Philip Allega

I think that the push for considering an alternative means to engage in EA is, indeed, already underway. In organizations who treat “people as strategy” (e.g., SEMCO, Whole Foods, HCL, Topcoder), wherein people are give broad self-directed control of creating and executing strategy in real time, the notion that one will “translate business vision and strategy into effective enterprise change” (note: this is Gartner’s traditional short hand definition of EA) is impossible unless one has the ability to see what is happening “on the ground” “in real-enough time” so that senior leaders can determine whether the outcomes are the ones that are desired. In order to determine whether the outcomes being created without a “command and control” model over the actions and activities of people who operate the business, the senior leaders require an ability to visualize, simulate and optimize the target state.

This is difficult for traditional management, and traditional EA, to grasp.

The 4-Hour Workweek may, at first, seem to be a “tongue-in-cheek” book; but, in reality, it describes how one can provide broad parameters and rules of engagement in which external entities operate in a manner that delivers outcomes that suit the author: making money and freeing up his time to engage in other endeavors. This is, in this case, instructive because the author has created a solution that allows him to “play the game” of managing his businesses only 4-hours per week, determining whether the decisions that his “players” are making are creating a future in line with broad goals. This author is not, however, crowdsourcing innovation but he is creating a game that it is easy and fun to play as the business leader.

In neither of the previous cases are the noted businesses able to visually predict what might happen when game mechanics (the underlying rules, rewards and feedback systems of a game) are applied under differing conditions. However, that’s not to say that

I’d also like to note that our research from Linda Cohen and Gartnter’s outsourcing team further illustrates the need for EA efforts to disengage from the desires to have control over outsourced solutions and, rather, predict how the state of those decisions impacts the future state and under varying conditions in which the business finds itself. A controlled planning approach, like our traditional definition of EA, is no longer relevant under such a scenario. This requires new tools and techniques.

We have worked with companies creating home-grown ADL (architectural description language) solutions to vet conceptual state behaviors with physical state behaviors under experience-based scenarios.  This is rudimentatry and does not create visualization, but it’s evidence that simulation and optimization is underway yoday.

It is still early days, for example, with solutions like iRise that support the visualization of requirements. Combined with technologies from simulation and optimization solutions (vendors include AnyLogic; Avolution; Business Genetics; Global 360; IBM; Lanner; Lintra; Nimbus; Pegasus; ProSim; Salamander Technologies; Simul8; Software AG; Tibco; Troux; xjTek) and techniques (for example, discrete modeling, agent-based modeling, monte-carlo, bayesian networks, regression analysis, system dynamics and linear programming) it’s not too far fetched to anticipate an EA team that :

• Creates sets of conceptual visualization “components/services/patterns/reference models/etc” that are consistent with a target future state in order to guide requirements/project teams
• Simulates the effect upon the physical environment in which multiple scenarios create different target future states
• Guides requirements/project teams with preconceived visual “components/services/patterns/reference models/etc”
• Predicts the target state that’s being created at particular milestones during the SDLC
• Updates a repository of the implemented solution that reflects the new physical state metadata
• Proves that the business and IT development can move at a faster rate of speed and predict the future state/capabilities of the business relative to its goals/mission/strategy using game mechanics and other simulation and optimization techniques.

In Gartner’s EA Hype Cycle, 2010 (note: link for Gartner clients only), we defined “visualization, simulation and optimization for enterprise architecture” as the virtual lifelike representations of the behaviors or characteristics used to predict behavior among components comprising the enterprise (business processes, applications, data, technologies) in conceptual, logical and physical systems, including interactions with their environments, over multiple states in time (current and multiple future and transitional states) for the purposes of determining the best-fit future state.

The bar is set high with an expectation that the simulation and optimization environment itself can seek optimal states and identify obstacles given the changing parameters of the attributes of components within the model that are not driven by experiential-based scenario conditions created by subject matter experts alone. This contention supports the use of game mechanics to move beyond experience-based scenarios to predict the future state.

This means that simulation and optimization techniques for enterprise architecture seek to understand the implications of changes across the combinatorial behaviors of components given condition maximums and minimums, over time, at across each level of decomposition: conceptual, logical and physical. The difference versus simulation techniques applied elsewhere is twofold:

1. The simulation and optimization methodologies are not based on experiential-based scenario trade-off and impact analysis alone.
2. The simulation and optimization results are represented visually, not just as a report of where and when obstacles exist.

The challenge for the application of game mechanics that take advantage of tools who can provide discrete simulation solutions is that they are, today, not fully enterprise in scope, or provide answers to problems only understood by subject matter experts typically engaged in engineering, manufacturing and quality assurance or to support regulatory reporting requirements. Point solutions include techniques that support retail industry solutions (for example, retail execution optimization and trade promotion optimization), advanced analytics in the insurance industry and in the public sector, immersive learning environments, product portfolio optimization, store replenishment and inventory optimization, transportation predictive analytics and simulation, and marketing performance management.

BPMS solutions in simulation and optimization have relied on Monte Carlo, probabilistic solutions to experiential-based scenarios for processes and their related financial, people and data components, but have yet to include infrastructure components in their simulations and have not raised their game to the level of the entirety of the enterprise itself.

The allure of such promise to enterprise architects can be seen today in, for example, the Ph.D. dissertations of Dr. Christopher G. Glazner of MIT, on “Understanding Enterprise Behavior Using Hybrid Simulation of Enterprise Architecture” and Dr. David Dreyfus’ dissertation completed at Boston University entitled, “Digital Cement: Information System Architecture, Complexity, and Flexibility.” Both took different approaches to simulation and optimization, and are illustrative of leading-edge techniques in their 2009 dissertations. Andrew Haldane’s team at the Bank of England has created models to understand, visualize and simulate the effect of financial markets on the Bank of England. Dr. Andrew Lo, director of the MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering, is leading an effort to look at markets as adaptive systems using such techniques.

The uptake and interest in such approaches are on the very early radars of leading-edge EA practitioners but, given the increased capabilities of BPMS tools supporting simulation and visualization techniques, we expect that this will change the game in terms of how enterprise architects plan for, and communicate, the potential for change and the results of change.

In the EA Hype Cycle, 2010, we noted that these technologies and techniques have entered the Hype Cycle just past the technology trigger, are transformational in nature, emerging, and penetrating <1% of the target audience. However, this space bears watching.

When strategy is created in real time, by people thousands of miles from your corporate leaders, what do enterprise architects do? Think about that as you reconsider this posting and its impact upon your day to day job in the years to come.

8 Comments »

Category: Enterprise Architect Enterprise Architecture Gaming Simulation and Optimization Visualization     Tags:

Share

It’s Symposium season.  We actually began in South Africa at the end of August and in Brazil in September.  We continue this coming Sunday-Thursday in Orlando and then Cannes, France, Japan and Sydney, Australia, to conclude this years largest gathering of CIOs and IT leaders in the world.  For me, and my colleagues in enterprise architecture, it’s a great time to talk EA non-stop for 5 days.

My wife says this is my time to really “geek out”.  I can’t wait.  I feel like a kid about to go to his own birthday party.  It’s very exciting.

So, what will talk about?  The theme of the conference is “Transitions: New realities, rules and opportunities”.  We will have more CIOs and IT leaders and enterprise architects than any other conference in our history or anywhere else on the planet.  This is the 20th anniversary and it’s going to be fun for enterprise architects and their CIOs to:

• Break through the hype concerning EA in the marketplace today
• Examine what EA really means to CIOs
• Understand how Enterprise Business Architecture, a viewpoint of EA, unites business and IT
• Learn how to integrate the investment decision-making process with EA
• Explore what effective governance for EA and IT looks like
• Uncover what information-sharing means for today’s leading organizations
• Engage in various workshops that explore the maturity of their EA effort, create business-driven EA requirements, and develop effective EA principles
• Participate in roundtable discussions concerning context-aware computing, how EA supports OT and IT convergence, cloud application architecture best practices, building and growing a great EA team, best practices in communication, applying pattern-based strategies and best practices in maturing the EA program
• See leading edge approaches to engage businesses in hybrid thinking

Of course, this is just part of the exciting EA track I’m participating in; there’s so much more to the conference that can be found here: http://www.gartner.com/technology/symposium/orlando/index.jsp

CIOs and enterprise architecture (EA) teams have led and will continue to lead the transformation efforts that are reinvigorating complex organizations. As a discipline, EA promotes confident, visionary leadership. Mature EA programs help institutionalize strategic thinking and improve the general management skills of the IT organization.

CIOs and chief architects who position EA as “strategy” will be better able to refine their organization’s strategic focus, optimize IT investment decisions, refine the economics of IT, co-evolve improved business capability models with larger organization, and provide higher quality, more authoritative information to decision makers. These goals may sound lofty, but many organizations are using crises to position EA as a key enabler of transformation and innovation.

Let’s talk EA and how EA really works for your organization. 

I’m looking forward to meeting you in Orlando.  Please say hello when you see me.

Follow us on twitter at #GartnerSym.

Comments Off

Category: Uncategorized     Tags:

Share

Enterprise architects use metadata repositories to indicate the enterprise state of the items stored within.  Gartner’s IT Market Clock plots the current state and predicted lifecycle of IT products or services within a marketplace.  Enterprise architects will benefit from communicating the lifecycle positioning on internally held assets versus the marketplace perspective, as well as be in a position to identify opportunities, challenges, entrance end-of-life concerns for assets their organizations hold in their portfolio given their lifecycle positions.  This is, in many ways, simple…but powerful. 

Gartner research fellow Brian Gammage has reminded me in successive emails and blogs (“Tick Tock, Market Clock“), it’s coming, get ready.  Well, it’s here.  And, it means something to enterprise architects who focus upon, or include, the viewpoint of technology architecture within their enterprise architecture (EA) program. The IT Market Clock is a Gartner methodology that supports strategic investment and divestment decisions. It can be applied to any IT product or service category.  Using a clock face, Gartner plots the stage of IT products or services within their lifecycle and predict how long until they arrive in the next stage (Brian blogs about this here: http://blogs.gartner.com/brian-gammage/2010/08/20/market-life-and-the-it-market-clock/):

Using Gartner’s “IT Market Clock for Client Computing, 2010” as an example of one marketplace we can explore how this helps EA programs. Within this research, for example, Gartner places Windows XP just past the “dusk of obsolescence”, at nine thirty, and at 2 to 5 years from end of life (Microsoft will end extended support for Windows XP in April 2014). In the 2009 version of this IT Market Clock, Windows XP was just past eight o’clock, and set to enter the replacement phase within 2 years. Gartner recommends that our clients “establish plans to migrate off now…[and] remove from portfolio by 1Q13″.  This research also qualifies the state of Windows 7, noting that it is now ready for mainstream deployment and that “migration plans should already be in place”. Windows 7 is positioned in the choice phase of its life, just past three o’clock: in 2009 it was positioned early in the advantage phase and Gartner’s advice highlighted the time required to prepare for deployments.

Recognizing that client operating systems (OSs) continue to be the most critical asset in client-computing portfolios, defining the underlying cadence of upgrade and replacement initiatives, Gartner’s positions concerning Windows XP entering the replacement phase and Windows 7 entering the choice phase should inform, minimally, trends that are impacting the business context of the organization. Many organizations in cash preservation mode may decide to extend the life of their underlying primary OS for end-users for more than 2 years, taking the position that upgrade and replacement initiatives are on hold until, at least, 2013.

Gartner Estimates Global ‘IT Debt’ to Be $500 Billion This Year; Potential to Grow to $1 Trillion by 2015

As EA programs aid there business in making investment decisions that add future costs or delay investments today in exchange for a more costly future problem, EA leaders must be in the position to communicate the future state that’s being created, whether for good or “not-so-good”.  

Gartner’s IT Market Clock allows IT organizations to map their IT assets to the IT Market Clock phases, focus on the advantage and retirement/replacement phases, and commit fewer resources to commoditized assets.  Many organizations take a structured approach to adopting new technology assets, but few have mechanisms for deciding when to replace or change their sourcing approach. Gartner’s IT Market Clock helps evaluate and prioritize IT investments across items within any technology asset portfolio.

EA programs should use Gartner’s IT Market Clock to understand and communicate the impact of the external market on internal IT investments, the state of the cumulative portfolio and the time until replacement and/or retirement. 

It’s time for EA programs to update their EA metadata repository to reflect the state of those assets today and project their future state in the years to come, based upon investment choices made, or not made, today.   It’s simple, but it’s an extremely valuable update to the enterprise technology architecture (ETA) viewpoint of EA.  For Gartner EA clients, here’s what to do next: http://www.gartner.com/resId=1426122.

Comments Off

Category: Uncategorized     Tags:

Share

In Gartner’s recent report, IT Metrics: Office of the CIO Staffing Report, 2010 , we noted that:

The top-ranked function employed or implemented within the OCIO (Office of the CIO) is enterprise architecture, with 76% of respondents reporting a full-time equivalent (FTE) response to this role

So, why so much angst over whether EA is “dead”?  Well, the use of the term “dead” in relation to a practice, a cultural trend (say, like blogging) is a rhetorical device meant to draw attention to symptoms of demise and re-birth.  I used this device myself in my blog entitled, “John Zachman is Dead, Long Live John Zachman” in which I explored the current state of affairs in the case of the Zachman brand seeking to re-assert itself in the market place.  The use of such rhetoric is certain to gain attention and allow the author to present a case for something ending and beginning at the same time.  Think “Phoenix Rising from the Ashes” when considering how this rhetorical device allows various pundits to pontificate the end of something known as EA and the beginning of something with a new title.  I always think of this as “putting lipstick on the pig” (English idiom alert: this means to make something ugly look pretty) or I think of the recording artist Prince and his period of time when he was known as “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince“, or the much used ”TAFKAP”.

Adam Deane employed this device in his recent blog, “Enterprise Architecture: Time of Death“, in which he humorously attempts to make fun of various pundits call that EA has somehow disappeared from the IT and business landscape.  Indeed, he includes my use of this rhetorical device when I wrote about the concerns with the Zachman brand.

However, it is clear to Gartner that the role of EA is not “dead”.  It has, instead, just found its seat at the IT leadership table.  Indeed, in some survey’s we have seen results ranging from 5-12% of participants noting that EA has a seat at the business leadership table.  The question now is, now that you have a seat at the leadership table, what will you do?

EA programs have been asking for a seat at the table for many years and our 2010 survey shows that they are here.  Now that you are here, and you are alive and kicking:

• How will you deliver business value? 
• What will your key results be for your EA program?
• How will you know if you are successful?
• What will you contribute, minimally, to the leadership of the IT organization?

These are the questions we hear from our clients everyday.  We recognize that many see the definition of EA as a “kitchen sink” (English idiom alert: meaning a place in which everything that fits can be collected).  We hear from our clients that each EA program must qualify what they mean by EA today, for their organization, and for their stakeholders. 

We know that the scope and focus of EA programs shift over time as they mature from focusing upon discrete IT assets and standards to unifying business and IT operating models.  We know that the impact of EA programs changes over time based upon the needs and expectation of the business leadership team.  We know that EA programs constantly re-new and shape themselves to support these changing expectations.

We know, for a fact, that EA programs have finally arrived in a leadership position within their IT organizations.  Certainly, they vary in scope, focus, and impact; but, they are here. 

Perhaps it is the rhetorical device that, in this case, should be retired.

Now, what you will you do with your living, breathing, EA program that will make a difference to your organization?

2 Comments »

Category: Enterprise Architect Enterprise Architecture Office of the CIO     Tags: EA Reporting Relationships, EA Value, OCIO, Office of the CIO

Share

Typically, the world of EA is boring.  All bets are off as John Zachman goes to court and questions are raised about the near term and long term effects to the commercialization of EA Frameworks and the EA certification marketplace.  It’s still early days, but challenges from the “father of EA” require consideration.

Before I share some of the long-winded background analysis, let me get right to the point:

At first glance, it appears that John A Zachman is closing up shop and about to retire, having severed his business partnerships, and appearances are that his son, John P Zachman, will take over the IP trademarks and, as alleged by a former business partner Stan Locke, seek to place the Zachman IP within a COTS package.

A second, and more penetrating glance, into the actual lawsuit itself reveals alleged deceptive practices by the defendant, Stan Locke, and claims of serious and reprehensible actions that are alleged to damage the brand of Zachman.

The capitulation by the defendant in a surprising lawsuit, Stan Locke, will not resolve the concerns or Zachman brand ownership concerns as the damage has already occurred.  This, in turn, raises questions about how the Zachman brand will  regain control after relinquishing that control for so long.

First off, John Zachman, and the Zachman brand, is not yet dead.  The phrase used in the title of this blog is legendary for its indication of the passing of hereditary rights from one generation to the next, mostly in the case of royalty.  Part of its inspiration is based upon allegations from Stan Locke and part of it is based upon the potential ressurection of the Zachman brand.  I am using this both to entice readership and explain the appearances of what’s happening at this time.

KEY OBSERVATIONS

• At this moment, it appears that NO ONE, until the data is transferred into the hands of the trademark owners, is Zachman Certified^TM anymore
• John A Zachman has fully separated himself from his business partnerships
• Stan Locke is going  out of business and plans to retire with immediate effect, accepting a judgement in absentia
• John Zachman is the sole owner of US trademarks to “Zachman” and “Zachman International”
• There are some severely nasty allegations within the lawsuit filed in the California District Court

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE

• Framework vendors and commercial certification authorities may be in the early days of economic commoditization
• Nothing, at this point in time, stands in the way of the unravelling of any business partnership or consortium
• This further weakens the perceived value of marketplace certification in EA Frameworks
• All “certified” enterprise architects, or those seeking certification, should take a close look at the foundations of their certifying authority

This is noise and distraction, as Gartner pointed out in Gartner’s Enterprise Architecture Hype Cycle, 2010 (note: link for Gartner clients only), noting that we find that clients leverage multiple frameworks for inspiration – not as a rigid process.  But, as shown in our hype cycle (see graphic below) those engaged in EA have been quite enamored with the hype around EA certification and EA Frameworks for some time.  The dangers from the allure of hype become all too clear as we all watch the results of this event unfold.

As everyone can see, the battle over EA frameworks is predicted to take more than 10 years to sort out, much of it due to the commercialization of that particular aspect of the overall marketplace.  Given this analysis, it’s important to remember:

• Keep a pragmatic focus on your EA efforts and don’t get distracted by the rumblings, and posturings, of one framework proponent versus another
• Realize that any particular EA framework should provide a consistent organizing structure for enterprise architectural concepts and should not simply be followed as a rigid process or set of rules.
• Choose source frameworks quickly, recognizing which one is primary as an input to the development and categorization of your EA artifact and your EA program.
• Modify and enhance the framework, as required, to support your EA program.
• Do not attempt to follow a single framework rigidly. Its job is to provide a consistent organizing structure for enterprise architectural concepts, and it should be used pragmatically.

LONG-WINDED BACKGROUND

A vendor in the industry shared the link from Zachman International that exposes the dirty laundry (as it appears written by Stan Locke or his representatives) concerning a suit filed in the California Central District Court, “John Zachman et al v. Stan Locke et al” on 13 August 2010, Case number 2:2010cv06045.  During the 3rd day of a class in Toronto (the first two of which, according to the vendor Intervista, were hosted by John Zachman), Stan Locke (CEO of Metadata Systems Software dba Zachman Framework Associates in Canada) was served with the papers for this lawsuit.  Stan Locke, or one of the et al who ran the Zachman International website, appears to have put up their side of the story (warts and all) in lieu of the landing page for the Zachman International website.

On the replacement page, Stan has indicated that he is capitulating, will not challenge the suit, will close his company and retire.

A colleague  sent me a note suggesting that the Zachman Internationl web site looked like it had been hijacked.  That reminded me that such landing pages are NOT all that’s left of the original web site.  This is, as I will share later, a direct violation of the lawsuit filed.  A little hunting found a few interesting tidbits on the back pages of Zachman International.  In particular, there was a look back at the dissolution of the relationship between John Zachman and Sam Holcman from 2 years earlier:

What happened to ZIFA?

ZIFA (The Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement) was an informal collaboration between John Zachman of Zachman International, and Sam Holcman of Pinnacle Business Group. It was initially intended to be a vehicle for research on The Zachman Framework™, however no Framework research was ever conducted under ZIFA.

An annual conference, the ZIFA Forum, was held from 1996 thru 2004 and Enterprise Architecture Seminars have been conducted under the ZIFA name until the present with one and a half days of Framework Concepts by John Zachman and one and a half days of Sam Holcman’s Enterprise Architecture Planning Methodology.

All Framework research has been conducted under the auspices of Zachman International and Sam Holcman has created a new venture, the EA Center of Excellence (EACOE) which presumably is intended to market and train in the Holcman planning methodology. John A. Zachman was neither consulted about nor invited to participate in the EACOE and therefore, that new venture is completely independent of and disassociated with John A. Zachman and The Zachman Framework™. There is no continuing purpose for theZachman Institute for Framework Advancement (ZIFA). Mr. Holcman has recommended and Mr. Zachman has agreed to dissolve ZIFA, year end 2008.

This led me to the offer page for ZIFA members to become Zachman Certified^TM: http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/home-article/89 and this press release: http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/press-releases/67-john-zachman-zachman-international-expands-to-meet-growing-demands.

The Importance of this to those that are Zachman Certified^TM

The reason I bolded Zachman Certified^TMis because both Zachman and Zachman International are US trademarks whose provenance is directly linked to John Zachman (note: no distinguishing middle initial) as per the US PTO (use http://tess2.uspto.gov/and insert Zachman with all the defaults to see the provenance and extent of the trademark applicability).

This is only important if you are one of those people who are Zachman CertifiedTM, because there’s another little announcement on http://zachmaninternational.com/index.php/zachman-certified that says:

We are excited to announce that the Zachman Certified™ program is taking a brief hiatus in the US. While this may not be particularly exciting news to you, we are excited about some very new developments around The Zachman Framework™ and Enterprise Architecture.We were unsure about the effects of taking the program off-line, however the changes are too important and so exciting that John has decided that he wants to integrate these new concepts into the curriculum and then re-launch the program in a few months around the world.

Thank you in advance for understanding and to all those who support us. We will be making an announcement very soon!

ZACHMAN INTERNATIONAL® is the ONLY authorized source for Zachman Certified™ education.

This last line is somewhat important as well, as it indicates the authoritative source to be the same Zachman International who is, indeed, John A Zachman.

So, what about all those who were certified?  Tough luck for now.  John suspended the US certification program according to Stan Locke (CEO of Metadata Systems Software dba Zachman Framework Associates in Canada):

John’s sent a completely unexpected letter December 31, 2009 informing me that his US Zachman business was to be separated immediately from my Zachman Framework Associates because of his falling revenues, so that he and John Jr could increase the Zachman brand presence and revenues and work on a succession plan

Oh, and to make matters worse, John Zachman alleges in the lawsuit that they do not have access to the information concerning clients on the various web sites ran by Stan Locke.

The net result? It appears that NO ONE IS CERTIFIED IN THE ZACHMAN FRAMEWORK AT THIS TIME.

WHAT ABOUT THE COURT CASE?

Wow!  Talk about some reviling allegations of deceptive business practices!  My first take was that the Zachman empire was crumbling.  My second take was that the Zachman brand is using force to take back what’s rightfully belongs to them.  I am not a lawyer, so my layman’s interpretation of many of the allegations in the lawsuit are a bit raw, including:

• Data held captive from their rightful owner!
• Emails spoofed, pretending to be John Zachman
• Lies to easydns, the domain name controller, again pretending to be John Zachman
• Wrestling over the John Zachman ebook on EA
• Misrepresentation of economic activity related to the Zachman brand
• Wrongful control or misrepresentation of ownership over Zachman branded items
• Deceiving use of data related to the Zachman brand

Not only may it be true that the defendant wasn’t playing nice, but there are revealing, and IMHO stupid, revelation of ”gentlemen agreements” that mark this business relationship.  Lots of incredible allegations are revealed in the lawsuit reaching back 10 years and including concerns over e-book sales and lost revenues and revenues not reported.

One of the allegations that in the law suit that wasn’t as explicit as you can see yourself concerned a zachmanframeworkassociates.com web site quote, claimed in the law suit as taken out of context, that said:

QUOTE BY  JOHN ZACHMAN “I DON’T DO REAL WORK, BUT THESE FOLKS DO.”

This was another point of contention in the suit: this web site was not approved and was making money from the Zachman brand.  The quote, quite simply put, floored me.

I couldn’t decide whether I was amazed that John A Zachman could have ever approved such a thing or that anyone could have such bravado to share such a comment, in context or not.   I wondered if John was having a change of heart at nearly 77 years old or whether Stan’s long-lived devotion and exploration of Clive Finkelstein’s Information Engineering, IBM’s BSP (Business Systems Planning) extensions into John A Zachman’s development of EA, and his subsequent support, has changed his outlook.  I don’t have any insight here, because I haven’t interviewed either of them at this point, but it seems that there’s a great degree of frusration and a lot of not-so-smart tactics on both parts.  I am not, to be clear, an advocate of anybody’s behavior in this conflict.

Again, I’m not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the entire law suit is that it’s incredible that the owner of one particular brand allowed someone outside their direct control to have full control over how their brand was conveyed to others.

Since I am not a lawyer and do not know have the foundation to comment further, or analyze, or expose, the details of the allegations within the suit.  I suggest that, should you wish to delve further, undergo the registration process at PACER to download the case documents.  A starting point will be found here:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2010cv06045/480012/

The one quote from Stan Locke’s posting on the main pages of the various web pages noted in the law suit that sticks with me is:

I will need to sell off the assets of Metadata, absorb the business losses and retire…Not defending this suit, means that John A Zachman will be able to proceed with a default lawsuit against us and be able to bar me from entrance to the United States and with the ability to have me arrested and jailed for not paying the judgment.

Personally, I’d be seeking legal counsel instead of capitulating.  But, this isn’t my concern and I am not a lawyer.

CONCLUSIONS

All of this leaves some yet-to-be-explored-questions:

1. John A Zachman and Stan Locke were in a course in Toronto 16-17 Aug and 18-19 August, with John doing the 1^st 2 days and Stan the last 2 days (I verified this on the phone with Intervista),  did they see each other before Stan was served with the lawsuit?
2. Is John still teaching the IRM UK course in Octoberthat was advertised on the Zachman International Site?
3. Will John P Zachman, the son of John A Zachman, take over the trademarks for Zachman and Zachman International?
4. Will the previously created IP continue to be licensed for use by others?
5. Will a new training course and certification scheme be forthcoming, but this time by John P Zachman?
6. When will John A Zachman, the recognized “father” of EA, officially retire?
7. Which COTS package is it that former business partner Stan Locke alleges will be taking on the new mantle of all things Zachman?
8. Will the Zachman brand regain control of the data held on the web domains managed by Stan Locke et al and make thing right in the world again, as stipulated in the law suit?

I expect that much of the evidence, and associated offending web domain content, will shortly disappear.  Much of this may be swept under the rug quickly, leaving stranded and dazed those who had become Zachman Certified and the wonderment of all as to what the Zachman brand will do next.  In the meantime, it’s sad to watch this play out but, like a wreck on the side of the road, it’s difficult not to take a look as you pass by it.

15 Comments »

Category: Enterprise Architect John Zachman Uncategorized     Tags: EA, Enterprise Architecture, Stan Locke, Zachman

Share

A common misperception being hyped in EA circles concerns the notion that business architecture is something different from enterprise architecture. This is a blatant attempt to classify EA as something only applicable to IT when, in fact, EA is applicable to the ENTERPRISE that covers numerous viewpoints for stakeholders, including business, information, technology and solution architecture.

Where does this confusion come from?  To be blunt, the number of practitioners who have only used EA for IT, focusing upon the technology viewpoint of EA, have left a few large gaps in their approach to developing their EA viewpoint.  These gaps include:

1. Developing a business contextthat guides the advice and deliverables within the technology architecture viewpoint, and all other viewpoints.
2. Consuming the resulting advice within, minimally, the IT  investment decision-making process.
3. Creating a governance and assurance mechanism that communicates the change that has occurred, or not occurred, in light of EA advice.

A common mistake we see is when well-meaning EA programs conflate the business architecture viewpoint of EA with the business context of EA.  The business context of EA is formed of:

1. A vision of the future state.  At Gartner, we call this the Common Requirements Vision.  This deliverable is typically 10-12 pages and explicitly connects environmental trends, business strategies and requirements of business process and IT together in priority matrices.  This is a conceptual level document that requires confirmation of the target state, and its associated priorities, by the top of the governance decision-makers – typically, the people who decide how to allocate resources in the organization.
2. A root, anchor model. The highest visualization of the enterprise, recognizable to the business, may be in the form of a business operating model, a hyper-extended view of the business ecosystem, business capability maps, a federated model or some combination of these for particular stakeholders.  All business processes, information, applications, solutions, technologies, people skills, people, other entities, are overlaid upon and disaggregated from this root, anchor, model.
3. A set of guiding principles. These shape the investment and action behaviors of all those who seek to select, create, and implement anything within any EA viewpoint.

Unfortunately, some have conflated this business-context package with the work done in the business architecture viewpoint of EA.  These folks have mistakenly lured other EA practitioners into believing one or more of these myths:

• I can continue to do technology architecture without having a business context
• Business architecture is something completely separate from enterprise architecture.
• EA is for IT only.

Mature practitioners lead EA programs that encompass all viewpoints of EA, informed by a business-context package.  They may focus more heavily upon one viewpoint or another, but they always link the interdependencies and interrelationships of these viewpoints in light of the business context over temporal states (past, current, near-transitional, future, optional future, retired future and more).

These leaders do not wait for the existence of a business architecture viewpoint to engage their EA advice in investment decision-making or wait to introduce assurance and governance into their EA processes.  Some pundits seem to believe that it’s only when business architecture is engaged that assurance and governance is possible.  This is, simply put, not true.

When I first ran across EA programs engaging in business architecture in the late 1990′s it was very early days.  10+ years later and we have more mature programs that understand and embrace this viewpoint of EA, but we also have, sadly, current practitioners who are not familiar with business architecture’s proper place in relation to an overall EA effort.

I am certain that this attempt to set the record straight will be controversial.  I hope that it encourages a dialogue of discovery and helps correct a hype filled market incorrectly placing business architecture outside EA.

11 Comments »

Category: Business Architecture Enterprise Architecture     Tags: Business Architecture, Business Context, Enterprise Architecture

Share

Sometimes it’s a just a little mental slip, but many times is purposeful obfuscation on the part of the person speaking.  And, there’s only one reason to do such a terrible thing, that’s because the person speaking isn’t certain about what they’re talking about.  The crowd-sourced definition of “architecture” on wikipedia gives a nod towards multiple interpretations and uses within designing and erecting buildings, systems, and its applicability to the world around us before IT and its current interpretation that now encompasses IT.  I contend that such definitions are ambiguous and do everyone a disservice.

My colleague, Bruce Robertson, just wrote about “Do Building Architects Resent Enterprise Architects” in response to an excellent article in Architect Magazine entitled, “I’m an Architect“.  The article in Architect Magazine highlights the growing concerns of those pubicly licensed to use the term “Architect”, the reasons that is the case, and the uproar and concerns that those licensed persons expressed in response to strategist, planners and IT people adopting and adapting the term for their own purposes.  There’s a lot more to this use of the term for licensing purposes; but, that’s for  another blog.

Bruce made an excellent point in his blog when he noted, “At least enterprise architects have their adjective. ” That’s right!  The modifier, the qualifier, the word that makes it clear exactly what you’re talking about.

Sloppy use of “architecture” tells me that you are either:

A. Deliberately sloppy because you assume you’re speaking on friendly ground and don’t require clarity, or

B. Unclear as to which aspect of “architecture” to which you are referring

In either case, using the term “architecture” without an appropriate adjective tells me that you may not be so certain about which kind of architecture we are speaking about.  Let me share a list of adjectives that might precede a conversation of “XYZ Architecture”

• Building
• Software
• Application
• Watch (yes, the watch on my wrist has a “watch architecture”)
• Infrastructure
• Technology
• Business
• Information
• Solution
• Organizational
• Enterprise

This is just a partial list of adjectives that should qualify what type of “XYZ Architecture” you are speaking about with another person.

Recently, I wrote a blog about how REAL Architects (think Building Architects, for those who have now read the article from Architect Magazine) work is instructive to those who engage in Enterprise Architecture (see http://blogs.gartner.com/philip-allega/2010/08/19/tour-by-architects-lessons-for-enterprise-architecture/).  I was pleased to see that Amanda Kolson Hurley, from Architect Magazine, also noted that it’s a sincere form of flattery for those engaged in other forms of “XYZ Architecture” to see connections to the older form of the original use of the term “Architecture”.  Indeed, it’s just this level of recognition that calls out for greater clarity.

Perhaps I’m too harsh in saying “You Don’t Know Squat” (note: English idiom indicating that you don’t know or understand the topic you are speaking about).  Perhaps anyone involved in “XYZ Architecture” should recognize that the sole use of the term “Architecture” is in support of a venerable and ancient discipline upon which the “XYZ” adjectives must show deference and veneration.  But, I haven’t seen this occur with great frequency.

Given the strong comments and concerns from the licensed profession of those engaged in “Architecture”, I advocate for a stronger use of the qualifiers for people to communicate which form of “XYZ Architecture” they are engaged in.  By doing so, I believe that we’ll all be a lot more clearer in demonstrating which aspect of “XYZ Architecture” we’re speaking about and demonstrate that we actually know squat.

3 Comments »

Category: Enterprise Architect Enterprise Architecture     Tags:

Share

Leo de Sousa shared a blog that covered his experience of doing the current state first, supporting Adrian Grigoriu’s response to my posting last week entitled Applying EA to Your Life .  I do, in fact, support the contention that current state is an “input to gap analysis” and is “useful for benchmarking”, but I would like to respectfully contest the following notions, according to Adrian:

• “The target architecture cannot be established based on Vision alone, or
• It is not practical or economically viable to start from tabula rasa each and every time you implement a new strategy.”

Indeed, I would suggest that no target can be created without a vision and, further, that the vision must be based upon the desired future state of the business that comes from a greenfield or tabula rosa exercise.

Why? Because any other vision or any other target state has an incorrect context and does not set the target market correctly, against which all gap closure efforts will be judged.

A little secret here: you never reach the target state.  Why? Because you will reset the target state as environmental attributes change (technology trends, macroeconomic trends, competitive trends, internal trends), meaning that the last vision is now out of date and a new marker must be laid down to work against.

I also appreciate the following comment:

No one will invite you to make comment or participate in strategic planning activities if your own house is not in order (or at least you have a plan in place)

Exactly.  But, documenting your current mess does not make a plan.  Getting your house in order is what EA is all about, but under what context?  Because of what?  For what purpose, what reason?

Do you want an uncluttered future?  Do you want less complexity?  Do you want to support new business capabilities? Why? When?

I contend that you cannot answer these questions WITHOUT understanding where you want to be.  Never-ending inventory exercises have proven fruitless. Determine where you want to be first in order to determine which parts of your “house” have to be put in order in able to reach the target state

A vision based upon current restrictions limits the truly desired future state.

I noted in my blog, “Applying EA to Your Life“, that:

In the paper “Causal Reasoning in the Context of Future Thinking” by Cristina M. Atance and Andrew N. Meltzoff, at the Center for Mind, Brain & Learning at the  University of Washington, the researcher created an experiment that proves that knowing your current state invades judgments about the future state (seehttp://ilabs.washington.edu/meltzoff/pubsposters/AtanceMeltzoffSRCD2003.pdf).

It is counteintuitive for many, and as evidenced by a recent spate of tweets and blogs over this contention of “future state first” to, indeed, do the “future state first”.

An instructive story comes from the IT organization and CIO who believed, mistakenly, that the reduction of complexity, consolidation of all IT systems and removal of redundancies were the correct approach to save the IT organization money within their budget. Oh, sure, that worked. The IT organization saved money and, over time, complexity (in the eyes of IT) and redundancies (as the IT organization saw them) were removed.

The end result?  When the business decided to sell off a low-performing business they discovered that the duplication of all the associated infrastructure, applications and systems cost more than the value of the business itself.  The CIO was immediately FIRED.

Why?  Because no one bothered to understand the future state desires of the business.  No one confirmed that the assumptions made about the IT budget reflected the future state needs of the business.  Obviously, they hadn’t engaged EA properly.

I am NOT saying that there’s no value in having knowledge about the current state, I am saying that the current state is not the starting point in an EA effort.

My post originally came from the challenges of a particular friend.  In support of that friend, another wrote:

Things are the way they are today because of the decisions we have made in the past. But just because they are that way today, does not dictate the future of how things will be tomorrow.

I liked this quote because she recognized that where we are right now is not indicative of the resulting future.  She is not encumbered by the current state when considering the future.

Document your current state? Yes, but after you have defined a context under which you can judge the fitness of the current state and plan to close the gaps against the target state.

4 Comments »

Category: Enterprise Architecture     Tags:

Share

Recently, I was asked to help a friend out.  The conversation began with a grand vision of where this person saw himself in a year’s time.  I was excited by the vision and we discussed what it would feel like once he was there, what he would with his time, his money, and how wonderful his life would be when everything came together and he will have achieved this wonderful vision.

It struck me that this was much as we have advised clients for years, use EA to help determine the future state first. It’s a very common mistake by new practitioners to EA to focus upon the current state as the first activity in EA.  

If you have started your EA program and your first activity is to document the current state, STOP NOW. Refocus your team on analysis of the business strategy and development of the future state architecture.

Current-state analysis done first limits your ability to see future possibilities.  Developing future state first will constrain the level of detail required for current state.

We often talk to clients who are beginning their architecture program and they’ll say “Our first order of business is to get a detailed analysis of our current environment.” This is a mistake for several reasons:

1.  The team will invariably expend a great deal of effort on a deliverable of limited business value.
2. An analysis of the current state tells you nothing about what your future environment should look like to best support the business strategy.
3. Doing the future state first allows you to think about the requirements of the business strategy and how they can best be supported by EA, without constraining your thinking based on the limitations of your established environment
4. Current state exercises, done first, will place limits on the development of a target future state, thus reducing the effectiveness of the future state exercise

The primary goal of the EA is to facilitate change. Analysis of the current state is important only in the context of gap analysis. For that reason, we advise that documentation of the current state be confined to the minimum that is required to identify the gaps between the current state and the future state. By doing the future state first, you essentially enforce that minimum level of documentation, since it is impossible to plan the future state in tremendous detail. 

This is so counterintuitive to most EA practitioners that it’s important to provide some external evidence as to why a current state fixation, before considering the future state, is limiting:

In the paper “Causal Reasoning in the Context of Future Thinking” by Cristina M. Atance and Andrew N. Meltzoff, at the Center for Mind, Brain & Learning at the  University of Washington, the researcher created an experiment that proves that knowing your current state invades judgments about the future state (see http://ilabs.washington.edu/meltzoff/pubsposters/AtanceMeltzoffSRCD2003.pdf).

Wasting time worrying about the details of where you are when most intuitively know it already is an exercise in naval gazing. If someone is large and they want to be thin, they don’t need detailed scientific measurements about where they are in order to know where they want to be. 

Turning back to my conversation with my friend, I thought about the application of EA in achieving his grand vision.  Little time was spent in cataloging everything about his current state, but we did enough to realize where he was today: out of work, broke, no money, skills that held little attraction to industries that are hiring and, basically, in a difficult position.

This immediately launched us in the formation of a plan to close the gap between where he is today and where he wants to be tomorrow.  We discussed techniques, approaches, alternative scenarios, and action items, all in support of moving from today towards the vision.  The resulting plan was ready to execute.

Unfortunately, unlike mature EA programs, there’s only my friend left to govern the execution of his transition from today towards his vision. His choice of a year time frame to turn things around is, in my humble opinion, ambitious.  And, the alternative scenarios we discussed were none too pleasant given where he’s starting from; however, difficult the challenges that lie ahead, that vision is helpful and motivating.  It will also give him something to mark his place against as the transition is underway.

Rudy Ruettiger is an inspiring story about a person who, against many odds and with many obstacles in his path, overcame his limitations and succeeded in playing two plays for Notre Dame football, earning him the honor of being the first of only two Notre Dame players to ever be carried off the field of play by his teammates. Today, the Rudy Foundation raises monies to recognize and reward those individuals who “…overcome obstacles, set goals, stay on track to reach their Dreams…”.

Isn’t that much like what enterprise architects try to do in their EA programs?

Having a dream (the future state) and setting goals, overcoming obstacles, and staying on track (assurance, governance) in the face of overwhelming odds (funding models, reporting structures, culture, politics, misperceptions, etc.) is what we do as people and what enterprise architects work diligently at within their organizations today.

7 Comments »

Category: Uncategorized     Tags:

Share

I took a tour of The Pearl Brewery last week, led by REAL ARCHITECTS.  Although I’m not associated with such building architects normally, I was pleased to see how ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE is applicable in the work associated with the development of  this former brewery, originally built in 1883, as it transforms itself it 1.2 million square feet of retail, commercial and living spaces.

Since I’ve put the qualifier, REAL, in front of the word, architect, we should start off with a quick aside to define the word architect. Wikipedia defines an architect as follows:

An architect is a person trained in the planning, design and oversight of the construction of buildings, and is licensed to practice architecture. To practice architecture means to offer or render services in connection with the design and construction of a building, or group of buildings and the space within the site surrounding the buildings, that have as their principal purpose human occupancy or use

Relative to my blog about what constitutes a real enterprise architect, if we extrapolated this definition a bit to those who “offer or render services [with regard to enterprise architecture]” then I see wider context for “real enterprise architects”.  But, I digress.

The tour was led by the chief architect (a member of  the San Antonio chapter of the American Institute of Architects), focused upon one aspect of the overall site, the Culinary Institute of America expansion.  Due to open on October 9, and still under construction, it was an excellent tour (complete with hard hats). 

We began by climbing the 6 floors of the building, along the outside stairs and in the Texas heat (think 100F/38C), because the elevators weren’t certified yet. We toured one of the new penthouses and viewed a water tank, used to re-purpose rain water for the building, that had been saved from another part of the brewery.  Many such additions existed within the building, as this supported the principles for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED); wikipedia defines this as an:

…internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies intended to improve performance in metrics such as energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.

I immediately thought of these as principles that guide the selection, creation and implementation of…enterprise architecture!

From here, we walked through the parking garage, down stairs to offices and learning kitchens for the Culinary Institute.  From there we crossed to visit some additional apartments.  The odd configuration of the building on the site prompted a number of questions:

• Why are the balconies so small on the apartments?
• How come the easement between buildings are so short?
• Why is so much packed into this building that could have been shared amongst other buildings on the site?

The answers were, not surprisingly, the types of answers I hear from ENTERPRISE architects.  In short, we were told that:

Although the entire site was owned by a single owner, regeneration of the site required that each portions would be distinctly marked out as its own legal entity.  This, in turn, was attractive to banks and other investors in case the entire complex needed to broken up and sold after all parts were completed.  It was also attractive to banks and other investors because they could invest in each piece as they wished, limiting their exposure to the overall enterprise.  As a result, each distinct area had to be treated as such; thus, shorter easements and smaller balconies and self-contained systems.

Down the stairs again we passed one of the former smoke stacks of the brewery, still intact, and came into the first floor of offices, packed with video conferencing gear for the Culinary Institutes New York and California locations and teaching kitchens.   As we came down to the ground floor, the exposed ceilings showed the grease reclamation pipes and densely packed gear to support 150 cooking students at one time and over 1,500 over the course of a year.  The amount of kit to handle fire safety, moving heat and smoke outside safely, keeping the environment cool to work in given the heat generated in the kitchens and that Texas heat trying to bake all the people inside (and outside) the building was just plain impressive. 

Squeezing all of this in the confines of a site constrained physically, legally, and in keeping with building codes and principles such as LEED as well as considering the occupants inside this element of the site and the connection with the overall site and its use was a critical reminder of what enterprise architects do everyday for their businesses.

On a side note, Pearl beer is still beered by a contract brewer, Pabst, at SAB Miller’s facility in Fort Worth, TX.  It’s not easy to come by and, by many accounts, tasting it may account for the brewers eventual demise.  Another beer, more well known, that was also brewed in San Antonio originally is Lone Star, the National Beer of Texas.  In the oppressive heat of the Texas summer, a cold one of almost any flavor is most welcome and you’ll still find a cold one waiting for you at The Pearl Brewery, on the San Antonio River, in San Antonio, Texas, USA.

2 Comments »

Category: Enterprise Architect Enterprise Architecture     Tags: Enterprise Architecture

Share