The authors present a successful field-tested approach toenterprise architecture that enables corporations to achieve theirbusiness objectives faster. The key elements of this approachinclude multidisciplinary teams, purposeful architectural design,and room for deliberate noncompliance with the standard enterprisearchitecture. Complete with useful, tangible tools for implementing anddesigning the architectural process within a corporation, DynamicEnterprise Architecture enables business and IT managers,controllers, CIOs, COOs, and CTOs to make major contributions toachieving the business objectives of their organizations.
Hands-on tools for implementing, designing, and managing asuccessful architectural process within a corporation Enterprise architecture holds the key to an organization'ssuccess. Yet for many companies, the promised benefits of ITarchitecture still elude them. Dynamic Enterprise Architectureprovides readers with a better understanding of the processesinvolved in successfully employing architectural thinking andempowers them with the instruments to analyze their own situationsand identify points of improvement. Based on the authors' decades of practical experience in thefield, Dynamic Enterprise Architecture:.
Make the most out of enterprise architecture and achieve yourbusiness goals with the step-by-step guidelines found in DynamicEnterprise Architecture. Would you like to tell us about a lower price? If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support? Learn more about Amazon Prime. This book presents an approach to enterprise architecture, which enables corporations to achieve their business objectives faster. Focusing on the governance of IT in the organization, it provides tangible tools, advice and strategies for implementing and designing the architectural process within a corporation that will make a major contribution in driving the business forward and achieve its goals.
Read more Read less. Prime Book Box for Kids. Sponsored products related to this item What's this? Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. Once Upon an Algorithm: Smaller Habits, Bigger Results.
- Dynamic enterprise architecture : how to make it work / Roel Wagter [et al.] - Details - Trove.
- Navigation menu.
- Authors and Writers Associated With Morristown With a Chapter on Historic Morristown.
- 4 editions of this work.
Learn to create good habits for life from this international bestselling book that's been translated into 14 languages. Based on the authors' decades of practical experience in thefield, Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: Provides step-by-step guidance to help organizationssuccessfully introduce an enterprise architecture system Focuses on the processes to make enterprise architecturework Discusses ways to avoid bottlenecking in enterprisearchitecture Provides tips and best practices for implementing the processesinvolved Shows readers the most effective ways to use IT in theirorganizations Make the most out of enterprise architecture and achieve yourbusiness goals with the step-by-step guidelines found in DynamicEnterprise Architecture.
Wiley; 1 edition January 31, Language: Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. This is the first book on Enterprise Architecture which actually helps to bridge the gap between Business and IT. The framework ensures that the business can understand the full enterprise architecture, while it contains sufficient information for the analyst to proceed.
Looking forward for a new edition with even more practical guidelines. The title, Dynamic Enterprise Architecture, is very good idea, but I think I wasted time and money when I bought and read the book. In chapter 4, the book described the Dyanmic Architecture model that made disappointed. I am architect, and have never heard any enterprise application was developed without architecture.
The architecture is basically the solution of the enterprise computer system.
I cannot image that system is developed without solution, because it will not work without architecture. First, the process is not useful.
Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: How to Make It Work
The time needed to alter the information systems that supported new or changed business processes stayed within acceptable limits. In the s, the rate of change began to increase and information systems began to lag behind. In , a manager succinctly remarked: If we want to accomplish something quickly, we apparently have too little time to achieve consensus with others on what we would like to do or to make detailed plans about what we want to do.
However, if someone considers aspects other than his or her immediate interests, he or she may decide not to follow the most direct route in achieving his goal, thus using more time than is strictly necessary. This tension between agility and coherence is perhaps best illustrated by examining the opinions of the traditional supporters of coherence and those of agility with regard to each other. These opposing views are reflected in Exhibit 1. We have observed that IT has permeated to the very roots of organizations and is becoming increasingly important for them as a whole.
Where previously IT was only one of the many tools used to achieve business objectives, it has become crucial to many organizations. During the last 10 years, IT has made a major contribution to the progressive integration of the supply chain e. This is illustrated in Exhibit 1. In the past, the relationship between businesses, suppliers, and customers was clearly demarcated. Several years ago, the relationship evolved into that shown in Exhibit 1.
This progress toward more integration was initiated by the arrival of electronic data interchange EDI several years beforehand. The supply chain that resulted from this integration between supplier and business led to more efficient business processes for both companies. For example, immediately after a six-pack of beer is paid for at the supermarket, the automatic stock control system of the supermarket places an order at the brewery for another six-pack. The Internet has encouraged an even greater use of this trend for supplier integration. Telebanking and customers monitoring the manufacture of their new cars are good examples of customer integration.
These trends will continue to evolve and the three parties will merge even further, resulting in an integrated relationship, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. Supplier, customer, and business form a close network within which both the supplier and the customer have a direct influence on the business processes of the company. This far-reaching supply chain integration is made possible by IT. If we consider such developments further, we can conclude that IT is no longer just supportive to the business, but that it has become an integral part of the business itself, and has, as a result, a direct influence on the financial success of an enterprise.
The influence of IT does not stop here. IT today enables completely new business models to be devised and implemented. The online auctioning and group buying models are examples of business models that have been created on the basis of modern IT techniques. This business model is only made possible by virtue of the Internet. The Internet removes the traditional geographical barriers, enabling many more people to take part in the auction. The essence of the group-buying model is the accumulation of the demand for a certain product. Group buyers try to bring together as many potential individual buyers for a certain product as possible and combine their orders to negotiate a volume discount from the sellers.
Bringing potential buyers together is made possible by using the Internet—without it, the group-buying model could not have been realized. In addition to these new forms of enterprise, we increasingly see well-established organizations using IT to offer new services and to open new markets. IT has gained strategic importance for the enterprise. Previously, IT strategy was defined as a direct result of business strategy. Today, business strategy and IT strategy have so many common interests and objectives that they frequently overlap and should be developed simultaneously, as illustrated in Exhibit 1.
E-business is currently the best example of how IT can determine the business strategy of an enterprise. Customers can now easily compare which supplier offers the best deal. Internet sites can be found where the prices, terms, and conditions of the various suppliers of almost any kind of product can be conveniently compared, enabling consumers to select the supplier that best suits their needs. Insurance policies, books, CDs, vacation packages, and many other products can be compared in this way using the Internet.
The moment that an enterprise brings a new product into the market, it is immediately visible to a potential customer and he or she can immediately react to this new product. In order not to lose customers, the competition will also have to act swiftly. This leads to a rapidly evolving and increasingly aggressive market, in which customers are supported in their decision making by completely new tools such as search engines and intelligent agents. The increased transparency of the market also results in increased demands on coherence.
The ease with which consumers can compare products and services means that a company should only offer those in which it excels. A product that is too expensive or a service which only offers half a solution is a waste of effort. The company must ensure that it can keep the promises it makes to its customers. One single wrong step and the customer is gone!
He or she can easily find alternatives. This requires that the internal business processes are properly attuned to each other and that there is a clear understanding of mutual expectations within the organization. In addition to the increase in competitiveness, we see that organizations are once again concentrating on their core business and that less profitable activities are being contracted out to partners. This results in network organizations that are in fact an extension of the development illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Together with partners, an organization will continually search for ways to increase the value-for-money of its products and services. The most distinctive characteristics of a network organization are 1 continually changing internal and external affiliations and 2 shifting organizational boundaries because of flexible in- and outsourcing in reaction to the opportunities that arise. IT is no longer purely an internal affair. In all this, we recognize an increasing importance of IT and a corresponding increase in the tension between agility and coherence. Both are essential conditions for an efficient and effective IT use, but both conditions must be held in balance.
If the balance is tipped in favor of coherence, the organization runs the risk of creating the best products and services on the market, but making them available for sale far too late. The customer either no longer needs the product or has already chosen from one of the competitors. The object of this book is to help organizations solve this puzzle and find that balance. Later in the book, we examine the answers that have already been found for the increasing demands for both agility and coherence.
Because these answers focus on only one side of the scale either agility or coherence , there is no answer yet for how to achieve a continuing balance between the two forces. As a first step, the idea of Dynamic Architecture must be introduced and developed into a practical model. This model, by keeping agility and coherence in balance, helps utilize IT to such an extent that its full potential in helping to achieve business objectives will be realized.
The IT world has created several responses to this necessity. These responses are aimed at accelerating the IT development process or at improving the coordination between individual IT developments. Acceleration of the development process is being sought in employing new development methods or in implementing standard packages, while improving coordination between developments is being sought in development under architectural guidance.
These new methods set aside the many and often complex principles used by the more traditional approach and replace them with fewer and less-complicated principles. An important aspect of DSDM is the time-box principle. Time-boxing is based on the precept that a definite and unchangeable deadline is set for a project and within this deadline a certain goal must be achieved.
Irrespective of what happens during the course of the project, the deadline remains unchanged. If the deadline is endangered in any way, it will not be postponed, but certain aspects of the functionality will be sacri- 25 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture ficed instead. An essential part of time-boxing is a constant evaluation of the priority of each functional requirement. To ensure that, at the least, a usable system will be produced, delivery of a minimum set of requirements is guaranteed.
The remaining requirements are, in theory, exchangeable for time and money. XP also makes use of time-boxing by defining a number of iterations. Detailed plans are drawn up when necessary and not beforehand, and functionality is only built at the precise moment that it is necessary for the progress of the project. In this way, these methods ensure that, within the limits of time and money, a system will be delivered that complies with the current requirements of the users. DSDM and XP are just two examples of new development methods that focus on increasing the speed of the development process.
Other methods exist with this focus and, without a doubt, more will follow. In general, these new methods show a great deal of promise, and it appears that they can produce a usable result in less time than more traditional development methods. They form an adequate line of action in the quest for more agility. Such new development methods are aimed at quickly producing IT solutions, targeted at a specific business goal.
They do not concern themselves with the question as to how the solution will relate to and cope with other events within the organization. They do not give any guarantee in respect of coherence. In addition to the use of new development methods, organizations are trying to introduce more agility in the development process by 26 Agility and Coherence Considered Separately implementing standard software solutions. This should lead to quicker implementation.
There is, however, a certain nuance needed depending on the type of package being implemented: They offer a framework for constructing Webbased applications and provide all the necessary code and facilities for handling Web-based dialogues with end users.
These packages effectively reduce the necessary development time because part of the required functionality is already provided by the package itself. Largely because these packages support a restricted part of the business process, they can be quickly adapted to the needs of the business and implemented without a great deal of effort. ERP packages are rich in functionality. Practically speaking, however, implementing such a package should not be taken lightly. Implementing an ERP solution often takes just as long as or even longer than implementing a tailor-made solution.
Standard software solutions in themselves do not offer a guarantee of coherence. In practice, this often proves to be a complex issue and frequently forms the bottleneck in an implementation trajectory. Architecture, in this context, is the consistent set of rules and models that guide the design and implementation of processes, organizational structures, information flows, and the technical infrastructure within an organization. Architecture can be considered as a set of agreements that ensure that individual developments interface correctly with each other and with overall company interests.
Indeed, by clearly outlining the scope of a development project, its responsibilities, and its domain, the freedom as well as the restrictions of the individual project team are established. Products delivered by a project team that is compliant with the architecture will always fit within the greater context of business needs. Improving architectural awareness is clearly an answer to the increased necessity for greater coherence in IT developments within an organization. In practice, however, complying with architecture is not an easy matter.
We mentioned earlier that architects are perceived as a restraining influence, and this bears witness to the difficulties that architects face. Being compliant with the architecture is seen by most project participants as restrictive: The project team is constrained in its freedom of choice and receives nothing in return.
Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: How to Make It Work - PDF Free Download
Business owners and managers also perceive architects as meddlesome: No sooner have they developed a brilliant idea for a new business opportunity, than one of the architects tells them their idea is impossible to achieve within the architecture. Even those who see the direct benefits of using architecture are confronted with the fact that compliance with architecture costs a great deal of valuable time, and, therefore, they often decide that, just this once, architecture will be set aside. Their excuse is that the market 28 Agility and Coherence Considered Separately demands an immediate response and there is insufficient time to wait for architecture.
The development department has hired an expert to design a planning system. Having delivered a detailed design for the system, the expert offers to program the system as well. Taking the scarcity of IT experts into consideration, the department makes grateful use of this offer. Using the expert, the project can progress as planned. In spite of this, the department decides to go ahead, and the desire to continue to make progress prevails once again. In brief, compliance with architecture is recognized as an answer to the necessity for coherence; but, at the same time, it is seen as a hindrance in the IT development process.
This is a bitter pill to swallow because architecture not only offers an answer to the need for coherence, but it is also essential in achieving agility. If, for example, an organization agrees that data should only be registered once and that functionality should be uniquely assigned among the various information systems, then changes in the informational needs of the company can be realized much more quickly—that is, changes only need to be made in one system instead of many. A company decided to carry out an internal survey to determine the reasons behind the maintenance needed to upgrade their information systems.
The survey surprisingly revealed the result that most of this effort was caused by changes in other, interfacing, systems. The promise of architecture is, therefore, great. Nevertheless, why does architectural guidance prove to be so difficult to put into prac- 29 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture tice? The main reason for this is in the origins of IT architecture. The practice of designing architecture began at the same time as the appearance of traditional information planning. Traditional information planning commenced when the world could be described as less dynamic than in the present.
Both the market and the internal business processes changed less frequently, and IT had a far less important role in the business than is customary today. The goal of traditional information planning was to create an information plan that outlined how in future information was to be supplied and, moreover, the steps required to create this future information situation. Both IT and the business assumed and accepted that carrying out the information plan would take three to five years. The linear, project-driven approach is no longer acceptable because, as soon as the plans are finished, they are obsolete.
Trying to predict the needs of a company for the next three years has become practically impossible. Architecture, in such a context, is purely an internal affair for the IT department, and the business neither feels nor wants any part of the responsibility for determining the IT strategy. In the era in which we now live, and in which IT has become of strategic importance in conducting business, such an attitude is no longer viable.
To adequately react to each and every opportunity in the marketplace, business and IT strategy must be considered as a single entity, and the responsibility for determining these strategies must be carried by both business and IT. In the planned approach, which typifies traditional information planning, a comprehensive architecture for the entire organization had to be designed and approved before any one part of the architecture could be realized. This almost always resulted in the aforementioned mountains of unread paper.
The autonomous project team had 30 Agility and Coherence Considered Separately designed the architecture with little or no input from the user organization and the end product, the architecture, was isolated from the everyday questions and challenges facing the organization.
Finally, existing methods for information planning are built around the assumption that, once the architecture has been designed, all problems have been addressed and that nothing stands in the way of realization. The emphasis of the architecture project lies in delivering the goods, in this case the architecture. Rarely is any consideration given to the thought that the method used for developing the architecture should be embedded into the business change process of the organization. Short-term solutions to problems that appear suddenly often require exceptional measures, and these measures, just as often, do not fit into the prescribed architecture.
This fact of life is often ignored by the architecture project team. This means the architecture is not seen as an integral part of the dynamics of the organization and is ignored at every opportunity. There is a discrepancy between the precepts that led to the introduction of architectural awareness and the demands of the present time.
This is illustrated in Exhibit 2. Process dynamics Traditional methods for information planning Market dynamics 31 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture of the market and business processes demand a new approach to architecture. However, new development methods, which provide an increase in agility, do not bring any guarantee of coherence, and architectural awareness, which should provide for coherence, is perceived as being a hindrance to progress and, moreover, proves difficult to implement.
What is missing is a solution that combines both aspects, and the answer is to be found in a combination of both a new development method and architecture. This, in turn, demands a new approach to architecture. Working under architectural guidance must no longer be seen as synonymous with wasting time. Rather, it should become synonymous with gaining time. In the next chapters, a new approach to architecture, Dynamic Architecture, is presented that is explicitly aimed at achieving business goals quickly in a constantly changing environment.
The principle behind Dynamic Architecture is not another explanation of how to design architecture—there are enough professional architects today who know how to do that. Dynamic Architecture is about the positioning and embedding of architecture at the right level within an organization. That is, which architecture is to be designed at what moment and for what purpose, who is involved in the design process, and who is going to use the architecture and to what end.
The questions posed are: We look for the answers to these questions in a combination of joint strategy-forming by business and IT, a purposeful approach to architecture and recognizing three different development strategies. But first, we need to examine the notion of dynamic architecture closely in the next chapter. Without employing architecture, only the smallest of organizations are exempt from the unmanageable tangle of IT development environments, hardware platforms, software applications, and projects.
As a further consequence, the lack of architecture allows the cost of IT development and maintenance to rise. In this scenario, the organization becomes insufficiently equipped to react to market developments and incapable of quickly taking action in the pursuit of its objectives. Architecture has an essential role in creating the ability to react and providing an organization with the capacity to respond to changes in the market, even in situations when such changes cannot be predicted.
In doing so, however, architecture itself must undergo a number of changes. What we need is an agile architecture, an architecture that has been specifically designed to facilitate the speed of change. This chapter will explain what this entails. Our interpretation, perception, and understanding of architecture will not necessarily be the same as that of our colleagues. A unique, unilaterally accepted definition of architecture has not yet been established. This need not be a problem, as long as we are aware of the differences in interpretation and make them explicit in our communication.
When we discuss architecture, there are three aspects that must be clarified beforehand—otherwise, confusion and misunderstanding can result: Context or subject matter 3.
Refine your editions:
Level of abstraction There is a chronological aspect to architecture. We have encountered the following chronological definitions of architecture: These three forms are represented in Exhibit 3. The aspect of context, or subject matter, also needs to be explained. Architecture, as a concept, can be applied to different contexts or subject matter. Architecture can be developed for products and services, processes, organizational structures, information, applications, middleware, platforms, and networks. This creates product-and-services architecture, process architecture, organizational architecture, information architecture, and so on.
The various architectural domains are often grouped together to form three main types of architecture: Technical architecture Business architecture sketches the contours for the way in which an organization can be structured to effectively pursue its business objectives. Business architecture consists of three domains: Information architecture sketches the design contours for the provision of information within an organization.
It consists of two domains: Technical architecture sketches the contours of the technical infrastructure necessary to support the organization. It consists of three domains: An organization can issue the following statement: The rules and guidelines can be detailed further in models, creating, for example, a data model for customer information and a profile sketch for call center employees.
Such models also form part of the architecture at yet another level. Clearly, in everyday practice, the concept of architecture manifests itself in several guises. Despite all these different appearances, the prime concept remains the same: In all further references to architecture in this book, the following is meant by the term architecture: The consistent set of rules and models that guide the design and implementation of processes, organizational structures, information flows, and the technical infrastructure within an organization. From this point of view, architecture can be seen as a management tool that gives direction to the change processes within an organization.
To this end, architecture consists of principles, norms, guidelines, standards, and models. By using this definition, architecture can cover an entire perspective, from business architecture to technical architecture, and 41 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture several levels within architecture can be distinguished, from general to specific principles and detailed models. In providing such a broad definition of architecture, we by no means imply that the implementation of architecture within an organization should be as widespread as possible. On the contrary, a minimalist approach in designing architecture is advocated: Do not develop more architecture than your organization needs.
Architects can be totally occupied with filling in the numerous details of an architecture and lose sight of the prime purpose of architecture: Helping the business to achieve its objectives. This applies to both aspects of architecture: The first aspect of dynamic architecture is content—that is, architecture as a product. An architecture must be constructed so that changes in the architecture, to accommodate new and unexpected developments, can be implemented as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
The architecture can then quickly support changes in the business processes. The second aspect concerns the processes around architecture: How to deal with architecture within the organization. The process of development and maintenance of an architecture should be implemented as a dynamic process, thereby ensuring that the organization can make use of the architecture effectively and efficiently.
By the content of dynamic architecture, we mean such aspects as N-tier architecture, open standards, generic application programming interfaces APIs , component-based development, and service-oriented 42 Dynamic Architecture architecture.
These approaches are mostly aimed at the breaking down of IT support into autonomous building blocks that can be developed, maintained, and changed independently of each other. In this way, changes to parts of the provision of information can be carried out quickly because they are restricted to clearly defined components. The way in which architecture is employed within an organization, however, is crucial in achieving the agility required—and therefore the primary focus of this book is the process side of architecture. The following are examples of architectural principles that result in an architecture i.
The critical success factor for working under architectural guidance, in the present dynamic time, lies in the way that architecture is employed within an organization. We present a way of using architecture that is focused on enabling change. Architecture is a joint venture between the business and IT. The trigger for developing architecture is a concrete business objective. The business objective determines both the focus and priority of architectural activities.
The architectural team is kept small and, where necessary, expanded with employees from other departments. Development projects are guided and supported in their use of architecture by providing them with a project-start architecture. Both the design of architecture and the development of IT solutions are accelerated by using standards and templates.
In addition to the standard way of complying with the architecture, a defensive and an offensive strategy have been developed, in which, by way of exception, a temporary IT solution is created that does not comply with the architectural guidelines. By introducing an explicit mechanism for deviation, the unavoidable incidental divergence from the architecture can be adequately managed and kept under control. The architecture must enable change.
The main problem in working under architectural guidance is not so much the architecture itself, but how the architecture is used. The first dimension is the level of architectural awareness: Does the organization possess a strategic and realistic vision and policy on IT and architecture? Is this policy an integral part of the overall policy for the organization? In organizations that score high on this scale, decision makers have a clear view of architecture and know what they want to achieve by using architecture. Being aware of architecture and being able to translate this into vision and policy is not enough, however.
Policies need to be translated into action. The second dimension, therefore, is the level of integration of architecture within the organization: The quadrant, in which an organization best fits, reveals the potential of the organization to adequately react to developments in the market. If an organization combines a high level of architectural awareness with a high level of architectural integration, then it will be found in the enabling quadrant. Organizations in this quadrant are able to utilize the full potential of IT.
They have a clear vision of architecture and have already implemented this vision in the business change processes. Architecture has been institutionalized and has become an integral part of the functioning of the organization. Effectively, this means that the organization has appointed architects to design architecture, but that the impact of architecture on the organization is not fully understood and is, in fact, underestimated.
The organization misses a clear vision on the importance of architecture. Architecture is seen as an IT issue and an efficiency tool for the IT department. The organization cannot make the essential link between architecture and attaining business objectives. Organizations in the isolation quadrant combine a high level of architectural awareness with a low level of architectural integration. These organizations, up to and including top management, recognize the importance of architecture but the architecture processes are insufficiently embedded within the organization.
The resources necessary to actually implement architecture within the organization have not been allocated. Management possesses a sound vision and policy of architecture, and everyone knows what should be done, but it just does not happen. Some organizations try to solve this problem by bringing in third-party expertise, but that solution offers only temporary relief. The organization needs to allocate sufficient resources to allow architectural awareness to permeate the very pores of the organization.
In the fourth quadrant, losing, we find organizations that combine a low level of architectural awareness with a low level of architectural integration. These organizations are not aware that IT is strategically important and that architecture plays an essential part in substantiating this strategic role. The organization is standing on the outside looking in; however, it does not know what it is looking at. Architecture is not even on the agenda. This is a very risky position—especially when competitors recognize the importance of IT and architecture.
The IT department will subsequently be judged only on efficiency and not on effectiveness. Once caught in this trap, it appears to be very difficult to get out. If we project the efficiency trap on our model in Exhibit 3. For that reason, it is recommended that the correct way to proceed from losing to enabling is through isolation and not through barrier.
In the next chapter, we will discuss which improvements are linked to each of the quadrants. DYA Architecture has always been aimed at achieving coherence. To enable change, agility must be applied both to the architecture and to the way the architecture is used i.
Dynamic, in this context, stands for agility, while architecture stands for coherence. DYA is both a theoretical and a working model. It is an aid to implementing and improving architectural processes and covers the full range—from determining the business objectives to realizing IT solutions. Design and implementation in the definition comprise the following activities for producing IT solutions: A Multiclient Study] The Hague: For information on the integration of applications, see D.
Addison-Wesley, ; and T. Which concrete measures can an organization take to ensure the continued optimum use of architecture? The answers to these questions have been combined into a model called DYA. This model is the result of bringing together the practical experience of IT development from many kinds of organizations. The DYA model provides both tangible, usable tools and allows for diversity in implementation. Diversity is needed because each organization differs—and what will work for one organization does not work for another.
Each organization must be able to implement architecture in a way that suits best. The DYA model gives a complete picture of working under architecture, a picture from which architects can select those parts of the model that are most useful to them. The full model or just a part of the model can be used, depending on the actual level of working under architecture within an organization. Architecture is strategic if IT is strategic. IT is of strategic importance. Developments in IT can cause radical changes to both the business strategy of an organization and its business model.
IT is decisive in attaining a competitive edge and provides the 53 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture 2. Architecture is, therefore, of strategic importance as well. It is indispensable in realizing the full potential of IT. Architecture must facilitate speed of change. The present market climate gives organizations an increasingly shorter reaction time to adequately deal with external and internal developments. Speed of change has become a critical factor for success. Architecture should be an enabling factor in developing this speed of change.
Communication between business and IT management is crucial. Sound communication between business and IT management is a prerequisite to realizing the full strategic potential of IT. Business and IT strategy are a combined responsibility and must therefore be formulated by both disciplines. Business objectives govern the development of architecture. The effort and expenditure needed for working under architecture can only be justified if architecture assists in achieving business objectives. Development of architecture must be driven by business objectives. The level of architecture will be continually raised if architecture is aligned to important business changes.
Architectural investments have a good chance of being approved if they are both the result and an integral part of the investment necessary to attain an important business objective. In other words, 54 The DYA Model when it is clear that business objectives will be achieved with the architecture. The allocation of architectural resources varies with the dynamics and frequency of the business objectives being pursued: More demand for architecture means more architects, less demand means fewer architects.
Working under architecture is supported by a theoretical and working model. The inherent differences in business needs and strategies between organizations preclude a simple, unambiguous, step-by-step recipe for implementing working under architecture. Although these differences influence the way to employ architecture as a whole, there is a genuine need for concrete guidance in designing architecture to the needs of an organization.
Working under architecture does not happen by itself, and it is advisable to implement it by following widely accepted theories and best practices. The DYA model provides both tangible, usable tools, and enough room for diversity in implementation. Architects can utilize the various parts of the model that are most suitable to them, and elaborate on these components to meet the specific needs of the organization.
Transparent relationships must be defined. By providing a clear insight into the relationships between the various architectural objects processes, information, applications, etc. A clear insight into these relationships helps determine which domains of an architecture need further elaboration. Several development strategies are distinguished. If time is limited, and there is a great deal of pressure to develop an IT solution for a specific business objective, an organization must be able to rely on alternative development strategies in which deliberate noncompliance to the architecture is allowed.
The key factor in this principle is that, parallel to the development of a solution using one of these noncompliance strategies, an architecturally sound solution is recreated. In this way, incidental noncompliant developments become part of the standard way 55 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture of working and the risk of uncontrolled growth of noncompliant solutions will be reduced.
Architectural principles and processes must be an integral part of the organization. Without the willingness to embed the architectural principles and processes into an organization, the organization will never obtain an information function that adequately responds to its wishes and demands. These principles make it clear that developing an architecture is not an autonomous process, but an integral part of the process to attain a specific business goal.
We paraphrase this with the motto: This means that architecture should be on the agenda of business, not just on that of the IT department. To this end, communication between business and IT management occupies a central position in the DYA model. Agility is also an essential aspect of the model. The ten principles of DYA state the contours of the theoretical and working model that are detailed in the rest of the chapter. The theoretical model combines the architectural concepts that make up DYA. The working model describes how the theoretical model can be implemented.
The outer circle represents the company as a whole; the inner circle represents IT. A company develops a vision, determines strategies, and formulates objectives with a strong emphasis on the interests of its stakeholders. All stakeholders try to defend their interests by placing demands on company policy, thus 56 The DYA Model exerting their influence on the vision, strategy, and objectives of the company. For example, customers demand good service; partners want to rely on contractual agreements; shareholders demand a positive financial result; and employees demand a good salary and employee benefits.
Business strategies and objectives should provide the answers to these demands for the present as well as the future.
- The Passion Trap: How to Right an Unbalanced Relationship.
- Think & Win Big!
- Fallen Angels!
Business has always influenced IT because IT is intended to support the business. Changes in business strategy, therefore, always influence IT strategy, and IT must continue to be an enabling factor in carrying out business policies. But the influence is also the other way round.
IT also 57 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture influences business strategy. Developments, especially technological advances, in IT can be responsible for far-reaching changes in the business strategy. IT creates possibilities that were not considered before or were thought to be impossible. To gain a maximum of business value from these new possibilities, they must be incorporated into the business strategy. For example, e-commerce can be used to increase the level of services offered to customers.
Shareholders appreciate that the efficiency increase gained by the additional use of IT has a direct positive! Enterprising, technologically savvy employees gladly seize the opportunity to work at home as a result of using the bandwidth offered by modern network technology. The inner circle in Exhibit 4. The exhibit shows that three possible strategies have been defined: The anticipatory strategy 2. The defensive strategy 3. The offensive strategy The difference between these three strategies underlines the principle that, in addition to the standard way of working under architecture the anticipatory strategy , there must be room for deliberate noncompliance the defensive and offensive strategies.
The anticipatory strategy aims at providing solutions with a high anticipatory capacity. This means that the provision of information is flexible and changeable and, for that reason, able to react swiftly to impulses from the environment. This strategy is based firmly on the concepts of Dynamic Architecture. In real life, situations will always arise where, driven by the urgency of the situation, an organization feels obliged to deviate from the architecture on certain specific points. This can have several different reasons: These alternate strategies in the DYA model are the defensive strategy and the offensive strategy.
The defensive strategy contends with eventualities that suddenly threaten the continuance of the organization, whereas the offensive strategy deals with business opportunities that require an immediate response from the organization. By additionally creating a specific mechanism within defensive and offensive strategies to replace the noncompliant solutions with structural, compliant solutions, the organization can ensure that temporary developments are eventually replaced by permanent ones.
This is why the theoretical model has been complemented with a working model. The working model allows the theoretical model to be brought into practice. The DYA working model consists of three main processes: This dialogue defines a business objective in a business case and then elaborates the objective as a concrete project proposal. This process is a collaboration of business and IT management who together determine which business objectives should be pursued.
Multidisciplinary teams, working closely together, next further detail these objectives in business cases. A business case describes how an objective can be reached, what this entails for the organization, and what the financial consequences will be in terms of investment, annual costs, and returns. If the result of a business case is positive, a concrete project proposal is formulated. Architectural Services is the process in which architectures are developed and made available to business case teams and project teams.
It is a cyclical process in which the level of architecture is continually being raised. Architectural Services facilitates both the Strategic Dialogue and the Development with Architecture processes. The trigger for Architectural Services is always a concrete business case that needs further elaboration. Architectural Services ensures that things are done correctly. Development with out Architecture achieves concrete business objectives within the desired time frame, with the desired level of quality, and with acceptable costs.
Development with Architecture is the standard and every project team following this strategy is furnished with the project-start architecture. The project-start architecture de60 The DYA Model scribes the concrete standards, norms, and guidelines to be used by the project.
Development decisions, of relevance to more than the one project, are also detailed in the project-start architecture. The projectstart architecture is drawn up by architects in close consultation with the project team. Under special circumstances, for example, if an extremely urgent situation arises and time is limited, a deliberate choice can be made to develop a noncompliant solution. In this case, the Development without Architecture process is used. Certain aspects of architecture are temporarily ignored in a controlled and orderly fashion.
Controlled and orderly as measures are taken to ensure that the solution provided by the Development without Architecture process eventually are brought under architecture by creating a permanent, structural solution for the problem. The Management Letter also states the course of action that has been agreed upon to achieve the structural solution, as required by the anticipatory strategy, and when this course of action will be implemented. Development with out Architecture ensures that the correct things are done correctly.
In the working model, the anticipatory strategy is, therefore, furnished by the Development with Architecture process, while the defensive and offensive strategies are accomplished by the Development without Architecture process. The choice of which strategy to use for which objective is made in the Strategic Dialogue process. Strategic Dialogue provides a mechanism for the mutual influencing and finetuning of business strategy and IT strategy and provides a road map for the other processes.
The three processes of Strategic Dialogue, Architectural Services, and Development with out Architecture are described in detail in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Architecture should provide guidance to the design and realization of processes, organizational structures, information systems, and tech61 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture nical infrastructures for an organization.
Architecture is, in this sense, a management tool that can be used to direct and control IT developments. Working under architecture itself also needs direction and management to function effectively. It is not enough for an organization to decide that, from now on, it is going to work under architectural guidance. Once the decision has been made, the organization needs to monitor that working under architecture actually happens and that the desired results are achieved.
The final responsibility for this lies with top management. The term that we use for directing and controlling working under architecture is governance. Governance is the last component of the model and is described in detail in Chapter 8. The relationships between the various components of the working model are illustrated in Exhibit 4.
The activities within the processes are, in fact, being performed continually, and they influence each other continually. At any given moment, various cycles can be performed simultaneously. While some projects are busy ensuring that business objectives determined by a previous cycle of the Strategic Dialogue are realized as soon as possible, a new cycle of the Strategic Dialogue has already been started, in which new opportunities can be identified that in turn lead to new business objectives, new business cases, and new project proposals.
This principle is reflected in the model in that the final responsibility for architecture lies explicitly with top management. This principle is implemented in the model by working in multidisciplinary teams and by providing a project with a project-start architecture. Models constructed during the definition of a business case are made available to a project in the project-start architecture, thereby providing the project with a flying start.
Business and IT management collaborate in the Strategic Dialogue to decide on which business objects to pursue. Development of an architecture always takes place to achieve a concrete business objective. The Architectural Services process is driven by the Strategic Dialogue process that determines the business objectives. The architectural processes are intended to enable the business change processes of an 63 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture 6. This automatically ensures that architectural investments become an integral part of the business investments necessary to achieve concrete business objectives.
We shall see that one of the ways in which this principle manifests itself is the way in which the architectural team is manned: There is a small, fixed team of architects that, depending on the workload, can be temporarily increased by employees from the line organization. Just enough, just in time will also be ensured by involving architects from the outset— that is, during the definition of business cases.
The ability to recognize the different levels of abstraction within architecture is helpful in developing just-enough, just-in-time architecture. A model has been developed for working under architecture that contains all of the important elements of architecture: An architectural framework is an important tool for an architect and is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. The architectural framework provides clear insight into the relationships in an organization. This principle is translated directly into the three development strategies: The focus of the model lies on architecture as a process, encompassing the whole trajectory from determining business objectives to creating IT solutions.
Moreover, the model stresses the importance of a strong commitment from top management. It has already been established that the DYA model can be used by an organization to implement or improve architectural processes. Before we begin implementing or improving the architectural process, we need to clarify what the organization actually wants to achieve—that is, to answer this question: What is the prime reason for wanting to raise the level of architecture?
All of the above reasons demand working under architecture to achieve and retain the necessary coherence. Once the objectives are clear, we can examine where improvements are necessary in working under architecture. With this information we can select those elements of the model that add the most value to the organization.
The quadrant model introduced in Chapter 3, and shown again in Exhibit 4. As we have already seen, this model has two dimensions that together determine the relative position of architecture within an organization: Depending on where the organization is situated in the quadrant model, the emphasis for improvement is placed on different elements of DYA.
Working under architecture does not play a significant role in these organizations. Here and there, within the organization, some activities related to architecture may exist. In short, architecture is not on the agenda. An organization will not escape this quadrant unless architecture gets on the agenda of top management. The aspiring architect should begin by creating awareness, starting with his IT management. The tenuous balance between speed and cohesion can be used to illustrate why architecture is important and which issues it can address.
Once IT management is convinced, a concerted effort can be planned to convince business management of the need for architecture. Business management is not involved; and how the IT departments conduct their own affairs is of no interest to them. In order to progress from this quadrant, awareness of architecture must be raised from the individual domain, usually created with an ITcentric view, to a level that encompasses the whole organization. The first priority, in spreading architectural awareness, is to involve the business. At this stage, it is important to present architecture as an enabler instead of a hindrance.
The various initiatives to introduce architecture must be coordinated to achieve greater cohesion between the initiatives. To help structure the initiatives, we will introduce the Architectural Framework in Chapter 6. Using this framework, the various initiatives fall into place and their mutual relationships become clear. Finally, business management should recognize that they are restricting business development if they consider IT as a purely supportive process instead of a source of new possibilities.
It is, therefore, essential that a form of Strategic Dialogue is initiated and that multidisciplinary business teams are installed—points that will be elaborated in Chapter 5. Isolation In the isolation quadrant, an organization, up to and including top management, recognizes the importance of architecture. Nevertheless, 67 Dynamic Enterprise Architecture architectural processes are insufficiently embedded within the organization. To progress from this quadrant, all constructive ideas about architecture need to be embedded into the organization. One characteristic of an organization in this quadrant is that there are plenty of ideas about architecture on paper.
Organizations in this quadrant are helped by the sense of purpose behind the DYA model. The architectural process as a whole needs to be transformed from an isolated, autonomous process into a facilitating process. Projects must also be convinced to actually start working under architecture. The project-start architecture can be a good tool in accomplishing this major step. Enabling Organizations in the enabling quadrant have attained an adequate level of awareness and integration. In this quadrant, organizations are properly equipped to work on continued improvement and innovation.
The processes of Strategic Dialogue, Architectural Services, and Development with out Architecture have been implemented in full. All that needs to be done is to keep monitoring these processes and, where necessary, carry out improvements. Depending on where the organization is situated in the quadrant model, the emphasis for improvement is placed on different elements of DYA, which is summarized in Exhibit 4. Barrier Involve the business: Bring structure and cohesion into the various architecture initiatives using the architectural framework. Initiate communication between business and IT management by implementing the Strategic Dialogue and multidisciplinary business case teams.
Implement Architectural Services as a facilitating process. Introduce a project-start architecture Enabling Monitor the Strategic Dialogue, Architectural Services, and Development with out Architecture as a continuous process of innovation and improvement. In the following chapters, we further discuss the main processes of the DYA model. Strategic Dialogue, Architectural Services, and Development with out Architecture each have a chapter.