tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post4346034042855370735..comments2021-04-28T11:14:57.616-07:00Comments on Simple Architectures for Complex Enterprises: The Equation every Enterprise Architect Should MemorizeRoger Sessionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-11457363776560551302014-03-18T22:41:03.719-07:002014-03-18T22:41:03.719-07:00@Matt: Eq 4's parentheses usage is conceptual...@Matt: Eq 4's parentheses usage is conceptually correct. Mr Sessions is introducing the two equations as follows:<br /><br />Eq 1: exponential relation for initial condition (step 0) -> C = F^X<br /><br />Eq 2: exponential relation for next iterative step, as expressed by Glass -> 2C = (1.25*F)^X<br /><br />Also, in a subsequent reply, you state A*X^n = (AX)^n. I think you need to review your polynomials, because this is categorically false.<br /><br />Lastly, I think what Mr Sessions is trying to do is very similar to what I've been taught in SW engineering theory: Formal Specification. The concept to analyze a program rigorously with maths and logic. <br /><br />So you can espouse your many years of experience using qualitative concepts (and I'm sure they've served you well) but I find this application of rigorous analysis of systems complexity to be quite refreshing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12099824445111433218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-89323725491014563332012-07-17T07:36:33.249-07:002012-07-17T07:36:33.249-07:00Complexity while interesting can not be used in is...Complexity while interesting can not be used in isollation to tell us much about anything, a badly chosen, or written simple system can be as damaging to an organisation as a badly chosen or written complex one. <br /><br />I have to make issue with the notion of not considering the enterprise first, dealing with lower order parts partitions must introduce the risk of over working iun needed elements or designing a camel ( with two humps to take advantage of re use) when a horse was needed.<br /><br />enterprise architecture gets too much codification and taxonomy and not enough focus on the strategic goal of organising business for success.<br /><br />I have been creating business and IT strategy for nearly twenty years, used many bits of many approaches and architectures and there isn't a single one that suits all cases and more than that the influence upon the out come is a human one not a mathematical one.<br /><br />In respect of the placemennt of braces in the equation A*X^n is the same as (AX)^n and A(X^n) no braces are needed in a one term factorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-78913724492601987162012-07-06T23:41:00.715-07:002012-07-06T23:41:00.715-07:00"Matt" is Matthew C. Clarke"Matt" is Matthew C. ClarkeMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035080588859354508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-38932520412665109362012-07-06T04:40:12.373-07:002012-07-06T04:40:12.373-07:00Matt, good suggestions, thanks! Can you add your f...Matt, good suggestions, thanks! Can you add your full name, so I can credit you with these corrections?Roger Sessionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-3535019800775118022012-07-05T15:26:40.832-07:002012-07-05T15:26:40.832-07:00Eq 12 is not quite accurate. I think you need to i...Eq 12 is not quite accurate. I think you need to introduce new variables...<br /><br /> iC = multiplicative increase in C<br /> = 2 for Glass's Law<br /><br /> iF = multiplicative increase in F<br /> = 1.25 for Glass's Law<br /><br />Then Eq 12 is better expressed as <br /> C = F ^ (log iC / log iF)Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035080588859354508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-39734052115069423282012-07-05T15:16:24.019-07:002012-07-05T15:16:24.019-07:00can you fix the typo in the equation 2C = (1.25)F^...can you fix the typo in the equation 2C = (1.25)F^X --- the close bracket is placed incorrectly<br /><br />--Matt.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035080588859354508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-15364916523922554652012-06-16T17:22:24.088-07:002012-06-16T17:22:24.088-07:00Hi Brian,
SIP is really about reducing the organiz...Hi Brian,<br />SIP is really about reducing the organizational complexity that typically chokes large EA projects. In one sense, it isn't an EA framework at all, but a framework for managing EA complexity. Most EA projects take so long to finish that they are obsolete before they are completed. This is the problem SIP addresses.<br /><br />I'd be glad to discuss this with you. Let me know if you would like to have a chat about this.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />RogerRoger Sessionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-42381322265438108642012-06-16T16:41:43.060-07:002012-06-16T16:41:43.060-07:00I have been researching Enterprise Architect for 1...I have been researching Enterprise Architect for 1 year, I applied to an internal ETA position with my current employer (last week). Every time I do my research I end up back to one of your blogs, websites or white papers.<br /><br />We do not have a current EA program so if I am selected for the position (currently a solutions Architect - previous systems Architect) I will be task with selecting frameworks, identifying tools and ultimately building the EA.<br /><br />I previously read about your SIP and I am fascinated by it. Am I developing an EA or an EA framework? I guess with all the variants I will end up using a hybrid of(TOGAF 9.1)framework to build our EA.<br /><br />With the Business domain being arguably the most important and this being my weakest area of expertise I need all the tools and assistance I can get to ensure my success.<br /><br />So with a company size in the billions can I / should I start on the business domain and begin SIP with it or am I missing something?<br /><br />I am on my math skills so the simple equation was a little over the top - lol<br /><br />brian@webvalley.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-63216723514449166232012-05-30T16:16:52.445-07:002012-05-30T16:16:52.445-07:00Your blog is quite funny. Are you expecting us to ...Your blog is quite funny. Are you expecting us to really look at your equations carefully or are you just joking about these? Surely IT projects can be complex, but if you are serious, I think perhaps you are trying to quantify things too much? And what would be the objective of quantifying IT system complexity? To do what? ensure enough resources? Ensure smart people working on the project? I guess I can go through your equations, but might take a while!IT project qualityhttp://www.xbosoft.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-87506053704098249412012-04-29T14:11:20.130-07:002012-04-29T14:11:20.130-07:00Stephen,
I think partitioning the functionality in...Stephen,<br />I think partitioning the functionality into sub-systems is the critical point of the project, the point at which projects succeed or fail. <br /><br />The problem is that there are an infinite number of possibilities for how to do the partitioning. Given the very large number of sub-optimal partitions and the very small number of optimal partitions, the chances for finding an optimal partitioning solution are highly stacked against you.<br /><br />This, of course, is why I advocate using SIP, since it guides you directly to the optimal partitioning. It is the light leading you out of the forest.<br /><br />Most people do EA (whatever that means for them) and then partition. I believe this is the wrong order. We should partition and then do EA. It is simply too difficult to do EA for a large, unpartitioned system. <br /><br />SIP allows you to do the partitioning with only minimal knowledge about the system being partitioned. I cover this in the White Paper, The Mathematics of IT Simplification. The result of this is that you can partition first and then do EA, the only order I believe can be successful.<br /><br />Stephen, if you are interested in this and would like to discuss offline, just let me know.<br /><br />- Roger SessionsRoger Sessionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-7290570423619638932012-04-28T01:35:19.204-07:002012-04-28T01:35:19.204-07:00Roger,
I am probably a bit off at a tangent, but ...Roger,<br /> I am probably a bit off at a tangent, but if I reflect on a few things you say and reminisce back to a few multi-billion dollar projects I have worked on, a lot of time was spent breaking the problem down in to smaller pieces to help manage the project, e.g. chunking the system down into a number of sub-systems and defining a collection of services and not to mention, producing large amounts of PowerPoint. <br /><br />As an Enterprise Architect my mind-set was often in classification and association mode in an attempt to understand the very complex problem space and give some structure to it. We would produce lots of PowerPoint with reference architectures and transition plans, yet we still did not know if we were dealing with a bird or a plane or what the end game really looked like and neither did the business. <br /><br />I guess ultimately the aim of these very large projects and programmes was to build something, e.g. a new ‘castle’ or enterprise ultimately underpinned by a new information system, but often several years in and many hundreds of millions of dollars later, nobody really knew what it looked like.<br /><br />So, whilst structure and partitioning is very important, having some visualisation of what the final system might look like can be useful and very simple tools like http://www.balsamiq.com/ can help (as well).<br /><br />Stephen LawStephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771564402496806737noreply@blogger.com