Skip to main content

The illusion of static Enterprise Architecture

I recently read a post by ZapThink's analyst Jason Bloomberg titled: 

Continuous Business Transformation: At the Center of ZapThink 2020


According to that post the permanence of change drives how we run our organizations,but it is against our human quest for stability. As far as Enterprise Architecture is concerned, he notes that the To-Be Architecture organizations trying to move to from current As-Is Architecture is a moving target: There will never be a stable Enterprise Architecture.

I do agree that Architecture is dynamic in nature, however we should look more deeply at the characteristics of that ever changing process.  

Does Enterprise Architecture evolve linearly or  Spiraly?
I use the term linear for describing any type of monotonic evolution, just because linear is simpler than other monotonic fuctions.
In my opinion as described in a previous post it is spiral.
Yesterday, I encountered a SaaS example supporting my case.
I looked at an old Giga Information Group article dated 2002. The article written by Byron Miller title is: "ERP Software as a Service".
The issues and observations are similar to current ERP SaaS issues (described in many articles and Reaserch Notes including my post: Future Applications SaaS or Traditional).
The term SaaS in the old article does not refer to Cloud Computing but to Application Service Provider(ASP)model.  


Is the As-Is to the To-Be Architecture approach a wrong approach?

I do think that it is a usefull approach. The fact that even if we complete the transformation from As-is to To-Be we will need a new To-Be, does not deny the value of reaching a better architectural state than the current state.
Prepetual change is against Human nature, but reaching a goal is not. It is easier for us to reach a goal(To-Be Architecture) and look afterwards for another goal (next To-Be Architecture), than to act in a chaotic ever changing environment without any sub-goals. 

Why Architecture is doomed for change?

It is not only because of the Dynamic Business, The Technological changes and other organizational changes.

Another main reason for Enterprise Architecture inherent dynamics is its nature. EA is an abstract model describing artificats (Business artifacts, Technological IT artificats and Applicative IT artifacts) and the relations between them.
most abstract models does not fully correspond to the real entities they describe, so even if nothing is changed the model should be improved  and changed.
   
Labels:

Comments

kpo services said…
There are many things to look forward when transforming your business because not all the time you will follow your own system.
December 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The mainframe: still alive and kicking

Recently, I was interviewed by  Pcon   (unfortunately the link points to an Hebrew only site) as part of debriefing on Legacy Systems.  Pcon is an Israeli company investigating IT topics by quoting professional articles and interviewing experts. They publish the results of the investigations including practical recommendations. This post is mainly about topics raised by me during the interview, but not included in the debriefing, which will be published.    What are Legacy Systems? The term Legacy Systems refers to old application systems and/or veteran technologies still in use.  Usually, the term Legacy Systems is associated with: 1. Mainframe Hardware e.g. IBM System z and its Operating Systems or Proprietary Servers and Operating Systems such as HP Alpha and OpenVMS Operating System, IBM AS/400 and OS/400   Operating System. 2. Development and Production Environments, e.g. COBOL , Natural and DBMS systems such as Adabas  ...
16 comments
Read more

Will Business and IT Aligned?

For decades we are talking about closing the gap between business and IT , but the gap is still as wide as it was. In the beginning of the ERP era, we focused on aligning Business Processes and Core Systems, but in most enterprises we failed. SOA was the next alignment promise: defining the SOA Services in Business boundaries instead of Technical boundaries, should narrow the gap. However, despite of SOA Business Value ( Agility and Reuse )  in most enterprises,  the large Business-IT Gap remained as large as it was.  The IT Community aimed at the next alignment attempt: SOA is technical and BPM is its Business related complement.  Will the current BPM based alignment attempt succeed? I do not know, but Nick Heath's article  titled: Stop doing what the vendors tell you, CIOs told , published in  Tech Republic , suggests that the root of the problem is not Technological .   Stop Doing What the vendors Tell You Nick Heath's article is based ...
11 comments
Read more

Vendors Survival: Will Software AG Survive until 2019?

This post is another post in the Vendors Survival series following posts on Microsoft , Google , HP , Sun and EMC . On July 14 th Software AG and IDS Scheer announced that Software AG is going to take over IDS Scheer . The intended acquisition is an opportunity to add another post in my Vendors Survival posts series. A brief history of Software AG Mainframe products Software AG is larger than any German software company except SAP . It was established in the Mainframe age (in 1969). I worked with many customers, who used and some of them are still using, its two flagship products Adabas and Natural . Although these products support many platforms, their main platform is IBM Mainframe. Adabas is a database and Natural is a development environment. Like other pairs of Database and Development Environment in the mainframe environment (e.g. Ideal and Datacom , Mantis and Supra) build by the same vendor, they are tied together. As a result, although it is possible t...
8 comments
Read more