omb

For Who The Heck is Enterprise Architecture Not?

Thinker Practitioner

While thinking of ideas discussed in this blog, have been probing the tenants that creates the fundamental characteristics of the system such as :-

  • Division Of Labor – the most important idea that revolutionized industrialization and for rise of capitalism
  • Commodiitization vs Specialization
  • Production of cost by Economy Of Scale by Division vs Multiplexing (manual vs automation)
  • Holistic vs Reductionist
  • Organic vs Inorganic (natural dichotomy)
  • Autonomy (increased self sufficiency) vs Corporate Sovereignty
  • Natural Selection leading into Adaptive vs Self Regulation leading into Generative
  • Centralization vs Polycentrism; and Federation
  • Simplicity vs Complicated (not to be confused with Complex System)

The above premise must be used as background in probing the discipline EA – which is essentially a System Theory being an integrative of several disciplines such as sociology, economics, business management, information technology etc

Defeating Cognitive Bias and Instant Gratification

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art12.html

Basically have been battling within my head why this discipline Enterprise Architecture went so whacky in the corridors of corporates. I think all the below discussed stuff are symptoms. The core reasons I think is basically in the deviant behavior that corporate culture tends to promote driven by short term gains. Lets call this deviant theory (Corporate) Anomie a concept developed by Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, who introduced this concept of Anomie in his book The Division of Labor in Society, published in 1893. Later expanded in the book Suicide published in 1897. Emile Durkheim is considered as the “father of sociology”.

1. Not for those Not solving Systemic Concerns

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/transformative-enterprise-architecture-framework-connecting-strategy-tactical-operational-execution-implementation/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/enterprise-architecture-economic-model-system-dynamics/

Enterprise Architecture (EA) as a discipline is engaged to solve problems within systemic context. Where the (a) challenge of realizing business strategy by enabling relevant business capabilities (b) delivered by set of tactical objectives (operational) achieved by (c) making informed and decisive investments in technologies. When such systemic concerns are not being addressed, then EA is overkill. EA while it strives to solve macro concerns it does so by aligning well designed several sets of micro objectives.

2. Not for those who lack appreciation for Order and Maturity 

Generally, EA as a discipline is better desired when an enterprise strives to scale order of maturity to manage complexity by rational means. To develop organizational skills, a decisive competencies framework is desired.

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/enterprise-architecture-maturity-model-framework-federal/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/developing-enterprise-architecture-practitioner-competamcies/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/dod-ea-competencies-development-framework/

3. Not for those who cannot deal with Abstraction

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/teaching-an-elephant-to-dance/

EA is not for those who have not trained their mind to think in abstraction. Especially those who find themselves comfortable in dealing with physicality and forms will require head wrenching exercise to hone mind to develop abilities to deal with varieties of abstractions, while representing them with varying semantics that help in  delineation, thus leading into layered representation in terms of a framework.

“Separation of Concerns” is one such technique that achieve delineation by introduction of semantics and eventually it also helps in the design of EA Framework.

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/christopher-alexander-father-of-pattern-language/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/ciao-interesting-pursuit-after-ea-ontology/

EA is not for those, who in abstraction find it difficult to delineate contextual from conceptual; and conceptual from logical and logical from physical.

4. Not for Reductionist; instead suited for Holistic Thinkers

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/the-black-swan/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/six-sigma-aids-only-linear-transformation-not-non-linear-radical-transformation/

EA is not for those who are only reductionists in approach and who think everything in the world can be reduced to simple set of objects or objectives. EA is not necessarily Cartesian and certainly not for linear thinkers. EA is not about immediately discovering implementation; in fact it is delayed gratification by introducing decisive rationalizing process before subjective strategy turn into executable objective actions yielding the best business results by leverage.

5. Not for those who pursue Transformation without Goals

Although EA might help manage both organic and inorganic growth of an organization; by itself it is a disciple dealing with inconsistencies owing to structure and mechanism found within and their impact on transformation augmenting enterprise growth

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/enterprises-in-generative-transformation-akin-to-universe-life-cycle/

6. Not for those who pursue merely Functional Goals and NOT be concerned with Ecosystem’s Harmony 

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/huichols-shamanic-vision-architecture-of-the-consciousness/

EA is not a mere IT role, especially a difficult role for those who have worked only in the areas of IT infra and in delivering such services. EA is not limited only to physical layer.

EA is not for those who find it difficult to distinguish business strategy from business architecture; business architecture from application architecture; application architecture from technology (infra) architecture. And, importantly EA is an overarching and all encompassing meta-architecture inclusive of all those levels of architecture that holistically represents an enterprise in relevant abstractions.

Architecture is a holistic sum striving to achieve systemic balance by aligning function, performance and cost

Math and statistical although important, those approaches alone are not adequate to envision future capabilities for an organization. Likewise advents in technology alone do not necessarily prove transformative. Knowledge of IT architecture by itself is not transformative. Instead, EA as a discipline  requires to integrate Architecture, Capital Planning and Program Portfolio Management. All these brought together by productive Governance; even then the challenges of future remains fleeting.

7. Not for those who think Taxonomy suffices to represent EA and NOT Ontology 

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/implicate-order-descriptive-mechanism-form-large-systems-of-systems/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/implicate-order-probabilistic-ontology-complexity-theory/

There is distinct semantics used to represent each of the layers (“separation of concerns”). Semantics introduces dimensionality to the architecture layers and they cannot be represented with limited set of semantics in limited dimensions. Each layer that is semantically different from the other requires transformation in planning and design to discover the opportunities in each layer. Ontology plays an important role in developing and assimilating ideas leading into discovering creative transformative opportunities. EA is not for those who tend to reduce everything into simple 2D representations in the hope that simplified versions help manage complexity better.

8. Not for those who are Programmatic in Approach and Not Practitioners 

Not for those who do not understand what disposes them to be credible management consultants. Furthermore, also not for those management consultants who have not gained appreciation for structure, semantics driven architecture and mechanism within; and their role together in systemic transformation, functional modernization and economic optimization.

Consultants are those who have gained immense multi-lateral experience in the industry in variety of areas especially in conducting transformation, modernization and optimization related activities. Generally individual gains such experiences driven by motivation to solve large fleeting problems those are systemic in nature. Not by pursuing opportunities where sole motivation is revenue generation no matter what.

Practitioners develop insight by assiduously probing the problem and complexity. The skills do not develop overnight. It is not swashbuckling nor shooting through the hip. It is developing opportunity by being proactive and intense probing.

There are no Outliers (myth destroyed by  Malcolm Gladwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book) )

“””A common theme that appears throughout Outliers is the “10,000-Hour Rule”, based on a study by Anders Ericsson. Gladwell claims that greatness requires enormous time, using the source of The Beatles’ musical talents and Gates’ computer savvy as examples.[3] The Beatles performed live in HamburgGermany over 1,200 times from 1960 to 1964, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time, therefore meeting the 10,000-Hour Rule. Gladwell asserts that all of the time The Beatles spent performing shaped their talent, and quotes Beatles’ biographer Philip Norman as saying, “So by the time they returned to England from Hamburg, Germany, ‘they sounded like no one else. It was the making of them.'”[3]Gates met the 10,000-Hour Rule when he gained access to a high school computer in 1968 at the age of 13, and spent 10,000 hours programming on it.[3]“””

9. Not for those who provide professional expertise as Contractor and NOT as Practitioner

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/developing-enterprise-architecture-practitioner-competamcies/

http://www.ipthree.org/frontpage-features/94-messageprofessionals

http://www.cos-mag.com/human-resources/hr-columns/whats-in-a-name-professional-vs-practitioner.html

It is not a contracting role – In theory contracting assumes that the client understand the requirement and they control the way project gets executed. This is obviously flawed approach.

Generally those who have thrived only in delivering IT services of operational nature are not the candidates for conducting management consulting, since most of their career has been delivering IT solutions and services for a requirement determined by the client and their consultants.

10. Not for those who do not value Professional Integrity

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/enterprise-architect-fighting-obfuscation/

Importantly EA is a Practitioner Discipline introducing high standards emphasizing on quality in rendering and most importantly professional ethics promoting the desired ethos for organization’s evident growth and maturity. The results of EA achieves transparency, accountability and line of sight driven by “structuralism” striving to achieve “order”.

11. Not for those who build career around Tools and NOT around Discipline Integrating Science and Art

EA is not a discipline that can be developed by building career around tools. Tools by themselves do not create Art and neither advances Science. EA is integrative of architecture, capital planning and program management. All these driven by corporate governance.

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/creative-people-at-work/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/in-lack-of-theory-planning-will-be-along-a-straight-line/

12.Not for those who engage merely in IT Operation and Implementation

EA is integrative of strategy, operations and implementation

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/transformative-enterprise-architecture-framework-connecting-strategy-tactical-operational-execution-implementation/

13. Not for those who DO NOT Develop Enterprise Transition Plan and Operating Model (must skill for EA)

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/etp/

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ea-framework-for-transition-planning/

14. Not for those who think EA and Solution Architecture are synonymous

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/gabriel_morgan/archive/2007/09/02/enterprise-architect-vs-solution-architect.aspx

http://weblog.tetradian.com/2012/09/13/linking-ea-with-sa/

 15. Not for those obsessed with Dominance and NOT Balance

EA cannot help organization achieve balance and sustainability without Governance

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/governance-managing-conflict-change-the-intrinsic-duality-of-an-enterprise/

16. Not for those who engage Masquerading Solution Facades and Intellectual Contrives 

EA improves “Loss of Innocence” while it DEFEATS Solutions that do not align with context.

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/teaching-an-elephant-to-dance/

 17. Not for those who think Service Oriented Architecture, Correlation Architecture, etc by themselves constitute EA

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/ea-framework-to-accomodate-soa-style/

 18. Not for those who merely think Strategy alone and NOT Innovation help create Newer Opportunities

Innovation to create newer opportunities while achieving higher order in capabilities and business sustainability are key to ensure system harmony against the challenges of existing and ensuing complexities.

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/moving-from-darwinian-adaptive-to-generative-transformation/

List for NOT’s can be endless….

…N. Is Certainly for System Thinkers

Advertisements

Operating Model – Have Fed Agencies abandoned creating “Enterprise Transition Plan” ? ETP is challenging for the OCIO

Enterprise Transition Plan – Line Of Sight – Operating Model

Ref:- FEAC Institute, FEA Guidance, INGINE INC, Srinidhi Boray[/

Conceiving a coherent modernization plan and executing them has always been a challenge for OCIO. Enterprise Transition Plans generally documents the visions, goals, capabilities at the strategic level and then progresses to envisage “target conceptual architecture”, while planning for tactical efforts working through the mechanisms of architecture lifecycle needed to transition towards the target enterprise conceptual architecture. This results into creating the “roadmap”. The documents that holistically speaks to organizationals capability in reaching such a roadmap is the “Enterprise Transition Strategy”.

Reading the Enterprise Transition Strategy following should be evident:

Organization’s maturity and competence to perform and embrace the future capabilities

Organization’s present constraints in delivering the needed “capabilities”

The profile of the architecture cross sections (segments) needing modernization to develop the intended “portfolio of capabilities”

Investment Profile – planned to executive segment modernization

The governance structure and mechanism that engages the different functional capabilities, such as leadership – management, lines of businesses, enterprise architecture, capital planning and program management. This group together develops and vets – strategic plans, tactical plans and implementation plans governed by following  life cycles

  • Performance Management (Architect, Invest, Implement)
  • Architecture Segment (Notional, Planned, In-Progress, Completed)
  • Release Architecture (sadly mostly do not plan this – it is here interdependence of architectures or capabilities are realized and maintained)
  • Capital Planning (Preselect, Select, Control & Evaluate)
  • Investment (mixed, steady state, Development, Modernization & Enhancement -DME)

A “Sequence Plan” along with “Implementation Plan” is developed to reach the desired Target Architecture (temporal perspective)

Finally Operating Model – The most important component – it assimilates all the decisions chosen for creating an operating leverage, that creates degree or order of leverage to deal with inherent systemic complexities against the efforts of creating economy of scale in delivering the enterprise capabilities essential for delivering the enterprise mission.

More discussion in below link in creating Enterprise Transition Strategy

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ea-framework-for-transition-planning/

Transformation Framework Capturing an Operating Model

https://ingine.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/transformative-enterprise-architecture-framework-connecting-strategy-tactical-operational-execution-implementation/

Distortions leads to Cancerous Growth within Enterprise

Programmed Cell Death is very important function to understand to gain insight into the way Transformation need to occur. When distortions occur in Enterprise Engineering, then this leads into obvious cancerous growth, which does not have easy remedy.

How many CIO’s in the market inadvertently are responsible for distortions?! Countless.

Federal IT Budget 2010 – OMB

As of March 30th 2010. This keeps changing, they have quarterly refresh.

Only “major” investments reported to OMB. From the reported data it is evident that 50% of the investment categorized under “minor” goes unreported. This means nearly 50 % of the total IT Budget of $74.2 Billion for some  reason does not qualify to be reported promoting transparency.

Federal IT Budget 2010 in Billions
Agency Major Minor Total
DOD 9.6 23.42 33.02
DHS 4.9 1.3 6.2
HHS 2.3 3.66 5.96
DOC 2.1 1.52 3.62
TREASURY 2.3 0.76 3.06
DOT 2.4 0.61 3.01
DOJ 2 0.86 2.86
VA 2.6 0.23 2.83
USDA 1.4 0.94 2.34
ENERGY 1.6 0.52 2.12
OTHERS 7.3 1.88 9.18
TOTAL 38.5 35.7 74.2

Investments Reported By Agencies to OMB

Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model Framework (Federal) – EA Value Measurement

EAMMF - SRINIDHI BORAY

If the Agencies are scored with this Scoring Mechanism, then barely any Agency will go past score 2. How hopeless is the situation with regards to OCIO Planning, when more transparency and accountability is being demanded.

Federal IT Dashboard – USA Spending

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S.2590)

The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on April 6, 2006.[1]

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S. 2590)[2] is an Act of Congress that requires the full disclosure to the public of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007. The website USAspending.gov opened in December 2007 as a result of the act, and is maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 2590 will cost $15 million over its authorized time period of 2007–2011.[3]

See where your 70 $ Billion IT spend in 2009 is going. Analyze and understand if your money could be put to better use, or the Citizens are getting what they deserve.

To read the data, one must realize that there are initiatives and investment directed at projects. By auditing the initiatives, a lot of murky projects can be discovered. Already VA has discovered about 45 such projects and immediately they have been put on hold. More such muck is bound to emerge in other agencies.

In this entire scheme of making things transparent, exists segment architecture that gets defined  by the “Federal Segment Architecture Methodology” (FSAM). 


Accountability Transparency

Accountability Transparency

Chasm in Federal Enterprise Architecture : FSAM & FEAF – The dilemma of divisive decisive

FEAF FSAM Chasm

The Chasm between FEAF & FASM

Following Questions arises between FEAF and FSAM :-

Does the above questions make Federal Enterprise Architecture a boon or bane?

First of all “Segment” definition seems to be seriously flawed and riddled with “empirical dilemma” because of which it renders itself not anything architectural. It has confusing classification scheme that seems to follow no construct nor order. Schemes like this when applied to investment profiles, they seem more like apparition than anything real meaningful numbers on the Federal IT Dashboard.

Also, it seems that there is unconscious fascism, underpinning the modality of bringing together people (architect ?? ) to define ‘The Federal Segment Architecture Methodology’ (Architecture??). Many times in such scheme of thing certain locational existence gives people “power” not necessarily genuine “purpose”. This provides authority to a certain group of people, who have no real cause nor motivation ‘Serving the Citizens’ in all humility.

Etymology

The term fascismo is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means “bundle” or group, and from the Latin word fasces; a fasces was a bundle of sticks used symbolically for the power through unity.[21][22] The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates; they were carried by his Lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[22]

Furthermore, the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[23] This is a familiar theme throughout different forms of fascism; for example the Falange symbol is a bunch of arrows joined together by a yoke.[24]