tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post6053159586510553737..comments2021-04-28T11:14:57.616-07:00Comments on Simple Architectures for Complex Enterprises: SIP Complexity ModelRoger Sessionshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-13577687745982063112014-12-28T10:16:23.597-08:002014-12-28T10:16:23.597-08:001. As I get it right, at the end of the third para...1. As I get it right, at the end of the third paragraph you need in a phrase " In other words, high closely aligned is the solution S001 to the problem BP?" change "high" to "how". <br />2. According to the content of the article. I can agree that unnecessary complexity, if we talk about engineering in general, is what anyone dislikes nowadays ... That's right. <br /><br />Where I see a system or maybe logical incompleteness of the article is that, as I read it's text, it is almost disconnected from Engineering as a general field of knowledge and practice. If we start talking about engineering some solution (car, mobile device, flat or house, or software system) to suit business needs (in general, maybe better to say 'customer needs,), we will normally talk about whether the solution is optimal or not. Whether it is optimal or not is, as I understand, the final criteria for all parties involved. Whether the solution that suits maximum needs is complex or less complex is a subset of a more general criterial. In my opinion the article should somehow encompass this idea and make connection to Engineering discipline in general.<br /><br />Everything else OK. Thank's. Nice work.Alekseihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11372701713199906649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-30259788049154608922014-12-28T10:15:45.934-08:002014-12-28T10:15:45.934-08:001. As I get it right, at the end of the third para...1. As I get it right, at the end of the third paragraph you need in a phrase " In other words, high closely aligned is the solution S001 to the problem BP?" change "high" to "how". <br />2. According to the content of the article. I can agree that unnecessary complexity, if we talk about engineering in general, is what anyone dislikes nowadays ... That's right. <br /><br />Where I see a system or maybe logical incompleteness of the article is that, as I read it's text, it is almost disconnected from Engineering as a general field of knowledge and practice. If we start talking about engineering some solution (car, mobile device, flat or house, or software system) to suit business needs (in general, maybe better to say 'customer needs,), we will normally talk about whether the solution is optimal or not. Whether it is optimal or not is, as I understand, the final criteria for all parties involved. Whether the solution that suits maximum needs is complex or less complex is a subset of a more general criterial. In my opinion the article should somehow encompass this idea and make connection to Engineering discipline in general.<br /><br />Everything else OK. Thank's. Nice work.Alekseihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11372701713199906649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-8424177572976769202013-08-19T01:29:01.482-07:002013-08-19T01:29:01.482-07:00Interesting way to look at Enterprize Architecting...Interesting way to look at Enterprize Architecting. I guess the key question now is how do you quantify complexity. Number of functions, menus, lines of code, etc.?<br /><br />It would be very useful to hear more on that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-8450902726863860032011-11-14T12:11:15.406-08:002011-11-14T12:11:15.406-08:00Thanks Tamas, I'll correct that.Thanks Tamas, I'll correct that.Roger Sessionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-52943406033592893832011-11-14T06:12:05.661-08:002011-11-14T06:12:05.661-08:00Simple wording issue uner quadrants drawing: "...Simple wording issue uner quadrants drawing: "We can focus on the these quadrants"Nacsák Tamáshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07558989749755050044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-73438247640909366542011-11-06T17:42:52.193-08:002011-11-06T17:42:52.193-08:00After reading this article, it comes to applying &...After reading this article, it comes to applying "common sense" (which is not very common) while choosing solution. It will help to add a case study though which can support using the approach, else there is a tendency to pick a solution which seems right!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-12931998252753151892011-11-01T06:47:22.863-07:002011-11-01T06:47:22.863-07:00Ilobanov: Interesting parallel. And I think you ar...Ilobanov: Interesting parallel. And I think you are right, investment risk most likely correlates with investment complexity.<br /><br />Chris Chedgey: Yes, the downward undertow is a result of the business evolution and the rightward undertow is due to engineering changes, which typically are not done with an awareness of complexity.<br /><br />And thanks re "undertow." I was trying to give the idea that the pressure is constant, unrelenting, and, if not addressed, will pull you into a place you do not want to be.<br /><br />Mark, I don't know what to say to you. Any architect who is not willing to seriously consider the impact of complexity in a methodical, rational way is not a competent architect. <br /><br />What would you think of a bridge architect who was unwilling to consider the mathematics of gravity and material strength before implementing a bridge design? Or a rocket-ship designer who was unwilling to study the mathematics of planetary motion? <br /><br />Can you imagine a rocket designer saying, "I don't want to study Newtonian physics, it's too academic."<br /><br />I have no doubt there are many architects who consider complexity "too academic." I also have no doubt they are one of the causes of so many IT failures.<br /><br />Uli Wehr: I believe that the economical impact of a solution in terms of implementation and maintenance is a function of the complexity of the solution. In mathematical terms, the economical impact is a dependent variable and the complexity is the independent variable. The same goes for flexibility and adaptability. Complex solutions are difficult to adapt.<br /><br />One advantage of focusing on complexity rather than the other "ilities" is that complexity gives us a primary focal point. If my claim is right, that the other "ilities" are dependent variables, then we don't need to worry about them (at least, we don't need to worry about them very much.)<br /><br />To give an analogy, if we get the flu we will get aching muscles, sneezing, and fever. But we don't try to take precautions against aching muscles, sneezing, and fever. We try to take precautions against the flu. Why? Because the aching muscles, sneezing, and fever are symptoms of the problem (or, mathematically, they are the dependent variables) not the problem itself. The flu is the problem (or, mathematically, the independent variable.) <br /><br />In another blog, I suggested we adopt the term "simplility" to describe the intentional architecting of simplicity into an IT solution. My goal there is to get people thinking about complexity as a primary problem (an "ility") rather than an afterthought.<br /><br />Jan Lindstrom: I agree, dependencies is a major factor in IT complexity. In my mathematics paper (pointer given in this blog), I discuss the mathematical components of complexity, which I consider to be the amount of functionality in a system and the number of dependencies on that system to other systems. <br /><br />I think entropy is a good analogy. Left to their own devices, entropy in a system always increases unless positive energy is put into maintaining order. In this model, this would be represented by the ongoing energy (time, money, thought) that needs to be put into fighting the undertow.<br /><br />I think large, legacy systems eventually end up in the chaotic region (too complex to change, too out of alignment with the business needs to be useful.)<br /><br />A big problem with legacy systems in the chaotic region is that CIOs tend to look for a magic pixy dust (e.g. virtualization) that will solve their problem. But there is no magic pixy dust. The systems have been allowed to drift too far for too long. The only remaining question is comparative cost. Is it cheaper to restore the legacy systems to vitality or cheaper to redo it from scratch. Of course, if we choose to redo it from scratch, we should learn from our lessons and focus on designing to the vital quadrant from the beginning. <br /><br />Thank you all!Roger Sessionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16946430426943308823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-20077408131750104032011-10-31T23:14:08.862-07:002011-10-31T23:14:08.862-07:00The undertow notion addresses the question of &quo...The undertow notion addresses the question of "why are we adrift?" (intent usually is not to be not business aligned). <br /><br />Should we also be concerned about dependencies? Ie solutions tend to drift since they're linkages to other solutions drift. If there is an undertow to chaos and non-alignment, is that force like entropy? or does entropy decrease elsewhere in solution space? example could be a legacy system being bent-out-of-shape and left to die, since more business-critical systems need be in the vital quadrant?Jan Lindstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568292149294195207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-54335698056576421122011-10-31T16:53:23.463-07:002011-10-31T16:53:23.463-07:00I suggest to also consider:
- the economical impac...I suggest to also consider:<br />- the economical impact of a solution (implementation and maintenance),<br />- the flexibility and adaptability of a solution, <br />- the impact on the portfolio of existing and planned business problems and solutions.<br /><br />The least complex solution for a given business problem may not be the most economical choice.<br /><br />Flexibility and adaptability may increase complexity initially, but it could turn out to be the less complex solution over time. It also would allow for faster responses to a changing business environment.<br /><br />There is actually a whole portfolio of business problems and solutions. Depending on what level we choose to manage this portfolio, e.g. by BP owner, department, or the whole organization, the least complex solution for one business problem may not be the least complex solution for the portfolio.Uli Wehrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897207709925073369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-33468478310254213862011-10-31T06:43:15.363-07:002011-10-31T06:43:15.363-07:00Hello,
Regardless of the academic excellence of th...Hello,<br />Regardless of the academic excellence of this model, I can't really see any Architect using this in earnest in their daily work as it's quite complicated.<br /><br />Sorry, but this is all far too academic for me.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-32231661494398356602011-10-31T06:35:01.470-07:002011-10-31T06:35:01.470-07:00It might help to indicate the source of the undert...It might help to indicate the source of the undertow. If I have understood correctly, the downward undertow is due to the BP/requirements evolving, and therefor the alignment dropping unless the solution evolves. The rightward undertow is due to the engineering activity required to modify the solution to keep up with the BP changes. (I love the use of "undertow"!)Chris Chedgeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00757037861533683099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7826786244968404549.post-61148351781509414972011-10-30T05:34:24.988-07:002011-10-30T05:34:24.988-07:00Thanks for the article, very good model for making...Thanks for the article, very good model for making sense out of multiple solutions complexity-wise.<br /><br />Interesting enough, similar model is used by investment managers to come up with optimal asset allocation within a portfolio, so called Capital asset pricing model (CAPM). In short, all possible combinations are plotted using axes of 'risk' (std.dev) and 'return', and then it is said that the ideal portfolio is the most top-left point in the plotted area. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see similarity between CAPM and your model, as more complex solution means more risk and more alignment means better result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com