[Cartoon]

Christopher Columbus sailed west across the Atlantic to find a route to India. As we all know, he mistook the North American continent to be India and named the inhabitants “Indians”. Because of this mistake, we have continued calling the original inhabitants “American Indians”. Because Columbus was convinced of great wealth in the discovered land, he forgot his original quest.

Having been involved in many very large IT projects requiring several years to complete, I can honestly say my experience has been similar to that of Christopher Columbus. The projects would begin with a clear and stated objective that would be weathered by new understandings and new challenges in the business environment. The objective would be reworked to adjust to the new realities.

Unfortunately, when the objective of a project changes, it is nearly impossible to turn back and repair major components already planned or purchased. The project team will become very innovative and find a way to move on. This usually results in some duct tape to keep things working.

Often, the major reason for a large IT project is to replace large components that have become too complicated to modify. The complication has occurred due to years of applying duct-tape solutions.  So, when the replacement project uses duct-tape solutions to adhere to the adjusted project, there is some question as to the validity of the project.

By applying the principles of Enterprise Architecture, there can be a more agile approach to initiating and managing projects. One of the principles is to uncover the current state of the business systems and IT infrastructure. This is not a study of one area in the business that might be experiencing a need for change. This is about examining the entire enterprise from a top-down perspective to uncover the dependencies among the major components.

Once there is a good visualization of the component dependencies, the magnitude of change can be better understood. The value of Improvements to components in the business systems and IT infrastructure can be compared.

This approach is similar to Six Sigma and other continuous improvement approaches that take small steps to incrementally improve an organization’s IT. It avoids the major initiatives that may take years to complete.

With Enterprise Architecture there is no journey. There is a current state that is being continually improved one piece at a time.

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

We hear that “the best things in life are free” and we also hear that “nothing in life is fee”. At first glance, this does not make sense. On closer scrutiny it can become very clear.

The explanation can be seen in the popular credit card ads. In these ads, several things are purchased to allow for a special moment to take place. For example, a man renting a tux and buying tickets for him and his wife to attend a play are expensive. But, as the ad says, the response from his wife is “priceless”.

Money can be spent without having any priceless moments. Paying the electric bill will avoid having the lights go out, but usually does not cause any priceless moments. This is usually the way IT is viewed.

But there can be priceless moments, even with an electric bill. There are those times when the bill is lower than expected. There are times when you might get an unexpected rebate. These are special times when you received something not expected.

When was the last time you had an IT priceless moment? Think hard, there must be some time in the past when IT blew your socks off. Most folks can’t remember a priceless moment with IT. There may have been some, but the disappointments usually outweigh them so extensively that they are quickly forgotten.

With the enormous expense of IT, it is time that we start having those “priceless” moments. These moments come from the relationships between the business and IT. They come from a closing of the gap.

The gap is closed by paying attention to the enterprise architecture models. These models bring visualization and transparency to the business and IT. Communications are improved and trust goes up. As trust goes up, unexpected value will be discovered through joint innovation.

The excitement a business gains by applying the principles of Enterprise Architecture to IT are unbounded. Everyone participates, everyone gains, and everyone has priceless moments. These are the things that money can’t buy. 

[Cartoon]

 We hear that “the best things in life are free” and we also hear that “nothing in life is fee”. At first glance, this does not make sense. On closer scrutiny it can become very clear.

The explanation can be seen in the popular credit card ads. In these ads, several things are purchased to allow for a special moment to take place. For example, a man renting a tux and buying tickets for he and his wife to attend a play are expensive. But as the ad says the response from his wife is “priceless”.

Money can be spent without having any priceless moments. Paying the electric bill will avoid having the lights go out, but usually does not cause any priceless moments. This is usually the way IT is viewed.

But there can be priceless moments, even with an electric bill. There are those times when the bill is lower than expected. There are times when you might get an unexpected rebate. These are special times when you received something not expected.

When was the last time you had an IT priceless moment? Think hard, there must be some time in the past when IT blew your socks off. Most folks can’t remember a priceless moment with IT. There may have been some, but the disappointments usually outweigh them so extensively that they are quickly forgotten.

With the enormous expense of IT, it is time that we start having those “priceless” moments. These moments come from the relationships between the business and IT. They come from closing of the gap.

The gap is closed by paying attention to the enterprise architecture models. These models bring visualization and transparency to the business and IT. Communications are improved and trust goes up. As trust goes up, unexpected value will be discovered through joint innovation.

The excitement a business gains by applying the principles of Enterprise Architecture to IT are unbounded. Everyone participates, everyone gains, and everyone has priceless moments. These are the things that money can’t buy.

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

Bottom-up in IT is considered to be looking at an organization from the technology perspective. Top-down takes a business perspective.

As an Enterprise Architect, it has been mandatory that I spend years working and learning the concepts and technologies of the IT infrastructure. This includes the message systems, the file systems, the enterprise service buses, the service interfaces, the value of synchronous versus asynchronous, the data bases (replicate or not replicate), the application servers, the security systems, the protocols, and the best design patterns. These are critical to the successful operation of an organization’s IT.

Because the concepts and technologies of the IT infrastructure continue to change, all Enterprise Architects must stay current. This is no different than any other profession where new innovations bring about improvements.

In an effort to find clarity in the enormous number of connections between business systems enabled by the infrastructure, we often draw or generate spaghetti charts. These charts show the overwhelming complexity of the flow of information in an organization, but they do not provide much clarity. They are called spaghetti charts because there are so many connections that it is difficult to find the two ends of any of the noodles.

Recently, it dawned on me that the spaghetti charts represent a bottom-up view of IT in the organization. The spaghetti chart is not a top-down view. It is a bottom-up view.

Here is where the analogy of an Enterprise Architect as a City Planner begins to pay big dividends. An Enterprise Architect, just like a City Planner, is very aware of the spaghetti of piping under the city.  They both know that the piping is a requirement to run the city, but it is not the view from the top. The view from the top is the city.

For a City Planner, the top-down view is very physical. It includes laying out districts, roads, and buildings. For the Enterprise Architect, the city is real, but virtual in nature. The virtual city is made up of districts of buildings that represent the holistic view of IT.

The holistic model of IT is a top-down model. It can be used to visualize the impact of processes and changes on the organization.  It is the link to all of the enterprise models: corporate, processes, data, component, and technology.

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

It seems as though everyone in IT is an architect. There are solution architects, data architects, infrastructure architects, communications architects, service-oriented architects, cloud architects, etc. It is no wonder there is so much misunderstanding of just what an Enterprise Architect is.

Even the Enterprise Architects are not sure. Four months ago on Linkedin in the Enterprise Architect group, Keven Smith posted the challenge:  Describe the purpose of EA in one 160 character SMS message (including spaces, punctuation and carriage returns). There have been 1,255 comments to this post.  In another group on Linkedin, iCMG Architecture World, Sunil Dutt Jha entered the post, This is what is killing Enterprise Architecture (A quote from a John Zachman” article.). So far, there have been 265 comments.

With all of the discussion, I believe the problem can be easily solved by separating the plumbers from the architects.

A friend of mine had a new pump delivered for his pool. Two plumbers came out to install the pump. My friend went out to see why the plumbers were taking so long to finish the job. When he walked up, he could hear that they were discussing different alternatives for running the pipes.

After listening for a few minutes, my friend said, just move the pump. Somehow, the plumbers had both assumed that the pump was where it needed to go. This was where it was set down when delivered. By turning the pump just 90 degrees, all of plumbing became straight forward. The plumbers finished up the job in less time than they had already spent discussing alternatives.

My friend was the architect that could see the entire process. This is the perspective that an Enterprise Architect brings to a project. Enterprise Architects understand the sources of the components and where these components should be incorporated into the enterprise. They pass these parameters on to the plumbers.

The take away here is: Do not confuse architects and plumbers. The solution architects, data architects, and so forth are plumbers. They are the ones that actually make the connections. The Enterprise Architects do not make the connections; their job is to make sure the connections are made with the least amount of cost.

[Please comment and share your experience.]

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

We all prefer visualization as a way of communicating. Even the so-called “boring” accountants prefer the visual of a spreadsheet to show the values and relationships of numbers. So why is the business world still so wrapped up in forms?

It seems as though all of the business systems’ interfaces require people to use forms. Whether you are making an application for a loan, ordering something over the internet, or just visiting your doctor, there are forms to be filled out. At work you must fill out forms for keeping time, scheduling vacations, doing trip reports, project plans, project reports, staff evaluations, customer contacts, customer evaluations, etc. Automation seems to be all about forms, forms, and more forms when there is work to be done.

Forms are just not fun. Can you imagine playing a video game and shooting aliens by filling out forms? How about driving your car by filling out forms? Where is the dividing line for being actively involved in the action and simply providing information so someone else can take action?

We all want visual interaction. We want interaction that recognizes that we are people. Computers read data, but we should not have to come down to the level of the computer when we need to communicate.

Microsoft and Apple have done more work to provide us with visual interfaces than any of the other organizations. They continue to set the bar higher so computers can work the way we want them to work.

Yet, these organizations continue to battle it out for a competitive edge and ignore standards that would be beneficial to us all. For example, SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) is a great standard for 2D graphic interaction and animation. X3D (eXtensible 3D) is great for 3D graphic interaction and animation.  These exciting industry standards are not supported by Microsoft or Apple.

We are people first and computer-minded second. We want natural ways to communicate with our computers. We can learn new interfaces as long as we can retain our human identity. We are willing to step up. But, we expect our computers to take a giant leap. We know computers think in numbers, but we do not. Interfaces with the computer need to be more of an extension of our being, like driving a car or playing a video game. Bring on the excitement!

 [Please comment and share your experience.]

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

Often complex problems are froth with misunderstanding and confusion. It is about this time that someone will say, “Let’s automate the process. What we need is a new system.” The next thing that occurs is the whole problem is turned over to the IT staff to develop solutions.

In this scenario there is a problem that must be solved. There is a hole in the dam and the leak needs to be plugged. Why the hole came about is set aside for a later discussion. All that is needed now is to stop the bleeding.

The IT commandos arrive on the scene and do an immediate analysis. They realize that it would be beneficial to look further into the root-cause of the problem, but the immediate nature of the problem requires quick action. Out comes the duct tape to apply corrective measures. Their quick action saves the day. Following this success, the IT staff proposes an analysis to better understand why the problem occurred. This request is moved to the backburner so more important issues can be addressed.

Then another problem becomes critical and the commandos are called in again. The IT staff is suspicious that this problem may be caused by the same underlying problem as the previous, but the approach is “fix first and analyze later”. Following this event even more problems arise and the IT staff successfully applies duct tape to avert disaster.

This scenario may repeat itself many times over several years. Then some major event occurs that is more than a mere leak in the dam. Due to competition or new regulations, an overhaul of the entire automated environment appears imminent. Finally, a root-cause analysis is done and a new direction becomes clear.

Unfortunately, the cost of migrating towards the new direction will be much higher than expected. All the duct tape applied over the years has gummed up the system’s environment so badly it is difficult to understand. Change will be risky due to this lack of understanding. Mitigating this risk will be costly.

NOW is always the best time to deal with confusion. Proper analysis may result in an automated solution, but it may not.  By facing the confusion now, we will reduce costs. We can automate only that which should be automated. We can avoid the application of duct tape solutions that drive the cost of future changes upward.

[Please comment and share your experience.] 

Closing the Business / IT gap.

[Cartoon]

Often complex problems are froth with misunderstanding and confusion. It is about this time that someone will say, “Let’s automate the process. What we need is a new system.” The next thing that occurs is the whole problem is turned over to the IT staff to develop solutions.

In this scenario there is a problem that must be solved. There is a hole in the dam and the leak needs to be plugged. Why the hole came about is set aside for a later discussion. All that is needed now is to stop the bleeding.

The IT commandos arrive on the scene and do an immediate analysis. They realize that it would be beneficial to look further into the root-cause of the problem, but the immediate nature of the problem requires quick action. Out comes the duct tape to apply corrective measures. Their quick action saves the day. Following this success, the IT staff proposes an analysis to better understand why the problem occurred. This request is moved to the backburner so more important issues can be addressed.

Then another problem becomes critical and the commandos are called in again. The IT staff is suspicious that this problem may be caused by the same underlying problem as the previous, but the approach is “fix first and analyze later”. Following this event even more problems arise and the IT staff successfully applies duct tape to avert disaster.

This scenario may repeat itself many times over several years. Then some major event occurs that is more than a mere leak in the dam. Due to competition or new regulations, an overhaul of the entire automated environment appears imminent. Finally, a root-cause analysis is done and a new direction becomes clear.

Unfortunately, the cost of migrating towards the new direction will be much higher than expected. All the duct tape applied over the years has gummed up the system’s environment so badly it is difficult to understand. Change will be risky due to this lack of understanding. Mitigating this risk will be costly.

NOW is always the best time to deal with confusion. Proper analysis may result in an automated solution, but it may not.  By facing the confusion now, we will reduce costs. We can automate only that which should be automated. We can avoid the application of duct tape solutions that drive the cost of future changes upward.

[Please comment and share your experience.]

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from John Vautier of Vautier Communications. Basically, he is a personal trainer for those that need help with their public speaking. He has helped many individuals, from politicians to corporate leaders to learn how to get their message across.

Having been a member of Toastmasters, I learned the basics of public speaking.  John’s professional insight was fully in line with what I had learned. I was impressed by the techniques he described. He even shared some documents with us that summarized the techniques.

During his presentation, he pointed out that giving a presentation is more about the communication than about what is actually being communicated. In other words, it is more about how the message is delivered than it is about the substance of the message.

The more I thought about this, the more it gave me pause. For years, I have seen executives in Information Technology give great presentations that had very little substance. Some I have seen were so technically wrong I was surprised that so many believed what was being said. I thought about the story of drinking the Kool-Aid. 

I began to wonder if well-spoken IT managers have created the business / IT gap. Have they eloquently presented to senior management just what they wanted to hear? Is that why CIOs find themselves in trouble? Is it that they sound good, but some just don’t deliver on their promises?

For years, the academians have been trying to move the IT industry towards well-defined engineering principles. This has resulted in major advances that have provided methods to analyze, design, construct, and test as part of the production of quality hardware and software components. These improvements would not have taken place if substance in communications was not given high value.

Visualizing Information Technology so that senior managers can better understand what appears to be so complex is the primary responsibility of an Enterprise Architect. This visualization is primarily substance. So, following the recommendations from John, how can this visualization best be communicated?

First and foremost, an Enterprise Architect must have good communications skills. If these skills are lacking, they need to join Toastmasters or attend one of John’s classes. This is vital. Then, they need to take full advantage of 2D and 3D graphics in their presentation. They need to always remember that they are there for the listeners to gain value, not to spread Kool-Aid.

[Please comment and share your experience.]

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

Information Technology is one of the most exciting industries to have a career in. It is also one of the most stubborn to change. The general rule is that as new and exciting things come along, there will be a third of an IT staff that will want to try it out. There will be a third that is adamant about seeing how other organizations respond to the change before they venture in. And, the last third had rather be laid back and not have any changes in their lives.

When there is two-thirds of an organization that does not want to take on change, it is surprising that there actually is so much change. Often, changes occur because of a mandate due to a major shift in  the business, new regulatory requirements, or a new CIO that is determined to improve the status quo. In these cases, the two-thirds that would normally fight to avoid the change are forced to participate.

Those that are stubborn about wanting to change believe that they are the wisest ones of all. They are usually the ones that know that the cost of change is usually not clearly understood. They may have begun their career as a member of the third that gets excited about change and reversed their attitude after being burned a few times. What they have learned from their mistakes is to let someone else go first.

Those that get excited about change are often overly impetuous. They can see what benefits may come from the change. They want to maximize those benefits by being among the first. They are usually baffled that others do not see, as they see it, the clear value of the change.

Then there are those that go to work each day because they want to pay their bills. They may enjoy working with some of the staff and may even develop friendships. They are basically happy doing each day what they have done before. The repetition makes them experts at their task and few mistakes take place.

It is no wonder that Information Technology is moving so slowly to adopt enterprise level architecture. One third of the staff has seen similar adoptions fail, another third does not want their routine disrupted, and the last third is very excited but can’t agree on what enterprise architecture is all about.

In this kind of an environment, what is needed is professionalism. For enterprise architecture, this means allowing seasoned Enterprise Architects to guide an organization through the change. IT folks have learned from experience that building databases requires professional DBAs, building networks requires communications experts, building applications requires development experts, and running projects requires professional project managers. Establishing enterprise architecture requires no less of a commitment to professionalism.

In the changing business of Information Technology, there is no more exciting or rewarding profession than that of an Enterprise Architect. As more and more senior managers want to better understand how all of their systems work together, Enterprise Architects will be in demand.

The Enterprise Architect can bring the visualization needed to understand the ripple effect of change. This will help bring the third along that is stubborn about change. It will also let those that are excited about the change curb their excitement by seeing the greater scope of the change. For the other third which had rather not change at all, they will see the value and magnitude of the change and fully support what is best for their organization.

 [Please comment and share your experience.] 

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

[Cartoon]

Many organizations are beginning to realize the importance of the architecture of their Information Technology. Often this awareness comes when the organization finds that it cannot quickly respond to the changes in their business.

Consider a scenario where an organization has decided to acquire another organization and merge it into their existing operations. The president of the organization would meet with direct reports to determine how long it will take to complete the merger. All of the managers believe they can move quickly and have the merger completed within three months except for one, the CIO. Systems’ changes are estimated to take over a year.

Now, suddenly architecture becomes important. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for this scenario.  It is not always possible to anticipate a specific change like a merger, but it is possible to anticipate that the business will change. This is why architecture is so important, because change is inevitable.

In my experience, it seems that when management has a need to complete a project, like a merger, the target date is unmovable.  A CIO that reports it cannot be done within the target date will probably be shown the door and another CIO that will commit to the target date will be found.

In these cases, the projects cause the architecture to become even more difficult to change. Approaches referred to as “duct tape solutions” will be applied that will literally gum up the architecture. Over time, this is felt as projects take longer and longer to complete. Longer projects mean more resources and higher costs.

Every manager in an organization should know the organization’s architecture for Information Technology. They should know how it works. They should be able to point out areas where there is insufficient flexibility to support potential changes. They should embrace the architecture as their architecture.

Providing this visualization for all to see is the responsibility of the Enterprise Architect. With this visualization the managers will be able to flush out the waste that permeates most organization’s architecture. Just by shinning the light on the architecture, an organization will be able to run faster with less cost.

[Please comment and share your experience.] 

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook

One thing is for sure. Senior executives did not become senior because of their lack of common sense. They have a way of simplifying even the most complex items and explaining it to others. They are downright remarkable.

Somehow though, this wonderful ability to translate the complex items to common understanding seems to run aground when it comes to Information Technology. Most just try to talk the talk they hear from their IT folks. They speak of application systems, major projects, and high-volume processing. They may even, in some cases, describe their huge data center.

It is not that the senior managers do not want to speak of IT using common sense; it is just that there does not seem to be any clear simplicity. For example, every year there is more being spent on IT with little to show in the end. Projects seem to take longer and longer for no particular reason. These things do not make common sense. If you spend more, you should get more. Things that are repeated should take less effort each time it is done.

What the senior managers need are translators. They need Enterprise Architects to give them the visualization of the current state of their IT. The senior managers would then be able to derive what is best for their organization’s use of IT and clearly explain it to everyone else.

Support organizations like Human Resources are very important to the selection and growth of the corporate staff. Human Resources institute the policies laid down by the senior management by establishing control processes. The senior management knows the policies and can explain them to anyone.

Enterprise Architects operate in a very similar to Human Resources. They work with the senior management to establish the policies and procedures for managing the computing resources of the organization. Just like the corporate staff does not all report to Human Resources, the computing resources are not managed by the Enterprise Architects. As Human Resources do not report within a production organization, the Enterprise Architects do not report to the CIO. It is only common sense that the governance group cannot be managed by the ones being governed.

Common sense can prevail for Information Technology. All senior managers need is some help in translating the complex into something less complex. All they need is Enterprise Architects dedicated to this task.

[Please comment and share your experience.]

Closing the Business / IT gap.

Share on Facebook