Introduction
The Coherent EA is a change oriented Enterprise Architecture approach base on the concept of continuous change. It taking the time dimension into consideration and suggest that an enterprise is changing continuously. The change oriented EA model is initiated to clarify major myth in the EA community as has evolved to emphasize on reference model and service oriented architecture to enable simplicity and agility, Segment Architecture to close the gap of business performance to address business change base empirical need. EA has not evolved as expected because there is a great confusion on What is EA, what is reference model, the role of service oriented architecture and the purpose of segment architecture due lack of a update EA model to keep up with the EA evolution. The community try to understand EA from the traditional application development oriented EA approach. CEA suggest a change oriented enterprise architecture approach which break the myth of target enterprise architecture and clearly explain what is reference model, the role of service oriented architecture and the purpose of segment architecture.This is not really a new ideal, the ancient Chinese wisdom have take change into consideration in their universe model and develop the book of change 5000 years ago. They try to model the generic equation of change for the universe via Ying Yang Wu Xing theory and the book of change..
In biology, the ancient life form of amoeba also change continuous for the purpose of survival.
Under this concept, CEA suggest that an enterprise is organic and changing all the time rather static as a building design. Therefore enterprise architecture must react to change Instead of focus on designing perfect and static enterprise architecture as a large scale application development system or the enterprise blue print.
Why CEA
CEA is initiated provide a bridge between Business and Technology community by
. Understanding the different thinking pattern of the left-brain and the right-brain;provide
. Provide intuitive EA artifact which can be comprehend by both the business and technology people without extensive training by
. Provide EA value to enable business ability on managing change in time of need.
As shown in the following model.
For more detail please visit CEA purpose model
The CEA approach
The initial CEA approach comprehend the enterprise big picture, preserve enterprise knowledge, model the enterprise and align technologies to business. It also establish the notiona enterprise target architecture to set the high level direction. The initial does not require significant time and resources and deliver the EA value. The stakeholder use the enterprsie big picture and the notional target EA to understand the enterprise defintion and enable critical thinking.
After the initial phase, CEA take a continuos improvement approach to design Segment Architecture based on business performance gap instead of design the entire enterprise at one time. Leverage on agility architecture, the enterprise architects are able to design the segment architecture in an agile and simple approach and deliver the result to business ower in time to support continuous enterprise change.
Coherent EA consist of the following approach:
• See the holistic enterprise big picture to define the enterprise.
• Establish the master enterprise plan as the framework for the enterprise in analogy to a city plan.
• Business centric to bridge between business and engineering.
• Define the enterprsie in a holistic way.
• Align technologies to enterprsie business.
• Enable agility and simplicity in reacting to change by establish common services.
• Learning experience from the same line of business via reference models.
• Analyze performance gaps which occurred during the movement of change.
• Initiate segment architecture under the master plan to close the performance gaps.
• CEA is a continuous effort.
as shown in the 3-D CEA model
Please visit the CEA model for more detail.
The CEA cube
The CEA cube elaborate the CEA model from a conceptural model to an explicit frame work for implentation.
Please visit the CEA cube for more information.
CEA is the EA 2.0
Information age begins with stovepipe system where every develop their own system to satisfy their need and they keeps on reinvent wheel; The next stage is contain the stovepipe system with a large system approach, the problem is it requires significant time and resource; The third stage is to apply cross-cutting solution to deliver architecture service in tine of need by preparing common foundation base on the others experience as show in the following figure.
For more information please visit EA 2.0
CEA to calrify the myth of EA
CEA is the effort to clarify the myth of EA which has evolved in the last ten years. Although EA approach have evolved from writing large volume of documents to segment architecture approach, the community has remain in the traditional EA theory which have not been evolved to support EA evolution. As a result, there are great confusion in the EA community on the role of Target Architecture, Reference Model, Service Oriented Architecture and Segment architecture . The initiation of CEA will help provide an update EA theory from the static EA approach to a change oriented EA approach. The myth of EA is described in the following paragraph.
#1 The myth of EA is static
Evolved from application development concept, the traditional EA approach have not take the enterprise nature of continuous change into account. The initial EA approach from the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework suggest the concept that EA is the effort to inventory the existing environment; design the static enterprise target architecture; analyze the gap and make the transition. This is still the most popular explanation of EA in the IT community. The fact is that an enterprise is not static, it change continuous along the time dimension. The term of as-is and target is all relatively speaking. As a result, the EA effort become obsolete before the ink dry. CEA recognize that a enterprise change continuously rather than static as an application system or an industrial product. The CEA approach introduce the agility architecture to manage the continuous change to support business performance in time of need.
#2 The myth of Enterprise Target Enterprise Architecture as the enterprise blueprint.
Under the static EA concept, The traditional EA have focused on designing the enterprise target architecture blueprint as if it is a enterprise scale application development projects by analyze the business architecture design, analyze the business processes, organize the enterprise information and design the application to support business need. The centric EA design approach has over looked buy-in from stakeholders. After years of hard work, the enterprise architect have discovered minimum buy-in from stakeholders. CEA suggest a notional Target Architecture which is a high level framework for the enterprise. It does not require significant investment on time and resources and does not provide a detail which may turn off the stakeholder.
#3 The myth of Reference Model only for the purpose of OMB assessment
When the US OMG Federal Enterprise Architecture Program change the direction to focus on the PRM, BRM, SRM. DRM and TRM, the EA community are still looking for the guidance to establish their target architecture. After many awkward effort to leverage on these reference models to establish their target architecture, they have come to the conclusion that OMB have develop the reference model merely for their purpose of EA assessment. The Coherent EA which introduce the agility architecture have realize the reference models are the key of agility architecture a industry wide common reference point for reuse and sharing and learn the right experience from the others via standardization and repeatable patterns.
#4 The myth of Segment Architecture based on engineering convenience
EA efforts have evolved from writing the large volume of target architecture blueprint to Segment Architecture approach and services oriented architecture. However, the concept of Segment Architecture have also contribute to significant confusion on what is Segment Architecture even within the office FEAPMO. Under the traditional static target architecture concept, most of EA experts consider that Segment Architecture is a compartmentalization effort to divide and conquer the monster of static and central planned target enterprise architecture. Based on this concept, it is very easy to define Segment based engineering convenience rather than business performance need. In a analogy to urban development, a segment architecture is the architecture design for the area in the city based on the city’s business performance gap. It will not very practical for a city to build all the road based on the same engineering category because there is no need of road for the future development areas in the city. Some organization even take the extreme by design their segment architecture without a master plan. This effort will likely resulted into large segment stove pipe. It is easy to take something apart but the challenge is how to put it together.
CEA suggest that Segment Architecture is an sub area of the enterprise which is defined based area of business performance due to change in the enterprise environment. CEA analyze the enterprise business performance gap and define the segment. It is not defined based on the same line of business or engineering convenience. The segment architecture effort is to design the business, application, data and technology in detail for the specific area under the enterprise master plan. Use the analogy of urban development, a segment architecture in a city can be considered a district of the city with rapid business and population growth.
CEA = BUSINESS + ENGINEERING
Coherent Enterprise Architecture (CEA) is the effort integrates the power of business and engineering by understanding the different thinking style between engineers and business people. In management science, there are many effort to integrate the power of left-brain and right-brain. It is a matter of “Knowing in part may make a fine tale, but wisdom comes from seeing the whole.". According the left-brain and right-brain theory by Roger W. Sperry, who was awarded the Noble Prize in 1981. He discovered that the human brain has two very different ways of thinking. One (the right brain) is visual and processes information in an intuitive and simultaneous way, looking first at the whole picture then the details. The other (the left brain) is verbal and processes information in an analytical and sequential way, looking first at the pieces then putting them together to get the whole.
The gap between leaders and executors
In the enterprise , there has been a gap between enterprise goal and the capability to deliver because the enterprise leaders are savvy to look at the big picture with vision and business strategy to find the enterprise direction and the executor looks at the parts. According the book of Right brain/Left Brain Leadership by Mary Lou Décosterd [], A leader or business manager who is habitually a "right-brainer" sees only the big picture rather than its parts, is creative but not usually analytical, and is emotional far more than logical. On the other hand, the executor in the left brain mode develop strong logical, rational, and analytical abilities, but they may downplay the value of right brain thinking, which spurs intuition, subjectivity and creativity. And those who operate primarily in the later mode lose the value of the former.
This theory also explained the EA challenge of buy-in from business. After the hard work to design the entire enterprise, the enterprise architects discover that by-in from the stakeholder is non-existing. This also explains why Business and engineering like to point finger on each other.
3.2 Enterprise win the edge of competition by integrating the power of left-brain and right-brain.
Engineers and business people must work together to make the enterprise better rather pointing fingers on each other. Mary Lou suggest that Leaders of all kinds, in all fields, need to be methodical and logical, but also strategic, innovative, and intuitive Yet the two different styles require different modes of thinking, or what author Mary Lou Décosterd describes as shifts to right brain, or left brain, thinking. Elaine Chow, the secretary of US Department of Labor, said in the remark of 2008 Asian Pacific American Summit: "a leader have to see the forest but also know the tree".
3.3 The human limitation of Left-brain/Right-brain
It is a good ideal for leaders to shift different modes of thinking. However, leaders are also human, it may be too much to put the burden of integrating the power of left-brain and right-brain solely on the leaders. In A Strategy to Avoid Information Overload. Central Issues in Anthropology, 7(1), 9-12. Richards, C.E. (1987).state that
"The research makes it clear that (a) the human brain is limited in its ability to process data, (b) the limitation is not susceptible to training, and (c) it is approximately the same for all humans."
Under the human limitation, try to see the whole and know the parts may undermine the critical thinking from seeing the whole and delicacy of know the parts.
3.4 Enterprise Architecture is the answer for leaders and executors to see the whole and know the parts
Business leaders can achieve the capability to know the parts and see the whole with the help of Enterprise architecture which is the discipline to integrate the power of left-brain and right brain and establishing the linkage between leader and executors , business and engineering. It applies architecture principle of “orderly arrange of parts” to analyze the components, the structure and connectivity of business architecture, process architecture, data architecture, application architecture and technology architecture and identify their connectivity. Based on the connectivity, EA also establish the interoperability to resolve the gap between business and engineering.
See the whole for critical thinking and know the parts to deliver results. EA close the gap of business and engineering with services oriented concept to enable agility to deliver result and meet the business expectation. It is a cross-cutting effort to identify the common services and align the services based on service need. The service oriented EA serve as the building blocks and reference architecture under holistic consideration based different architecture layer to enable agile and simple business solution.
3.5 CEA defined a distinctive EA paradigm
CEA has clearly defined a distinctive EA paradigm and answered the question of “What is EA?”. Enterprise Architecture is an emerging paradigm to integrate the power of business and engineering. Enterprise Architects are the professional help both the leaders and executor to know the parts and see the whole. They are trained to communicate and get buy-in from both business and engineering community. They render the invisible enterprise big picture for all to comprehend. They find the linkage between business and engineering at all level and they enable agility by aligning common services to business need.
EA industry has not evolves as expected due to lack of a distinctive EA definition. Some EA experts has defined EA professional in a Mr. know all approach, it does not serve well to the business need as the second tier experts of many discipline and It is also not possible to supply the demand of EA professional via institutional training.
^ TOP
Disseminate Architecture Standards with drawings
The baseline standardsIdealisticly, standardardization intend to bring every system in the organization to standard, but in reality, standard only serve as the baseline standard and allow certain variation from the baseline under a control enviroment.
Baseline Standard Drawings
A baseline enviroment is the snap shot of the enterprise at one point of time. It serve the purpose as the break point for architecture planning and IT managment. The baseline enviroment does not only contain the technology baseline but also the application and data. Traditionally, an enterprise baseline is presented with a volume of report generated from configuation managment database. This type of baseline report is only good to statify the auditors and it become shelware with very little practical use. LEA suggest to use engineering drawing to present the baseline as showing in the following example.
Baseline example :
^ TOP
Baseline standards
A baseline enviroment is the snap shot of the enterprise at one point of time. It serve the purpose as the break point for architecture planning and IT managment. The baseline enviroment does not only contain the technology baseline but also the application and data. Traditionally, an enterprise baseline is presented with a volume of report generated from configuation managment database. This type of baseline report is only good to statify the auditors and it become shelware with very little practical use. LEA suggest to use engineering drawing to present the baseline as showing in the following example.Baseline example :
^ TOP
Disseminating EA standards
EA programs have spent significant time to establish standards but spent little effort to disseminate EA standards to stakeholders. Many EA programs have esttablishe stands in volume of documents on the shelf without make special effort to disseminate the standards to the community. It is very difficult for the applicaiton developers to comply with EA standards without even know there is a standards.Many EA programs use standard profile in a long list very likely organized by reference models. It is hard to comprehend the pertinent standards in a long list with fine print. And it is very like to find the standards out of context.
The baseline standards
Idealisticly, standardardization intend to bring every system in the organization to standard, but in reality, standard only serve as the baseline standard and allow certain variation from the baseline under a control enviroment.
Disseminate EA standards in architecture patterns
LEA suggest to dissemniate EA standards in bundel base on architecture patterns. The purpose is to communicate application technology with application developers with something they are familiar. The traditional EA approach use Technical Reference Model to organize and communicate technology standard to the application developers. But unfortunately, reference model is not a culture in application development as it is in the network world. As a result, instead of communicating the technology standards, the TRM have get the application developers very confused.
The runtime pattern propose an alternative for the application developer to communicate the technology based on system architecture which has been part of the application development culture.
7.1 Disseminate architecture standards
Architecture standard is a group of standard items group by architecture pattern. Architecrture standards severe well to communicate with applicaiton developers.
The traditional EA approach use Technical Reference Model to organize and communicate technology standard to the application developers. But unfortunately, reference model is not a culture in application development as it is in the network world. Reference models and standard profile do not constitute an Enterprise Architecture without the consolidation design. A pile of material in the yard do not make a building and a list of standard do not make an enterprise architecture either A stove pipe systems made of standards components without the consolidation design , for the most , are standard stove pipe system. EA is the engineering of reuse and the engineering of sharing. Standardization is the engineering of reuse. It set the stage for the engineering of share for the consolidation design based on enterprise definition. As a result, instead of communicating the technology standards, the TRM have get the application developers very confused.
Application developers communicate with system architecture rather the reference model.
System technology architecture pattern analysis enable enterprise technology architecture design without designing every application systems in the organizations. In a services oriented architecture, Organizations define standard system technology architecture patterns as the macro standard to accommodate all application systems and enterprise technology architecture is derived from the system technology architecture patterns rather than from every application systems as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2 : Technology architecture from system architecture patterns
7.2 Analogy to differen home models in a residential development
In residential development, the builder provide several home models in the subdivision for the purpose of cost efficient, quality control and deliver the home in time for the owner’s need. The home owner can only chose from the home models based on the need of their family instead customized design. The trade off is that they can save their purchase cost and get a standard quality of their house.
In the same token, an enterprise establish standard run time patterns in their data center. The application technology platform support multiple applications. The application developer can only have limited choice of runtime pattern to deploy their systems instead of specifying customized system architecture design. The trade of is that the application development and deployment will cost and time efficient due to the fact that the application developers do not have to design and acquire customize system.
The standard runtime pattern approach does not compromise the system capability because of the platform independent technology. In the past, software systems are platform dependent and the application developers have the choice of the specific platform they need. The platform independent software technology such as JAVA are able to run on the specified platform and architecture based on the business performance requirement.
7.3 The runtime pattern architecture drawings
The following system technology architecture pattern drawing render the combination of technology components and standard profile to a runtime pattern similar to a tradition architecture drawing with product specification.
Architecture drawing serve the purpose to render all the technology components and product but difficult to keep update in the evolution of technology releases. To keep the standard profile updated, web technology is recommend to deliver the update standard profile information on each runtime pattern.
The pattern architecture drawing have greatly facilitate EA technology communication with application developers. Application developers adopt a standard runtime pattern and comprehend the enterprise technology standard from the runtime pattern drawing. The traditional EA approach use Technical Reference Model (TRM) as a common language to communicate technology among IT professional. While a TRM works well for technology architects, application developers have not benefit as expected using TRM . It take more time to think what is a TRM than use a TRM. The value of using system technology architecture patterns analysis to establish technology architecture include :
• Establish enterprise technical architecture with minimum business process engineering effort.
• Establish technical reference model and standard profile without enterprise wide application system design.
• Facilitate EA technology communication. Application developers can comprehend enterprise technology standards by their system architecture pattern with minimum effort.
• Sharing common IT resources by defining standard system architecture patterns to accommodate multiple application systems.
^ TOP
Reuse by common patterns
LEA achieve agility, simplicity and cost efficiency by the engineering of reuse which is based on patterns and standardization. The scope of patterns and standards is not limited to technology standards and patterns, it encompass line of business, business processes, applicaiton, data and technologies.Many EA efforts practice reuse in a stovepipe approach to conduct pattern recognition within the enterprise. LEA suggest to learn the experience of the others based on the same line of business.
The industry has practice reuse by standardization. It is some thing easy to say but difficult to realize. Standardization is similar the laws in the community. It is must be established for a good reason rather than standardization for the sake of looks good. ^ TOP