Song of Deborah

Cloud Computing
Oh my it has been a while since I have made any comment on here - sorry guys.

I have been in the midst of executing several strategic recommendations which is a pleasure in itself as often strategies are written but not funded for execution. The one recommendation I wanted to discuss today was cloud computing and for us it is focused upon infrastructure as a service (IaaS).

As a service provider entering this market we decided to see what the vendors had to offer and started with a reference architecture. This was a great tool to really get our heads around what technology was important and what was not. We had four key domains:
1) Resources
2) Resource Management
3) Service Management
4) Access Management

Surprisingly (and maybe I shouldn't have been surprised) three of the domains were software and only one hardware - for IaaS I was definitely expecting it to be hardware focused. To deliver cloud well you need to sophisticated tools, whether you are doing private cloud within your enterprise or delivering cloud externally these tools are a CSF.

Without the reference architecture to guide our thinking we would have gone to market with a completely different view - I am not sure how many EA teams use these types of 1 page views to guide technology building blocks but I have found reference architectures to be great.

I rarely use those provided in the various EA frameworks but get the team creating them helps with innovation and free thinking. In the cloud reference architecture we used Gartner's four domains but the content came for the architects. The vendors have added a couple of new things but generally it was a great way to build a concept document to go to market with.

How have other teams used reference architectures?

The Disney Pattern

I just heard about the Disney Pattern during a training course - I think it is valid for EA programs as a tool to be more innovative but also to keep the ivory tower thinking grounded. If you have done MBTI you will find that as a N you are more of a dreamer and S are more inclined to be a critic but in the realist area you come together. Disney had 3 rooms permanently set aside for this activity. Here is a summary:

Walt Disney was an American inspiration, not only for his film productions and animations, but also for his vision and entrepreneurialism. Disney had a great all-purpose strategy for creative thinking and I have found it amazingly effective when planning any activity. I like to dream of big things when it comes to my business, and sometimes this can result in me missing the small details that could throw my plans into turmoil. It has saved me from dreaming big and neglecting reality. Go through the following steps by yourself or your team before you move on to the next stage of planning.

Choose 3 different spaces on the floor for you to move to and give each space one of the following labels:

Space 1: The Dreamer
Space 2: The Realist
Space 3: The Critic

Start by standing in the Dreamer position.
This is where you create possibilities. Here you are a visionary, seeing the big picture. Be creative without restraint. The dreamer position mostly uses the visual representation system. Think greenfields - if we had no legacy and no constraints (ie time and $) what would we do? Ask yourself, 'What do I want?' 'What would it look like?' Write down your thoughts.

Then, move into the Realist position.
This is where you organise your plans, evaluate what is realistically possible, think constructively and devise a step-by-step action plan. The realist position mostly uses the kinesthetic (feelings) representation system. What is a realistic future state - work backwards from the dreamer future you have defined? Ask yourself 'What will I do to make these plans a reality?', 'How will it feel?'

Finally, move to the Critic position.
This is the position where you test your plan. You are looking for problems, difficulties and unintended consequences. Think of what could go wrong, what is missing and what the payoffs will be. The critic position mostly uses the auditory representation system or your own internal dialogue. How will you fund these plans, what timeframe is realistic and does it really address the business problem we started with? Ask yourself "What could go wrong?"

It is a great approach that I have thought about often but could never clearly articulate.

I just found a book http://www.amazon.com/Tools-Dreamers-Strategies-Robert-Dilts/dp/0916990265 on the topic as well!

EA Frameworks

EA's obsession with frameworks muddies its goals and IMHO is the direct cause of the lack of success over the years BUT a framework does help new EA programs come to terms with what they have to do and when. For me it has always been as simple as:

1) Problem definition scope your iteration - get buy in, communicate communicate, communicate
2) Future state analysis (using 3 questions - to solve this business problem/execute this strategy how do I.......change the way I do business? manage and use my information? and then how do I change my supporting technology and solution portfolio?
3) Current state analysis - what have I already invested in that I can reuse?
4) Gap analysis - what is the change program we need to put in place - project definition, funding etc

I know this is a process view but EA is a business planning process - if you try and make it anything else it fails. I use Zachman to help me workout what constructs I can use to represent the future state/current state. I did my TOGAF 9 cert last year and found some things of interest in TOGAF but I don't think I would use much of it. I use the Meta Group approach (swallowed by Gartner and muddied with the addition of a framework view) which is loosely described above and find parts of PEAF and Agile EA useful.

I would never recommend to any new or existing EA team to follow a framework because they just don't help. Every problem space is different, every organisation is different and in most modern organisations we just don't have the time to execute a framework fully or architect the entire enterprise - we should focus on iterations and "just in time" EA efforts. Using EA in this way is much harder as you do not have the luxury of having a well understood/documented current state. You risk the iterations becoming their own silos and having a scattered team that must be aligned. BUT if you focus on planning to solve real problems or execute strategic objectives then you are heading in the right direction.

Let me just get on my soap box for a minute - Frameworks are the cause of one MAJOR problems with EA - CURRENT STATE is the responsibility of every manager and team leader in the organisation NOT the EA TEAM - make them accountable for documenting and sharing this information. Give them a way to do it and a method to share but don't take responsibility for it. If I am an infrastructure manager - say managing the data centre and I have no idea what I have in the data centre or how I am using it then I am a failure YET we architects seem to take on the responsibility of documenting this for managers in the organisation. If I am a call centre manager and I don't know my people and processes then I am a failure yet the EA team think they have to do this for the business managers.

What is the relationship between strategy and enterprise architecture

In a great LinkedIn conversation started by Kevin Smith

EA is not the glue between IT and "The Business".
EA is the glue between Strategy and Execution.

There are many comments of interest and many view - most agree they are sick of the overuse of the definition of EA as a link between business and IT

Kevin's response mid-way during the discussion:

@Tom: “It's not so much the glue itself, as tells you what that glue is - and how strong that glue is, too.”

Cool ! …….Viscosity - lubricant - oil - BINGO!!!

OK so you can only take analogies so far before they turn round and kick you in the wedding tackle but it feels nice.

EA is the oil that lubricates the enterprise allowing all parts to function well and stopping them burn out and wear down too fast.

Maybe a thesis……if I knew what a thesis was!

@Dennis: “Today, most EA work is IT centric”

I would slightly change that and say that Most EA work is beginning in IT.

@Dennis: “Generally, EA demonstrates that IT is aligned with the corporate strategy and shows a way to execute some aspects of the strategy.”

I would also change that slightly “Generally, EA demonstrates that the enterprise is aligned with the corporate strategy (only one part of which is IT) and shows a way to execute the strategy.”

@Dennis: “IMHO, the statement should say; EA is a binding force between strategy and execution ( but not the only one). Tomorrow, EA might encompass much more than it does today.”

OK - we have to be clear when we are discussing that the discussion does not flip between what EA is (in terms of what is actually should be) and what it is (in terms of what’s actually happening in lots of companies)

When I say it is, I mean it should be, not what it is, because what it is, is dependant on a specific organisation and we are not talking about specific organisations here.

@Nic:” With a good governance function, some adequate portfolio management, a clever S&P team, a responsive ICT dept/partner, and non-jerk leadership, you can probably get by without a specific person or group called "an EA" - because together those capabilites add up to the EA function.”

100% agree.

@Nic: “..efficiency..”

Here here. Other things get thrown in the mix but general if I have to choose one word I always tell people EA is about efficiency.

I would only add that for many many years organisations have concentrated on operational efficiency (e.g. cost cutting mostly) in the 21st century they had better start doing something about transformation efficiency (aka agilty) or die.

The 20th century mantra was…

“The only constant is change”

The 21st century mantra should be…

“The only constant is the acceleration of change” © Kevin Smith!

My belief:

EA is the execution plan. EA, in a simplified explanation does the following:

To execute this strategy how do we:

· Change the way we do business? Business Architecture

· Change the way we source and use our information? Information Architecture

· Change the supporting technology and solution portfolios? Technology and Solution Architecture

EA identifies the program of change required and within the program – it should identify the key projects and a high level scope (derived for future state – current state = gap). This can then lead to decisions on the viability and cost of the strategy.

Let me be clear – this is not a dream I have for EA – this is the reality of the EA programs I have delivered over the past 15 years (except for my 5 year hiatus in Gartner). I have used this method for a divestment and restructure of the company (not just IT), major org transformation due to industry deregulation, outsourcing, just to name a few.

IT is business, business is IT in our modern organisations there is no separation except as Kevin states (I think) they are listed as separate entities on the org chart. EA charts the course for the future – the destination is defined in the strategy.

 

Leadership – Where will our children learn good leadership?

I have always been a big advocate of leadership and at Gartner I wrote a couple of papers on leadership. Over the years I have read many leadership texts and of course being an ex Army Officer I have been trained in and practised leadership in many different and trying circumstances. My current concern is our children, watching TV last night I noticed that many ads show parents delegating decision making to their children. In this culture of extreme egalitarianism where do children see and learn decisive leadership? I have seen children as young as 3 paralysed by the demand to inform their parents, what they want to eat, when they want to sleep, what they want to do…………. Why have we as parents given up on making decisions and seeing them through.

Since human beings first began gathering in social groups, they have grappled with the skills of leadership — who is a leader, what makes a leader, and how leadership can be done better. Is leadership is something one is born with or something that can be learned. After thousands of years, leadership is still a art that people aspire to but struggle to achieve. Yet here we are as parents NOT providing a good example of simple leadership in the running of our family and home.

I am not dictating the return to the dictatorial father model (if you believe the press as shown by the father in the picture) that many of my generation grew up with but certainly it is very important to become a leadership role model for your children. This requires decisive behaviour.

Leadership is a social construct — the product of emotional and often unconscious needs, early experiences, and group aspirations of the led, as well as traits and skills of the leader. A vast industry has developed in the 21^st Century that devotes itself to teaching and improving leadership skills. Yet many modern concepts of leadership are complex and locked in a time warp, constrained by lingering archetypes of heroic warriors, executive legends, and harsh but distant fathers. Winding through the maze of leadership texts and development theories to find real actionable steps to improve leadership skills is difficult and very little are devoted to leadership in parenting. Two books that have provided me inspiration are:

Firstly, Good to Great (Random House, 2001) by Jim Collins, his findings on leadership were a surprise to all in his research team: “We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to the high-profile leaders with big personalities, the good-to-great leaders seemed to come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy — these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton and Caesar.”

Collins begins his chapter on Level 5 Leadership with the famous Harry S. Truman quote “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” He goes on to describe Level 5 leaders as people who channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It is not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, he found that they were incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not for themselves. He describes their key leadership characteristics of these leaders who turned their companies around as: 1) Ambition for the company: setting up successors for success, 2) Compelling modesty, 3) Unwavering resolve to do what must be done, 4) The window and the mirror — looking outside the window to apportion credit to others but looking in the mirror to apportion responsibility, never blaming anyone or anything else.

In parenting we learn to put our ego aside, I am still amazed at my memories of my mother cheating to win games against us, her children. This is not good leadership or good parenting. We can take these business management books and apply these skills to how we use leadership within our family units. Exhibiting these characteristics and becoming a good example for our children.

The second I liked is a book by US Navy Captain D. Michael Abrashoff, It’s Your Ship (Warner Books, 2002). The following are Abrashoff’s key leadership principles (many of these are written in the language of the military, but their meaning is clear and easily applicable to parenting):

·          Take command and create a climate that enables people to unleash their potential

·          Lead by example

·          Listen aggressively

·          Communicate meaning and purpose

·          Create a climate of trust

·          Look for results, not salutes

·          Take calculated risks

·          Go beyond standard procedure

·          Build up your people

·          Generate unity

·          Improve your people’s quality of life

All of these can be equally applied as important leadership principles for a family.

I would like all parents to consider leadership as an important skill they need to develop and teach their children. Egalitarianism has its place and I am not against a family vote for where we go for our next holiday but I am worried that we have a generation of young people who will never be exposed to good leadership and decisive decision making. Continuous exposure and learning from a very young age are very important in building tomorrows leaders.

Discussion Extract: The Value of Enterprise Architectures and Strategic IT Planning

Question:

Check out http://www.architectureandgovernance.com/ or directly on this link: http://www.architectureandgovernance.com/content/guest-post-value-strategic-it-planning-and-enterprise-architecture

I would like to get your thoughts on this topic.

My Answer:

I think the issue (and thus the core of the value proposition) is neatly expressed in Kim/Mauborgne’s book – Blue Ocean Strategy. In Chapter 4 Focus on the Big Picture, Not the Numbers:

Think of a typical strategic plan. It starts with a lengthy description of current industry conditions and the competitive situation. Next is a discussion on how to increase market share, capture new segments, or cut costs, followed by an outline of numerous goals and initiatives. A full budget is almost invariably attached…. The process usually culminates in the preparation of a large document culled from the mishmash of data provided by people from various part of the organisation who have conflicting agendas and poor communications. In this process, managers spend the majority of strategic time filling in boxes and running numbers instead o thinking outside the box…….If you ask companies to present their proposed strategies in no more than a few slides, it is not surprising that few clear or compelling strategies are articulated………And a closer look reveals that most plans don’t contain a strategy at all but rather a smorgasbord of tactics that individually make sense  but collectively don’t add up to a unified clear direction that sets the company apart.

Focus on the big picture, not the numbers is the message. I call this traditional approach described above as “Christmas Wish List” strategic planning – and most IT organisation embrace this by sending relationship manager out a couple of months before corporate plans are due to ask business manager what they want next year?

I think if you use a tools like Troux (as mentioned in the article) or Alfabet's planningIT – they help to manage the complex information but the basic foundation of what you are doing with EA needs to be in place first other wise the tool will overwhelm the EA program.

Are you just going to continue to proliferate the Christmas Wish List approach? – if yes, then you will add little or no greater value than current planning processes but if you plan to deliver strategic business value through EA you need to look differently at what your EA program is doing. Most of the methods will support a new approach and both Gartner and TOGAF do focus on starting with business strategy and the external environmental analysis – it is only when you start to show how this wish list is making the strategic output poorly and that you have an alternative that you will succeed.

I think the best person to test this approach on is the CFO and the best time is during yearly budget planning. We have all seen the wish list grow and grow and recognised the problems it is creating but often are powerless to do anything about it because the relationship managers have promised the business IT will deliver. Take your alternative approach to the CFO and talk about the changes you would make, the saving you have identified and the strategic value you can add by using EA effectively. Start small and then as you mature consider using the tools the guide and manage the information and the deliverables.

 

Another Great LinkedIn Discussion - Enterprise Architecture vs Enterprise IT Architecture

The question:

Enterprise Architecture appears to have become synonymous with Enterprise IT Architecture. This gets in the way of those of us who are interested in enterprises as complete systems for delivering on mission and strategy. So we also want to be doing things like business process engineering and re-engineering (whatever happened to those terms!), irrespective of their information technology content.
What are your views on this and is there anybody out there doing true (in this sense) 'Enterprise Architecture'?

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=1822816&discussionID=4076169&commentID=4237668&trk=NUS_DIG_DISC_Q_ucg_mr&goback=%2Ehom#commentID_4237668

My Answer:

I think that there are two "types" of architects those that BELIEVE in EA and KNOW it will work and those that just believe in EA. The latter generally end up as enterprise IT architects and the former as enterprise architects.

In achieving holistic EA (i.e. solving real business problems and executing business strategy through detailed analysis across the BITS (business, information, technology and solution architectures) of the current and future states to identify a program of change) you need to KNOW how to make the business architecture (and the remaining ITS architecture of course) work. And I agree with Curtis – it is not via low level detailed UML models. Business architecture answers the question – how do I change the way my business operates to ……execute this strategy….solve the problem? There are many ways to answer the question, many models, many analytical tools that will help. Some we may not even have thought of yet as some of us are new to this architectural domain.

The revolution is coming – many more organisations are doing enterprise architecture in 2009 than were in 2007. I think this last 18 months was pivotal for the shift globally in understanding and delivery of EA programs away from enterprise IT architecture to the better more effective EA. Look at TOGAF 9 - it has really tried to make the EA view a reality ……though it still has UML models listed as key business architecture artefacts.  

All architects need to do a bit of naval gazing to see which side of the revolution they want to be on, me I want to be on the fun side – enterprise architecture!

The Question: Is Enterprise Architecture in ERP/SAP landscape any different?

I always like to think of it as architecting with giants. ERP systems or any large corporate-wide applications have the potential to over-run and destroy the architecture of any organisation. As an enterprise architect in organisations with these giants you have to work out how fence them in – like in Harry Potter – keep them in the mountains on another continent. Contained and the risks reduced – they are happy and you are safe.

The biggest challenge is to understand what functionality should be delivered by these systems and what should not. The tendency is to keep loading up the functionality (allowing the giant to hunt and feed in the lowlands just leads to problems) and next thing you know, your organisation has no flexibility and the whole organisational value chain is completely dependant upon the ONE system (and it’s vendor). This can introduce considerable risk and what is often overlooked - the value proposition for including functionality is not well clarified. Is it really the best choice and the best value?

As an enterprise architect you must 1) build you skills and knowledge (often via the architectural certification for your giant – i.e. SAP) in the enterprise-wide system. 2) Don’t loose architectural control by delegating responsibility for architecture to the team/service provider responsible. 3) Make some clear future state statements about what is core to the system and what is not and push for real detailed analysis about whether to increase the functionality. 4) Keep an eye on change and release management – often the “rats and mice” types of changes and inclusions can make a big difference to the viability of an enterprise system.

How can the architecture space help promote and influence ‘Green IT’ ?

The questions was:

Green Architecture

With more and more organisations acquiring more and more IT hardware. Today’s IT systems are requiring a booming amount power and energy. Can organisations build energy efficient data centers if they have a good blueprint /architecture viewpoint of environment & energy within the enterprise architecture program.
How can the architecture space help promote and influence ‘Green IT’ and do we think there is a need to take a Green view with enterprise architecture?

My answer:

I was looking into this recently when trying to create a green EA principle. It should be a guiding element of EA future state architecture thus I think creating it as a principle is the right level.

EA teams are asked to produce Green IT Plan/Strategy documents. Often they are left in the hands of the IT operations teams but more and more I am seeing them become part of the strategy and EA purview. The issue with Green is that is not a one-off activity or a project it is an on-going and consistent behaviour for all IT planning – it also crosses the IT/business divide. Many Green strategies require changes to the policies and culture of the organisation and require strong business understanding and commitment – IT is only a small part of any organisational Green plan.

I would suggest if you are an EA team doing a Green IT Plan in isolation from the business you stop and find out who is responsible for these strategies in the business and develop a joint plan. As you can see from the Government policy below it concerns - cuts energy use and use of GreenPower, these are critical business concerns as well as IT – a joint plan is better.

As a side note this was my first draft EA green principle:

IT Investments Will be Sustainable and Energy Efficient

Sustainability and energy efficiency involves more than improving just the facilities’ cooling, power management, energy source etc.. The Group will drive energy efficiency across all areas of the business — business operations and IT including, but not limited to, the software and technology infrastructure.

Rationale

•           In 2001 the Government established the ground-breaking Government Sustainable Energy Targets (GSET) program, set two important targets for improving energy efficiency. Having met its targets (15 per cent energy reduction and 10 per cent GreenPower consumption), the XX Government has recently lifted these goals even higher. It is now committed by 2010 to cut energy use by a further five per cent to 20 per cent of 1999/2000 levels and to increase use of Green Power to 25 per cent.

•           The Group has a corporate responsibility to act not only in the interests of our business but also in the interests of the economy and the environment.

•           Many employees feel a strong and personal responsibility for future generations.

 Implications

•           All technology choices need to evaluate the end-to-end carbon life cycle of the major products they buy and then use that information to manage the life cycle of a product more effectively.

•           Develop asset management practices that ensure the combined embodied and operational energy requirements (that is, full life cycle) of the equipment used required less energy per user.

•           Buy the "greenest" equipment that meets your need. This will typically result in lower energy consumption, lower recycling costs and a lower carbon footprint.

•           Sourcing and procurement objectives to include a preference for suppliers that work to limit or off-set their greenhouse gas emissions.

Key Actions:

•           Establish sustainability and energy efficiency KPIs/Standards for all projects

 Thanks to Phil Allega who helped with the principle wordsmithing

The Challange - Architecture is like food because...……..!

On the discussion board for a LinkedIn group Andrew asked - Architecture is like food because...……..!

 

This is a scary thought after reading the Melissa Cook - chicken analogy! ; )

Doing EA is like carving chicken? I discovered this Nov 08 article by Melissa Cook while looking for an example Green IT EA principle - what do you think?
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/it-organisation/opinion/index.cfm?articleid=1877&pn=1
It is an odd analogy, I don't agree as it is too simplistic but strangely I can see how she got here.

Mmmmmm……………. for me architecture is like……….

Vitamins – often we are not sure of their true value; experts are always disagreeing as to their worth; we (the general public) continue to take them (replace take them with do it for EA) just in case; for some the dose is for short-term benefit i.e. Berocca after a big night out; for others it is just a habit they never think about – got into it during a fitness kick and kept taking a daily vitamin and the true believers never miss a day and combine they vitamins, minerals and herbals because they know that they will provide a long term benefit.

Architecture is much the same:

• In many organisations they do it but are not sure of – nor do they care about – the true value. Others are doing it so they might as well, it won’t hurt.
• The experts are always disagreeing about architecture’s value – IT strategy experts will tell you it is all about the strategic roadmap; operations people will tell you it is about ITSM; project experts will tell it is all in the project management methodology etc. Most organisations will try all these things and keep doing architecture in all the wrong ways – bending and changing with the management fad of the moment.
• Architecture for short term gain is very common – solution architecture oft comes in this guise. I always cringe when I hear the phrase “we need a xxxx architecture – get someone in to do it”. There is this belief that you can create an xxxx architecture out of thin air in the 3 month consulting gig – no understanding that this is a long term process.
• I think the worst organisations are those that just keep doing it badly and never questioning why. The follow a framework of method religiously, plodding along in their architectural void never understanding where they can be adding real value. Never understanding their customers and tailoring their deliverables to suit. Giving the rest of us a bad name.

The true believers! This group are a small minority who really understand the value of architecture and apply it in day-to-day and strategically in their organisations.