (business and technical) for planning and governance. This is the nature of developing, maintaining, and leveraging use of EA through information products that establish the baseline, target, and transition plan of the organization. A viable plan is not one that is pulled from a hat, but one that is data-driven and vetted with executives, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders. Further, EA provides business intelligence for governance and decision making.
7. Human capital—“If a company actually embraced—rather than merely paid lip service to—the idea that its people are its most important asset, it would treat employees much the way Google does.” This concept is embedded User-centric EA, where the architecture is driven by the needs and requirements of the users. Further, Human Capital is a distinct perspective in User-centric EA, where people are viewed as the hub for all business and IT success.

In short, Google is a highly User-centric EA-driven organization and is a model for many of its core tenets.

Google and Enterprise Architecture

Analysis Paralysis and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture is a planning (and governance) function. Planning is a valuable endeavor when it is used to drive meaningful change (outputs and outcomes). One of the worst things that can happen to a well thought out plan is for it to sit unused, collecting dust, until it is simply obsolete. What a waste of time and money. And what of the lost opportunities for the organization to grow and mature and serve it stakeholders better, faster, and cheaper.

Often, one of the reasons a plan never goes anywhere is that an organization is stuck in “analysis paralysis,” an unfortunate mode where leaders are not able to conclude the analysis phase, make a final decision, and move on—implement/execute. Instead, leadership is paralyzed by fear and indecision.

The Wall Street Journal, 10 April 2008, reports that “No Italian Job Takes Longer Than This Bridge: Proposed 142 Years Ago, Plan for Link to Sicily Is Now Campaign Issue.”

“Shortly after the birth of modern Italy in 1865, the government began preparing to build a two mile span linking the island of Sicily to the mainland. The bridge…was to be the physical symbol of the country’s unity. It has been in the planning ever since, and over the years. Experts have studied the bridge’s impact on everything from the Mediterranean trade to bird migration. But ground has yet to be broken, making the bridge an emblem of the chronic indecisiveness that links Italy to the past.”

Is the bridge the only example of analysis paralysis in Italy?

“With a price of nearly…$7.9 billion, the bridge is an example of profligate public spending. Many say Italy is littered with half-finished projects.”

Many argue that with its endless planning, the nonexistent Sicily bridge is little more than a costly ruse. ‘It’s a bottomless pit for funding.’…In more than 20 years of operation, the company created to build the bridge…has spent just $235 million…To be sure, nothing has been done with the money.”

So the Italian bridge that was supposed to unify a country, be a architectural marvel and an engineering feat (“because of the swift currents, earthquake-prone shores, and great distance) has been an endless series of plans, drawn up and thrown into the drawer.

Unfortunately, plans like this bridge—that never get finalized and go nowhere—are a defeat for organizational progress. They are a waste of resources and drain on people’s creativity, talent, and morale.

As an enterprise architect, it is an imperative to complete the plans that we start and to work with leadership to implement them. Of course, over time, we need to course correct and that is a natural part of the process. But if we never “get off the dime” and embark on the journey, then as an organization we may as well be doing something else—something worthwhile!

Analysis Paralysis and Enterprise Architecture

User-Centric EA Framework

 
User-centric EA guides all facets of the enterprise architecture. It starts from the capture of the information, which is based on a strict value proposition of improving IT planning and governance, and moves forward to a process that is collaborative and structured, to one that provides users with information views that are facilitated by principles of communication and design. The User-centric EA further affects how we manage the architecture, using metrics, configuration management, and a single information repository. It also affects how we enforce the architecture through policy and governance.

User-Centric EA Framework

Information Transparency and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture develops, documents, and communicates the baseline, target, and transition plan for an organization. EA makes information transparent to enable better decision making. Transparency leads to self-correcting behavior.

Here’s one case where transparency may be better left under wraps.

The Wall Street Journal, 9 April 2008, reports: “Candid Camera: Trove of Videos Vexes Wal-Mart.”

“For nearly 30 years, Wal-Mart stores Inc. employed a video production company here to capture footage of its top executives, sometimes in unguarded moments. Two years ago, the retailing giant stopped using the tiny company. At first, the decision threw Flagler Productions Inc. into a panic. Now, it’s Wal-Mart that’s squirming.

“Flagler has opened its trove of 15,000 Wal-Mart tapes to the outside world, with an eye toward selling clips. The material is proving irresistible to everyone from business historians to documentary filmmakers to plaintiff’s lawyers and union organizers.”

So what’s the problem with exposing some tapes of Wal-Mart executives?

“Among the revealing moments: a former executive vice president and board member challenges store managers in 2004 to continue his work opposing unionization. Male managers in drag lead thousands of co-workers in the company’s corporate cheer. In another meeting, managers mock foolish or dangerous use of a product sold in stores.”

“Unlike the polished presentations delivered at business forums, the videos provide an unvarnished look at Wal-Mart leaders…the videos deal with ‘everything anyone would want on Wal-Mart…They’ve got 30 years of people winging it.’”

A labor historian says, “When they are talking to themselves, and there aren’t any shareholders present, you get a level of things being revealed.”

This is a treasure trove for lawyers on various cases, unions delving into personnel policies and practices, and critics of the company. The question from an EA perspective is whether information transparency is really a good thing or not?

• On the positive side, only by getting the information out there or having the “threat” of the information getting out (like on the cover of the Washington Post or in Congressional hearings) are organizations and people forced to ensure they are doing the “right” thing, and therefore self-correct when they are off track.
• On the other hand, when information is too transparent (like the unscripted videos of Wal-Mart executives), the enterprise can be put at competitive, security, economic, judicial, and political risk, thus jeopardizing any future plans for the organization.

There are certainly risks to an organization when it makes information transparent. It is these very risks of “exposure” that breed and are the impetus for self-correction. While, self-policing mechanisms (like internal controls, inspections, and audits) can achieve similar self-correcting behavior without putting the organization at risk with external entities, it does not have the same potency as full transparency. Indeed, nobody wants to wake up in the morning and find their organization on the cover of The Washington Post as the poster child for organizational fraud, waste, and abuse!

Information Transparency and Enterprise Architecture

Prison and Enterprise Architecture

One would imagine that the enterprise architecture for a justice system would involve people convicted of serious crimes being punished and actually going to and staying for some time in jail. The EA would plan for how many prisons are needed to meet the justice system requirements and invest accordingly in prison facilities, guards, and so on (of course, within resource constraints). Well here’s an aberration…this is not what happens in Italy.

The Wall Street Journal, 8 April 2008, reports that “Italy makes it hard for [people to go to jail] and for jailbirds to stay in jail.”

“Less than two years ago, Italy’s prison system faced a crisis: Built to hold 43,000 inmates, it was straining to contain more than 60,000.”

So what’s a responsible government to do?

They hadn’t planned or resourced adequately. So they simply “swung open the prison doors and let more than a third of the inmates go free.” YIKES!

“Within months, bank robberies jumped by 20%. Kidnappings and fraud also rose, as did computer crime, arson, and purse snatchings.” WELL WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT!

What’s behind this insanity of letting dangerous convicted criminals out by the droves?

“The nation’s legal system has roots in the unforgiving codes of the Roman Empire, well known for crucifixions and feeding people to the Lions.’ LOOK OUT FOR THE BACKLASH!

“Since then it has evolved to to become infused with Roman Catholic notions of forgiveness along with a healthy dose of bureaucracy.”

The resulting penal system?

“The death penalty is considered abhorrent, and life sentences are rare. Defendants have the right to two appeals, and even traffic tickets can be appealed to the nation’s highest court. Italy’s courts are so clogged that the statue of limitations on most felonies expires before a final verdict can be reached.”

“In Italy, even for hardened criminals, hard time is rare.”

In one case a “henchman for one of Sicily’s fiercest crime families was released from prison and given house arrest because at 462 pounds, the prison simply didn’t have a bed big enough to accommodate their guest.

John Zachman used to describe EA as the engineering of the enterprise. If the Italy penal system is “the enterprise” here, then some serious reengineering needs to take place to bring a semblance of social order and justice back to the system.

Prison and Enterprise Architecture

Readability and Enterprise Architecture

User-centric EA is a strong proponent for developing information products that are useful and usable to the end-user. This is in contrast to traditional EA that often develops “artifacts” that are often difficult for the end-user to understand and apply.

There are a number of ways to make EA easier to use for the organization. One is to provide information in various levels of detail (profiles, models, and inventories), so user can drill-down to get more detailed information or roll-up to executive level summary views. Another method is to use information visualization to express information. As the adage states: “a picture is worth a thousand words.” And yet a third method is to explain the architecture in simple- to-understand language, so that it will be meaningful to both business and technology stakeholders, executives, mid-level managers, and analysts alike.

Others have expressed the need to make information more usable and readable.

The Wall Street Journal, 14 March 2008, reports on the usage of readability formulas “to quantify the ease of a work writing” to be read and understood.

For example, Microsoft Word follows a reading formula and provides a “result [that] is the supposed minimum grade level of readers who can handle the text in question.”

“Similar formulas are used by textbook publishers and in dozens of states’ guidelines for insurance policies.”

The way the formulas work is to look at readability items such as the average number of words in a sentence, the average number of syllables per word, and so on to come up with a grade reading level for the text.

Some argue that these readability formulas are flawed in that there are “more than 200 variables that affect readability. Most formulas incorporate just two, and not because they are most important, but because they are the easiest to measure.” Others argue, the different readability measures are inconsistent and can come up with scores that differ by as much as three grade levels.

The Flesch-Kincaid formula, used by Microsoft, is the most convenient and criticized. The formula was developed in 1948, revised in 1975, and again tweaked by Microsoft when it “incorporated it into Word in 1993”. The current formula provides readability scores up to grade level 14.

The idea behind all these readability formulas is to provide information that is clear, concise, and comprehensible to a wide audience. There are even templates online to help people communicate effectively in writing at the recommended reading levels.

Going back to enterprise architecture, what is often thought of and developed in terms of architectures is not simple to understand or useful to our stakeholders. Developing architecture using the ivory-tower approach and developing reams of shelfware and wall charts that are eyesores is not a wise architecture strategy. Rather, working collaboratively with users and developing information products that they can understand and readily use to aid decision making is where it’s at.

Readability and Enterprise Architecture

HP and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture is always looking for ways to improve results of operations through business process improvement and technology enablement.

Joseph Juran (1904-2008) was a man who dedicated himself to these goals.

In the Wall Street Journal, Remembrances, 8-9 March 2008, it states about Mr. Juran: “Pioneer of quality control kept searching for ‘a better way’ to make and manage.”

While Edward Deming is perhaps better known for statistical methods of quality control, Joseph Muran emphasized the management aspects. Both worked at the same time for Western Electric Co.’s mammoth Hawthorne Works manufacturing plant, making telephone equipment for Western’s parent, the American Bell Telephone Co.

“Having noted that a small number of problems produce most quality complaints, Mr. Juran formulated his ‘80-20’ rule, which stated that 80% of a firm’s problems stemmed from 20% of causes. Management should concentrate on the ‘vital few’ rather than the ‘trivial many’. He called it his Pareto Principle.’”

Mr. Juran’s phrase was: “There is always a better way; it should be found.” “Although producing higher quality goods might seem costly, he argued it could pay for itself through fewer repairs and a better reputation in the marketplace.”

All too unfortunate that many companies these days, bowing to their shareholders’ desire for a quick buck and looking to maximize their executive paychecks, have cut quality to cut costs and have blasphemed the term “made in America.”

Here is a telling example of how corporate America has abandoned the teachings of the true quality pioneers, like Deming and Juran:

Just recently, I purchased a HP all-in-one printer and paid a pretty dollar for it, but I thought, hey it’s an HP, it’ll be worth it. Oh boy was I surprised when I got it and it printed horribly (not like the HP printers I remembered). I thought it must be the cartridge (even though the cartridge was also HP). So I bit the bullet, spent the money and ordered a new cartridge. Lo and behold, I received it, installed it, and the exact same lousy printing quality came out. I contacted HP after a little more than a month (since it took time to get the new cartridge) and when I called them, they basically told me too bad--no refund allowed past the 21 day refund period. Then they gave me another number for technical support (they couldn’t connect me) and I had to provide all my information all over again to the HP rep there. Then they told me they would connect me to a technical specialist for this particular printer, at which point I had to for the third time now give all my information yet again. They apparently had no customer records to access or note. It was appalling and pathetic for a company that is as large and at one time prestigious as the old HP to be so completely customer and quality berserk. HP’s Tech support put me through the ringer: testing pages, downloading new firmware, unplugging and plugging, and then finally, they had the gall to want to charge me $49 (which they finally agreed to waive) to get an exchange for the defective product they sold a month earlier.

HP did end up sending the replacement; they sent instructions to return the defective printer through UPS, but sent along a FedEx shipping sticker (yikes). They told me they would call me the day the new printer was to arrive to confirm that everything was okay, but called a day later (ok, so what?). They told me that the replacement printer would come with a replacement cartridge and it didn't (another boo-boo); when I told the technical rep, he checked on this and said he had made a mistake. Upon request and after a prolonged phone delay, he agreed to send me one because of their error.

While I appreciate the friendly and very decent technical rep that I finally worked with on the phone, HP as a company has become customer and quality clueless.

I used to love HP, so I hope they work to improve their quality and customer service.

Juran “lamented that quality control in America tended to consist of a limited project, while abroad it was treated as an evolving process.” The all too often shoddy state of quality of many American-made products (and poor service) these days has left people shaking their heads in disbelief. Unfortunately, those companies that seek short term profit at the expense of quality and service, damage their brand and put their long term survival at risk.

HP and Enterprise Architecture

Total Recall and Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise architecture plays an important role in corporate knowledge management. EA captures, analyzes, catalogues, and serves up information to end-users. In many cases, where more general KM endeavors fail, User-centric EA succeeds because it is a focused effort, with a clear value proposition for making information useful and usable.

Now, KM is being taken to whole new level. And rather than capturing information with clearly defined users and uses, the aim is total recall.

ComputerWorld, 6 April 2008, reports on an initiative for “storing every life memory in a surrogate [computer] brain.”

“Gordon Bello, a longtime veteran of the IT industry and now principle researcher at Microsoft’s Corp.’s research arm, is developing a way for everyone to remember those special moments. Actually, Bell himself wants to remember—well, everything...he wants the ability to pull up any picture, phone call, e-mail, or conversation any time he wants”

“The nine-year project, called MyLifeBits, has Bell supplementing his own memory by collecting as much information as he can about his life. He’s trying to store a lifetime on his laptop.”

“The effort is about not forgetting, not deleting, and holding onto all the bit of your life. In essence, it’s about immortality.”

What about privacy of your personal information?

It “isn’t about plastering a Myspace or Facebook page with information…[It’s] immensely personal...you will leave a personal legacy—a record of your life [on a personal computer].

And Bell is not discerning, he stores painful memories as he does happy ones; this “would actually let people see who he was as a person.”

Certainly people have strived for eternal life from the time of the first man and woman—Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden apple in their quest for immortality—and since with the search for the “fountain of youth” and other elixirs to prolong life. Similarly, people have sought to live eternal by leaving a legacy—whether great men or nefarious one—from rulers and inventors to conquerors and hate mongers. The desire to influence and be remembered everlasting is as potent as the most parch thirst of man.

Bell has gone to extremes collecting and storing his memories—good and bad—from “every webpage he has ever visited and television shows he has watched…video’s of lectures he’d given, CDs, correspondence and an avalanche of photos…he has also recorded phone conversations, images and audio from conference sessions, and with his e-mail and instant messages.”

In fact, Bell wears a SenseCam around his neck, a digital camera that automatically takes a photo every 30 seconds or whenever someone approaches.

“Bell figures that he could store everything about his life, from start to finish, using a terabyte of storage.”

“In 20 years, digitizing our memories will be standard procedure according to Bell. ‘Its my supplemental memory and brain’. It’s one of my most valuable possessions. It look at this thing and think, ‘My whole life is there.’”

So is that what a human life comes down to—a terabyte of stored information?

While maybe a noble effort at capturing memory, this seems to miss the mark at what a human being is really about. A person is much more than that which can be captured by a photo or sound bite of the external circumstances and events that take place around us. The essence of a person is about the deep challenges that go on inside us. The daily struggles and choices we make through our inner conscience—to chose right from wrong and to sacrifice for our creator, our loved ones, our nation, and our beliefs. Yes, you can see the resulting actions, but you don’t see the internal struggles of heart, mind, and soul.

Also, while capturing every 30 seconds of a person’s life may be sacred to the person whose life is being stored, who else really cares? The high-lights of a person’s life are a lesson for others, the minutia of their day are personal for their growth and reckoning.

From a User-centric EA perspective, I believe we should focus KM initiatives for both organizations and individuals from being a wholesale data dump to being truly meaningful endeavors that have a clarity or purpose and a dignity of the human beings being recorded.

Total Recall and Enterprise Architecture

Wind Power and Enterprise Architecture

One great thing about enterprise architecture is that it’s forward looking and seeks to solve today’s problems with tomorrow’s solutions—that’s our target architecture!

Today, we have a problem with developing renewable energy resources, tomorrow we have one target solution that involves floating wind power.

MIT Technology Review, 2 April 2008 reports that “floating platforms could take wind farms far from coasts, reducing costs and skirting controversy.”

“Offshore wind-farm developers would love to build in deep water more than 32 kilometers from shore, where stronger and steadier winds prevail and complaints about scenery are less likely. But building foundations to support wind turbines in water deeper than 20 meters is prohibitively expensive. Now, technology developers are stepping up work in floating turbines to make such farms feasible.”

Is this technology viable today?

“Several companies are on their way to demonstrating systems by borrowing heavily from oil and gas offshore platform technology.”

How big a deal is the potential of wind power? Huge!

“If these efforts succeed, they could open up a resource of immense scale…offshore wind resources on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts exceed the current electricity generation of the entire U.S. power industry.”

“The global market for offshore energy could reach 40,000 megawatts by 2020—enough to power more than 30 million U.S. homes, and more than twice the scale of last year’s wind installations worldwide.”

Creative solutions—innovations (like floatable wind farms) are what keep our organizations, our nation, and the human race continuously on a forward track. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t ever any backsliding. Of course, there is. But then we pull out our creative energy and passion and build the next target architecture.

Similarly, as architects, our job is to solve problems and meet end-user requirements. When inevitably, we face what seems like insurmountable odds, we just keep climbing to the next rung on the ladder.

Is there ever an end to that ladder?

Frankly, I am a huge believer that at some point, we do exhaust the capability of this wonderful world, Earth, to sustain ever more billions of people. Whether with wind farms or a myriad other technological innovations, there will come a time, when to space and other worlds we must go. Of that, as an enterprise architect, I am certain.

Will we have the creativity to keep up?

Wind Power and Enterprise Architecture

Census is Back to Bean Counting and Enterprise Architecture

So much for EA enabling business process with technology enablement!

The Wall Street Journal, 4 April 2008, reports “Census Bureau Scraps Plans for a High-Tech Count.” Now census takers will have to “go back to paper-based canvassing to count the millions of households that don’t return their census forms.”

“The bureau’s decision to shelve technology that was supposed to make the count more accurate will add $3 billion to the cost of the count,” an almost 30% increase in cost.

Census’s EA plan was to “give hand-held computers to its half million census takers, who would use them first to verify and map every address in the country, and then to follow up on households that didn’t return the six question census form that will be mailed in March 2010. The census takers would then send completed questionnaires electronically to a database, saving the bureau time and money.”

What went wrong?

1) Unclear Requirements—GAO “has been warning for years that the Census Bureau wasn’t spelling out technical requirements for the devices and last month put the census on its short list of high-risk government undertakings.”

2) Requirements creep—“large scope of requirements changes,” which will now not only delay the use technology from use in 2010, but also will drive the contract cost with Harris Corp. up from $600 million to $1.3 billion.

3) Inexperience—“attributed some of the Census Bureaus problems to its inexperience at managing big contracts, especially big technology projects.”

4) Overconfidence—“’The Census Bureau might have been overconfident in how easy it would be’, said Terri Ann Lowenthal of the Census Project, a nonpartisan group.”

Why is getting the census count so important?

“The count has enormous political implications. Census data are used to apportion House seats, Electoral College votes and about $300 billion a year in funding.”

From an EA perspective, the success of achieving a target architecture and transition plan, such as the one at Census for hand-held computers for the census-takers, hinges in large degree of having clear and scoped requirements and line of sight all the way to the technical solution.

Certainly, many IT projects fail to meet their cost, schedule, and performance parameters precisely because of poor requirements management processes.

We cannot be successful with our IT investments and meeting EA transition plans if we don’t start with a clear and definite vision of where we’re going.

Census is Back to Bean Counting and Enterprise Architecture

Lessons from Mainframes and Enterprise Architecture

As many organizations have transitioned from a mainframe computing to a more distributed platform, they have become more decentralized and in many cases more lax in terms of managing changes, utilization rates, assuring availability, and standardization.

However, management best practices from the mainframe environment are now being applied to distributed computing,

DM Review, 21 March 2002, reports that “people from the two previously separate cultures—mainframe and distributed [systems]—are coming together to architect, develop, and manage the resulting unified infrastructure.”

1. Virtualization—“Developers of distributed applications can learn from the approach mainframe developers use to build applications that operate effectively in virtualized environments…[such that] operating systems and applications bounce from one server to another as workload change” i.e. effective load balancing. This improves on distributed applications that “have traditionally been designed to run on dedicated servers” resulting in data centers with thousands of servers running at low utilizations rates, consuming lots of power, and having generally low return on investment.
2. Clustering—“A computer cluster is a group of loosely coupled computers that work together closely so that in many respects they can be viewed as though they are a single computer [like a mainframe]…Clusters are usually deployed to improve performance and/or availability over that provided by a single computer, while typically being much more cost-effective than single computers of comparable speed or availability” (Wikipedia) The strategy here is to “reduce the number of servers you need with virtualization, while providing scaling and redundancy with clustering.”
3. Standardization—Distributed computing has traditionally been known for freedom of choice marked by “diversity of hardware, operating platforms, application programming languages, databases, and packaged applications—and an IT infrastructure that is complex to manage and maintain. It takes multiple skill sets to manage and support the diverse application stack…standardization can help you get a handle on [this].

Thus, while we evolve the IT architecture from mainframe to distributed computing, the change in architecture are not so much revolutionary as it is evolutionary. The lessons of mainframe computing that protected our data, ensured efficient utilization and redundancy, and made for a cost-effective IT infrastructure do not have to be lost in a distributed environment. In fact, as architects, we need to ensure the best of both worlds.

Lessons from Mainframes and Enterprise Architecture

Procter & Gamble and Enterprise Architecture

Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) is a Fortune 500, American global corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio, that manufactures a wide range of consumer goods. As of 2007, P&G is the 25th largest US company by revenue, 18th largest by profit, and 10th in Fortune's Most Admired Companies list (as of 2007). In 2007, P&G has revenue of $76 billion, net income of $10 billion, and 138,000 employees working in over 80 countries. (Wikipedia)

P&G has a plethora of billion-dollar brands including: Actonel, Always, Ariel, Bounty, Braun, Charmin, Crest, Dawn, Downey, Duracell, Folgers, Gain, Gillette, Head & Shoulders, Iams, Mach 3, Olay, Oral B, Pampers, Pantene, Pringles, Tide, and Wella.

What makes P&G such a successful consumer goods company?

P&G is an all User-centric EA company. P&G is focuses on satisfying the end-user and developing products that are truly innovative and improve lives.

Fortune Magazine, 17 March 2008, quotes P&G CEO A.G. Lafley stating that at P&G “we put the consumer at the center of everything we do…our goal is to delight our consumers at two ‘moments of truth’: first, when they buy a product, and second when they use it.”

“At P&G the CEO is not the boss—the consumer is.” Moreover, they “seek out innovation from

P&G is tailoring their target architecture to their end-users, by truly understanding their needs. And P&G has some terrific new ways of capturing their end-user requirements and building new products to meet those.

1. Innovation labs—“One looks like a grocery store, another like a drugstore, and another like different rooms in a typical middle-class American home…By watching how they navigate the aisles and what catches their eye, the company is able to unlock deeper insights into their behavior.”
2. “Living It”—“enables employees to live with lower-income consumers for several days in their homes, to eat meals with the family, and to go along on shopping trips.”
3. “Working It”—“employees work behind the counter of a small shop. That gives them insight into why shoppers buy a product, how the shopkeeper stacks the shelves, and what kind of business propositions are appealing.”

“The idea behind [innovation labs,] Living It, and Working It was to sit down with the [consumers and the] bosses to hear what they needed, even if they couldn’t articulate it directly.”

What a cool EA concept. We can’t always ask our user directly what they need to achieve mission results and conduct business processes—they may not be able to articulate their needs—so we can instead embed ourselves at times in the mission to learn and understand firsthand what the needs are—by using all of our senses (not just listening). Living It and Working It are terrific concepts for architects to better understand the businesses they are planning and governing. Asking about needs and requirements is a first step, but it isn’t enough. We need to see for ourselves what the business needs to be successful in the future.

Procter & Gamble and Enterprise Architecture

Hacker Camps and Enterprise Architecture

One of the perspectives of the enterprise architecture is Security. It details how we secure the business and technology of the organization. It includes managerial, operational, and technical controls. From an information security view, we seek confidentiality, integrity, availability, and privacy of information.

Who are we protecting the enterprise from in terms of our information security? From hackers of course!

How do we protect ourselves from hackers? By teaching our security professionals the tricks of the trade—teach them how to hack!

The Wall Street Journal, 1 April 2008, reports that “Hacker Camps Train Network Defenders: Sessions Teach IT Pros to Use Tools of the Online Criminal Trade.”

“In such sessions, which cost about $3,800, IT pros typically spend a week playing firsthand with the latest underground computer tools. By the end of the week, participants are trained as ‘ethical hackers’ and can take a certification test backed by the International Council of Electronic Commerce Consultants.”

“Overall more than 11,000 people have received the ‘ethical hacker’ certificate since 2003; nearly 500 places world-wide offer the training.”

Why do we need to teach these hacking tools to IT security professionals?

They need to understand what they’re up against so they can more effectively plan how to protect against the adversary. Know thy enemy!

How large is the IT security issue?

“The average large U.S. business was attacked 150,000 times in 2007…the average business considered 1,700 of these attacks as sophisticated enough to possibly cause a data breach. In addition, the number of unique computer viruses and other pieces of malicious software that hackers tried to install on computers and IT networks doubled to 500,000 last year from 2006…[and it’s expected] to double again in 2008.”

It’s great that we are advancing the training of our information security champions and defenders, but what about those who take the course, but are really there to learn hacking for the sake of hacking? How many of the 11,000 ‘ethical hackers’ that have been trained are really ethical and how many are using their newfound knowledge for more nefarious ends?

From an enterprise architecture standpoint, we need to ensure that we are not giving away the keys of the kingdom to anyone, including our own IT security staff—through hacker training. Also, we need to be careful not to rely on any one individual to maintain the security order of things. We need to plan our security using a system of checks and balances, just like the constitution lays out for the governance of the nation, so that even the chief information security officer (CISO) is accountable and has close oversight. Finally, we need to institute multiple layers of defense to work best we can to thwart even the determined hackers out there.

Hacker Camps and Enterprise Architecture

GPS To “Wrongwhere” and Enterprise Architecture

A good enterprise architecture is measureable in large part by results of operation or outcomes for the end-user such as cost-savings, cost avoidance, or performance improvements.

Well, when it comes to GPS, you’d imagine that the desired outcome would be getting from point A to point B in the quickest, simplest way (a performance improvement from taking a longer route or getting lost altogether).

According to the Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2008, if you follow GPS directions blindly, you may find yourself driving literally off a cliff.

“By blindly following the gadgets’ not-always-reliable directions, they’re [the drivers] are getting lost, hitting dead ends, and even swerving into oncoming traffic.”

With the price for GPS devices coming down to an average of $225 over the 2007 holiday season, there are now an “estimated 49 million navigation devices…in use in the U.S.”

“GPS technology was first designed by the Department of Defense in the early 1970s to improve precision weapon delivery, Today’s commercial devices receive information transmitted from a network of government satellites orbiting the Earth and can pinpoint a user’s location”—sounds like a great architecture plan that commercializes defense technology.!

So what goes wrong with GPS that results in the following types of mishaps:“

• Truck drivers erroneously sent to residential streets have crashed into fences and damaged walls and trees on narrow roads.”
• “”After a half-hour of hairpin turns…the road ended at a guardrail and a 200-foot cliff.”
• “Sent Mr. Wright off the highway and onto a paved road. The road turned first into gravel and then into a dirt trail littered with boulder and covered with overhanging branches…he dutifully followed the direction, which turned into a three-hour detour.”

“Map data companies…have employees in the field recording everything from street names to lane counts and speed limits…they also rely on sources including transportation departments, building associations, and public records. But the information can become outdated quickly as business move or close shop, new roads are built, and old ones are closed for repairs. Sometimes addresses are just wrong.”

“Map data companies say ensuring that information is accurate and up-to-date is a constant battle.” For example, one vendor has “about 5.5 million U.S. streets in its database. About 3 million changes are made to the maps each month.”

Some map data companies are encouraging users to report errors, so they can be corrected faster.

So following GPS directions and getting nowhere or to “wrongwhere” (my term)—is that an enterprise architecture problem?

It sure is. While it’s not a technology problem per se, it is a business process issue. And if the business processes are not in place to ensure current, accurate, and complete mapping information then absolutely, there is an EA problem that needs to be addressed with business process improvement or reengineering. So be careful the next time you take that road trip!

GPS To “Wrongwhere” and Enterprise Architecture