I came across a common EA definition using the “city planning” metaphor, which caught my attention. Here is the definition, as offered by Anna Mar (2011):
An Enterprise Architect is like a city planner. A city planner sets building codes and plans common services such as roads and water. Enterprise Architects do the same thing for technology.
I’ve seen this analogy before, but in this instance, it was the last sentence that caught my attention, where the claim is made that Enterprise Architects do the same thing as city planners, just with technology. The focus on technology seems a bit off target. In the book, Enterprise Architecture Good Practices Guide (Schekkerman, 2008, p. 31) we learned that the major elements of an enterprise are people, processes, business, and technology, so it seems like an oversight, ignoring people, processes, and business in an EA definition. Yet another example of how EA is limited to technology out of convenience (I think it makes it easier to define) and out of custom, as it seems most EA practitioners have technology backgrounds.
In our EA872 class sessions, people have commented on how EA at their company is IT-driven, run by the CIO, and seems more like a technology planning committee, which we, as students of EA, have been cautioned against.
Would it not make sense for an EA team that is functioning in the true spirit of the enterprise to be as involved with non-technology change as it is with technology change? For example, my current employer recently decided to move the back-office operations of a subsidiary business from the subsidiary’s headquarters in Virginia to the enterprise’s headquarters in Michigan. This was a big change, definitely a change to the enterprise’s “architecture”, and yet there was no technology component to the change. The subsidiary company uses their own systems, with their own processes, and that didn’t change. This particular form of change was strictly about people and how to optimize staff at the different subsidiaries who perform similar functions.
I hope it’s realistic for EA to take the lead in identifying and championing non-technology change. The following 2013 article from InfoWorld titled Enterprise architecture shows its business value, briefly describes four EA success stories. Three of them are clearly all about technology, but the one from The National Bank of Abu Dhabi actually sounds like a success story that isn’t all about technology - I hope I can find more of these stories over time.
References
Knorr, Eric. (2013). Enterprise architecture shows its business value. InfoWorld. Retrieved from http://www.infoworld.com/article/2612515/enterprise-architecture/enterprise-architecture-shows-its-business-value.html
Mar, Anna. (2011). How to Explain Enterprise Architecture To Your Grandmother. Retrieved from http://simplicable.com/new/how-to-explain-enterprise-architecture-to-your-grandmother
Schekkerman, Jaap. (2008). Enterprise Architecture Good Practices Guide. Trafford Publishing.
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting observation or thought on AA working on non-technology change. While I agree that if the EA works truly in the spirit of EA, there might be instances wherein EA might be providing insights on non-technology related aspects like Governance. Setting up the Governance process and adding business value is one of the examples that I can think of. An effort like this is something I have been planning with other teams since the prediction is that in another few years, there are higher number of oil and gas industry stalwarts retiring and the new generation taking over. This effort not only involves in capturing the right way of doing things but it also captures the right ways to add value. This example was something I thought of while reading your post. There is a business value to this effort and an associated business outcome...thought I could share.
Veena.
Good catch in the 'city planner' quote. I did not catch it on the first read despite making it through EA 871. My organization talks this talk, but I'm not sure we walk it in practice. Our architecture methodology and training materials all point out that an architectural engagement may result in changes at the business architecture level only. Meaning, we were engaged and ended up recommending something like a reorganization or business process changes with no IT changes. In reality, I'm not sure I have witnessed it yet. We are embedded in IT, so that probably limits us to IT thinking.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the simplicable reference - I enjoyed that article as well as your post. The site itself brings me back to one of your prevailing themes - resolving complexity.
The city planner analogy is an effective reminder for what EA is all about. Being the keeper of the big picture is really an important task -- although seemingly simple, because of the lack of details. Looking at many discussions, I feel that there would be folks who might be afraid to show simplified narratives -- perhaps for fear of diminishing the status of EA, and by association, their work. But I really feel this is counter-productive.
The way I see it, enterprise architects are hired to simplify what is truly complex behind the curtains; to break the complexity into manageable actionable parts; to show the simple patterns that allow organizations to act with agility -- in terms of decisions and mobilizations. Again, I go back to my jungle guide analogy.
Thus, for technology and non-technology change initiatives, the worst thing that an EA will do is promote the complexity of the architectures -- rather than work to constantly communicate the simplicity of segments into a set of workable projects or packages. Simplicity is what the organization can appreciate, and where they can clearly see value. As in your post from week 7, you're absolutely right: A complex picture is hard to measure. And if it is hard to measure, it's hard to place a value. And there it is: EA's failure to resolve the complexity, and its failure to communicate the simplified picture, brings a failing grade to itself.
Ian
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the posting and the links. I like the city planner analogy. We often hear about the building architect analogy, but I think this is a better as EA is more than just one house or building. I tend to think of an LOB as the building and this City example ties in well with my thought process. To your comments on the technology statements I see this a lot not just around EA initiatives but most projects in general. Everyone thinks technology is the answer when it is just a means to an end. We have to do a the job of not over complicating the discussion with the technology, but any initiative not tied back to goals and objectives will soon fail,l or at leats not deliver a return, if it is not in support of the business. One of our classmates posted about the Cloud this week. It was a more specific example of what your are posting about this week. Everyone gets tied up in the need to "move to the cloud" but the bigger question is why and what does that do for us as a business. Thanks again for your posting, it was an interesting read.
Joe Costanzo
I have seen that comment before, and it is a very good one. One of the people in my EA tried to use this more literally in order to expand EA to those that were not quite sold on the EA concepts. It worked to some degree.
ReplyDeleteLooking at EA from this perspective does have some advantages, for one it keeps you from getting to far into the weeds. When looked at like this, the concept is very useful. They are more interested in the city than how the building are built, the electricity is run, or the phones are connected and more interested in the areas of the city and how they go with the rest of the city.
Thanks for bringing this quote out.
This was an insightful post and I loved the comparison to which I had not heard before. I often look at EA from the broader lens, if for nothing else to support my process and business background. However, many in my organization see EA from a technology planning perspective. This seems to put EA in a tight spot, responsible for ivory tower work and being directed into a relatively myopic and limited governance function. Great post and the thought leadership on this post! -cheers -mike
ReplyDelete