�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

1. An enterprise consists of many components. They are categorized and organized into groups like organizations, locations and so on. The components also relate to each other in some manner.
2. Each enterprise has a unique set of components and set of relationships that differentiate one enterprise from another. There needs to be some framework that that provides rules for how the components of an enterprise are organized.
3. Each enterprise has a unique set of components and set of relationships that differentiate one enterprise from another. There needs to be some framework that that provides rules for how the components of an enterprise are organized.
4. The components now have a loosely organized and informal structure used for making decisions or evaluating new combinations that improve performance. Parts are documented and parts are not. The relationships are not well understood, and using money or numbers is the core analytical techniques. But… these are usually after the fact.
5. Early Enterprise architecture based on periodic table ideas had a very narrow focus… just as digital systems Some work had been done but it was fragmented, what to do?
6. At one point in history the elements that make up our world were in the same condition. They were combined by ‘alchemists’ who each had their idea of how things worked and how to combine and separate stuff. How most of us doing architecture are applying the periodic table idea… Like Alchemists – each doing what they think is best!
7. Someone, a monk named Mendeleyev thought of a way to organize the elements based on their atomic weight. Such is the periodic table of elements. This organization helped scientists determine and predict what would happen if elements were combined.
8. Here we have the table that grew out of the ideas of Mendeleyev. Notice how well organized the rows and columns are. They have simple rules of membership to help this organization. Originally based on atomic weight, it was better organized later using atomic numbers.
9. The periodic table helped scientists determine and predict what would happen if elements were combined. For an enterprise, the Zachman Framework does something similar for the components of the enterprise.
10. So we now have a lot of old architecture constructs or just pieces of architecture put together by some out of date rules. It is not easy to map these to the current thinking. In fact the focus is part of the problem. Often what is desired is a single type of solution like a system. This means that everything begins to look like a requirement for a digital system. Also the artifacts become complicated making analytics difficult. Like chemical elements we need to understand the ‘essentials’ to be able to do analytics.
11. Architecture of enterprises is like walking into a complicated structure and not knowing which direction to go. You need an organized ‘road map’ to find out where to go with instructions on how to navigate. This also shows that there are a number of visual constructs that you can use to show the organization of the elements visually.
12. So, there are multiple architecture perspective, artifacts that lead to a digital system, artifacts that are used to link the business to the system view and artifacts used exclusively for business analysis of things like mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, disposals, consolidations, change impact analysis and so on. In the business scenario, systems are a component of the business not the end point of analysis.
13. Some analysts think that more detail will solve the problem. More detail may actually complicate the analysis and make simple decisions more difficult by focusing on extraneous items and not on the problems to solve. This also makes analytics much more complicated. It is like having too many variables in an econometric equation and trying to deal with minute influence that are not meaningful to the larger view. On the other hand if you are isolating down to a narrow issue then the detail is important.
14. Some analysts think that more detail will solve the problem. More detail may actually complicate the analysis and make simple decisions more difficult by focusing on extraneous items and not on the problems to solve. This also makes analytics much more complicated. It is like having too many variables in an econometric equation and trying to deal with minute influence that are not meaningful to the larger view. On the other hand if you are isolating down to a narrow issue then the detail is important.
15. A to solving what the artifacts should be or what to focus on is defining use cases. This is like the phrase that a plan is only good until the battle begins. Use case that deal with the different options of structure for the future business are difficult to develop. The actual use is rarely clear unless you are dealing with a well defined and usually stable business process.
16. Another approach is to look at options with a mind map, OK it’s a good idea, but remember it is a form of tree structure and does not show cross linking which is rampant in a business.
17. Well, here is a good idea. It is rules about using a framework that are important. What does the framework consist of, how do tings get into the framework, what are valid components etc. It is like rules for using the chart of accounts to do calculation. The rules validate that the calculations will work properly.
18. Here is a simple set of starter rules to help you get started. They don’t tell you what the framework looks like but if you have a framework this helps manage it.
19. But once you start thinking of rules, management sees it as a thinking constraint.
20. At this point you get a real range of reactions to the idea of architecture frameworks for a business. Some people are ecstatic and happy and some are still scratching their heads.
21. The trick is to make a good case for using architecture. Right now managements are often told it will help deliver less expensive and better matched systems to the business. The real value is in analytics that can help management decide on options in running the business.
22. The real issue is how do we get the management of an enterprise to see that there is value in analyzing the business using a framework approach? This will depend on the industry and the management style. It also depends on the stress placed on the business. If your product ends in death of users you move quickly to do something other than hide. Usually get a good law firm. However, if there is little threat of liability, then there is less urge to improve things.
23. So at the end of the day, the case must be made for a better operating business, one that is flexible, one that anticipates impacts instead of reacting to them late and one that is interested in being dynamic in responding to the marketplace. It means that the business cannot retreat into being fat, dumb and happy because they had a good year.