Where the Enterprise Architect Stands

Image: dan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I was asked an interesting question the other day on my experience as an architect. Did I lean more towards the visionary and conceptual side of architecture or the more pragmatic and results oriented side? I suppose as an IT architect an answer indicating one or the other is commonly expected. But if  I was a civil architect that question would rarely be asked as the client expectation of the architect would be that both qualities are exhibited in equal measure. An answer that favored the pragmatic over the conceptual would suggest a civil engineer or a building contractor, while the opposite answer would indicate a graphic artist or fantasist. In most cases the customer may be disappointed that they are not getting both in the same package.

Why then should enterprise architecture be any different? Civil and enterprise architects perform similar functions, they both ensure that designed structures meet the purpose and goals of their clients. Indeed even the processes they follow have close or identical steps, and the way they analyze, conceptualize and define their artifacts has immediate conformity as pointed out by Roger Sessions in his joint white paper with Nikos Salingaros comparing urban and enterprise architectures. Yet there is a disparity in how the civil and enterprise architects are viewed and engaged.  The executive board of a company may be involved in the architectural design and purposing of their new HQ building, but have little time to countenance reviews and discussions of  enterprise architecture which can have a profound effect on their business processes, information and technical services.  Can there can be any doubt which architectural discipline will have the larger impact on revenue and the company bottom line?

All too often the enterprise architect  lacks equivalent visibility, especially at the most senior levels of a company.   Part of that obscurity can be attributed to the fact that EA is considered part of IT and IT services, a department whose success is determined by efficiency (more for less) and performance (uptime, availability).  A department, furthermore, often considered as a necessary evil rather than a contributor of value and thought leadership. Another reason lies in the fact that a large majority of architects achieve their position through education and careers in technology.  However successful enterprise architects have to transcend the limitations of a technical perspective, just as civil architects have to learn how to exercise esthetic judgement in the selection of materials and the coherence of design.

For the enterprise architect that esthetic calling is to become a strategist and visionary, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. This demands a competency in understanding business purpose, culture, financial imperatives, and the nature and state of enterprise legacies.  Only when armed with this knowledge can a practitioner, with the collaboration of the business, envision the future and  determine the path that needs to be followed to get there from the current state.  An architect who does not embrace this holistic approach is likely to be and most probably will remain a technical engineer. And an architect who does not understand the structure and behaviors of the technology supporting the business will be regarded as a theorist rather than a visionary and potentially an early target for downsizing.  Furthermore that necessary understanding can only be achieved with full engagement with the drivers and managers of the business including IT leadership.

Returning to the original question - which direction should you lean as an enterprise architect - can there be any better answer than both in equal measure? To prejudice either is to offer less than the whole.

Tweet

 

Related articles

• Fixing Enterprise Architecture: Balancing the Forces of Change in the Modern Organization - Dion Hinchcliffe's Next-Generation Enterprises (ebizq.net)
• Urbanand EnterpriseArchitectures: A Cross-Disciplinary Look at Complexity by RogerSessions and Nikos A. Salingaros.

Sharing is a Talent

Artwork by John Cooney www.cooneyillustration.com

Parables are stories that carry a lesson, and amongst the best known are the ones from the christian bible.  Like many other metaphors they have multiple meanings, though the predominant one is usually linked to the owning authority, in this case a religion. However parables often have relevance outside of the intended audience and are often just as pertinent and instructive in a different context.

The parable of the talents is one such metaphor that is particularly appropriate for those agonizing on whether to jump into networking and social media.  And it applies whether one is a student, a home maker, a worker, a job seeker or a retiree.

The story is simple.  A rich man is leaving his home for a long journey and he calls his three servants and gives each some money (Talents) according to their skills. Two of them use the money to increase the wealth of themselves and their master while the third chooses to bury his coin to keep it safe from harm.  When the master returns some time later he calls the three servants and asks for them to show the result of their efforts.  The first two servants reply by showing how they have increased the sum of money by their endeavors and the master praises them and gives them more money to look after.   The third servant however takes his master to the pit where he had buried the coin but instead of praise for protecting it the master is displeased by his non-production and according to the story casts the servant into the darkness, giving his coin to one of the more useful servants.

In the christian church this parable is most often used for encouraging the spreading of the gospel, for those with a more material bent it is used to illustrate the principles and benefits of capitalism, but it equally reflects the need to take what we are given in terms of knowledge, skill, perception and wisdom and share it.  Social media tools may not be the easiest to manipulate, not because they are complex, far from it, but because we are unaccustomed to bringing our knowledge and our thoughts to light.  We are very practiced at delivering what we believe people want to hear or see, and we are extremely industrious and diligent about preparing our presentations, speeches and soundbites.  We consume scripted communications whether they are entertainment, political, topical or business oriented and we like to reply in kind.

The parable depicts everyman as the third servant - keeping his talent to himself for fear of it being devalued or lost. He is us, consuming but protecting what has been given, keeping it and himself in the dark. The parable shines light on this misuse of talent telling us that there is manifestly more value in the coin if it is shared, exchanged or used to gain more information, insight and perspective, in short, invested in the common pool of knowledge to gain even more insight or talent. 

Social media tools like LinkedIn, Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook have matured and are not just hang-outs for purely social interaction.  They now cater for those who want to find out more about the world they live in, the movers and shakers, the thinkers and planners.  Dialogue and collaboration are alive and kicking in hyperspace, all you have to do is share your talent.

Roman coins (talent was the heaviest)

Post script: Talent is commonly accepted as the name of a coin used in Roman times.  The modern day usage of a skill or capability is in keeping with the interpretation above of sharing one's gifts with the outside world.

The talent was the largest unit of weight in the christian bible.  In today’s money one talent is worth about $1,080,000 US. 




Tweet

Social Media and Architecture - Connecting the Dots

When architecture first became a recognized business and IT skill set I was asked to describe what that meant to IT in particular.  I remember referring back to my earlier training in traditional architecture by saying that it was building structures in which the relationship of the parts and their properties supported the purpose of the whole.

As the IT architectural discipline matured through maps, roadmaps and frameworks  the correspondences with traditional architecture increased.  It wasn't just about the structure and the space it occupied it was also about the structures surrounding it and the conditions beyond them - in other words an ever expanding set of relationships that had to be taken into consideration.  Of course the factors on the outer rings of influence took lower priority but it was still relatively important for them to be acknowledged.

This new breed of architects is naturally disposed to openness in order to access and share as much information as possible about their structures and environments, an environment that increasingly extends beyond the datacenter and the enterprise.  Obviously the more they know the more they can determine and predict the relationships and ultimately the more successful they and their employers will become.  Sharing leads to collaboration and I have long felt that wikis provide the ideal medium for architectural artifacts and documentation.  I was greatly impressed by the wiki put together by the Open Methodology Group which exemplifies the benefits of sharing and collaborative organization.

In looking forwards I see that need for openness, sharing and particularly the understanding of a plethora of relationships as unremitting.  And this is where social media lends a large and welcome hand.  Facebook and Linked-In are obvious tools for mapping, understanding and strengthening networks, groups  and personal relationships, though I regard Zuckerberg's creation as more social then professional as opposed to Linked-In which is the reverse.  Linked-In however is more formal and despite all the wonderful attributes and links you can provide it is still a site that hosts super-resumes.

And that brings me finally to Twitter, which is perhaps the least understood of the social media tools.  For some it is all about "me" and "what's happening" now.  Politicians, entertainers and celebrities hire teams to flood the channels with thoughts and quite often nothing more than white noise.  Ricky Gervais, the comedian, put it quite baldly "Of course there are idiots on Twitter. But there are idiots on the high street and I still go there. People say awful idiotic things all the time, but I don't give up language because of it."

BUT to architects Twitter is a treasure trove of relationships, especially the relationship of ideas and thinkers.  I could use Google and other search and analytical tools to find the same information and I would be remiss not to do so as part of deeper research and analysis, but what makes Twitter so useful is its immediacy - it truly is in the present and if you can ignore the noise, the ideas and thoughts are fresh.  There are pitfalls and decoys, parodies and deadwood, but if you put the effort into building your Twitterverse the results can be exciting and even inspirational.




Tweet