Tuesday, April 24, 2012

EA Heuristics #1: Looking for gaps? Push from top, guide from bottom.

A police helicopter.  Police helicopter helps police gets a big picture of the city, so that the police knows what to focus on.  The police still need to rely on people on the ground for details.  A situation similar to the heuristic described in this article.
photo credit: metropolitan police
(this article is part of the series "12 Heuristics for Enterprise Architecting")

When looking for gaps in the current stage architecture, a useful approach is start by “pushing from the top”—start with the enterprise’s strategic objectives, then use the objectives’ linkages with other views to assess if there are any gaps, and then gradually move down through views level by level.

It is important to start the search for gaps from the top, as gaps more closely related to enterprises’ strategic objectives would be uncovered first. This approach decreases the likelihood of missing important gaps or being distracted by less important ones.

While pushing from the top, it is useful to “guide from bottom”—use anecdotal evidence to focus the search for gaps. During our EA exercise, we gathered a number of pain points through conversations with the organization’s employees and reviewing customer satisfaction survey results. However, when we did the analysis by "pushing from the top", we were puzzled as we could not find those pain points. We analyzed the issue further, focusing on areas where the anecdotal pain points should have shown up, and finally realized that it was because there were missing metrics, and this discovery helped us uncover a second issue—the metrics were not granular enough.  If not for the knowledge of the pain points from “the bottom”, our “push from the top” analysis would have yielded nothing.

12 Heuristics for Enterprise Architecting

Photo of a compass.  The heuristics that I present in this articles will be like a compass for my future enterprise architecture exercises, guiding me in what to focus on.
photo credits: i k o
Lessons learnt as I reflect on a recent four-month Enterprise Architecting (EA) exercise.   In the exercise, a 4-person team helped an organization map out where the organization was at, where it wanted to be and how it could get there.

Each lesson is captured as a heuristic, a rule of thumb that I want to remember so that I can use it to guide me for future projects.  They are not truths, and will get refined with more experience and insight.  I definitely hope to hear your experiences that relate to these heuristics, regardless of whether they support or invalidate a heuristic.

What made this EA exercise interesting is that, though it is not my first EA exercise, it is the first one I took a lead role in.  Also, this exercise made use of a methodology new to me, from MIT course “Enterprise Architecting” taught by Professor Deborah Nightingale and Dr. Donna Rhodes. In addition, ideas from the book “Enterprise Architecture as Strategy” also crept into the EA exercise, as I was concurrently attending a class by the book's co-author Dr. Jeanne Ross. 

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Architecture of my life

Photo titled "A man and his thoughts".  It is a great picture for this article, as the purpose of a "life architecture" is to get clarity into one's life.  If our lives are as clear as what the man in the picture sees in front of him, we can live a more focused and effective life.
Photo Credit: Giampaolo Macorig
I finally got started on something that I had wanted to do for a long time: apply Enterprise Architecture know-how to help me plan my life.  I have used EA techniques to help organisations and projects better understand where they are and detail out what they want to become, so why can't I use the same techniques for my life?  Besides, it makes me eat my own dog food and understand my own trade better.

So I downloaded Archi, an open source EA tool, and spent two hours learning the tool and drawing out the current designs of my life: my guiding vision, my key strategies, principles I go by, my processes, applications and technologies.  It wasn't enough time for me to map out everything, but enough to let me get a sense of how I will use this and how to move this effort forward.

Like all EA efforts, it is impossible to draw out every single detail.  I decided it is best to populate my "life architecture" bit by bit, driven by immediate needs I face.  For example, if I plan to change the way I manage documents, I will go back to this architecture, add to it needed details and use it to decide what I need to do.  However, I do plan to regularly spend time to reflect on different parts of the architecture, like how I can love my neighbor as myself or be always learning.

I am excited about my life architecting efforts as I believe it will give me greater clarity and focus in life, and it will help me understand EA better.  I don't know if it will truly work out though, so I am seeking out people who had gone down this way before, in hope that I can learn from their experience.  So if you have experience in this, or know of someone who do, please share that information with me.

Separately, without coordinating, my friend Kai wrote a similarly titled article "Architect Your Life".  What is interesting there is he took rule of thumbs distilled from an architecting experience and applied it to architecting personal lives.

30 May 2012 Update: I have written a follow-up article to provide more details.

Friday, April 20, 2012

What platforms has social media created for us, and how should we use them?


Complexity of networks and the opportunities they bring
Photo Credit: GustavoG

There is no doubt that social media has made a significant impact on our lives. Consumers get their information socially via articles and videos recommended by their friends, they buy things based on their friends' recommendations but also often based on "strangers' recommendation" like on Yelp and Tripadvisor, and some even offer products and services on sites like getaround, airbnb and prosper, but here again more to strangers than to people in they know.

From the earlier description, we can see two types of social network. One that is made up of people we know (simplistically referred to here as friends), while the other is made up mostly of people we don't know (referred here as strangers). The key values of friends networks are trust and relationship. These are people that we know, so we are more trusting of the truthfulness of their recommendations. Note though we might not believe in their suitability at making particular recommendations, for example we would not trust computer advice given by our technology-challenged friends. Friends networks also hold people we care about. We want to know how they have been recently; we are interested in their photos, etc. and we want to share highs and lows of our lives with them.

The key values of stranger networks are size and diversity. When we need advice on a niche topic, it might be hard to find someone in our friends network who can help us but because of comparably much large size of the stranger network, it is likely that we can find someone there who can help us. Moreover, if we need help from a lot of people, say to complete the one million pixel project, the stranger network is more right-sized for the job compared to our friends networks.

Are there other types of networks? There are professional networks, now championed by linked-in. There are also interest-based networks, like customer networks. What values do these networks offer? The article “Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media[1]” seems to offer a good framework for analyzing different types of social media. Hopefully I will get to reading it and then I can share my thoughts.

What are the implications of these networks and how should we make the best use of them? I think every individual and organisaton need to be more aware of these different types of networks, their functions and values, and then think about how best to use them. For example, recently I have grown to see more of the value of LinkedIn, as it is a better platform than Facebook for building a community of practice around my expertise. I can join in discussions related to my professional interest area and also build my reputation, something that is harder to do on Facebook as the content there is more informal and I might not be connected to colleagues that I am connected with on LinkedIn (and for many relationships I want to keep it that way). What are other networks I can tap into? What are the opportunities there?


[1] Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media  - Jan H. Kietzmann *, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy, Bruno S. Silvestre 

Monday, April 16, 2012

iTV: will it change the way we collaborate?

iTV: will it change the way we collaborate?
Photo credit: jakerome
There had been several rumors about Apple making a TV.  Will this be another game changer, like the iPhone and iPad?  Will Apple be able to leverage TV's unique form factor to create a new paradigm for collaboration?

Already there has been talk that the iTV (or likely iPanel) will have advanced features unseen in conventional TVs, like voice recognition, front facing cameras and gesture recognitions[1].  Likely iTV will be released late 2012 or early 2013.

But most importantly, can Apple crack the challenges of TV's form factor?  In the case of smartphones and tablets, companies prior to Apple failed because they did not adequately address key differences resulted by form factors.  For example, a touch interface makes more sense for phones, and consequently buttons need to be a lot bigger.  Microsoft tried to port an interface designed for keyboard and mouse over to the phone, and that resulted (at least partially) in its failure.

So what new issues do the unique form factor of TV bring?
  • Input interface: touch interface and keyboards will not work, as people are further away from the screen and often doing other tasks (e.g. cooking)
  • Possibilities of collaboration: there is often more than one person using the screen, is it desirable to allow more than one person to control the TV?  How can the new TV be used to facilitate collaboration?
  • Handling private information: information displayed on TV is a lot more public than that for phones, tablets and computers.  What will that mean for tasks like entering passwords?
Apple shares will very likely jump if it can address these issues well!  And this is big as it is the first device targeted for use by more than one person at a time!  I think about all the collaboration at work and lines of businesses wanting something like that...


[1] http://www.extremetech.com/computing/117305-apple-itv-detailed-its-like-a-42-inch-ipad

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Gamification: Digging past the marketing hype

Photo Credit: Christopher Chan
One of my first reactions when I heard about gamification was, isn’t this an old idea?  I have seen past examples of using game concepts to meet business objectives.  In fact, I was part of one such project, where we created a wheel-of-fortune-like game to raise awareness of computer security issues.  Moreover, there are many old examples of education software incorporating game concepts into them.  What then is different about gamification?  Surely the concept of using fun to engage people is not new!  One university professor felt so strongly that he wrote an article titled “Gamification is Bullshit”[1]!  Consequently, for a while, I half believed that gamification was just marketing hype with no real novelty behind it.

Later I encountered an explanation that though gamification is not a new idea, it is gamification’s widespread impact that is new, and that has come about because of the emergence of a generation grown up on games.  As such, gamification is now more widely accepted, where before it was locked out of business boardrooms.  There is some truth to this, but as I read more, I discovered that there is even more depth to this topic.

Identifying Game Mechanics

Firstly, I discovered game mechanics/dynamics—mechanisms in games that make them interesting and engaging.  For example, one mechanics is the “appointment dynamic”, where players need to accomplish a certain task at a certain time.  Happy hours at bars is an example of this mechanic.  I was impressed with how gamification literature was able to systematically categorize and describe many more mechanics, and that moved me to believe that there is some science behind the topic.

Learning about Engagement Psychology

Next, I realized that studying motivation and engagement is much more important now than before as the number of choices for things like websites and mobile apps have grown overwhelmingly.  Games are arguably the best place to study these topics.  Unlike other software, there are no practical needs—like creating documents or booking hotels—driving people to games.  As such, games need to work harder to entice and engage people.  Even though I was tempted to dismiss gamification as a rebrand of engagement psychology, I find games easier to understand and access than psychology literature.

Understanding Gamification Considerations

The book “Gamification by Design”[2] further strengthened my confidence in gamification.  It gives a detailed write-up on the different game mechanics along with considerations when incorporating those mechanics.  I began to see that gamification might have gotten bad press because some implemented its concept without fully appreciating the “whys” and the “hows”.  For example, “points system” is a common feature in gamified systems, but without careful consideration of when and how many points to award, it would be useless in increasing user engagement.


Gamification is a topic worthy of serious consideration in the present age of attention deficit, what do you think?

After note: I wrote a followup post titled "Five gamification ideas to better engage your audience".

[2] Gamification by Design, Gabe Zichermann and Christopher Cunningham, http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920014614.do

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Where are the good Enterprise Architects?


(This is the fifth part of a five part series on "Five Hurdles in Implementing EA")

Photo credit: solidether
CIO.com listed a myriad of characteristics that enterprise architects should have: solid technology knowledge, good business acumen, wide perspectives, deep customer and business knowledge, visionary but yet pragmatic1.  It is not easy to hire somebody with all these traits!

Over the course of my work, I have not met many really good enterprise architects (I don’t consider myself “really good”).  To begin with there are not many EA practitioners because EA is still a relatively new field.  Furthermore, there are people who have the EA certifications and maybe even relevant experiences, but tend to be too theoretical, or do not truly understand EA, or do not have the personal influence to effect changes EA brings.  Sometimes it is not the enterprise architect’s fault that he cannot effect necessary changes, as in the case mentioned earlier about under-powered EA efforts, but I believe successful enterprise architects still need an above-average level of influence.

Moreover, it is not easy to train existing employees to do EA.  Firstly it is not easy to find people with the traits mentioned earlier of enterprise architects.  Secondly, similar to skills like project management and negotiation, EA is learnt more by doing than studying.  Shadowing an experienced enterprise architect in his work is an excellent way to learn, but for organizations that have not started EA efforts, this will be hard to do.  Thirdly, EA is often given as additional responsibilities to existing employees.  It is obviously challenging for them to deal with learning EA on top of their existing responsibilities.

Building EA capability is thus a hurdle that organizations need to overcome.

References

[1] The Rising Importance of the Enterprise Architect, http://www.cio.com/article/101401/The_Rising_Importance_of_the_Enterprise_Architect

Friday, April 6, 2012

Apple, Android & Windows: Who will dominate in 2015?

Photo by Mike Bitzenhofer 
My "Business of Software and Digital Platforms" class discussed this week the mobile platform, and it is a very interesting area as there are many players, strategies, dramatic rises and falls, and most of all, it is something that many of us can closely relate to as mobile users.  Only a few years ago, Nokia and BlackBerry were big players, but now they have almost disappeared.  I can't help but to ponder who will dominate the mobile market, say in 2015?

Apple's unchallenged position in the higher-end market

Apple has been the hot favorite for a while.  It has an unchallenged “fashion statement” status.  Buying Apple devices has been perceived as being cool; something other mobile devices are still far behind on.  Furthermore, it is difficult for other mobile device manufacturers to catch up, as they do not have the degree of control Apple has over the hardware, operating system and apps of their mobile platforms.  Just looking at the operating system aspect alone, Android is facing difficulties delivering a consistent user experience because of fragmentation in its development.  

Passing of Steve Jobs

However, with the passing on of visionary leader Steve Jobs, will the company still be able to maintain its lead?  Tracing back on Apple’s history, Steve Jobs was the only one that had led the company successfully.  In his 12 years of absence from the company, Pepsi-Cola executive John Sculley failed to make the company big.  Apple’s ex-company president Michael Spindler failed too, and so did Apple director Gilbert Amelio.  Will Apple's current CEO Tim Cook be different?  The recent product launches by Apple--iPhone 4S and the "new iPad"--had been less spectacular.  Or has Steve Jobs left so much behind that it will take a long time before Apple’s lead will be eroded?  

Ever shrinking lead

At the same time, competing platforms are slowly closing the gap between them and Apple.  Number of apps on competing platforms is catching up, and so is the user-friendliness of iPhone and iPad competitors.  In fact, Android is now leading the market share.  Windows is a wildcard at this point, but it is throwing a lot of money in this area, and its recent partnership with Nokia brought renewed hope that it can get back in the mobile platform game.

Apple vs Samsung+HTC+LG+Sony+Acer+....

Apple is the only company designing phones and tablets for its iOS platform, while Android has many companies doing that.  Will Apple engineers be able to innovate as quickly at presumably more engineers who are working on the Android platform?  Separately, will the move towards web-based application, including the increasing adoption of HTML5, render choice of mobile platform irrelevant (e.g using Google Docs in place of native document editing software on Apple or Android)?


What is your bet for the winner in 2015???


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Building the Enterprise Architecture Habit

Habitudes, one of my favorite books talking about leadership habits and attitudes

(This is the fourth part of a five part series on "Five Hurdles in Implementing EA")

I was at a conference last year and one presentation showcased wonderful Enterprise Architecture (EA) work an organization did.  The organization mapped out their high level strategies, linked it to their business functions, and identified linkages between various parts of their organization.  They had created useful documentations for understanding the organization, and how different parts were inter-related.  Obviously the organization invested tremendous effort in creating this information.  “How do you keep this information updated?”, an audience asked.  There was a pause; seemingly the question hit the nail on its head.  The presenter then honestly shared that keeping the architecture updated was one of the greatest challenges his organization faced in their EA work.

EA documents like that in the example provide visibility into an organization.  As such, they would not be as useful when its information is outdated.  Why is it difficult for organizations to keep their enterprise architecture documents updated?

To begin with organizations are constantly changing.  Updating documentations create additional work, and is not what many people will naturally do.  Moreover, the beneficiary of the information is often not the information provider himself, so there are some imbalances in incentives.  This problem is further enlarged in large organizations as there are more information.  As such, without processes to keep EA documents updated, EA documents will become less and less accurate as time goes by.  Organizations need to put into their governance controls such that major changes in the organization are updated into EA documents in a timely fashion.  Organizations might also put in reward systems to incentivize employees to contribute information.

Another type of problem is EA consultancy projects that produce stacks of documents and drawings that nobody use.  This as a related problem, in that it is in part caused by the out-of-date nature of some EA documents.  What is different in this problem is the “not invented here” syndrome: The user of the information are often not the ones who produced them.  Likely, it is external consultants who created those stacks of paper.  Consequently, the information is not used because people do not trust it, are not familiar with it or even are not aware of its existence.

The challenge for organizations is thus cultivating a habit, and putting in the necessary rewards and controls, to update and use EA information.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Under-powered EA Efforts


(This is the third part of a five part series on "Five Hurdles in Implementing EA")

Picture from http://www.mytractorforum.com/showthread.php?t=26830
Imagine that: your boss gives you new responsibilities but not the necessary powers!  

EA champions are tasked with facilitating the design/re-design of an organization.  Often, a new design requires major changes in the organization, and these changes will only happen if EA champions have the needed influence to set the change in motion and the organization has the necessary structures and governance to see through the change.  For example, an organization might realize that knowledge about its customers resides in a handful of very experienced employees.  When these employees retire or resign, the organization experiences a major loss in customer knowledge.  Consequently, the new design of the organization includes a regular process for employees to share their knowledge with other employees.  However, without the right level of enforcement of the new process, the new design will remain only as an idea.  The organization needs a way to monitor compliance to the design, and a way to encourage compliance and deter non-compliance.

Often the level of empowerment is highly correlated with how high up EA champions sit in organization charts.   In talking to numerous CIOs, I got a general sense that the successful EA efforts were in organizations where the EA champions either reported directly to the CEO or were one level down in the hierarchy, whereas the less successful organizations has EA champions that were hidden a few more layers down. 

Not only does the "reporting distance" from the CEO reflected the organization's beliefs on the usefulness of EA, but it also impact the difficulty for EA champions to facilitate change.  EA champions need visibility of the organization at the senior management level to ensure that designs are aligned to senior management’s thinking.  EA champions will also need sponsorship from senior management to push through required changes.  Being part of or close to senior management will make EA champion’s task easier.