Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Architects need professional tools of trade.

Why is it that people are quite happy to have architects, strategists, etc. who will typically cost them in-excess of $500k over 3 years. Get them doing "architecture" and arm with with substandard tooling.

Any cursory analysis would show only a small improvement in productivity and efficiency (5%) would produce a substantially better return of this $500k investment.

No one would suggest an accountant should be expected to do without an accounting system (server based solution) and a spreadsheet (numeric modelling and design tool). No one would surely suggest a project manager - should have a project planning tool. Why then do people arm architects and strategists with tools manifested unsuited to the needs of the enterprise and then marvel at their failure.

When one suggests that a suitable class of tools is used one is often tarred with the brush of promoting a particular product. Yet if an accounting professional suggested a suitable class of tools (e.g. spreadsheet and accounting systems are required for this work) the statement would be taken at face value.

Of course what does not help is "professionals" in this area asserting that EA can be effective when the right class of tooling is not used (despite decades of evidence to the contrary).

See also:
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2008/05/ea-knowledge-bases-need-to-be-active.html
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-we-learned-about-ea.html
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-we-sought-in-tool-for.html
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-dont-most-it-processes-work-well.html
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2007/09/ea-cant-be-done-with-document-or-case.html
http://ea-in-anz.blogspot.com/2007/08/myth-of-heavy-weight-ea.html

EA knowledge bases need to be active

(prompted by people using old approaches with new tools)

The idea of publishing data in a static format is counter to the efficacy of EA.

What one wants in EA is to allow the ownership of the data to remain where it currently resides (i.e. associated with what business function, role currently owns it) - and to be able to see and analyse aggregations of the data (i.e. the data that represents the enterprise).

People should be able to update the data as a natural by product of their day to day work (function, role etc.). As almost everyone in an organisation is responsible for (i.e. owns) some data - this means that eventually almost everyone should be able to update some aspect of the data i.e. the function of maintaining the data is progressively distributed and decentralised (obviously this requires access management, data integrity policies etc.).

This is true of most other enterprise solutions (i.e. all users can update some things, and many things they just reference)

Actually typically people already do update some aspect of this data (i.e. update of the EA is already distributed and decentralised) - usually in a plethora of disconnected and unstructured documents (that suit each individual) but nothing for the enterprise (or the others in the enterprise) . Much of it would be in documents such as: business cases (applications, systems, business processes/products and services, business goals and strategies etc.), operational and procedural documents (holding roles, business processes, rules, products and services etc.), systems diagrams (applications, technology infrastructures), definitions of bodies of work e.g. project charters, statements of work, technical design documents, SLAs, BCP and DR documents etc.

The idea of publishing implicitly involves an unnecessary and function i.e. someone/something has to "publish" it. Where as in fact it should live (active data). The old model is like someone writing the encyclopaedia Britannica and "publishing" it. This just doesn't typically work for EA (it involves rework, it is too slow, the owner can quickly update or correct data, it is counter to the actual process of operating the enterprise).

Having said this in the initial stages of establishing an EA (perhaps much of the 1st year). It is reasonable that some people with a particular interest in a set of data central to many things e.g. business functions, application services etc. may establish a base of data, and some ways of organising the data, to make it easier for everyone else to collaborate.

Using an active EA as if it was is as static EA - is like using a nail gun as if it were a hammer (and then wondering why it takes so long to nail in the nails, and noting that a nail gun costs more than a hammer).