Architecture is more like a front window than a rear mirror. Architecture is a verb, not a noun.
EA (Enterprise Architecture) has to make a lot of tough
choices for business and for itself, first of all, in face of today’s
overwhelming business dynamic, what should architecture focus on: 'Today-AS-IS' or 'Future To-Be'? If EA focusing on the future, will it lead to 'fanciful
states'? In which way, EA can deliver better value for the organizations?
Do only the amount of
current state analysis that is needed in order to convincingly create a valid,
achievable, realistic future state model. Understand where you have been
and are to help avoid mistakes in where you want to go. However, too much
obsessing over capturing As-Is configuration detail can waste time and
resources rather than focusing on diagnosing the root cause of issues, then
quickly moving on to define a set of integrated requirements.
Architect
always included the TO-BE and assessment of the AS-IS (where it doesn't
fit the TO-BE), and a road map to move toward the TO-BE. It is hard to separate
architecture from business strategy--it is the objectives and strategy that
inform the architecture. It does make sense to focus the majority of EA efforts
on the TO-BE, and that the TO-BE should be defined before the AS-IS.
Future states aren't
developed in a vacuum or created as a fait accompli; they are developed
with the key players from the business and IT. The road map informs people how
they will get there from here. The road map is a commitment, a plan. As it's
easy to blue-sky the future, becoming attached to alternatives that sound
highly attractive, but which involve too much change from the current state
(had it been documented) to be possible for the organization in question
The idealized end
state assumes starting with a blank sheet of paper. The realistic state takes into consideration of today's
current reality and produces some achievable targets. The change equation needs
a vision for the future. Doing architecture is to facilitate change, so why to focus most of the effort trying to abstract the present which isn't going to
generate any energy from anyone outside of the architecture community. As with everything in life, this too is
a balancing act, balance between knowing where you've been, where you are, and
where you want to go.
Identify the
capability gaps in bridging ‘As Is’ & ‘To Be’: ‘To Be’ is not just the future state of architecture, but also about the future state of business, EA
should provide input for the business strategy which has already taken into account
current state, SWOT and hence future directions. EA is then helping to identify
key capability gaps and how to strengthen them or provide them (if non-existent
currently). The gap from As-Is to To-Be plays a pivotal role inappropriate
cost and timeline estimation, organization change management initiative
requirements estimation and ultimately ensuring delivering value to the
organization while retaining the learning and its differentiation from the past.
EA journey can be
either horizontal or vertical, moving from the bottom left corner to top right
corner: Horizontal reflects the attention to current, vertical reflects the attention to the future. One cannot get
there without both. The journey will be different for different enterprises, it
will even be different for the same enterprise at either a different time or
with different people, it will even be different for the same people done twice
Do only the amount of
current state analysis that is needed in order to convincingly create a valid,
achievable, realistic future state model. Understand where you have been
and are to help avoid mistakes in where you want to go. However, too much
obsessing over capturing As-Is configuration detail can waste time and
resources rather than focusing on diagnosing the root cause of issues, then
quickly moving on to define a set of integrated requirements.
What should the future window look like? The future needs to be further enough to overcome most
organizational inertia but not too far out as to be unrealistic. After
understanding the context and people dynamics, tailor your approach to ensure
the right people are on board or sufficiently supportive to make it happen
0 comments:
Post a Comment