Architecture Context

I am going back to basics today, as I may have started out with many assumptions about past knowledge/experience. This release will therefore appeal more to those just starting out in solution architecture (SA).

When I discuss computing with secondary/high school students, I point out that computers lean on many metaphors from the real world. Early computers started out with the goal of replicating aspects of the nature of the thinking human, with emphasis on the brain. I believe this leaning holds true, in almost all areas of Information Technology (IT), including SA. I completed a B.Sc. in computer science, many moons ago, and in one of our final lectures on Systems Analysis and Design, the lecturers asked a question. Would we agree that the last three years was a summation of common sense, as applied in the area of man and machine? Yes, we did! Therefore, SA, like all of IT, is not some esoteric art that dropped out of the ether. It is common sense that anyone can grasp, and I will use the metaphor of a country to buttress this point.

The Enterprise

TOGAF defines an enterprise as "The highest level (typically) of description of an organization and typically covers all missions and functions.". I could simplify this by likening the enterprise to the territory (logical or physical) where an organisation operates, and within which it uses IT to facilitate its business. This is the scope in which the people in an organisation have control (governance), and can make decisions, that influence and determine, how technology is used. Imagine a democratic country, preferably a Scandinavian one ??, where elected officials serve the best interests of the nation and citizens. That county is a good metaphor for our enterprise. It can be in one contiguous space, or spread out over a number of locations.

The Resources

All countries have resources of some sort: scenic sites, arable land, historic buildings, minerals, impressive geographical features, transportation infrastructure, etc. These are things that make it possible for activity and interaction between those within the country. These things are not productive in themselves, but they are useful and necessary inputs. Note that the availability/presence of these resources is not a determination of value creation, as we see with some resource-rich-but-poor countries. Likewise, every enterprise will be furnished with certain resources: offices, data, servers, laptops, software, processes, communication networks, etc. Just as with the country, we can see corollaries in corporations with a high book-value but a low market-value.

The Linkages

You may have noticed that I ended the list of resources, for the country and the enterprise, with 'transportation infrastructure' and 'communication networks'. The Latin phrase 'primus inter pares' translates, roughly, to 'first among equals', or once could say, "equal, but also special". Just as the transportation infrastructure is vital to the prosperity of the country, the communication networks are key to the agility, dynamism and responsiveness of the enterprise. There is a line I want you to see here. Many resource-rich-but-poor countries are also deficient in the transportation infrastructure that could unlock the potentials of their resources. Do you see how that relates to the enterprise? I explored the problem of rigid hierarchy in a recent article, a consequence of which is poor communication.

The Capabilities

For a country to transform a resource, e.g. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and create outputs, some things are needed, such as, knowledge, plans, money, transportation, etc. The synergy of these complementary resources in a given context, enables a sector to function. Likewise, in the enterprise, the offices, processes, computers, data, communication must be organised to enable sections of the enterprise to function. These are capabilities, and they could be vertical or horizontal, with a strict/narrow focus, or borrowing from a number of areas. Their existence demonstrates the ability to transform inputs into higher value outputs.

The Outputs

The functioning of sectors or sections are not an end in themselves. The goal is to generate outputs, some of which will be consumed within the country or sold/exchanged with other countries. Capabilities will usually be organised into a number of value streams, where one section creates outputs that are used as inputs by another section. This explains why ITIL4 sees the enterprise as a context of value co-creation. Eventually, some output should be exported to some external 'customer'. The enterprise is constrained in this area, though. Unlike the country, it must maintain a net trade surplus, i.e. the value of its outputs must be far higher than the value of its inputs. Outputs, in the form of goods and/or services, must be created, irrespective of the location of the end consumers. The enterprise just has a greater focus on external end-customers.

The Stakeholders

So far, we have talked of potentials, but not actualisation. What is missing? The stakeholders! The people with interests in certain goals, directions, values, etc. for the country, or the enterprise. In the country, this will include economic, regulatory, social and political actors, among others. In the enterprise, we have the business owners/funders, or their representatives, IT leadership and architecture, end-users, influential offices/roles/persons, project teams, etc. As with the nation, so also the enterprise. It is the positive, strategic, sustained action of stakeholders that differentiates the failed-state from the tiger-nation, the struggling firm from the booming mega-corp.

The Vision and Hub

Certain stakeholders must see the territory and its boundaries, know the resources that lie therein, understand the capabilities needed to transform them, recognise the valuable outputs that can be created, and the linkages required, internally and externally, to deliver to customers. Now, if there was just one stakeholder, all of this would be easy. However, not only would there be limited value, due to the limited perspectives, but inputs and outputs would also be low. To get better/higher quality, more viewpoints are needed. For an increase in outputs, more inputs are also needed. But with more stakeholders, there is a need for more communication, vertical and horizontal, and multidimensional empathy. All of which are part of the function of the SA.

I may be biased by my career history and experience, but I really believe that, as SA, you are a very important stakeholder. Second, only to the business and a few others. Vertically, you will be working with project teams facing, real practical concerns, while also interfacing with IT leadership, enterprise architecture, and the business. Horizontally, your time will be shared across projects, as well as dealing with operational concerns, some of which will be non-technical.

However, as I explained in another article, you wield mostly influence and not authority. If I continue with the country analogy, you would have to be a zealous patriot; part-politician, part-economist, workers-sympathiser, para-legal, psychologist, and a socialite ??. In the enterprise, you must cultivate relationships in every area, vertically in the hierarchy, and horizontally across projects/teams/units. You are among a select few that have the insight to drive beneficial synergy, and where necessary compromise, for the benefit of the organisation. Great nations emerge because key stakeholders saw the big picture and carried the population with them. Great enterprises benefit from the same, and you, as the SA, have a great role to play in that group of key stakeholders.

That is all for now. As always, let me have feedback/comments, and I will respond, at the earliest convenience.?

Until the next release, adios for now.

????????

Intro | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Conclusion