Enterprise Architecture Inputs

Enterprise architecture involves the broad decisions to be made by an organization in the process of creating an organizational information support system. The process of implementing enterprise architecture has now become an inevitable part of present-day business. The inputs of enterprise architecture can dynamically change the business environment in many ways, because basically, it is a blueprint that integrates process and goals in a business enterprise. Thus, it provides vital inputs to components of the business process like intellectual capital, organizational learning, strategic planning, organizational design, competitive advantage, business process reengineering, and systems delivery.

In old days money wielded the power in an industry, as it was necessary to erect giant structures and owning money was the primary requisite to venture into business. With the growth of banking institutions in the 30s, the concept of owning money changed as banks, came to help the businessperson. Venture capital also changed the scenario drastically. Thus came a new breed of professional who managed the businesses, taking the powers from the share holders. But today the entire scenario has changed. The enterprises of the information age thrive on the knowledge of the worker, or the intellectual capital. The intellectual capital is useless if it cannot be exploited. Enterprise architecture inputs can help in effectively exploiting the intellectual capital.

Learning has become an inevitable part of new businesses, because of their greater complexity. Enterprise architecture can help to record the knowledge inputs generated in all the vital points that control the enterprise, such as the visions, goals, strategies, governance principles and models; business terms, organization structures; processes and data; application systems and technical infrastructure.

The information age has not only contributed to change in the business environment, but also to the nature of the change. The business strategy has changed from a plan to an adaptive design that makes a quick response to the controlling factors of the enterprise. Enterprise architecture incorporates the guidelines and methods for a adaptive design.

Organizational design is the other factor that makes use of the knowledge-building and analyzing mechanisms of the enterprise architecture. Adaptive enterprise design, which prescribes a firm-specific governance mechanism, has become important for present-day business enterprises. Enterprise architecture can help with necessary knowledge inputs. It can also help in building modern concepts like manage-by-wire that builds mechanisms for sensing and responding to changes in the market many times faster than the competition.

Mass customization and product differentiation have become the key words for the successful modern day enterprise. In such enterprises where the information content of the product is high, enterprise architecture can assist in bringing down the cost involved in product differentiation. The greatest input enterprise architecture can provide is in business process reengineering, which itself is a radical rethinking of the business to achieve better levels of performance.

Similarly, the components in systems delivery, such as systems architecture, technical architecture, data and information architecture, can be very well-integrated through enterprise architecture.

Tags:

Myths About QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions – What’s True and What’s Not?

The QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions package is growing. Aside from the basic QuickBooks packages, there are other of this products as well, such as QuickBooks Online and QuickBooks POS or QuickBooks Point of Sale. But as with any new technology introduced, especially in the business world which is teeming with critiques and where there is little space for error, this Enterprise Solutions package and its other supporting products such as QuickBooks POS are under attack of various misconceptions and myths.

In order to appreciate the full benefits of this Enterprise system, you should first bust the myths that surround it. Here are some of the myths that hinder a lot of companies from benefiting greatly from the QuickBooks Enterprise system.

1. QuickBooks is only suitable for small businesses.

This is a myth! This Enterprise Solutions package is custom-fit for mid-sized companies. Although it can be used for small and large companies alike, the system has exhibited optimized performance and best results when used in mid-range settings. It is perfect and is currently the number one financial management system in use in majority of companies with anywhere from 20 to 500 employees. The features and capabilities of the QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions system match the needs of these mid-sized but rapidly growing companies.

1. QuickBooks is only financial management software; you still do the work.

This is a myth! this Enterprise Solutions is not called QuickBooks Financial Management Software, and it’s not just to make the product sound better. It is called such because it is an overall business solution that can streamline the processes involved in your business, from point of sale to recordkeeping and everything in between.

And you don’t have to do all the work. This Enterprise package can take a huge weight off your shoulders, but the system does need maintenance, upgrades, and operation. However, the best thing about the QuickBooks is that you can seek product installation services, data migration, data recovery and backup, and several other support services in using your software. You can also avail of outsourced this Enterprise consultations and bookkeeping. These services are now widely offered by an entire network of Intuit-certified providers.

1. Your existing business applications become useless.

Again, this is a myth! QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions is possibly the most hassle-free financial management software you can come across. The system easily adjusts to your existing business practices instead of requiring you to make adjustments for it. Your QuickBooks Enterprise package can easily accommodate switches from other market applications such as Sage MAS 90 or Microsoft Great Plains. And many companies have already made such switches as these applications are deemed very expensive and complicated compared to the economical and streamlined process offered by this Enterprise.

1. QuickBooks Enterprise is not perfectly secure.

For a growing mid-sized business, security becomes even more important as its status and forecasts can determine the direction of the business. In such a make or break situation, security often becomes the key difference. A lot of people carry the misconception that QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions is not perfectly secure. This is, however, completely untrue. In fact, QuickBooks Enterprise offers up to 115 different user permissions so you can control every bit of access allowed to your system users. These 115 user permissions are applied to various reports, bank accounts, and other financial activities of the business. QuickBooks Enterprise, therefore, is actually meticulously secure.

1. QuickBooks Enterprise is an accounting software.

Again, as previously clarified, there is a reason why this Enterprise is called a solution. It solves all your business problems by offering all-around benefits that make all your business processes run smoothly. So no, QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions is not just simple accounting software – it goes beyond that. It does not just track cash inflows and outflows then create financial statements. Your QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions package can manage inventory, handle payrolls, schedule field work, monitor employees, monitor different branches or warehouses, and the likes. Every inch of your business is revolutionized and made easy.

Tags:

Employment Law – Unfair Dismissal – Contract for Service – Agency

The employee in the case of Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd [2007], had been employed as an administrative assistant from 1998 until the 29th of May 2005. From a point around 2001, the employee’s services had been provided by an agency. The agency, M, had employed the employee under a contract of service. During May 2005, an issue arose as to whether the employee had falsified her timesheets. The employer used these timesheets to pay the employee through M.

M conducted an investigation and concluded that the employee had not been dishonest. Even so, the employer refused to continue working with the employee, and the purchase order for her services was revoked. M then attempted to relocate the employee without any success. As a result, the employee’s employment was terminated by M.

The employee brought a claim before the employment tribunal alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed by the employer. The main issue for consideration by the tribunal was whether the employee’s services had been provided under an employment contract. The tribunal concluded that, but for the existence of the contract of employment between the employee and M, it would have accepted the need to imply a contract between the employee and the employer.

Despite that conclusion, the tribunal refused to find such an implied contract in the instant case. Their reasoning for this was that there was no authority to support the proposition that such a contract could be implied between an employee and end-user where there existed a contract of employment between the employee and the agency. It was also held that the agreed test of necessity for the implication of a contract of employment between the employee and the employer had not been made out.

The employee’s claim was therefore dismissed and she then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The employee submitted the following:

§ The tribunal had erred in finding that the fact that there was a contract for service between M and the employee meant that there could not be a contract of service between the employee and the employer; and

§ The tribunal had not properly considered the issue of necessity.

Her appeal was dismissed on the following grounds:

§ Where the contract between the employee and the agency was one for services, it might be possible to imply a contract of service between the employee and the end-user in order to afford the employee protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, where the employee was employed by the agency, and, therefore, already protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996, there existed no reason to extend that protection to a second and parallel employer. The employee had been engaged by M under a contract of service, and her arguments in support of the implication of a contract between herself and the employer appeared to be solely founded upon the assertion that her claim for unfair dismissal would have had a greater prospect of success as against the employer. The tribunal had therefore been correct not to imply a contract of employment between the employee and the employer.

§ In order for a contract of service to be implied by conduct on the basis of necessity, it was necessary to have demonstrated that the conduct of the employee and the employer had been consistent only with there having been a contract of service between them.

In this case, however, it had been open to the tribunal to conclude that the conduct of the employee and the employer had been equally consistent with the employee’s services being supplied to the employer
under the terms of the contract of service between the employee and M; and
the terms of the commercial contract made between M and the employer for the purchase of the employee’s services.
Accordingly, it was held that the tribunal had properly considered the issue of necessity.
If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

Tags:

Enterprise Architecture and Service Orientation – What is This?

Few abbreviations connected with the future air traffic management systems have given rise to so many questions and misunderstandings as EA (Enterprise Architecture) and SOA (Service Oriented Architecture). In the United States both concepts are part and parcel of air traffic management system development since the marching orders were given by the Federal Government. In Europe, however, it was only during the SESAR development phase that EA and SOA were first introduced into the ATM context and the reception was at first mixed.

To-day there is probably no doubt any more that EA and SOA are the way to go but the fact remains: to many in the air traffic management family the exact meaning of both remains a puzzle.

Let’s try to set out the pieces and see what picture emerges.

EA and SOA of non-aviation fame

Originally, the concepts of enterprise architecture and service orientation had nothing to do with air traffic management. They were defined and progressively refined to answer the needs of complex information technology (IT) systems with a view in particular to improving the business agility of those systems. EA and SOA aim to break the stranglehold of information technology on the business aspects of the enterprise, enabling business needs to drive IT rather then the other way round.

That EA and SOA are usable also in the air traffic management context is a tacit admission that ATM is not unique in its requirements and that under the skin ATM systems, all claims to the contrary, have a lot in common with other critical systems, like those controlling the power grids or enabling remotely controlled surgical operations. All those systems need to crunch prodigious amounts of real time data, must provide common situational awareness and are driven by decisions.

If EA and SOA can improve those systems, it stands to reason that they can also help in making air traffic management systems better even if certain adaptations of the original ideas may be required.

So what is Enterprise Architecture (EA)?

The definition of EA given by the Institute of Enterprise Architecture Development (IFEAD) is the following:

“Enterprise architecture is a complete expression of the enterprise; a master plan which “acts as a collaboration force” between aspects of business planning such as goals, visions, strategies and governance principles; aspects of business operations such as business terms, organization structures, processes and data; aspects of automation such as information systems and databases; and the enabling technological infrastructure of the business such as computers, operating systems and networks.”

Fine you will say… how does this help air traffic management? Critics often say that the architecture of the enterprise exists whether or not it is described. True, but we have seen what happens when lots of ATM enterprises grow without following an overall strategic guidance and then try to work together. That is called European ATM before SESAR…

In this view, the definition of EA from the MIT Center for Information Systems Research is particularly relevant:

“Enterprise architecture is the organizing logic for business processes and IT infrastructure reflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the firm’s operating model.”

We are getting nearer…

And EA in air traffic management?

The SESAR program is the European Air Traffic Management modernization program that combines technological, economic and regulatory aspects of ATM and which will use the Single European Sky (SES) legislation to synchronize the plans and actions of the different partners and federate resources for the development and implementation of the required improvements throughout Europe, in both airborne and ground systems.

Although SES does provide the legislative basis for implementing the future ATM system, it is still necessary to devise and agree an overall framework in which the hitherto fragmented elements of European ATM can be properly bundled and aligned towards the SESAR strategic goals. These goals imply in particular a net-centric, service oriented approach to air traffic management.

To achieve the goals, European ATM has to be seen as a single enterprise in which the constituent parts work together in a networked, service based operation, with the business processes driving the supporting IT infrastructure.

Once we recognize that air traffic management in Europe needs to be seen as a single enterprise (even if it is composed of several constituent entities), the aims and goals of the Enterprise Architecture concept suddenly become not only relevant but also a highly desirable solution.

A European ATM enterprise architecture?

To instantiate the single enterprise concept, we can define the European ATM Enterprise Architecture (EAEA), building upon the more generic idea of Enterprise Architecture (EA), however adapted both in scope and content to the air traffic management environment.

So what is the purpose of an EAEA?

EAEA can guide and focus the strategic decisions, in particular those related to the air traffic management operational concept implementation and supporting information technology investments. This enables the partners to proactively plan the introduction of services, avoid duplication of developments, reduce costs and better align IT investments to the business processes on all levels.

EAEA can also provide the strategic guidance for the efforts to define and implement, on both business and IT level, a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) duly adapted to the requirements of the European ATM environment.

But what is the ATM enterprise?

A convenient definition of the European ATM enterprise could be the “totality of the partners in the SESAR Performance Partnership”. Other definitions are possible, the important message being that every partner who needs to use ATM or has something to contribute must be seen as an element of the single, overall enterprise.

Using the above definitions, we can conclude that the European ATM Enterprise Architecture is the description of the structure and behavior of the partners’ processes, information systems, personnel and organizational sub-units, aligned with the enterprise’s performance goals and strategic directions as defined in the SESAR program.

And SOA then?

As will be clear by now, EAEA provides a business-driven framework that allows the description of the various parts of European ATM and their interactions from different points of view (including both operational and technical aspects). EAEA provides a meaningful way to partition and manage the complexity of the ATM environment, to reconcile different partners’ business visions across the Single European ATM System and to create a bridge between the businesses and IT requirements.

SOA is an approach that uses the notion of “services” which can be used to populate the EAEA framework.

“Service” is a word that can mean different things depending upon the context in which it is being used. In general, the context is based upon a consumer/supplier relationship. Further, a hierarchy of services can exist with, for example, a high-level service being made up of a number of lower level sub-categories of services. Therefore, it is very important to ensure that the nature, scope and detailed characteristics associated with each service are clear and unambiguous each time it is used, including defining who is supplying what to whom.

Services may be defined from a business perspective or an IT perspective.

Services from the business perspective

A service from the business perspective is really the consumer’s view of the provider’s capabilities. The services must meet defined characteristics to ensure their efficiency and cost effectiveness. Among others, they must be modular and autonomous, delivered where needed, shareable and reusable and above all, they must drive the underlying IT support and not vice versa.

Services can be defined on several levels of the enterprise but in the air traffic management context, the operational services are the highest level of service. A service can be associated to one or more contracts, a service contract being understood as being an agreement (generally expressed as a Service-Level Agreement) between two or more parties.

Increasing competition, globalization and technology advances are driving airlines, airports and other users of ATM to change their products, business processes and prices more frequently than they did in the past. The structure of services offers the flexibility to adapt more quickly to fast-changing conditions.

SESAR has promoted the vision of creating a performance partnership structure which links the Airspace Users, Airport Operators and ANSPs as the way in which the future ATM System will be defined, created, implemented, delivered and managed. The notion of the supply and consumption of operational services through a set of Service Level Agreements will be the way in which the partners will be bound together from a business perspective but retaining the flexibility afforded by service orientation to be able to efficiently react to changing circumstances and demands.

While the word “business” and air traffic management have not often been used together in the past, it needs to be recognised that the constantly evolving business world of the airspace users must be served by an air traffic management system that is able to evolve with it and remain safe and cost efficient at the same time. This essential business agility can best be achieved by service orientation.

Services from the IT perspective

From an information technology (IT) perspective, the use of services defines IT services that correspond to real-world business activities or recognizable business functions and that can be accessed according to the service policies that have been established for the business services relationships. In addition to the IT services that are directly supporting the business services, technical services can be defined that can be re-used across the enterprise, providing generic technical functions (data transformation, logging, identification management, etc.). There are many different ways to describe such services depending upon the way in which the interactions between the IT systems are needed to facilitate and enable the business view.

From the specific air traffic management point of view, the highest priority is to define the business services as these will drive the services to be developed in the IT context.

EA and SOA in NextGen?

Yes, absolutely. The use of enterprise architecture methods and service orientation has been mandated for all federal projects and so NextGen is being developed on this basis. This is a major advantage compared to Europe where no doubt a lot of discussion will still need to go on before agreement can be reached between all partners on the finer details of enterprise architecture and service orientation.

Do we understand EA and SOA now?

I guess this write-up is probably too simplistic for the experts and possibly still too abstract for the average person involved in air traffic management. Logical as EA and SOA is they need a shift in thinking and the acceptance of a few things we do not readily conclude otherwise.

I will try to summarise the most salient points here, may be that will help. If you still have a question, leave a comment and we will come back on the issue you raise.

Summary points

o EA and SOA are not air traffic management construct but they are applicable to ATM systems also. ATM systems are not unique.
o While safety is always paramount, air traffic management serves a major worldwide business community and hence ATM must have the required business agility to be able to adapt to the changing business environment.
o The ATM “enterprise” needs an overall guiding framework to enable coordinated and focused development.
o Business requirements must drive information technology and not the other way around.
o Enterprise Architecture (EA) provides the required guiding framework; Service Oriented Architecture within it provides the structure ensuring a business (as opposed to IT) driven system.
o Both SESAR and NextGen will use EA and SOA.

Note: The use of some text from the SOA TF, of which I was a member, is gratefully acknowledged.

Tags:

Validating Enterprise Architectures

Abstract

Enterprise system architectures are the corner stone of major IT investments and as such have a long term impact on a corporation’s bottom line. Acceptance of the enterprise system architectures by all stake holders is vital to the successful implementation of the architecture. Validation of system architectures with stakeholder expectations is a best practice often followed by good enterprise architects.

This white paper outlines the essential aspects of the validation process and provides a justification for why enterprise architects should form the habit of validating the architectures they build or define. This white paper also suggests some specific techniques for conducting validations of the essential aspects of enterprise system architectures.

A side objective of this white paper is to stimulate discussions and sharing of real world experiences of initiating, conducting, and the overall impact of presenting the validation results. Each of these major tasks of the validation process is an uphill battle requiring technical knowledge and depth, political awareness and people management skills.

As most practicing architects eventually realize, doing the right thing is never easy, and neither is this process of validating enterprise system architectures. Hopefully this white paper will trigger feedback that will help all enterprise architects deal with this issue and begin the process of validating (stake holder approval, acceptance, and adoption) enterprise system architectures.

The Need to Validate Enterprise System Architectures

This may sound very familiar to most enterprise architects but validating enterprise system architectures is not an activity found in most project plans. Yes, the validation process is not necessarily quick nor is it of short duration. However, it is of utmost importance that the foundation of enterprise systems, namely the system architecture upon which major investment of time, money, and resources is committed, is properly validated before it’s too late.

System architectures are artifacts shaped with all the personal biases of the enterprise architect responsible for developing the architecture. Past experiences, current knowledge, and a very personal understanding of the objectives of the enterprise system to be built play a big role in shaping the architects mind and hence the system architecture. Not validating system architectures would mean adopting the view point of the architect or the architecture team which put together the system architecture in question.

Validating system architectures is also hugely beneficial to the enterprise architect as it helps bring all stake holders and leaders together and facilitate a meeting of minds ensuring long term investment and support for the project. No project goes as planned and having this kind of all round support is critical to any enterprise project especially when things don’t go as planned.

An asset oriented view of systems and architectures

Enterprise architects, who view the systems they develop as software assets, tend to include validations into their plans. Assets are built with a long term vision in mind and are expected to have a long lifecycle. Hence it is natural for enterprise software asset architects to understand the importance of being assured that the long term direction set by the system architecture has backing from all stake holders, is affordable from the corporation’s perspective, and will actually deliver on everyone expectations.

It is not possible to define perfect system architecture as many of the parameters involved in forming that architecture will change over the lifecycle of the system. However validated system architectures have the capability to quickly make the necessary midstream adjustments without losing focus of the end goals.

Hence, enterprise architects should cultivate the habit of treating every system they architect as a long term software asset and take validation of their architectures seriously. The next few pages of this white paper discuss the process of validating enterprise system architects, and how to validate specific strategic aspects of the system architecture.

The Process of Validating Enterprise System Architectures

Defining the correct process for validating enterprise system architectures does not need a lot of advanced thinking or process engineering. The process is essentially simple, consisting of common sense tasks. However, planning and executing on these common sense tasks can be surprisingly challenging for an enterprise architect as it depends on the maturing of the corporation’s understanding of the role of enterprise system architectures.

Figure 1.0 presents one such common sense approach that involves three major tasks.

o Initiating an architecture validation

o Conducting the actual validation of the architecture

o Assessing the results of the validation

Figure 1: A common sense approach to validation process

Each of these seemingly easy and straight forward tasks can get complicated due to corporate politics. The biggest stumbling block becomes the acceptance of the results and the eventual sign-off of the enterprise system architecture. This is especially difficult for stakeholders who do not share the same level of understanding of architectures as the enterprise architect. Often, enterprise architects have a tough time convincing stakeholders about the need for validating system architecture prior to commitment of major IT investments.

Stakeholder awareness of the validation process and especially of the results of the processes is extremely important. Successful enterprise architects are routinely able to get stakeholder support to include architecture validations as part of the overall master project plans. The objective of the rest of this white paper is to help enterprise architects create the necessary awareness of what needs to be validated, how the validation will be performed and the expected benefits of the overall effort.

What Essential Aspects of Enterprise System Architectures Should We Validate?

There are many aspects to a system architecture including technical and business oriented and also some management oriented aspects such as implementation roadmaps. However validating each of these aspects is neither practical nor necessary for ensuring the system architecture is valid and will set the correct long term direction for the enterprise system. There are few strategic aspects of the architecture which when validated have a cascading impact on the remainder of the architecture aspects and development of the software asset. The top three strategic and essential aspects of enterprise system architecture that warrant validation are outlined below.
1. Probability and Level of “Adoption Risk”

Most forward looking and long term enterprise architects depends on adoption of new technologies, development techniques, and serious long term involvement of end users. These dependencies on adopting something new, reengineering existing processes etc. come with a higher probability of risk to the project. Understanding this “Adoption Risk” is critical to secure long term support from all stakeholders. Needless to say not having a complete picture of the risks involved will surprise stakeholders and the project will be at risk. It is the job of each enterprise architect to first identify these risks and then validate the architecture’s exposure to these risks by defining appropriate mitigation strategies.

2. Affordability

How much is this architecture going to cost throughout its lifecycle? This is a question most architects hope no one will ask as it’s very difficult or rather next to impossible for estimating accurately the cost of a long term project. Yes, enterprise architects need to have the skills for providing sensible cost estimates that will be acceptable to all stakeholders. These estimates need to be closer to reality than fiction and hence understanding aspects that can potentially influence the cost of the project in the long term need to be validated as part of the architecture.

3. Stakeholder Participation

Do all the stake holders understand, agree and accept the system architecture? Well this rarely happens and most architects will say that trying to get all stakeholders to agree on one architecture is not realistic. However, participation from all stakeholders is paramount to the long term success of enterprise projects and enterprise architects should spend time to understand the major drivers and scope of each stakeholder involved in the enterprise project.

Validating “Adoption Risk”

As discussed earlier, enterprise system architecture is a composition of many different aspects. Each of these aspects has its own lifecycle and the proposed system architecture will consist of aspects that are each in a different state of their individual lifecycle. Figure 2.0 presents a simplified view consisting of two aspects, the overall cost of selecting specific system architecture and the general adoption rate of new technologies

The risk measurement chart shows two key aspects that can influence the system architecture one way or the other. The first aspect is related to the technologies included in the system architecture. Usually there is a mixture of technologies ranging from some in the infancy stage of their lifecycles to other technologies that tend toward becoming obsolete over the lifecycle of the architecture. Generally speaking early adoption of new technologies has slightly less risk as there is room for adjustments as the technology matures. Late adoption of technologies poses a higher risk as technologies are becoming obsolete at a much faster rate.

Another aspect that enterprise architects should factor in their validation is the cost of supporting obsolete or near obsolete technologies. Any good enterprise system architecture has factored in the cost of replacing obsolete technologies with emerging or mature technologies over the lifetime of the software asset.

The goal of enterprise architects should be to keep a healthy balance of technologies with most of them falling in the center of the graph representing mature state technologies.

Validating Affordability

Ensuring a healthy mix of mature technologies is a sign of good architecture, however even the best of architectures do not get approved if the costs are prohibitive. The bigger danger however is when architects do not understand the lifetime cost of specific system architectures. It is much more painful to all stakeholders including enterprise architects when enterprise projects are aborted due to investments not generating expected results or to put it in correct jargon, no return on investment (ROI). A significant factor in ensuring ROI is setting the right perspective and correct expectations. Figure 3.0 presents a multi dimensional view of what enterprise architects should consider when calculating the costs associated with adopting system architectures.

Most architects look as far as acquisition and maintenance phase for calculating the overall costs of developing the enterprise system, acquiring the required licenses and maintaining the system. However, a more far reaching view of calculating costs will also include the replacement phase of the software asset. After all, all technologies eventually become obsolete and are replaced by entirely new technologies or enhanced versions of the same technology.

Most enterprise architects will agree that many times the replacement cost of a software asset is much higher than the acquisition and maintenance costs. The overall cost (time, money, resources) required to develop, maintain, and replace the software asset should be projected during the system architecture validation phase. The focus is not to lower the costs necessarily but trying to achieve more clarity on the costs through out the lifecycle of the software asset.

Validating Stakeholder Participation

So you have covered your bases on the adoption risk front, and also have clarity on the lifetime costs of adopting the software architecture, but are everyone onboard? How many times have enterprise architects been surprised by late objections or key stakeholders withdrawing their support at the last minute? Sometimes support for enterprise projects fades away due to factors beyond the sphere of influence of the enterprise architect. But it always helps to keep all the stakeholders aware of the system architecture and the long term goals on a regular basis. It is vital for enterprise architects to understand that there are many major constituents whose long term participation is absolutely necessary for the ongoing success of enterprise projects. Figure 4.0 presents the stakeholder quadrant consisting of the key stakeholder groups and the architecture scope directly influenced by these groups. Each stakeholder group is a composition of appropriate leadership, management, and staff.

Each view is itself a universe of processes, objects, and state that needs to be enabled and supported by the system architecture. Validating the system architecture across these views is critical for all stakeholders to be in agreement that their interests are taken care of. Enterprise architects should be prepared to initiate and complete this onerous task.

Summary

Validating enterprise architectures is a vital component of ensuring long term successful implementations for enterprise systems. The best enterprise system architectures fail to deliver when defined in isolation. The validation process is essentially about involving all stake holders and getting their acceptance and adoption of the architecture.

I welcome all comments and feedback on this white paper by email at: atul.apte@ustri.com

Tags: