Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Carving up an Enterprise Architecture

Melissa A. Cook recently published an article in ComputerWorld titled Enterprise Architecture: Lessons from the cutting board. In this article, Melissa likens developing an enterprise architecture to cutting up a chicken for dinner. She gives three lessons for creating an enterprise architecture.

Lesson 1: Cut through the joints, in other words, look for natural boundaries around business processes. As she points out, “if you get the natural boundaries right, it simplifies the number and complexity of interfaces. How do we do this? Melissa says “we need to take a gander at the enterprise goose, the whole thing.” A good check point is looking at data: “a ton of data elements or columns of data on an interface, you probably have the boundaries wrong.”

Lesson 2: Natural breakpoints or boundaries are similar for similar organizations. In other words, see what others that are in similar businesses have done and use this for a model.

Lesson 3: Boundaries don’t change based on size of the organization. Big turkeys carve much like little chickens.

I agree with Melissa strongly on two points. First, if you get your enterprise architecture right, you will make a great leap forward in managing the complexity of your systems. Second, your success in getting the architecture right is reflected in the data structures moving around your system.

Having said that, I feel several points need more comments. Let’s start with her thoughts on data. While I agree that poor enterprise architectures result in complex data patterns, I disagree that this is a good test to use to evaluate your enterprise architecture. The reason is simple. By the time you can notice the problems with data, it is far too late to do anything about the problems with the architecture. You have already implemented your systems and any changes in the enterprise architecture at this point are going to be very expensive.

So what is the solution? Any enterprise architecture should be tested against theoretical models for enterprise architectures based on the mathematical laws of complexity. These tests can be conducted BEFORE the architecture is implemented and can pinpoint problem areas before money is spent on their implementation at a time when they are still relatively inexpensive to fix.

Another area that we need to look at more closely is her lesson 2. While it is true that similar organizations have similar boundaries, this is not particularly helpful information. Why? Because “similar” is not good enough. Even small errors in “cutting up the chicken” can lead to huge problems with complexity. I personally have seen millions of dollars lost due to a single poor function placement. Again, the answer is to methodically check each function for correct placement, not based on a particular chef’s preferences, but based on the strict mathematics of synergies.

Don’t get me wrong. Theoretical analysis can only take you so far. But it can take you a lot further than we can go by guess-work, checking data patterns, or even looking at industry patterns.


Anonymous said...

Of course, everyone knows that an enterprise architectures is far more like a doppio macchiato than a chicken.

Hmm... methinks I smell a stretched analogy.

In her defense, I still haven't had that "matrix moment" where an enterprise architecture lays out before me as a fabric of formulas, so I'm far more likely to look for natural boundaries, too. I'm only part of the way through your book, though, so maybe there's still hope for me!

Roger Sessions said...

I couldn't agree more about the doppio macchiato! Of course, carving up a doppio macchiato is easier said than done. Which only helps the analogy!

Anonymous said...

I alwaus feel that as a breed us architects talk in anologys and as suxh miss the main point i.e we are devloping computer systems not constructing buildings, developing town plans or bizarly cutting up chicken !