System vs Enterprise Transformation

Preamble

Compared to brick and mortar ones, enterprise architectures come with two critical extensions, one for their ability to change, the other for the intertwine of material and symbolic components.

Problems & Solution Spaces (Inci Eviner)

On that account the standard systems modeling paradigm is to fall short when enterprise changes are to be carried out in digital environments.

Problems & Solutions

Whatever the target (from concrete edifices to abstract polities), models come first in architect’s toolbox. Applied to enterprise architectures, models have to fathom different kinds of elements: physical (hardware), logical (software), human (organization), or conceptual (business).

From that point, what characterizes enterprise architectures is the mingling of physical and symbolic components, and their intrinsic evolutionary nature; problems and solutions have to be refined accordingly.

With regard to time and the ability to change, problems and solutions are defined by specific and changing contexts on one hand, shared and stable capabilities on the other hand. As for symbolic components, a level of indirection should be introduced between enterprise and physical spaces:

  • At enterprise level problems are defined by business environment and objectives (aka business model), and solved by organization and activities, to be translated into processes.
  • At system level problems are defined by processes requirements, and solved by objects representation and systems functions.
  • At platform level problems are defined by functional and operational requirements, and solved by applications design and configurations.

Such layered and crossed spaces are to induce two categories of feedback:

  • Between problems and solutions spaces, represented respectively by descriptive and prescriptive models.
  • Between layers and corresponding stakeholders, according to contexts, concerns, and time-frames.

Whereas facilitating that two-pronged approach is to be a primary objective of enterprise architects, the standard modeling paradigm (epitomized by languages like UML or SysML) is floundering up and down: up as it overlooks environments and organizational concerns, down by being overloaded with software concerns.

How to Sort Means (Systems) from Ends (Business)

Extending the system architecture paradigm to enterprise is the cornerstone of enterprise architecture as it provide a principled and integrated governance framework:

  • Business strategic planning: integration of intensional and extensional representations respectively for organisation and systems and business and physical environments.
  • System architecture: integration of portfolio management and projects planning and development combining model based and agile solutions .
  • Business intelligence: integration of strategic operational decision-making.

Bringing representations of environments, organization, and systems under a common conceptual roof is critical because planing and managing changes constitute the alpha and omega of enterprise architecture; and changes in diversified and complex organizations cannot be managed without maps.

The Matter of Change

Compared to systems architectures, change is an intrinsic aspect of enterprises architectures; hence the need for a modeling paradigm to ensure a seamless integration of blueprints and evolutionary processes.

Taking example from urbanism, the objective would be to characterize the changes with regard to scope and dependencies across maps and territories. On that account, the primary distinction should be between changes confined to either territories or maps, and changes affecting both.

Confined changes are meant to occur under the architectural floor, i.e without affecting the mapping of territories:

  • Territories: local changes at enterprise (e.g organisation) or systems (e.g operations) levels not requiring updates of architecture models.
  • Maps: local changes of domains or activities not affecting enterprise or systems elements at architecture level (e.g new features or business rules).

Conversely, changes above architectural floor whether originated in territories or maps are meant to modify the mapping relationship:

  • Changes in business domains (maps) induced by changes in enterprise environments (e.g regulations).
  • Changes in operations (systems) induced by changes in activities (e.g new channels).

That double helix of organizational, physical, and software components on one hand, models and symbolic artifacts on the other hand, is the key to agile architectures and digital transformation.

FURTHER READING

Declarative Frameworks & Emerging Architectures

Preamble

Ingrained habits die hard, especially mental ones as they are not weighted down by a mortal envelope. Fear is arguably a primary factor of persistence, if only because being able to repeat something proves that nothing bad has happened before.

Live, Die, Repeat (Philippe de Champaigne)

Procedures epitomize that human leaning as ordered sequences of predefined activities give confidence in proportion to generality. Compounding the deterministic delusion, procedures seem to suspend time, arguably a primary factor of human anxiety.

Procedures are Dead-ends

From hourglasses to T.S. Elliot’s handful, sand materializes human double bind with time, between will of measurement and fear of ephemerality.

Procedures seem to provide a way out of the dilemma by replacing time with prefabricated frames designed to ensure that things can only happen when required. But with extensive and ubiquitous digital technologies dissolving traditional boundaries, enterprises become directly exposed to competitive environments in continuous mutation; that makes deterministic schemes out of kilter:

  • There is no reason to assume the permanence of initial time-frames for the duration of planned procedures.
  • The blending of organizations with supporting systems means that architectural changes cannot be carried out top-down lest the whole be paralyzed by the management overheads induced by cross expectations and commitments.
  • Unfettered digital exchanges between enterprises and their environment, combined with ubiquitous smart bots in business processes, are to require a fine grained management of changes across artefacts.

These shifts call for a complete upturn of paradigm: event driven instead of scheduled, bottom-up instead of top-down, model based instead of activity driven.

Declarative frameworks: Non Deterministic, Model Based, Agile

The procedural/declarative distinction has its origin in the imperative/declarative programming one, the principle being to specify necessary and sufficient conditions instead of defining the sequence of operations, letting programs pick the best options depending on circumstances.

Applying the principle to enterprise architecture can help to get out of a basic conundrum, namely how to manage changes across supporting systems without putting a halt to enterprise activities.

Obviously, the preferred option is to circumscribe changes to well identified business needs, and carry on with the agile development model. But that’s not always possible as cross dependencies (business, organizational, or technical) may induce phasing constraints between engineering tasks.

As notoriously illustrated by Waterfall, procedural (if not bureaucratic) schemes have for long be seen as the only way to deal with phasing constraints; that’s not a necessity: with constraints and conditions defined on artifacts, developments can be governed by their status instead of having to be hard-wired into procedures. That’s precisely what model based development is meant to do.

And since iterative development models are by nature declarative, agile and model-based development schemes may be natural bedfellows.

Epigenetics & Emerging architectures

Given their their immersion in digital environments and the primacy of business intelligence, enterprises can be seen as living organisms using information to keep an edge in competitive environments. On that account homeostasis become a critical factor, to be supported by osmosis, architecture versatility and plasticity, and traditional strategic planning.

Set on a broader perspective, the merging of systems and knowledge architectures on one hand, the pervasive surge of machine learning technologies on the other hand, introduce a new dimension in the exchange of information between enterprises and their environment, making room for emerging architectures.

Using epigenetics as a metaphor of the mechanisms at hand, enterprises would be seen as organisms, systems as organs and cells, and models (including source) as genome coded with the DNA.

According to classical genetics, phenotypes (actual forms and capabilities of organisms) inherit through the copy of genotypes and changes between generations can only be carried out through changes in genotypes. Applied to systems, it would entail that changes would only happen intentionally, after being designed and programmed into the systems supporting enterprise organization and processes.

Enterprises epigenetics and emerging architectures

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis considers the impact of non coded (aka epigenetic) factors  on the transmission of the genotype between generations. Applying the same principles to systems would introduce new mechanisms:

  • Enterprise organization and their use of supporting systems could be adjusted to changes in environments prior to changes in coded applications.
  • Enterprise architects could use data mining and deep-learning technologies to understand those changes and assess their impact on strategies.
  • Abstractions would be used to consolidate emerging designs with existing architectures.
  • Models would be transformed accordingly.

While applying the epigenetics metaphor to enterprise mutations has obvious limitations, it nonetheless puts a compelling light on two necessary conditions for emerging structures:

  • Non-deterministic mechanisms governing the way changes are activated.
  • A decrypting mechanism between implicit or latent contents (data from digital environments) to explicit ones (information systems).

The first condition is to be met with agile and model based engineering, the second one with deep-learning.

FURTHER READING

Semantic Interoperability: Stories & Cases

Preamble

For all intents and purposes, digital transformation has opened the door to syntactic interoperability… and thus raised the issue of the semantic one.

Cooked Semantics (Urs Fisher)

To put the issue in perspective, languages combine four levels of interpretation:

  • Syntax: how terms can be organized.
  • Lexical: meaning of terms independently of syntactic constructs.
  • Semantic: meaning of terms in syntactic constructs.
  • Pragmatic: semantics in context of use.
Languages levels of interpretation

At first, semantic networks (aka conceptual graphs) appear to provide the answer; but that’s assuming flat ontologies (aka thesaurus) within which all semantics are defined at the same level. That would go against the objective of bringing the semantics of business domains and systems architectures under a single conceptual roof. The problem and a solution can be expounded taking users stories and use cases for examples.

Crossing stories & cases

Beside the difference in perspectives, users stories and use cases stand at a methodological crossroad, the former focused on natural language, the latter on modeling. Using ontologies to ensure semantic interoperability is to enhance both traceability and transparency while making room for their combination if and when called for.

Set at the inception of software engineering processes, users’ stories and use cases mark an inflexion point between business requirements and supporting systems functionalities: where and when are determined (a) the nature of interfaces between business processes and systems components and, (b) how to proceed with development models, iterative or model based.

Users’ stories are part and parcel of Agile development model, their backbone, engine, and fuel. But as far as Agile is concerned, users’ stories introduce a dilemma: once being told stories are meant to be directly and iteratively put down in code; documenting them in words would bring back traditional requirements and phased development. Hence the benefits of sorting out and writing up the intrinsic elements of stories as to ensure the continuity and consistency of engineering processes, whether directly to code, or through the mediation of use cases.

To that end semantic interoperability would have to be achieved for actors, events, and activities.

Actors & Events

Whatever architectures or modeling methodologies, actors and events are sitting on systems’ fences, which calls for semantics common to enterprise organization and business processes on one side of the fence, supporting systems on the other side.

To begin with events, the distinction between external and internal ones is straightforward for use cases, because their purpose is precisely to describe the exchanges between systems and environments. Not so for users stories because at their stage the part to be played by supporting systems is still undecided, and by consequence the distinction between external and internal events.

With regard to actors, and to avoid any ambiguity, a semantic distinction could be maintained between roles, defined by organizations, and actors (UML parlance), for roles as enacted by agents interacting with systems. While roles and actors are meant to converge with analysis, understandings may initially differ across the fence between users stories and use cases, to be reconciled at the end of the day.

Representations should support the semantic distinctions as well as trace their convergence.

That would enable use cases and users stories to share overlapping yet consistent semantics for primary actors and external events:

  • Across stories: actors contributing to different stories affected by the same events.
  • Along processes: use cases set for actors and events defined in stories.
  • Across time-frames: actors and events first introduced by use cases before being refined by “pre-sequel” users stories.

Such ontology-based representations are to support full iterative as well as parallel developments independently of the type of methods, diagrams or documents used by projects.

activities

Users’ stories and use cases are set in different perspectives, business processes for the former, supporting systems for the latter. As already noted, their scopes overlap for events and actors which can be defined upfront providing a double distinction between roles (enterprise view) and actors (systems view), and between external and internal events.

Activities raise more difficulties because they are meant to be defined and refined across the whole of engineering processes:

  • From business operations as described by users to business functions as conceived by stakeholders.
  • From business logic as defined in business processes to their realization as defined in diagram sequences.
  • From functional requirements (e.g users authentication or authorization) to quality of service.
  • From primitives dealing with integrity constraints to business policies managed through rules engines.

To begin with, if activities have to be consistently defined for both users’ stories and use cases, their footprint should tally the description of actors and events stipulated above; taking a leaf from Aristotle rule of the three units, activity units should therefore:

  • Be triggered by a single event initiated by a single primary actor.
  • Be located into a single physical space with all resources at hand.
  • Timed by a single clock controlling accesses to all resources.

On that basis, the refinement of descriptions could go according to the nature of requirements: business (users’ stories), or functional and quality of service (use cases) .

Activities (execution units) should be tally with roles, events, and location.
Use cases wrap computation independent activities into transactions.

As far as ontologies are concerned, the objective is to ensure the continuity and consistency of representations independently of modeling tools and methodologies. For activities appearing in users stories and use cases, that would require:

  • The description of activities in relation with their business background, their execution in processes, and the corresponding functions already supported by systems.
  • The progressive refinement of roles (users, devices, other systems), location, and resources (objects or surrogates).
  • An unified definition of alternatives in stories (branches) and use cases (extension points)

The last point is of particular importance as it will determine how business and functional rules are to be defined and control implemented.

Knitting semantics: symbolic representations

The scope and complexity of semantic interoperability can be illustrated a contrario by a simple activity (checking out) described at different levels with different methods (process, use case, user story), possibly by different people at different time.

The Check-out activity is first introduced at business level (process), next a specific application is developed with agile (user story), and then extended for variants according to channels (use case).

Semantic interoperability between projects, domains, and methods.

Assuming unfettered naming (otherwise semantic interoperability would be a windfall), three parties can be mentioned under various monikers for renters, drivers, and customers.

In a flat semantic context renter could be defined as a subtype of customer, itself a subtype of party. But that option would contradict the neutrality objective as there is no reason to assume a modeling consensus across domains, methods, and time.

  • The ontological kernel defines parties and actors, as roles associated to agents (organization level).
  • Enterprises define customers as parties (business model).
  • Business unit can defines renters in reference to customers (business process) or directly as a subtype of role (user story).
  • The distinction between renters and drivers can be introduced upfront or with use cases’ actors.

That would ensure semantic interoperability across modeling paradigms and business domains, and along time and transformations.

Probing semantics: metonymies and metaphors

Once established in-depth foundations, and assuming built-in basic logic and lexical operators, semantic interoperability is to be carried out with two basic linguistic contraptions: metonymies and metaphors .

Metonymies and metaphors are linguistic constructs used to substitute a word (or a phrase) by another without altering its meaning, respectively through extensions and intensions, the former standing for the actual set of objects and behaviors, the latter for the set of features that characterize these instances.

Metonymy relies on contiguity to substitute target terms for source ones, contiguity being defined with regard to their respective extensions. For instance, given that US Presidents reside at the White House, Washington DC, each term can be used instead.

Metonymy use physical or functional proximity (full line) to match extensions (dashed line)

Metaphor uses similarity to substitute target terms for source ones, similarity being defined with regard to a shared subset of features, with leftovers taken out of the picture.

Metaphor uses similarity to match descriptions

Compared to basic thesaurus operators for synonymy, antonymy, and homonymy, which are set at lexical level, metonymy and metaphor operate at conceptual level, the former using set of instances (extensions) to probe semantics, the latter using descriptions (intensions).

Applied to users stories and use cases:

  • Metonymies: terms would be probed with regard to actual sets of objects, actors, events, and execution paths (data from operations) or mined from digital environments.
  • Metaphors: terms for stories, cases, actors, events, and activities would be probed with regard to the structure and behavior of associated descriptions (intensions).

Compared to the shallow one set at thesaurus level for terms, deep semantic interoperability encompasses all ontological dimensions, from actual instances to categories, aspects, and concepts. As such it can take full advantage of digital transformation and deep learning technologies.

further reading

Squared Outline: Agile

The Agile development model should not be seen as a panacea or identified with specific methodologies. Instead it should be understood as a default option to be applied whenever phased solutions can be factored out.

Agile (a,b) versus phased (d,b,c,) development processes
  1. Scope: Of the twelve agile principles, ten apply to any kind of development, and only two are specific, namely shared ownership and continuous delivery .
  2. Characteristics: Assuming conditions are met, agile software engineering can be fully and neatly defined by a combination of users stories and iterative development.
  3. Alternative: When conditions cannot be met, i.e when phased solutions are required, model-based system engineering frameworks should be used to integrate business-driven projects (agile) with architecture oriented ones (phased).
  4. Variants and extensions: Even when conditions about shared ownership and continuous delivery are met, scaling issues may have to be taken into account; in that case they should be sorted out between broader business objectives on one hand, systems architecture engineering on the other hand

These guidelines are not meant to define how agile projects are to be carried out, only to determine their scope and relevance along other systems engineering processes.

Further Reading

EA & The Pagoda Blueprint

“The little reed, bending to the force of the wind, soon stood upright again when the storm had passed over”

Aesop

Resilience and adaptability to changing environments (Masao Ido)

Preamble

The consequences of digital environments go well beyond a simple adjustment of business processes and call for an in-depth transformation of enterprise architectures. 

To begin with, the generalization of digital environments bears out the Symbolic System modeling paradigm: to stay competitive, enterprises have to manage a relevant, accurate, and up-to-date symbolic representation of their business context and concerns. 

With regard to architectures, it means a seamless integration of systems and knowledge architectures.

With regard to processes it means a built-in ability to learn from environments and act accordingly.

Such requirements for resilience and adaptability in unsettled environments are characteristic of the Pagoda architecture blueprint.

Pagoda Blueprint

As can be observed wherever high buildings are being erected on shaking grounds, Pagoda-like architectures set successive layers around a central pillar providing intrinsic strength and resilience to external upsets while allowing the floors to move with the whole or be modified independently. Applied to enterprise architectures in digital environments, that blueprint can be much more than metaphoric.

The actual relevance of the pagoda blueprint is best understood when the main of data, information, and knowledge is set across platforms, systems, and organization layers:


The Pagoda Architecture Blueprint is derived from the Zachman’s frameworks

That blueprint puts a new light on model based approaches to systems engineering (MBSE):

  • Conceptual models, targeting enterprises organization and business independently of supporting systems.
  • Logical models, targeting the symbolic objects managed by supporting systems as surrogates of business objects and activities.
  • Physical models, targeting the actual implementation of symbolic surrogates as binary objects.

Pagoda Blueprint & Digital Environments

The Pagoda blueprint gets a new relevance in the context of digital transformation.

Moreover, the blueprint is not limited to enterprise architectures and can be applied to every kind of systems:

  • Devices associated to physical platforms supporting analog communication through the Internet of Things (a).
  • Equipements associated to physical platforms controlled by systems, supporting digital communication (b) and functional alignment (c) .
Beside enterprise architectures, the Pagoda Blueprint can be applied to equipments, systems or devices.

That would greatly enhance the traceability and transparency of transformations induced by the immersion of enterprises in digital environments.

Systems & Knowledge Architectures

If digitized business flows are to pervade enterprise systems and feed business intelligence (BI), systems and knowledge architectures are to be merged into a single nervous system as materialized by the Pagoda central pillar:

Business Intelligence and Decision-making
  • Ubiquitous, massive, and unrelenting digitized business flows cannot be dealt with lest a clear distinction is maintained between raw data acquired across platforms, and the information (previously data) models which ensure the continuity and consistency of systems.  .  
  • Once structured and refined, business data flows must be blended with information models sustaining systems functionalities.
  • A comprehensive and business driven integration of organization and knowledge could then support strategic and operational decision-making at enterprise level.

Rounding off this nervous system with a brain, ontologies would provide the conceptual frame for models representing enterprises and their environments.

Agile Architectures & Homeostasis

Homeostasis is the ability of a viable organism to learn from their environment and adapt their behavior and structures according to changes.
As such homeostasis can be understood as the eextension of enterprise agility set in digital environments, ensuring:

  • Integrated decision-making processes across concerns (business, systems, platforms), and time-frames (tactical, operational, strategic, … ).
  • Integrated information processing, from data-mining to knowledge management.

To that end, changes should be differentiated with regard to source (business or technology environment, organization, systems) and flows (data, information, knowledge); that would be achieved with a pagoda blueprint.

Resilience and adaptability to changes

Threads of operational and strategic decision-making processes could then be weaved together, combining OODA loops at process level and economic intelligence at enterprise level.

Further Reading

Enterprise Architecture Basic Tenets

Preamble

Humans often expect concepts to come with innate if vague meanings before being compelled to withstand endless and futile controversies around definitions. Going the other way would be a better option: start with differences, weed out irrelevant ones, and use remaining ones to advance.

tamarEttun2
How to keep business rolling (Tamar Ettun)

Concerning enterprise, it would start with the difference between business and architecture, and proceed with the wholeness of data, information, and knowledge.

Business Architecture is an Oxymoron

Business being about time and competition, success is not to be found in recipes but would depend on particularities with regard to objectives, use of resources, and timing. These drives are clearly at odds with architectures rationales for shared, persistent, and efficient structures and mechanisms. As a matter of fact, dealing with the conflicting nature of business and architecture concerns can be seen as a key success factor for enterprise architects, with information standing at the nexus.

Data as Resource, Information as Asset, Knowledge as Service

Paradoxically, the need of a seamless integration of data, information, and knowledge means that the distinction between them can no longer be overlooked.

  1. Data is captured through continuous and heterogeneous flows from a wide range of sources.
  2. Information is built by adding identity, structure, and semantics to data. Given its shared and persistent nature it is best understood as asset.
  3. Knowledge is information put to use through decision-making. As such it is best understood as a service.

Ensuring the distinction as well as the integration must be a primary concern of enterprise architects.

Sustainable Success Depends on a Balancing Act

Success in business is an unfolding affair, on one hand challenged by circumstances and competition, on the other hand to be consolidated by experience and lessons learnt. Meeting challenges while warding off growing complexity will depend on business agility and the versatility and plasticity of organizations and systems. That should be the primary objective of enterprise architects.

Further Reading

EA: Legacy & Latency

 “For things to remain the same, everything must change”

Lampedusa, “The Leopard”

Preamble

Whatever the understanding of the discipline, most EA schemes implicitly assume that enterprise architectures, like their physical cousins, can be built from blueprints. But they are not because enterprises have no “Pause” and “Reset” buttons: business cannot be put on stand-by and must be carried on while work is in progress.

Refactored Legacy (E. Lusito)

Systems & Enterprises

Systems are variously defined as:

  • “A regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole” (Merriam-Webster).
  • “A set of connected things or devices  that operate  together” (Cambridge Dictionary).
  • “A way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules” (Collins Dictionary)
  • “A collection of components organized to accomplish a specific function or set of functions” (TOGAF from ISO/IEC 42010:2007)

While differing in focus, most understandings mention items and rules, purpose, and the ability to interact; none explicitly mention social structures or interactions with humans. That suggests where the line should be drawn between systems and enterprises, and consequently between corresponding architectures.

Architectures & Changes

Enterprises are live social entities made of corporate culture, organization, and supporting systems; their ultimate purpose is to maintain their identity and integrity while interacting with environments. As a corollary, changes cannot be carried out as if architectures were just apparel, but must ensure the continuity and consistency of enterprises’ structures and behaviors.

That cannot be achieved by off-soil schemes made of blueprints and step-by-step processes detached from actual organization, systems, and processes. Instead, enterprise architectures must be grown bottom up from actual legacies whatever their nature: technical, functional, organizational, business, or cultural.

EA’s Legacy

Insofar as enterprise architectures are concerned, legacies are usually taken into account through one of three implicit assumptions:

No legacy assumptions ignore the issue, as if the case of start-ups could be generalized. These assumptions are logically flawed because enterprises without legacy are like embryos growing their own inherent architecture, and in that case there would be no need for architects.

En Bloc legacy assumptions take for granted that architectures as a whole could be replaced through some Big Bang operation without having a significant impact on business activities. These assumptions are empirically deceptive because, even limited to software architectures, Big Bang solutions cannot cope with the functional and generational heterogeneity of software components characterizing large organizations. Not to mention that enterprise architectures are much more that software and IT.

Piecemeal legacies can be seen as the default assumption, based on the belief that architectures can be re-factored or modernized step by step. While that assumption may be empirically valid, it may also miss the point: assuming that all legacies can be dealt with piecemeal rubs out the distinction pointed above between systems and enterprises.

So, the question remains of what is to be changed, and how ?

EA as a Work In Progress

As with leopard’s spots and identity, the first step would be to set apart what is to change (architectures) from what is to carry on (enterprise).

Maps and territories do provide an overview of spots’ arrangement, but they are static views of architectures, whereas enterprises are dynamic entities that rely on architectures to interact with their environment. So, for maps and territories to serve that purpose they should enable continuous updates and adjustments without impairing enterprises’ awareness and ability to compete.

That shift from system architecture to enterprise behavior implies that:

  • The scope of changes cannot be fully defined up-front, if only because the whole enterprise, including its organization and business model, could possibly be of concern.
  • Fixed schedules are to be avoided, lest each and every unit, business or otherwise, would have to be shackled into a web of hopeless reciprocal commitments.
  • Different stakeholders may come as interested parties, some more equal than others, possibly with overlapped prerogatives.

So, instead of procedural and phased approaches supposed to start from blank pages, EA ventures must be carried out iteratively with the planning, monitoring, assessment, and adjustment of changes across enterprises’ businesses, organizations, and systems. That can be represented as an extension of the OODA (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) loop:

  • Actual observations from operations (a)
  • Data analysis with regard to architectures as currently documented (b).
  • Changes in business processes (c).
  • Changes in architectures (d).
DataInfoKnow_OODA
EA decision-making as an extension of the OODA loop

Moreover, due to the generalization of digital flows between enterprises and their environment, decision-making processes used to be set along separate time-frames (operational, tactical, strategic, …), must now be weaved together along a common time-scale encompassing internal (symbolic) as well as external (actual) events.

It ensues that EA processes must not only be continuous, but they also must deal with latency constraints.

Changes & Latency

Architectures are by nature shared across organizational units (enterprise level) and business processes (system level). As a corollary, architecture changes are bound to introduce mismatches and frictions across business-specific applications. Hence the need of sorting out the factors affecting the alignment of maps and territories:

  • Elapsed time between changes in territories and maps updates (a>b) depends on data analytics and operational architecture.
  • Elapsed time between changes in maps and revised objectives (b>c) depends on business analysis and organization.
  • Elapsed time between changes in objectives and their implementation (c>d) depends on engineering processes and systems architecture.
  • Elapsed time between changes in systems and changes in territories (d>a) depends on applications deployment and technical architectures.

Latency constraints can then be associated with systems engineering tasks and workshops.

DataInfoKnow_Worshops
EA changes & Latency

On that basis it’s possible to define four critical lags:

  • Operational: data analytics can be impeded by delayed, partial, or inaccurate feedback from processes.
  • Mapping: business analysis can be impeded by delays or discrepancies in data analytics.
  • Engineering: development of applications can be impeded by delays or discrepancies in business analysis.
  • Processes: deployment of business processes can be impeded by delays in the delivery of supporting applications.

These lags condition the whole of EA undertakings because legacy structures, mechanisms, and organizations are to be continuously morphed into architectures without introducing misrepresentations that would shackle activities and stray decision-making.

EA Latency & Augmented Reality

Insofar as architectural changes are concerned, discrepancies and frictions are rooted in latency, i.e the elapsed time between actual changes in territories and the updating of relevant maps.

As noted above, these lags have to be weighted according to time-frames, from operational days to strategic years, so that the different agents could be presented with the relevant and up-to-date views befitting to each context and concerns.

DataInfoKnow_intervs
EA views must be set according to contexts and concerns, with relevant lags weighted appropriately.

That could be achieved if enterprises architectures were presented through augmented reality technologies.

Compared to virtual reality (VR) which overlooks the whole issue of reality and operates only on similes and avatars, augmented reality (AR) brings together virtual and physical realms, operating on apparatuses that weaves actual substrates, observations, and interventions with made-up descriptive, predictive, or prescriptive layers.

On that basis, users would be presented with actual territories (EA legacy) augmented with maps and prospective territories.

DataInfoKnow_esh3
Augmented EA: Actual territory (left), Map (center), Prospective territory (right)

Composition and dynamics of maps and territories (actual and prospective) could be set and edited appropriately, subject to latency constraints.

Further Reading