Category Archives: Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Architecture and language

ian-ellery-head-small

 

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

Mark Heseltine was the next speaker I heard; talking about enterprise architecture for innovation and change, linking EA with Lean and Agile concepts. He made a really interesting observation early on in his talk: the very language of enterprise architecture causes problems. EA is based on an architectural metaphor, but because the people who are listening to us have physical, building architecture as their mental starting point there is a danger that they will (unconsciously) conflate the analogy with reality. A point I will certainly consider when talking to those outside IT.

The other interesting aspect of his talk for me was discussion around technical debt. He showed a slide of a four quadrant model for technical debt and used a financial debt metaphor for dealing with it. There is the interest we pay on technical debt – the effort in managing it – which has to be balanced against paying off the debt, in other words removing or replacing technology.

I also spotted a tweet which quoted another speaker in a parallel session: “don’t aspire to be the best airline in the world at recovering lost luggage”. I think this is something many organisations, and departments within those organisations are guilty of. We need to have appropriate goals. Let’s not be the IT department who are brilliant at fixing things when they break, let’s be the IT department who deliver services which don’t break.

The final two sessions I chose to attend were probably the least useful. The first was from the Swedish national electricity grid, and the second from the UK national air traffic control service. Both had huge problems and were undergoing massive change and transition programs. However, the very scale what they were trying to achieve made it difficult for me to see anything applicable to, or transferable to HE. The only comment I did like was from the Swedish speaker who pointed out that a target architecture is a direction of travel not “The Truth”. Something it’s easy to forget when it’s been through endless committees and gained the rubber stamp of SMT approval.

Overall, a very useful and enjoyable two days. This is not a cheap conference, so I am very grateful for UCISA funding my place. Would I recommend other HE architects to attend? Yes I would. Getting out of our own sector is always useful and the commercial challenges of disagreeing business units, limited funding, and pressure to deliver are no different to HE.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Enterprise Architecture and the Double Diamond model

ian-ellery-head-small

 

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

The next talk I went to was entitled “from 0 to EA” and was about trying to use enterprise architecture in a small business undergoing radical transformation after being bought by a private equity company. They used a “double diamond” model, with ideas diverging and then converging on a solution. Another insight was thinking ahead and asking where did they want to be in the IT change cycle when “X” happens? We should specifically design timelines to meet external events. A couple of things resonated with me: firstly, true EA success is embedded and invisible, but changes everything. Secondly, be careful not to solve problems for people and tell them that EA is always right. It’s difficult to gain a seat at the table, but easy to lose it again.

I struggled to get much from the next talk from Andrew Swindell. He was describing a concept called “line of sight”, but with very busy sides, I lost sight of his concept. He showed lots and lots of alternative models, and my overwhelming impression was it was all simply too much. One to consider on rereading slides later perhaps.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Enterprise Architecture – using a chess analogy

ian-ellery-head-small

 

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

This morning’s opening keynote is one I’ve been looking forward to – Gerben Wierda, author of “Chess and the Art of Enterprise Architecture”. The book was recommended to me, but I never got round to buying it. He is also creator of the well-known YouTube animation of “hairball architecture”.

His view is that EA has been generally unsuccessful. We do EA to try and make sense of complexity and prevent chaos. However, while this works in theory, chaos still remains. In many organisations there is significant churn of EA functions, and the business remain unconvinced. Why? In his view because the decisions, the action, takes place in projects and not at the higher EA level.

To make EA work, we should use a chess analogy. In chess each move is to make things better, to improve the current state, but with no specific end state in mind. So, he reasons, EA future state plans are a waste of time. The rules of chess are descriptive not prescriptive, and similarly he argues that EA principles can be toxic as they prevent any discussion leading to a “comply or explain” culture.

He also talks about ensuring that EA does not leave out relevant detail. This led to, for me, a lightbulb moment: oversimplification is as bad as over complexity. If as architects we produce a very simple picture for our senior teams – usually to try and help them understand – they will think that the problem is simple. They will then wonder what all the fuss is about trying to solve this apparently simple problem. There were several other phrases and points which made me consider just what I am trying to do with architecture. Overall, this talk was a really good challenge to the status quo of enterprise architecture. And yes, I will now be buying the book.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

EA and bimodal IT

ian-ellery-head-small

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

 

The next IRM EA conference I session went to was described as looking at the linkages between EA and portfolio management. However, little was said about the PMO, with the focus really being on setting up an EA function. One telling insight is that most EA tools are for enabling architects to talk to architects, not architects to talk to humans. The speaker’s company eventually settled on a tool with both PMO and architecture visualisation capability, which also links to technology life-cycle. This latter allows them to link projects to technology obsolescence. The speaker ended by commenting negatively on the Gartner model of bimodal IT. He felt that the faster mode does not understand BAU, while the slow side is seen as boring. This linked nicely to the next session.

This session was entitled “avoiding the bimodal disaster”, so we were in no doubt about the speaker’s viewpoint. He was president of a digital transformation consultancy, and strongly believed that the digital agenda is impossible in a bimodal organisation. In his view either the slow side will hold back the faster transformation efforts, or shadow IT will be created. There were some good aspects to this, such as not seeing EA as city planners, as planned cities are not agile. They may be efficient, but they are not able to cope with rapid change. However, throughout the talk I was left feeling that while there may be issues with Gartner’s bimodal model, there were at least as many issues with the “self-organised” approach advocated by the speaker. Perhaps it’s working in HE, but I was left thinking that there has got to be a compromise position somewhere. One observation I did agree with however, was the need to be ready for citizen IT: whether it be citizen integrator, developer or data analyst. We need to accept that in the future, these areas are no longer wholly owned by IT.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

EA – making a first assessment

ian-ellery-head-small

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

 

The next session  I went to at the IRM enterprise architecture conference was from the Head of Architecture and a solution architect from Cambridge Assessment: the examinations and marking offshoot of Cambridge University. To start architecture, you should always look at what is failing. When the new head of architecture joined, he sat in IT operations and observed what was happening. He realised that things were breaking constantly, but being fixed instantly before user impact by a very dedicated team. Poor architecture was being hidden by passionate staff.

There is a balance to be made between architecture for operations and architecture for the users. In the former it’s about reliability, the latter for example about moving away from pure infrastructure (“how many data outlets do we need?”) to asking questions about the users experience in a new building. They finished by describing architecture as a set of services with outcomes aligned to decisions. And compared all EA Frameworks to the labours of Sisyphus – forever pushing a boulder up a hill for no benefit at all.

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

EA for managing change

ian-ellery-head-small

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so, here I am at the IRM enterprise architecture conference  . The opening introduction promised a mixture of talks about the theoretic as well from those who have actually done it. We were also told that there were representatives from over 30 countries and all continents (except Antarctica!). A glance at the delegate list showed that I am the only person from a UK university, with just three other university representatives. This is reflected in the talks, with lots of emphasis on product delivery, profit margins and managing a business across multiple international locations. However, there was very little that I didn’t feel could be translated into the UK higher education sector in some way.

The opening keynote was from Ashley Braganza, a professor at Brunel Business School. He spoke passionately and length about the fact that, when it comes down to it, everything is about change. Business process management leads to enterprise architecture which leads to project and portfolio management: but all of these are really about managing change.

Theoretically, everything that is being done should link back to organisational strategy, but in practice it rarely does. He used an excellent analogy of the strategy being a mirror. When SMT look in the mirror, they see their strategy reflected back at them. But the mirror is then broken apart and each SMT member takes away a piece that reflects their part of the strategy. The mirror is then broken down again and again until every individual in the organisation has their own piece of the mirror reflecting their objectives. But the big picture, the reflection of SMT’s real vision, has been lost. And unfortunately, it is the enterprise architects who are usually called on to fix things! My reflection on this (pun definitely intended) is that either we fight this and try and get a coherent strategic vision, or alternatively, perhaps we embrace it and welcome the fact that EA is the place where corporate strategy becomes visible.

To finish, Ashley reflected on different change models, which he felt were all lacking. He was especially vitriolic about Kotter’s eight steps to change . Finally, one of the phrases of the day which totally resonated with me: the problems, in his view, are that we have 21st century models and methodologies, working within 20th century organisations led by people with 19th century mindsets. By the latter he meant a Dickensian obsession with counting things. Budgets, REF, TEF… sound familiar?

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Reflections before the Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe 2016

ian-ellery-head-small

 

Ian Ellery
Head of IT Architecture
Canterbury Christ Church University

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am the lucky recipient of a UCISA bursary  to attend the Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe 2016 run by IRM UK. In the week before the conference, I reflect here on my reasons for wanting to attend, what I am hoping to get out of it and how I hope to use the information.

I have worked at Canterbury Christ Church University for nearly 10 years and have recently become Head of IT Architecture. However, I am not an enterprise architect by background or training I am a senior IT manager and strategist. The potential power of enterprise or IT architecture was introduced to the University by the new IT director and my challenge is to deliver for her a light-touch architectural framework. This will allow the IT department to create a blueprint for the future, and allow the University to manage the significant levels of application change currently planned.

But unlike many universities, we cannot afford to recruit a team of architects. It’s just me, a software/ solutions architect, three business analysts and some project managers. And all too often, architecture feels theoretic and more concerned with tools and frameworks than pragmatic delivery. I was looking for an opportunity to learn how enterprise architecture and IT architecture delivers in real life. A few months ago we worked with Sally Bean, now a consultant and formally an enterprise architect, who consults on building and maintaining high performance architecture teams. She regularly speaks at this conference as does Chris Potts (author of “FruITion” ), and John Zachman, creator of the Zachman Framework  .

By attending I hope to gain insights into the practical application of enterprise architecture, into an organisation which doesn’t realise it needs it. I’m also interested in how hard-nosed commercial organisations use EA to improve their business.  So I am looking forward to talks with titles such as “What Can You Achieve with a New Architecture Team?”   and “Outcome Driven Architecture” . The conference is also co-located with a business process management conference, with attendees of both conferences allowed to drop into sessions from the other. This is also interesting, as in common with many universities, Christ Church has processes which have built up and grown over the years and are no longer necessarily suitable for a 21st century digital university.

As well as writing a daily blog for the UCISA website, I will be posting the occasional Tweet as @e11ery, conference hashtag #EACBPM. I will also attempt to collate my thoughts and experiences, both from the past six to twelve months as well as the conference into a beginner’s guide to creating and using enterprise architecture in higher education environment: without actually employing any trained architects.

 

Benefits of a UCISA bursary – six months later

Allister Homes Profile pic - small

 

 

Allister Homes
Senior Systems Architect
University of Lincoln

 

 

 

I have attended a number of HE-sector EA events over past few years, and applied for the UCISA bursary hoping that the Gartner EA summit would help me learn more from experts outside the HE sector, and perhaps help me to consider different perspectives. I didn’t see official figures, but I estimated that there were roughly 400-600 attendees. The same summit also takes place in the USA on different dates (with, I would imagine, an even larger number of delegates). As you would expect, there were a lot of sessions running in parallel, so it was impossible to get to everything, and I cherry picked what I thought likely to be the most interesting and useful sessions.

It wasn’t surprising to find that the EA practice of universities is more modest than that a lot of other organisations represented by delegates at the conference. I mentioned in the reflections blog post that there was often an unvoiced assumption that delegates were part of teams with significant numbers of architects and developers, with suggestions such as “when you get back, why not assemble a small team of 5 people to go and investigate X, Y and Z”. It’s good to see how EA is being done outside the sector, but equally important to remember that we need to use it appropriately by learning and adapting from billion-pound organisations, rather than hoping to replicate.

I found the summit helpful to maintain my thinking as an architect on how the architecture we implement now can support the changes that we will need to implement in coming years. Nobody knows exactly what these changes will be, but nonetheless we need to make the best decisions we can now in order to be flexible for whatever change comes along later.

Cloud maturity

Gartner’s views on cloud maturity were interesting and seemed sound. Things such as breaking through vendor fog and hype to get the real information about what offerings are available, the fact that many vendors now offer new services as cloud first, the need to frequently update cloud strategies, and the fact that it’s a case of the “degree of cloudiness” rather than whether to take a cloud approach or not, all ring true.

There was useful insight into changes that Gartner Analysts expect to see over the next few years. Information about strategic trends was also interesting and useful as background information to keep in mind when considering enterprise architectures over the next few years. So too was the session on making sure the architecture is flexible enough to respond to business moments as rapidly as possible; in a setting such as HE, I think getting to that point of the intuition’s architecture being flexible is itself a significant undertaking that will take a long time to achieve, and has to come about gradually, but with deliberate direction, as things are introduced, removed and changed.

Software architecture

In retrospect, I’d categorise several sessions as being about software architecture rather than enterprise architecture; for example, more than one session looked at designers splitting applications into smaller applications and using micro-services for massive web-scale SOA.  Cases in point included Netflix and Facebook, but I think the enterprise architect would be more interested in the services Netflix delivers, how it interacts with other services and how people interact with it, than the detailed software architecture of how Netflix works internally.

Networking

Unlike many of the HE events I’ve attended, I didn’t make any useful contacts at the conference with whom I could occasionally keep in touch to share information. I mentioned in the reflections blog that conversations appeared to be mainly limited to people who already worked together, and a bit of people-watching seemed to reveal that others who, like me, tried to strike up conversations with ‘strangers’ didn’t get much of a flow going. This may well be the norm for a large conference with people from diverse organisations, the vast majority of which would be profit making entities less inclined to openly share.

Attending the summit has not fundamentally changed what I (or we at the University) do or how I think, and it’s a conference that would be useful to attend every two or three years rather than annually, but overall it was beneficial and an interesting experience.

Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking things was that Gartner estimates that by 2017 60% of global 1000 organisations will execute at least one revolutionary and currently unimaginable business transformation effort. Of course, there are no universities in that list, but I wonder – what the proportion of universities that will undergo such a transformation by 2017 will be, and what that transformation will be?

 

Post-conference reflections from a bursary award winner

Allister-Homes-Profile-pic---small

 

 

Allister Homes
Senior Systems Architect
University of Lincoln

Gartner EA Summit – a week on

It’s been a week since I got back from the Gartner EA Summit in London, so I thought I would provide some reflections on the event. These are purely my opinions, and other people may well have a different take. If you’d like to see more of the detail of the event, have a look at my previous two posts (day 1 and day 2).

I think the focus was on larger organisations, and there was often an unvoiced assumption that there were significant numbers of architects and developers within the organisation (compared with what a typical university would have). It wasn’t unusual for suggestions to be made along the lines of ‘when you get back, why not assemble a small team of 5 people to go and investigate X, Y and Z’; having the capacity to do that sort of thing at short-notice sounds like quite a luxury.

Like many large conferences the non-keynote sessions were categorised into tracks, and at this summit they were A: Delivering Business Outcomes, B: Leveraging and Leading Practices in EA and C: Architecting the Digital Business. Rather than stick to a particular track I moved between them, going to the sessions that sounded most relevant to my work, organisation and sector. Sessions that were in the same stream contained common threads, as you would expect, and – in a couple of cases – some repetition.

I think directly applying what I learnt to day-to-day EA in HE will be more challenging than I initially thought it would be. This is because many of the sessions I attended were future-based (what changes to consider in the coming years) and either very strategic or focussed on large-scale IT development approaches (such as changing paradigms to one of micro-services and web-scale IT). It’s not an event that I would suggest attending every year, but would perhaps provide a useful background of EA direction every two or three years.

Being candid, the networking was not as useful as I had hoped. Conversations seemed to be mostly between people who already knew each other, which of course is only natural for any of us. I tried starting conversations with a number of attendees during breaks, but found that although everyone would give succinct answers to opening questions along the lines of where they were from, what they thought of the previous session, and so on, I couldn’t get a conversation going. I thought perhaps it was just me for a while, but then noticed the same thing happening to other people making such attempts too (which was something of a relief!).

As I mentioned, I selected the sessions that sounded most relevant rather than what sounded most intriguing or interesting from a personal rather than professional point of view – e.g. I went to ‘Business-Outcome-Driven Application Strategy’ rather than ‘Smart Machine Disruptions Will Dominate This Decade’, which ran at the same time. In hindsight the more extravagant sounding sessions may have contained relevant information too and perhaps provided some alternative ways of thinking about things.

The above may sound a little negative but that’s not my intention. It was an interesting and useful conference to attend, and I’m just trying to provide an honest and balanced opinion. I think the main topics and take-away points, based on the sessions I attended, in no particular order, were:

  • The Internet of Things (IoT) will become more important and will need more consideration, including by considering Things in the business domain, not just information systems or infrastructure domains. Also, computing everywhere is becoming the norm, but try to think people first rather than mobile devices.
  • Organisations need to operate in the digital world and interact digitally. Expect significant changes over the next 5-10 years, not just small increments – things you cannot yet imagine.
  • Large-scale application architecture is shifting towards an app and service approach, and a more extreme approach to Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). For new-style web-scale IT (but not enterprise scale core systems so far) there is a shift away from large systems and databases, including moving away from 3NF.
  • Software defined applications and infrastructure should be expected for networks, security, and other core elements to replace less flexible and less responsive infrastructure.
  • Business architecture is a critical element of EA (but we all know this already, don’t we?)
  • Attention needs to be paid to enabling technology to respond to business moments. It is often impossible to predict these business moments, so the approach must be to architect for agility instead.
  • Use the wisdom of the crowd: consider taking advantage of opportunities to crowd source solutions to problems, whether in the business or information systems domains.
  • Make good use of models, roadmaps, stories and personas to engage people, explore with them and explain to them. Use the right tools and techniques for the people in question.
  • Cloud offerings are becoming more complex, so architects need to understand what vendors are really offering, not just the fog and hype. Reasons for moving to cloud are not just cost (and in fact there is often no cost saving) – instead the drivers tend to be technology agility, business agility, offloading responsibilities, and advantages of security and scale. Most organisations are likely to use a hybrid of cloud services.

 

UCISA has an Enterprise Architecture community of practice which may be of interest.

Enterprise architecture and digital business

Allister-Homes-Profile-pic---small

 

Allister Homes
Senior Systems Architect
University of Lincoln

Gartner EA Summit Day 1

There are attendees at the summit from all over Europe and it’s probably fair to say that as someone from the HE sector, our EA practice is somewhat more modest than a lot of others represented here; I think that would be the case for almost any HE institution that came here, I don’t mean just Lincoln.

I haven’t seen any information on the number of delegates, but I’d estimate there somewhere in the region of 400-600 and it’s quite a busy summit in terms of the number of people and the number of sessions. I thought the most straightforward way of blogging this would simply be to summarise each session I attended, so here goes.

Architecting the digital business ecosystem
ecosystemsAs Gartner’s opening keynote session, this started by concentrating on the fact that more and more businesses operate in the digital world – not just having a presence, but offering their services and interaction digitally. Garner’s figures are that 22% of businesses operate in the digital world now, and by 2020 that figure will be 83%. Digital business will mean business growth, and those who do not embrace it will lose out to those who do. We heard about the seismic shift happening, caused by the Internet of Things and what Gartner calls the ‘Nexus of forces’.

It is estimated that by 2020 the number of Things connected to the internet will outnumber people by at least five to one. We heard a story of how a connected home might, in a few years’ time, react to a tree crashing into the bathroom during a storm whilst the owner is away by cutting off electricity and water to protect the property, contact the insurance company and start arranging quotes, pass the information to the police and ensure the property is safe and secure. As Enterprise Architects we need to be aware of new technology and innovations so that we can become ‘vanguards’ and shape its use in the enterprise, which will become continually more consumer focused rather than enterprise user focused.

We analyse too much and synthesise too little

This session was focused on trying to change the way EAs think. Rather than always relying on analysis, the suggestion was that we rely on synthesis a little more. We were told how analysis does not work well when there is no data, there is ambiguity and when there are dilemmas, and then a short history of synthesis starting with dialectical reasoning. Some of the simpler examples used where synthesis can were how to cut costs given a particular banking scenario (don’t rely on the distinct possibilities provided by analysis) and the ‘chicken or beef’ question on aeroplane flights (either ask for both or eat before boarding!).

The state and innovation: from fixing markets to market making

state and innovationProfessor Mariana Mazzucato from the University of Sussex presented on innovation led growth and the role of the public vs private sector. She described the cartoon image many have, which assumes all innovation happens in the private sector whereas public sector is rational, boring, has dinosaur bureaucrats and exists (in terms of innovation in markets) to simply level the playing field. However, she went on to explain that science is simply not funded enough without state support, which is needed to fix market problems. In fact, public sector funded innovation is often mission oriented, such as sending mankind to the moon, and massive public sector innovation and investment has led to much of the technology that makes things like smart ‘phones possible – think of GPS, voice recognition, touch screens, cellular communication, signal compression and more.

What can sometimes be forgotten in the public sector, though, is to apply what is taught and used elsewhere, such as the approaches taught in business schools and lessons that can be learnt from great innovators. One particular example highlighted was that of higher investment risk green opportunities which are starved of private funding. In Germany in the early 2000s, when private banks in Europe were reducing loans and the economic crises was in its early stages, the public sector in Germany provided substantial mission-oriented funding for environmental and climate protection innovation.

Application architecture for digital business

This session, delivered by a Gartner analyst, concentrated on new approaches to application architecture for delivering business digitally. It was emphasised that the focus should first be on business outcomes which are then converted to technical goals, which lead to technical characteristics, then principles and then patterns. Most organisations are still using three tier (or n-tier) client/server architecture, which is typically designed with static architecture and linear flow in mind. The approach does not work so well with consumers using various devices and with business that needs to change rapidly, and so an application architecture of apps and services was suggested instead. This takes service-oriented architecture several steps further, and encourages the use of individual apps for particular personas, devices and scenarios rather than one large client application to do everything, uses services to support the apps, and encourages a many-to-many relationship between apps and services. In this scenario services are broken down much more than they typically are in most environments today, becoming microservices for web-scale SOA. Examples were provided of how the likes of Netflix, Facebook and Amazon use the microservices to scale to massive numbers of concurrent users and with the agility to make hundreds of updates per day to production systems by having these very specific microservices which are independently deployable and scalable. The difficulty is that although they provide separation of concerns and are individually easy to understand, you end up with a LOT of services, and have to radically alter the rest of the architecture because there is often no centralised application or data. Third normal form is out the window with this architecture, and a lot of what was done as server code becomes client code again.

Nissan Group: using enterprise architecture to enhance efficiencies and business growth

Enterprise Architects from Nissan presented on their use of MEGA at the Sunderland plant. Nissan had a lot of legacy applications and infrastructure at Sunderland, but not necessarily a good corporate understanding of all of it. Three main drivers led to the need to change this: a security incident, the transfer of some service to third parties, and a corporate objective from Japan to understand and standardise business processes. A project was launched to document 500 applications, the central technology infrastructure and the business processes, and to link them all together into a single EA model. A team of five full-time staff were set the task of doing it, and although timescales turned out to be a little too ambitious, much of the work is now done including the development of an application portfolio outside of the MEGA model and the creation of a bespoke metamodel.

The cloud computing scenario: examining cloud maturity and adoption in the age of digital business

This session looked at the adoption of cloud by businesses, how to make assessments and what to consider with a cloud strategy. Gartner’s analyst explained that cloud delivery options are becoming more varied and complex, leading to a “spectrum of cloudiness” that EAs need to understand in order to make the right decisions for the business. It’s not just the delivery model that needs to be considered (public cloud, community cloud, virtual private cloud and private cloud) but also the execution model, for example whether hardware and software is isolated or not. Cloud offerings are still changing quickly, for example by making improvements to security models, and although maturity is growing it is too early to put a final cloud strategy in place; a strategy is needed, but it will need to keep pace with the constantly maturing cloud technologies and offerings. Vendors sometimes complicate this, and an EA needs to be able to break through the vendor ‘fog and hype’ to understand what is really being offered.

It was emphasised that whether we like it or not, many (not all) vendors are now going cloud first with new solutions rather than traditional software first, which means the decision is shifting from ‘whether and when to go cloud’ to ‘how and how much’ to go cloud. The reasons for moving to cloud solutions is not always cost-based; there is value from agility, the offloading of responsibilities, business agility and the advantages that provider investments provides in terms of scale and security. An interesting element of the presentation was of how business users tend to focus on benefits of cloud such as speed of change (sometimes bypassing IT departments) and that IT and EA focus tends to be on ubiquity, scale and so on; there needs to be a balance and a meeting point between the two views.

In reality most organisations will use a hybrid of cloud services, and the cloud strategy needs to consider the “spectrum of cloudiness”. Comment was also made that not all vendor offerings are created equal, and work must go in to understanding the differences beneath the surface. There are some large vendors, such as IBM, who offer cloud services and will also build cloud solutions, and will often mix both in the same conversation which can lead to confusion and complex, bespoke solutions. The five questions the presenter suggested be asked when defining a cloud strategy are:

  • Where and how should the enterprise consume cloud computing services?
  • Where and how should the enterprise implement private cloud environments?
  • How will we secure, manage and govern cloud services across internal, external and hybrid environments?
  • How does cloud computing factor into our application strategy and architecture?
  • Are there opportunities for the business to become a cloud computing service provider?

Selling EA with stories: start with the end in mind

selling eaEE, the mobile telecoms company, presented this session. EE has a mature EA practice which is engaged with all levels in the organisation. It recently refocused EA into three areas:

  • Technology that underpins enterprise
  • Business capability
  • Business architecture

It has a comprehensive EA knowledge base or model, using Sparx, and has a philosophy of ‘doing just enough, just in time’ because otherwise all the time is spent trying (and failing) to keep everything perfectly finished and fully up to date instead of spending time innovating, working with business users and influencing change, which is where the real EA value is.

An opportunity arose for the EA team to create a vision, sell it to the business and propose a set of new initiatives. The team achieved this by first creating a compelling vision. The vision was rooted in the present day and based on information already held in the knowledgebase (architecture model), and focussed on the main business problems and desired business outcomes. The vision was communicated through personas and stories, which were designed to be both factual and appeal to emotions, by highlighting key frustrations and weaknesses and how the vision would help overcome them. The vision, including stories, was presented on one single sheet, including short biographies of personas, themes in columns and the use of icons and short stories. No formal architecture documents were given to the business at this stage, but the detail had to be ready if the outcomes were positive and the team was invited back to the senior stakeholders for further dialogue on roadmaps, sequence of capabilities, business benefits and costs. The approach was successful with three of five major initiatives being started.