The courage of thinking about the 5Ws and 1H
What When Where Who Why
How
We don't start with "The How"!
Integrating EA Mgmt and Technical Frameworks
AOGEA Ottawa-Gatineau Chapter
EA Seminar - 29 Mar 1010
Integrating Enterprise Architecture Management and Technical Frameworks
Presented by:
Lynn Wallace, Sr Information Architect, Canada Revenue Agency
Robert (Bob) Weisman, CEO, Build The Vision Inc.
EA Seminar - 29 Mar 1010
Integrating Enterprise Architecture Management and Technical Frameworks
Presented by:
Lynn Wallace, Sr Information Architect, Canada Revenue Agency
Robert (Bob) Weisman, CEO, Build The Vision Inc.
Tool first or Purpose first for EA
Ken,
> EA tools are not a question of whether but when, and the when is when
> you know enough to use them.
I don't think we are debating whether a tool is needed or what that tool should be. We are specifically discussing only "the when" aspect.
You do say
> First you need a dynamic methodology, then you
> need training, tools and expertise to
> support it.
I kind of agree with you above about the first. But I would suggest, first you need an EA Vision to start. This delivers some goals to target, i.e. reduce cost, increase agility, or increase capability, etc. All the other steps follow later, perhaps in different orders depending on the organisation maturity and its readiness. I completely agree with Peter Hunsberger on his last posts.
> YOU SIMPLY CAN'T DO "REAL EA" WITHOUT TOOLS, INDUSTRIAL
> GRADE TOOLS!
Hmmm... What is "REAL EA"? Even EAs can't seem to agree... :-)
And, I see no point in buying "INDUSTRIAL GRADE TOOLS", if the organisation simply cannot afford it, or the people to use it, i.e. does not have capable EAs or other personnel to support this amazing tool. An EA tool is only good enough if everyone who are supposed to populate it, are diligent and skilled enough with this tool. Else, the TCO would result in a white elephant and another shelfware.
If the organisation can afford a good tool, has trained EAs and all other relevant analysts in this particular tool, then it is probably ready to use this tool. If this is the case, it better have supportive management ready to drive forward the resultant EA delivery and targets. Otherwise, all these efforts would just generate another business process and red-tapes hampering business agility.
To end my £0.02, I would say, have capable people in place, before you get capable tools. Who would identify which tool is capable? When/How would this capable tool become beneficial?
Best regards,
Joseph
On May 29, 5:40 pm, Ken Orr wrote:
> Every once in while people get heated about the wrong question. The
> statement that some organization
> “started EA before they started with the tools” is kind of
> meaningless. What's missing is the idea of a
> workable methodology. First you need a dynamic methodology, then you
> need training, tools and expertise to
> support it. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T DO "REAL EA" WITHOUT TOOLS, INDUSTRIAL
> GRADE TOOLS!" Sure you
> can use Visio to draw pictures, but and EA database is not just a set
> of pictures done one time,it is a set
> of pictures that support an EA Roadmap that are constantly updated.
> One of the core problems with REAL EA is that the problems are so
> complex that you need special tools to
> address just the interactions between systems or the numbers of
> individual data tables. If you select tools too
> early, however, there is a good chance that the organization will not
> really understand what the requirements
> are and end up trying to get the cheapest solution...bad idea.
> EA tools are not a question of whether but when, and the when is when
> you know enough to use them.
> Ken
> On May 26, 3:05 am, Joseph George southern.co.uk> wrote:
> > Kevin,
> > > Not sure what “started EA before they started with the tools.” means -
> > > but as I understood it (after sitting through the presentation) they
> > > only way they started was to buy a tool, figure out a good question
> > > they wanted to answer that would give a big return (application
> > > portfolio rationalisation), populated the tool with the data required,
> > > made some changes, save d a lot of money, modelled some more, etc,
> > > etc.
> > Hmmm... that sounds like a fool with a tool approach. We could apply
> > this same principle to any (not necessarily EA) tool and start a
> > business model around that tool, viz. "buy a tool, figure out a good
> > question they wanted to answer that would give a big return, populated
> > the tool with the data required, made some changes, save d a lot of
> > money, modelled some more, etc, etc." Et Voila, I've got a new
> > business case. Let us buy a hammer (or whatever the latest jazzy thing
> > the advertising industry is throwing at us), figure out a good
> > question... that would give a big return,... etc etc.
> > But further down your post, you answer exactly what I meant. You
> > probably figured that yourself
> > > Which is why I asked Colin Birchenall after the presentation.
> > And the answer contains the EA approach and the tool was part of their
> > solution. Purrfect!
> > > to start modelling stuff, so we can
> > > understand stuff, so we can kill stuff where we don’t need it, and
> > > strengthen stuff where we do”
> > And what a brilliant way to gain buy-in from the business owners:
> > > the only way we can work with you and
> > > generate a return for all is to
> > I like this approach. Either we agree on a clear approach and work
> > together and generate a return for all. Or we can't generate a return
> > and won't work with you! Any waffling rhetoric about fluffy stuff just
> > muddies the water for the sponsors and disengage them.
> > Kind regards,
> > Joseph
> > On May 24, 4:01 pm, "Kevin (PragmaticEA.com) Smith"
> > wrote:
> > > @Joseph: “However, I would venture to say from the example he gives
> > > that they started EA before they started with the tools. All it means
> > > is that they started using the tool, before they had a complete EA
> > > vision populated.”
> > > Not sure what “started EA before they started with the tools.” means -
> > > but as I understood it (after sitting through the presentation) they
> > > only way they started was to buy a tool, figure out a good question
> > > they wanted to answer that would give a big return (application
> > > portfolio rationalisation), populated the tool with the data required,
> > > made some changes, save d a lot of money, modelled some more, etc,
> > > etc.
> > > They started at the application /infrastructure level then moved up
> > > into solution architecture, then project portfolio then strategy.
> > > The point being they did stuff that saved money.
> > > The question, of course is…
> > > “OK - but you needed a mandate/money etc to buy the tool, have some
> > > training, and the people to do some modelling etc right? So how did
> > > you get the mandate/money ?”
> > > Which is why I asked Colin Birchenall after the presentation.
> > > Hi answer was - “Yes, exactly right - the catalyst was the formation
> > > of the LLP between Serco and Glasgow City Council. Serco had basically
> > > said, OK - you want us to be in partnership with you in terms of
> > > provision of IT? = no problem - the only way we can work with you and
> > > generate a return for all is to start modelling stuff, so we can
> > > understand stuff, so we can kill stuff where we don’t need it, and
> > > strengthen stuff where we do”
> > > Colin also agreed that what they had done was not rocket science and
> > > simply common sense and that many many organisations have many people
> > > who already know what should be done and how it should be done but
> > > they don’t get the remit/budget/mandate to do anything.
> > > Which is why I have started thinking that the best way to get
> > > organisations to adopt EA is to marry the education and awareness
> > > approach with a catalyst approach. There are many…
> > > - Mergers & Acquisitions
> > > - Business Unit Consolidation
> > > - Introduction of New Products, Services or Lines of Business
> > > - Outsourcing a Business Function
> > > - Divesting a line of Business
> > > - Operational Cost Reduction
> > > - Business Transformation
> > > - Building Relocation
> > > - Strategic Planning
> > > - Increase Business Agility, Efficiency and Effectiveness
> > > - Streamlining Business Processes
> > > - Consolidation of Suppliers, Technologies or Applications
> > > - Business Process Management
> > > - Business Process Re-engineering
> > > - Off shoring
> > > - Market/Shareholder Pressure
> > > @Joseph: “, EA …..is an iterative process. You could start anywhere in
> > > this circle”
> > > Sort of. some things you can some things you cant; For example, you
> > > can just start modelling stuff before buying a proper tool, however
> > > you can’t start doing governance using principles (operate) until you
> > > a) have agreed what they are and b) made the changes in the
> > > organisation required to operate them (Implement)
> > > @Joseph: “Just because you have an EA team using an EA tool, doesn't
> > > mean you are actually performing EA.”
> > > I would say yes and no.
> > > My higher level view is that EA is generally about strategic planning,
> > > modeeling and governance.
> > > Based on this, I would say that 99.9999% of organisations are already
> > > “doing” EA. They already do strategic planning (it may be terrible),
> > > they already do modelling (it may be terrible) they already do
> > > governance (it may be terrible).
> > > They may do everything terribly, but they still have an EA and they
> > > still do EA.
> > > If you don’t use a project management methodology (e.g. Prince2, MSP)
> > > does this mean you don’t do project management? No.
> > > Frameworks help people to do what they are doing in a more efficient,
> > > better, structured way.
> > > EA is no different to Prince, MSP, Six Sigma, LEAN, ITIL, COBIT, etc
> > > etc etc.
> > > They are all frameworks/.methodologies/methods for improving thngs.
> > > They just scratch different itches.
> > > @Joseph: “But, all your efforts would be towards populating the as-is
> > > with lower-
...
read more »
> EA tools are not a question of whether but when, and the when is when
> you know enough to use them.
I don't think we are debating whether a tool is needed or what that tool should be. We are specifically discussing only "the when" aspect.
You do say
> First you need a dynamic methodology, then you
> need training, tools and expertise to
> support it.
I kind of agree with you above about the first. But I would suggest, first you need an EA Vision to start. This delivers some goals to target, i.e. reduce cost, increase agility, or increase capability, etc. All the other steps follow later, perhaps in different orders depending on the organisation maturity and its readiness. I completely agree with Peter Hunsberger on his last posts.
> YOU SIMPLY CAN'T DO "REAL EA" WITHOUT TOOLS, INDUSTRIAL
> GRADE TOOLS!
Hmmm... What is "REAL EA"? Even EAs can't seem to agree... :-)
And, I see no point in buying "INDUSTRIAL GRADE TOOLS", if the organisation simply cannot afford it, or the people to use it, i.e. does not have capable EAs or other personnel to support this amazing tool. An EA tool is only good enough if everyone who are supposed to populate it, are diligent and skilled enough with this tool. Else, the TCO would result in a white elephant and another shelfware.
If the organisation can afford a good tool, has trained EAs and all other relevant analysts in this particular tool, then it is probably ready to use this tool. If this is the case, it better have supportive management ready to drive forward the resultant EA delivery and targets. Otherwise, all these efforts would just generate another business process and red-tapes hampering business agility.
To end my £0.02, I would say, have capable people in place, before you get capable tools. Who would identify which tool is capable? When/How would this capable tool become beneficial?
Best regards,
Joseph
On May 29, 5:40 pm, Ken Orr
> Every once in while people get heated about the wrong question. The
> statement that some organization
> “started EA before they started with the tools” is kind of
> meaningless. What's missing is the idea of a
> workable methodology. First you need a dynamic methodology, then you
> need training, tools and expertise to
> support it. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T DO "REAL EA" WITHOUT TOOLS, INDUSTRIAL
> GRADE TOOLS!" Sure you
> can use Visio to draw pictures, but and EA database is not just a set
> of pictures done one time,it is a set
> of pictures that support an EA Roadmap that are constantly updated.
> One of the core problems with REAL EA is that the problems are so
> complex that you need special tools to
> address just the interactions between systems or the numbers of
> individual data tables. If you select tools too
> early, however, there is a good chance that the organization will not
> really understand what the requirements
> are and end up trying to get the cheapest solution...bad idea.
> EA tools are not a question of whether but when, and the when is when
> you know enough to use them.
> Ken
> On May 26, 3:05 am, Joseph George
> > Kevin,
> > > Not sure what “started EA before they started with the tools.” means -
> > > but as I understood it (after sitting through the presentation) they
> > > only way they started was to buy a tool, figure out a good question
> > > they wanted to answer that would give a big return (application
> > > portfolio rationalisation), populated the tool with the data required,
> > > made some changes, save d a lot of money, modelled some more, etc,
> > > etc.
> > Hmmm... that sounds like a fool with a tool approach. We could apply
> > this same principle to any (not necessarily EA) tool and start a
> > business model around that tool, viz. "buy a tool, figure out a good
> > question they wanted to answer that would give a big return, populated
> > the tool with the data required, made some changes, save d a lot of
> > money, modelled some more, etc, etc." Et Voila, I've got a new
> > business case. Let us buy a hammer (or whatever the latest jazzy thing
> > the advertising industry is throwing at us), figure out a good
> > question... that would give a big return,... etc etc.
> > But further down your post, you answer exactly what I meant. You
> > probably figured that yourself
> > > Which is why I asked Colin Birchenall after the presentation.
> > And the answer contains the EA approach and the tool was part of their
> > solution. Purrfect!
> > > to start modelling stuff, so we can
> > > understand stuff, so we can kill stuff where we don’t need it, and
> > > strengthen stuff where we do”
> > And what a brilliant way to gain buy-in from the business owners:
> > > the only way we can work with you and
> > > generate a return for all is to
> > I like this approach. Either we agree on a clear approach and work
> > together and generate a return for all. Or we can't generate a return
> > and won't work with you! Any waffling rhetoric about fluffy stuff just
> > muddies the water for the sponsors and disengage them.
> > Kind regards,
> > Joseph
> > On May 24, 4:01 pm, "Kevin (PragmaticEA.com) Smith"
> >
> > > @Joseph: “However, I would venture to say from the example he gives
> > > that they started EA before they started with the tools. All it means
> > > is that they started using the tool, before they had a complete EA
> > > vision populated.”
> > > Not sure what “started EA before they started with the tools.” means -
> > > but as I understood it (after sitting through the presentation) they
> > > only way they started was to buy a tool, figure out a good question
> > > they wanted to answer that would give a big return (application
> > > portfolio rationalisation), populated the tool with the data required,
> > > made some changes, save d a lot of money, modelled some more, etc,
> > > etc.
> > > They started at the application /infrastructure level then moved up
> > > into solution architecture, then project portfolio then strategy.
> > > The point being they did stuff that saved money.
> > > The question, of course is…
> > > “OK - but you needed a mandate/money etc to buy the tool, have some
> > > training, and the people to do some modelling etc right? So how did
> > > you get the mandate/money ?”
> > > Which is why I asked Colin Birchenall after the presentation.
> > > Hi answer was - “Yes, exactly right - the catalyst was the formation
> > > of the LLP between Serco and Glasgow City Council. Serco had basically
> > > said, OK - you want us to be in partnership with you in terms of
> > > provision of IT? = no problem - the only way we can work with you and
> > > generate a return for all is to start modelling stuff, so we can
> > > understand stuff, so we can kill stuff where we don’t need it, and
> > > strengthen stuff where we do”
> > > Colin also agreed that what they had done was not rocket science and
> > > simply common sense and that many many organisations have many people
> > > who already know what should be done and how it should be done but
> > > they don’t get the remit/budget/mandate to do anything.
> > > Which is why I have started thinking that the best way to get
> > > organisations to adopt EA is to marry the education and awareness
> > > approach with a catalyst approach. There are many…
> > > - Mergers & Acquisitions
> > > - Business Unit Consolidation
> > > - Introduction of New Products, Services or Lines of Business
> > > - Outsourcing a Business Function
> > > - Divesting a line of Business
> > > - Operational Cost Reduction
> > > - Business Transformation
> > > - Building Relocation
> > > - Strategic Planning
> > > - Increase Business Agility, Efficiency and Effectiveness
> > > - Streamlining Business Processes
> > > - Consolidation of Suppliers, Technologies or Applications
> > > - Business Process Management
> > > - Business Process Re-engineering
> > > - Off shoring
> > > - Market/Shareholder Pressure
> > > @Joseph: “, EA …..is an iterative process. You could start anywhere in
> > > this circle”
> > > Sort of. some things you can some things you cant; For example, you
> > > can just start modelling stuff before buying a proper tool, however
> > > you can’t start doing governance using principles (operate) until you
> > > a) have agreed what they are and b) made the changes in the
> > > organisation required to operate them (Implement)
> > > @Joseph: “Just because you have an EA team using an EA tool, doesn't
> > > mean you are actually performing EA.”
> > > I would say yes and no.
> > > My higher level view is that EA is generally about strategic planning,
> > > modeeling and governance.
> > > Based on this, I would say that 99.9999% of organisations are already
> > > “doing” EA. They already do strategic planning (it may be terrible),
> > > they already do modelling (it may be terrible) they already do
> > > governance (it may be terrible).
> > > They may do everything terribly, but they still have an EA and they
> > > still do EA.
> > > If you don’t use a project management methodology (e.g. Prince2, MSP)
> > > does this mean you don’t do project management? No.
> > > Frameworks help people to do what they are doing in a more efficient,
> > > better, structured way.
> > > EA is no different to Prince, MSP, Six Sigma, LEAN, ITIL, COBIT, etc
> > > etc etc.
> > > They are all frameworks/.methodologies/methods for improving thngs.
> > > They just scratch different itches.
> > > @Joseph: “But, all your efforts would be towards populating the as-is
> > > with lower-
...
read more »
Tool first or Purpose first for EA
A scenario comes to mind -
A man wants to start a business. So, he goes downtown to the city centre and rents a shop in a prime location. He puts up a nice banner outside, and enters his shop... and starts thinking. What should his business be?
Next he goes outside and looks at some of the other shops. He finds some gadgets which take his fancy. He buys those from his friendly neighbouring shops, and brings those tools back to his shop. He starts thinking again... What should his business be?
Is this where an EA enters the scenario??
Best regards,
Joseph
A man wants to start a business. So, he goes downtown to the city centre and rents a shop in a prime location. He puts up a nice banner outside, and enters his shop... and starts thinking. What should his business be?
Next he goes outside and looks at some of the other shops. He finds some gadgets which take his fancy. He buys those from his friendly neighbouring shops, and brings those tools back to his shop. He starts thinking again... What should his business be?
Is this where an EA enters the scenario??
Best regards,
Joseph
SOA Best Practices @Gartner
I attended a Gartner briefing called "SOA Best Practices - How To Use It To Make A Difference" at their EMEA HQ in Egham.
Of the three presentations,
(1) was very useful
(2) was all about development, and not much to do with SOA
(3) was all about file transfers, and not relevant at all
Of the three presentations,
(1) was very useful
(2) was all about development, and not much to do with SOA
(3) was all about file transfers, and not relevant at all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)