So we see IRIS is getting aligned with #BizBok and looks to be a solid coverage in the Business Architecture space for coverage at that level.
We'd argue so far that tools (such as OpenText's ProVision, IBM's System Architect) have only touched into the Business Architecture space, coming from #BPM and #EA respectively.
Amongst the ever-growing "must investigate" pile, we've got this to peek at, as we're curious to see whether #BizArch should have its own tooling or should sit with the existing tools - or is there space for another toolset?
Watch this space...
Wednesday 10 December 2014
Friday 5 December 2014
Over architecting
So, we're in the position of being around some hard-core types again, no before you ask, not that type. Rather strategy and architect types of the consultant variety.
We're in an environment that is fluid, flat-structured and moves quickly; not having had imposed on it the rigidity of formal frameworks, process and governance. It works well for them and they seem to pocket some decent wedge, so fair play on them.
What our learned colleagues don't like is what they consider #immaturity due to the incompleteness of the enterprise picture; where we see it as a grey space that doesn't need to be filled in this organisation, at this point in time.
The obsession with taxonomies and frameworks leads architects especially to what we feel is doing the equivalent of a children's game; each bucket/segment/levrl must have a chip in it and ideally they should be evenly distributed as that aids the creation of a diagram later. Ideally of course for a consultant architect that should be either #threeThings or a #twoByTwo, depending upon the consultancy religion they worship at the altar of!
This is where a real, big-picture thinker doesn't get stuck on detail; an organisation is organic, the combination of flesh, stone, cables and tables - it won't meld to a tidy system model, rather we try to make it for our own ease of life, but must accept that abstraction as a notional falseness that does not aid the business itself.
But #maturity, that word really bites; it is used like an insult now. Like when we were young calling someone a #Reebok was an insult as clearly (to our minds) #Nike was superior; based on no actual premise but our own internal taxonomised ordered of cool trainer brands.
Working to maturity against a framework, technology stack or even a specific maturity scaling (IVI etc.) can be useful; but only when you truly understand the goal. 1 out of 4 is perfectly acceptable (and mature) score for some aspects of an organisation at some times; going to 2 and beyond could possible be over-engineering and prone to error - our mental model is more like the scales of old - you are where you need to be (mature?) if factors on each side balance out.
We're not sure whether this is a consultancy thing, maybe each "missing" maturity level is sitting there in a PowerPoint somewhere with a $ sign swinging underneath, or maybe it is just the set thinking that must be imposed to cookie-cutter produce a set of consultants to apply the same thing again and again. But it is less relevant now to our eyes; in a world of swirl and change wasting time applying a framework against which to measure is waste; which our old friend Deming talks at length about.
What is important are KPIs; measured, re-measured, compared then introspected in an open and transparent manner so as to aid improvement or, as least talked about. The decision to stand still; reduce or even remove are all just as valid as that to improve. What is the point having a corporate aspect of testing bulging with a score of 4, when your delivery scores just 1 and you delivery well and quickly to the business every day?
So; thinking about the bar and organisation has set for itself and the vision they have is really more important; not all are or ever will be the same; neither to organisations want to "grow up" to be a bigger version of themselves at the next highest level; some ideas will never flourish like that.
A comparison can be made here to people and the corporate ladder; how many are CEO material?
Very few of course; while the majority still are not even management or executive possibles; so we don't train them to be at the top of the pyramid.
But break outside of the corporate structure and you see any entirely different set of personal aims; the local grocer, if you're lucky enough to have one, has and needs different aims - his #maturity cannot be measured against a corporate clone as they're clearly not the same.
So, let's stop applying our vision and target on an enterprise; rather prise it from them and work to aid that rather than checking boxes...
We're in an environment that is fluid, flat-structured and moves quickly; not having had imposed on it the rigidity of formal frameworks, process and governance. It works well for them and they seem to pocket some decent wedge, so fair play on them.
What our learned colleagues don't like is what they consider #immaturity due to the incompleteness of the enterprise picture; where we see it as a grey space that doesn't need to be filled in this organisation, at this point in time.
The obsession with taxonomies and frameworks leads architects especially to what we feel is doing the equivalent of a children's game; each bucket/segment/levrl must have a chip in it and ideally they should be evenly distributed as that aids the creation of a diagram later. Ideally of course for a consultant architect that should be either #threeThings or a #twoByTwo, depending upon the consultancy religion they worship at the altar of!
This is where a real, big-picture thinker doesn't get stuck on detail; an organisation is organic, the combination of flesh, stone, cables and tables - it won't meld to a tidy system model, rather we try to make it for our own ease of life, but must accept that abstraction as a notional falseness that does not aid the business itself.
But #maturity, that word really bites; it is used like an insult now. Like when we were young calling someone a #Reebok was an insult as clearly (to our minds) #Nike was superior; based on no actual premise but our own internal taxonomised ordered of cool trainer brands.
Working to maturity against a framework, technology stack or even a specific maturity scaling (IVI etc.) can be useful; but only when you truly understand the goal. 1 out of 4 is perfectly acceptable (and mature) score for some aspects of an organisation at some times; going to 2 and beyond could possible be over-engineering and prone to error - our mental model is more like the scales of old - you are where you need to be (mature?) if factors on each side balance out.
We're not sure whether this is a consultancy thing, maybe each "missing" maturity level is sitting there in a PowerPoint somewhere with a $ sign swinging underneath, or maybe it is just the set thinking that must be imposed to cookie-cutter produce a set of consultants to apply the same thing again and again. But it is less relevant now to our eyes; in a world of swirl and change wasting time applying a framework against which to measure is waste; which our old friend Deming talks at length about.
What is important are KPIs; measured, re-measured, compared then introspected in an open and transparent manner so as to aid improvement or, as least talked about. The decision to stand still; reduce or even remove are all just as valid as that to improve. What is the point having a corporate aspect of testing bulging with a score of 4, when your delivery scores just 1 and you delivery well and quickly to the business every day?
So; thinking about the bar and organisation has set for itself and the vision they have is really more important; not all are or ever will be the same; neither to organisations want to "grow up" to be a bigger version of themselves at the next highest level; some ideas will never flourish like that.
A comparison can be made here to people and the corporate ladder; how many are CEO material?
Very few of course; while the majority still are not even management or executive possibles; so we don't train them to be at the top of the pyramid.
But break outside of the corporate structure and you see any entirely different set of personal aims; the local grocer, if you're lucky enough to have one, has and needs different aims - his #maturity cannot be measured against a corporate clone as they're clearly not the same.
So, let's stop applying our vision and target on an enterprise; rather prise it from them and work to aid that rather than checking boxes...
Monday 1 December 2014
Architecture Eventage
London has a burgeoning #tech events scene for the #geekdom, where that be the cult of {, who meet to discuss the benefits of placing the aforementioned { at the start or end of a line; through to those who discuss the many ways of doing thing over the why - but, sadly (or maybe rightly?) we have seen few events for architects, the British Computer Society's specialist group for #entarch being the exception, which isn't to our mind attaching #architecture in a modern way.
So tonight, inspired and fuelled by some fizzy stuff at a networking event, we started to see an angle to achieve a new #meetup for architecture, with a pragmatic and realistic footing. The conversation is just beginning and may amount to nothing, but if it works out we could see a sponsored network, with drinks of course, drinking one or two events every few months, to play ping pong ideas on the direction of the profession, whether it is really a profession and on the religious wars practiced between framework zealots, taxonomy bigots and those who are trying to justify the value of their #architecture roles in a modern space when a quality developer can (arguably) do architecture better than an architect.
Given the #acrhitecture space is about influence, communication and networking; our hope is we can push to do more of this, with some great speaker, ideas and hopefully hot debate - rest assured @enterpriseperspective will be there throw a brick in the windows that is the conventional approach to #architecture!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)