AI-Enabled Programmatic Enterprise Architecture
Malcolm Fitzgerald
Chief Customer Technology Advisor | CTO | Digital Transformation Leader | Innovation | AI Strategy | Enterprise Architecture | Engineering & Operational Excellence
Introduction
Enterprise architecture (EA) serves as the blueprint for aligning an organization's IT with its business goals. Despite its potential benefits, organizations often struggle to bridge the gap between theoretical architectural models and real-world execution. This article explores the common challenges faced in achieving effective EA and how to navigate the complexities of translating theory into practice using AI-enabled Enterprise architecture and programmatic governance across the whole value chain.
Understanding Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise architecture (EA) is a comprehensive framework used to manage and align an organization's IT assets, people, operations, and projects with its overall business goals. It serves as a blueprint for systematically planning, implementing, and sustaining an organization’s IT infrastructure and business processes.
Theoretical Architectural Models
Frameworks like TOGAF, Zachman, FEAF, and Gartner provide structured methodologies for developing and managing enterprise architecture. These models offer standardization, structured methodologies, and improved communication among stakeholders.
Challenges in Real-World Execution
Implementing EA involves managing complexity, overcoming organizational silos, ensuring effective change management, dealing with resource constraints, and keeping up with technological evolution. A critical challenge is validating architectural models against executable software to prevent the accumulation of technical debt.
Managing Complexity
Enterprise architecture (EA) involves integrating various systems, processes, and technologies across an organization. As organizations grow, their IT landscapes become more complex with a mix of legacy systems and modern technologies. Managing this complexity requires a detailed understanding of how different components interact, ensuring they work together seamlessly without creating bottlenecks or inefficiencies.
Key Points:
Latest trends and advancements in AI within Enterprise Architecture (EA) for 2024
Based on the latest trends and advancements in AI within Enterprise Architecture (EA) for 2024, your content can be enriched by emphasizing several key areas:
The Challenge With Common Artifacts in Enterprise and Solution Architecture
Enterprise and solution architectures typically produce a variety of artifacts that help document, communicate, and manage the architecture and its implementation. These artifacts serve as essential tools for aligning IT capabilities with business goals and ensuring the successful execution of architectural plans. However, there are significant challenges in how these artifacts are utilized, particularly in their connection to delivery teams and decision-making processes.
Symptions connecting/tracking/governing these things whilst the plane is flying
Communication Gaps: Often, the artifacts created by architects are not effectively communicated to the delivery teams. This disconnect can lead to misunderstandings and misalignment between what is designed and what is implemented.
Siloed Decisions: Architectural decisions are sometimes made in isolation without sufficient input from the delivery teams who will implement them. This can lead to practical challenges during implementation as the delivery teams encounter unforeseen issues.
Inflexibility: Rigid adherence to predefined artifacts can stifle innovation and responsiveness to changing requirements. Delivery teams need the flexibility to adapt to real-world conditions, which may not always align with the initial architectural designs.
Misalignment: When artifacts are not aligned with the actual delivery process, it can result in technical debt. This happens when shortcuts are taken to meet deadlines or when the designed architecture does not fully address practical constraints.
Documentation vs. Reality: There is often a gap between the documented architecture and the actual implemented system. This gap can lead to technical debt as undocumented changes and quick fixes accumulate over time.
...and many more I'm sure you can think of :)
How can we think about using Generative AI to help keep us at least informed and/or aligned?
Multimodal generative AI represents a significant leap forward in the capabilities of artificial intelligence, integrating and processing multiple forms of data such as text, images, audio, and video. This holistic approach allows AI systems to understand and generate content that is more coherent, contextually rich, and applicable across a variety of real-world scenarios. The importance of multimodal generative AI lies in its ability to mirror human cognitive processes, which are inherently multimodal, thereby enhancing the AI's ability to interpret complex data and deliver more accurate, relevant, and nuanced outputs.
In enterprise architecture, for instance, multimodal AI can seamlessly integrate textual documentation, architectural diagrams, real-time data streams, and even video walkthroughs to provide a comprehensive understanding of the system. This integration enables more effective communication and collaboration across teams, as the AI can present information in the most suitable format for each stakeholder. Additionally, it improves decision-making processes by providing a more complete and contextualized view of the enterprise's architecture and operations.
Integrating Multimodal GenAI for Comprehensive Validation
Generative AI can facilitate the integration of enterprise and solution architecture models, ensuring alignment across all levels. AI can validate code at multiple layers, provide real-time compliance checks, and continuously monitor for adherence to standards using a multimodal approach. We can create a virtuous cycle from Enterprise Architecture thought to Code/Config before shipping to prod giving all stakeholders the ability to be informed.
So the question you might have is, what am I being informed about?
A part of governance is being informed about how close does each "layer" i.e. EA to SA be aligned to each other across all the artefacts mentioned above. So in order to do this I've been using a AI Response Confidence Index. GenAI isn't a black or white response, it's often a reasoned response unlike code (true/false) so we use this approach instead.
Here is a basic index example you can use in the context window that the GenAI model will use to validate you inputs against a set of contraints.
Integration with Modern AI Tools and Practices
Modern AI tools and practices, such as generative AI and machine learning frameworks, can significantly enhance enterprise architecture by automating tasks, improving data quality, and aiding strategic decision-making. Tools like LeanIX AI Assistant and Microsoft Copilot for Office 365 are examples of how AI can streamline EA activities.
Key Points:
Real-Time Personalization and Hyper-Personalization
AI can deliver real-time hyper-personalization, tailoring experiences based on user behavior and preferences. This can significantly enhance both employee and customer satisfaction by providing more responsive and user-centric systems.
Key Points:
Application Modernization and Rationalization
AI can support the modernization and rationalization of legacy systems by analyzing existing codebases, recommending architecture patterns, and generating templatized code in target languages.
Key Points:
Enhanced Data Insights and Predictive Analytics
AI can provide rich data insights and predictive analytics by fine-tuning pre-trained models with enterprise-specific data. This can help architects make better-informed decisions and define future roadmaps with greater confidence.
Key Points:
Task Automation in Enterprise Architecture
AI can automate routine tasks in enterprise architecture, such as generating diagrams, recommending design patterns, and creating process models. This enhances productivity and allows architects to focus on strategic initiatives.
Key Points:
Collaborative AI Tools
AI can enhance collaboration across organizations by facilitating better interactions among stakeholders. Interactive business process models and AI-driven communication tools can improve collaboration between business and IT teams.
Key Points:
Let's do a concrete example:
The diagram outlines an AI-driven workflow for ensuring adherence to enterprise architecture standards throughout the software development lifecycle. It incorporates standards and guardrails stored in a RAG Data Store, uses LLMs for automated artefact review be it models, standards, guardrails, code and otherwise. For code, the introduction of key checkpoints include pre-commit hooks and CI pipelines to validate code against these standards, preventing technical debt and maintaining code quality.
What is a EAG Check?
Enterprise Architecture Governance (EAG) Check:
An EAG check is a systematic process integrated into the DevOps pipeline to ensure that solution changes align with established architectural guardrails, standards, and patterns. This check is performed at various stages of the software development lifecycle to maintain continuous compliance and prevent the accumulation of technical debt.
Key Components:
EAG Check Process:
领英推荐
AI-Enabled Programmatic Enterprise Architecture Governance
AI-enabled programmatic governance integrates AI tools into the DevOps pipeline, ensuring that solution changes align with architectural guardrails, standards, and patterns. This approach removes manual logging of technical debt decisions and ensures continuous compliance.
Key Components:
For this example, we will use the following as an example:
Solution Architecture Example
Using Generative Vision to Compare Architectural Models Between Enterprise Architecture and Solution Architecture
Generative Vision leverages AI to visually analyze and compare architectural models, bridging the gap between enterprise architecture (EA) and solution architecture (SA). By processing images of architectural diagrams, Generative Vision can evaluate the alignment between EA and SA models using predefined guardrails and patterns. The AI tool assigns a confidence index, indicating how well the solution architecture conforms to the enterprise standards. This process enhances accuracy and consistency in architectural validation, ensuring that both models are aligned with organizational goals and compliance requirements. The integration of multimodal AI capabilities enables a comprehensive analysis that includes visual elements and textual documentation, facilitating more effective communication and decision-making across teams.
Here's an example script to demonstrate how Generative Vision can be implemented for such a task of passing in a architectural model and prompt:
import openai
import base64
from PIL import Image
from io import BytesIO
import os
import aiohttp
import asyncio
# Replace with your OpenAI API key
OPENAI_API_KEY = ""
openai.api_key = OPENAI_API_KEY
async def get_image_analysis(image_path):
# Read and encode the image
with open(image_path, "rb") as image_file:
image_bytes = image_file.read()
base64_encoded_image = base64.b64encode(image_bytes).decode('utf-8')
# Decode the base64 string and open image
image_bytes = base64.b64decode(base64_encoded_image)
image = Image.open(BytesIO(image_bytes))
# Resize the image to 512x512
resized_image = image.resize((512, 512))
# If you want to re-encode to base64
buffered = BytesIO()
resized_image.save(buffered, format=image.format)
resized_base64 = base64.b64encode(buffered.getvalue()).decode()
dir_path = "."
# Read the patterns and guardrails content
with open('patterns_and_guardrails.txt', 'r') as file:
patterns_guardrails = file.read()
with open('target_state_patterns.txt', 'r') as file:
target_patterns = file.read()
with open('wee_a.txt', 'r') as file:
weel_a = file.read()
prompt = f"""
BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURE MODEL PASSED IN, USING THE CONFIDENCE INDEX RATING.
ASSESS HOW CONFIDENCE THE
ARCHITECTRUE MODEL aligns TO THE GURDARRAILS.
CONFIDENCE INDEX
10, Excellent, The response is perfect. It is highly accurate, complete, relevant, and exceptionally well-articulated. No improvements are needed.
9, Very Good, The response is nearly perfect. It is highly accurate and relevant but might lack a minor detail or have a slight improvement in articulation.
8, Good, The response is accurate and relevant but might miss a couple of minor details or have minor issues in articulation.
7, Fairly Good, The response is mostly accurate and relevant but might miss a few details or have some issues in articulation.
6, Satisfactory, The response is generally accurate but lacks several details or has notable issues in articulation. It still provides value.
5, Average, The response is somewhat accurate but misses several key details or has significant issues in articulation. It provides some value but needs improvement.
4, Below Average, The response is partially accurate but misses many key details and has major issues in articulation. It provides limited value.
3, Poor, The response is largely inaccurate or irrelevant with substantial missing details and severe issues in articulation. It provides minimal value.
2, Very Poor, The response is highly inaccurate or irrelevant with almost all key details missing and major articulation issues. It provides very little value.
1, Terrible, The response is almost entirely inaccurate or irrelevant with no useful details and extremely poor articulation. It provides negligible value.
0, Untrustworthy, The response is completely inaccurate or irrelevant with no useful information and is misleading or deceptive. It provides no value and cannot be trusted.
YOU MUST ONLY RETURN A SINGLE CONFIDENCE VALUE.
GUARDRAILS
{patterns_guardrails}
PATTERNS
{target_patterns}
SOLUTION ARCHITECTURE
{target_patterns}
WEEL ARCH
{weel_a}
"""
# Ensure the directory exists
if not os.path.exists(dir_path):
os.makedirs(dir_path)
filename = os.path.basename(image_path)
filepath = os.path.join(dir_path, filename)
headers = {
"Authorization": f"Bearer {OPENAI_API_KEY}",
"Content-Type": "application/json"
}
payload = {
"model": "gpt-4o",
"messages": [
{
"role": "user",
"content": [
{"type": "text", "text": prompt},
{
"type": "image_url",
"image_url": {
"url": f"data:image/jpeg;base64,{resized_base64}",
"detail": "high" # This is how you specify the image quality detail
}
}
]
}
],
"max_tokens": 300
}
async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
async with session.post("https://api.openai.com/v1/chat/completions", headers=headers, json=payload) as response:
if response.status == 200:
response_data = await response.json()
description = response_data['choices'][0]['message']['content']
return {"description": description}
else:
response_text = await response.text()
raise Exception(f"Error from OpenAI: {response_text}")
# Example usage
image_path = 'arch_model.png'
response = asyncio.run(get_image_analysis(image_path))
print(response)
Novel Code Check EAG Example:
prompt = (
"""
You must analyse the 'Code to be validated' to see if it partially aligned to the guardrails and standards using the CONFIDENCE INDEX to assess it then return "pass" or "fail" in the status field. You must check the code and disregard comments in the code.
If the code does not partially align to the CONFIDENCE INDEX return "fail" in the status field and populate the description field with the reason. If failed you must provide the pattern referecne number(s), guardail referecne number(s) or standard(s) referecne number
CONFIDENCE INDEX
10, Excellent, The response is perfect. It is highly accurate, complete, relevant, and exceptionally well-articulated. No improvements are needed.
9, Very Good, The response is nearly perfect. It is highly accurate and relevant but might lack a minor detail or have a slight improvement in articulation.
8, Good, The response is accurate and relevant but might miss a couple of minor details or have minor issues in articulation.
7, Fairly Good, The response is mostly accurate and relevant but might miss a few details or have some issues in articulation.
6, Satisfactory, The response is generally accurate but lacks several details or has notable issues in articulation. It still provides value.
5, Average, The response is somewhat accurate but misses several key details or has significant issues in articulation. It provides some value but needs improvement.
4, Below Average, The response is partially accurate but misses many key details and has major issues in articulation. It provides limited value.
3, Poor, The response is largely inaccurate or irrelevant with substantial missing details and severe issues in articulation. It provides minimal value.
2, Very Poor, The response is highly inaccurate or irrelevant with almost all key details missing and major articulation issues. It provides very little value.
1, Terrible, The response is almost entirely inaccurate or irrelevant with no useful details and extremely poor articulation. It provides negligible value.
0, Untrustworthy, The response is completely inaccurate or irrelevant with no useful information and is misleading or deceptive. It provides no value and cannot be trusted.
DO NOT RESPOND WITH ```json in the payload
YOU MUST ONLY USE THIS FORMAT
{
"status": "",
"description": ""
}
"""
#######
#
# This can be a RAG lookup if the context window isn't big enough
#
#######
f"Patterns and Guardrails:\n{patterns_guardrails}\n\n"
f"Target State Patterns:\n{target_patterns}\n\n"
f"Solution Architecture:\n{sa_model_parsed_to_base64}\n\n"
f"Code to be validated:\n{code}\n\n"
)
The below script provided is a pre-commit hook example that ensures code quality and adherence to architectural standards using both static analysis and AI validation.
It first runs flake8 to check for Python code style violations. If flake8 passes, it proceeds to validate the code against predefined architectural patterns and guardrails using OpenAI. The AI checks the code for compliance based on a confidence index, providing a pass or fail status along with descriptive feedback. This automated validation process helps maintain high code quality and alignment with architectural standards before code is committed to the repository.
#!/usr/bin/env python
import subprocess
import asyncio
import os
import json
from verify import main as verify_with_openai
from dotenv import load_dotenv
# Load environment variables from .env file
load_dotenv()
def run_flake8():
print("Running flake8...")
result = subprocess.run(
['flake8', '--config', '.flake8'], capture_output=True, text=True
)
if result.returncode != 0:
print("flake8 failed with output:\n", result.stdout)
return False
print("flake8 passed")
return True
async def validate_with_openai():
print("Starting OpenAI validation...")
# Read the patterns and guardrails content
with open('patterns_guardrails/patterns_and_guardrails.txt', 'r') as file:
patterns_guardrails = file.read()
with open('patterns_guardrails/target_state_patterns.txt', 'r') as file:
target_patterns = file.read()
# Read the code to be validated
with open('clm_system.py', 'r') as code_file:
code = code_file.read()
# Combine the contents to form the prompt
prompt = (
"""
You must analyse the 'Code to be validated' to see if it partially aligned to the guardrails and standards using the CONFIDENCE INDEX to assess it then return "pass" or "fail" in the status field. You must check the code and disregard comments in the code.
If the code does not partially align to the CONFIDENCE INDEX return "fail" in the status field and populate the description field with the reason. If failed you must provide the pattern referecne number(s), guardail referecne number(s) or standard(s) referecne number
CONFIDENCE INDEX
10, Excellent, The response is perfect. It is highly accurate, complete, relevant, and exceptionally well-articulated. No improvements are needed.
9, Very Good, The response is nearly perfect. It is highly accurate and relevant but might lack a minor detail or have a slight improvement in articulation.
8, Good, The response is accurate and relevant but might miss a couple of minor details or have minor issues in articulation.
7, Fairly Good, The response is mostly accurate and relevant but might miss a few details or have some issues in articulation.
6, Satisfactory, The response is generally accurate but lacks several details or has notable issues in articulation. It still provides value.
5, Average, The response is somewhat accurate but misses several key details or has significant issues in articulation. It provides some value but needs improvement.
4, Below Average, The response is partially accurate but misses many key details and has major issues in articulation. It provides limited value.
3, Poor, The response is largely inaccurate or irrelevant with substantial missing details and severe issues in articulation. It provides minimal value.
2, Very Poor, The response is highly inaccurate or irrelevant with almost all key details missing and major articulation issues. It provides very little value.
1, Terrible, The response is almost entirely inaccurate or irrelevant with no useful details and extremely poor articulation. It provides negligible value.
0, Untrustworthy, The response is completely inaccurate or irrelevant with no useful information and is misleading or deceptive. It provides no value and cannot be trusted.
DO NOT RESPOND WITH ```json in the payload
YOU MUST ONLY USE THIS FORMAT
{
"status": "",
"description": ""
}
"""
f"Patterns and Guardrails:\n{patterns_guardrails}\n\n"
f"Target State Patterns:\n{target_patterns}\n\n"
f"Code to be validated:\n{code}\n\n"
)
print(f"Prompt sent to OpenAI:\n{prompt}")
# Send the prompt to OpenAI and get the response
response = await verify_with_openai(prompt)
print("OpenAI Validation Response:", response)
# Clean the response to remove any non-JSON text and parse it
response = response.strip().strip('```json').strip('```').replace('\n', ' ')
# Parse the JSON response
try:
response_json = json.loads(response)
status = response_json.get("status", "").lower()
description = response_json.get("description", "")
print(f"Status: {status}, Description: {description}")
if status == "pass":
print("OpenAI validation passed")
return True
else:
print(f"Pre-commit checks failed based on OpenAI validation: {description}")
return False
except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
print(f"Failed to decode OpenAI response: {e}")
print("Pre-commit checks failed due to invalid response format.")
return False
if __name__ == "__main__":
print("Pre-commit hook started")
if not run_flake8():
print("Pre-commit checks failed due to flake8.")
exit(1)
# Check if OPENAI_CHECK environment variable is set to "true"
openai_check = os.getenv("OPENAI_CHECK", "true").lower()
openai_check = "true"
print(f"OPENAI_CHECK is set to {openai_check}")
if openai_check == "true":
# Run OpenAI validation
validation_result = asyncio.run(validate_with_openai())
if not validation_result:
exit(1)
print("Pre-commit hook completed successfully")
Example of Response:
Key issues identified:
1. **API Gateway (GRP-PATTERN-01)**:
- The API Gateway implementation does manage request routing and rate limiting; however, integration with Telemetry and Identity Management is simulated without covering the aspects needed in real deployment scenarios, such as handling complex routing and advanced security and observability requirements.
2. **Event Sourcing (GRP-PATTERN-02)**:
- The system simulates event sourcing and generation. However, adherence to schema versioning and compatibility checks (GRP-GUARDRAIL-01) needs more robust handling across the event publishing section.
Integrating GenAI for Governance Across the Lifecycle Toolsets
GenAI Integration into Enterprise Architecture Tools
Integrating GenAI into enterprise architecture tools helps ensure that architectural models and standards are adhered to consistently. This integration can enhance the accuracy and reliability of architectural models, facilitate real-time validation, and provide actionable insights to architects.
GenAI Integration into Solution Architecture Tools
In solution architecture tools, GenAI can play a vital role in ensuring that solution designs align with enterprise architecture standards and guardrails. This integration can enhance the design process by providing real-time validation and insights.
GenAI Integration into Continuous Integration (CI) Pipelines
Integrating GenAI into CI pipelines ensures that all code changes are continuously validated against architectural standards and guardrails. This integration helps maintain code quality and compliance throughout the development lifecycle.
GenAI Integration into DevOps Processes
In DevOps processes, integrating GenAI can enhance governance by ensuring that all changes, from development to deployment, comply with architectural standards and guardrails.
GenAI Integration into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs)
Integrating GenAI into IDEs provides developers with real-time validation and feedback, ensuring that all code changes comply with architectural standards and guardrails from the outset.
By addressing these additional areas, the content will provide a more comprehensive and practical guide on leveraging AI for enterprise architecture, ensuring it covers the latest tools, practices, and methodologies in the field.
The Importance of AI Verifiers During the Value Pipeline
In the context of enterprise architecture and software development, AI verifiers are instrumental in ensuring the quality, compliance, and alignment of AI-generated responses throughout the entire value pipeline. From the initial stages of enterprise architecture modeling to the execution and deployment phases, AI verifiers act as critical checkpoints that validate and enhance the integrity of the development process illustrating the importance of AI verifiers across various stages of the value pipeline in maintaining consistency, mitigating risks, and supporting continuous improvement.
Integrating AI Verifiers in Enterprise Architecture
Enterprise Architecture Models and Standards: At the outset, AI verifiers ensure that enterprise architecture models and standards are accurately defined and adhered to. By verifying these foundational elements, AI verifiers help maintain a consistent and reliable architectural framework.
Key Points:
AI Verifiers in Solution Design and Planning
Solution Design: During the solution design phase, AI verifiers ensure that the proposed solutions align with enterprise architecture models and standards. This verification helps identify potential issues early, facilitating timely adjustments.
Key Points:
Planning: In the planning phase, AI verifiers play a crucial role in validating the planned activities and ensuring they align with the established architecture and design standards.
Key Points:
Ensuring Compliance During Build and Development
Build Phase: During the build phase, AI verifiers ensure that the actual implementation aligns with the planned architecture and design. This includes validating code and configurations against predefined standards and guardrails.
Key Points:
Development Phase: In the development phase, AI verifiers provide real-time feedback to developers, ensuring that all code changes are compliant with architectural standards and guardrails.
Key Points:
Supporting Quality Assurance in Testing and Pre-Production
System Integration Testing (SIT): During SIT, AI verifiers validate that the integrated systems function correctly and adhere to architectural standards.
Key Points:
Pre-Production: In the pre-production phase, AI verifiers ensure that the final system configuration is compliant with architectural standards and ready for deployment.
Key Points:
Building AI Verifiers into the Flywheel
Continuous Improvement: AI verifiers are integral to creating a continuous improvement flywheel, where feedback from each stage of the value pipeline informs and enhances subsequent stages.
Key Points:
Integration Across the Lifecycle: Integrating AI verifiers across the entire development lifecycle ensures that all stages are aligned and compliant with enterprise architecture standards.
Key Points:
Thank you for taking the time to read our work on AI-Enabled Programmatic Enterprise Architecture. Your insights and feedback are invaluable to the refinement of the concepts and strategies discussed within the article.
We hope some of this content has inspired you to how you can apply GenAI in your Enterprise Architecture teams.
Author: Malcolm Fitzgerald
Contributors: Chris Huggins
Insightful and comprehensive. Highly recommend this piece as a starting point for practitioners looking to ideate how to incorporate AI across their architecture practices. Congrats Malcolm Fitzgerald and Chris Huggins
Sales professional helping Australian businesses use data to make better decisions. #DecisionIntelligence #BetterData
4 个月Nice mate!
Director Principal Architect@Salesforce
4 个月Really interesting ideas in there. ?Great write up. ?There should be flex of course as rigorous alignment to any enterprise framework is quite rare these days. ?
Technology & Operations Leadership | Architecture | Strategy | Digital | Data | Integration | Innovation | Transformation
4 个月Awesome piece Malcolm Fitzgerald takes the chat we were having over a well deserved beer to a whole new level.! Rishi Sachdev Dr. Nathan Chandler Lech Szoloch Hugh Evans Susan Abishara Alexis Sauvage Emma Walker Chief Architect Network
Data + AI Solutions Director
4 个月??????