Moving beyond the diagrams

Enterprise architecture (EA) is sexy again. Government is talking about it, parastatals are looking for help with it, and experienced architects are in demand more than ever before.

But does it fit into the current and ever-more dynamic business models of today? For that matter, can it cope with disruptive technologies? Technically, it should be able to do both, since at its base level, it's nothing more than a complete description of an enterprise, including processes, information, business roles, goals and technologies.

The great-granddaddy of enterprise architecture documents is the Zachman Framework, which first saw the light of day in 1987, but is more of a way of organising the different elements of an architecture than a true methodology. Today's architects have a number of enterprise architectures to choose from and the word from local integrators and consultants is that more South African organisations are dipping their toes in the water.

Albert Truter, manager of architecture at Gijima, says he's been seeing a lot of movement.

"And not only in government, but also in the private sector. There are a number of clients speaking to us about enterprise architecture and they are people who are new to enterprise architecture as a whole. They are cautious. We don't see tenders for large stuff but small amounts, and they start bite-sized."

Clive Hatton, senior consultant at RealIRM, local representatives for The Open Group's Architecture Framework (TOGAF), agrees that interest in skills and training is picking up.

"We've seen a lot of interest in enterprise architecture skills," says Hatton. "We've had more people certified in TOGAF in a few months this year than we had in the whole of last year, and that's been across all industries."

I strongly believe in implementation.

Bruce Bond-Myatt, solutions architect, SAS Institute

Marius Nel, director of Knotion, has also seen lots of training spend.

"We've seen a similar thing from a training point of view," he says. "Companies are spending money on TOGAF training and advanced architecture training. A lot of people are going the value-added route: start small with a small initiative and then work upwards, instead of spending a lot of money upfront. But the fact that companies are willing to spend the money on training in the first place shows that there's a need for it."

Training isn't where it all stops, though. President Ntuli, global account director for public sector at HP SA, has also seen a lot of clients going for training, but says that's just the beginning of the process.

"If you look at what enterprise architecture is, it's how to align IT resources to business objectives. And there's been a big gap in terms of putting together an enterprise architecture that will talk to the business."

Truter agrees.

"People tend to stay in enterprise architecture planning, but the implementations are few and far between. A lot of people go and do models and diagrams and get involved with all that but don't go any further. Although planning and implementation are two sides of the same coin, enterprise architecture itself used to be just enterprise architecture planning and that's probably why business sometimes fails to see the value of it. That's also why people think it hamstrings them."

He says it's about expectations and culture.

"Clients do start off with an impression that enterprise architecture is a silver bullet and it's our responsibility to tell them that it's a journey they need to take. It's not an event. If you see it as an event, you're wasting your time. The enterprise needs to have the culture to implement it and give it the quality it needs to function."

Nel has seen similar attitudes in his client base, but some that are looking further.

"We are seeing some clients that have had visions and plans in place for years, but all that has happened is the ivory tower effect. They've created a lot of reference models, documents and pictures but their understanding has never been what they can offer within the organisation. The organisations that have had technology architectures are now moving beyond that and asking how they can strategically enable the company vision using enterprise architecture as a tool."

Architecture principles should endure.

Adele Melvin, senior manager, Accenture

Bruce Bond-Myatt, solutions architect at SAS Institute, affirms that it's all about the implementation.

"SAS tends to focus on the larger customers and they tend to have enterprise architects and architecture departments in place. But I strongly believe in implementation. Where you find a company has both good enterprise architecture and the ability to implement it, that's where we can be successful. But where there isn't an ability to implement, it becomes really difficult."

One of the reasons for that is technology not behaving as well as it's predicted to do on a pretty diagram, says Malcolm Rabson, MD of Dariel Solutions.

"Take someone running the Internet banking side of a financial services company. He will have an architecture group on the side who will be advising him on the principles. We find there's a lot of tension: this is someone down at the coalface who has 10 000 users logging on every hour; they don't want Gartner or Forrester charts or diagrams telling them what they should be doing. Technology doesn't behave like a pretty picture."

That raises a pertinent question: is having an enterprise architecture an advantage or a disadvantage when it comes to coping with change? Hatton says it's an advantage.

"Organisations are facing change and the changes are coming faster and faster and becoming more radical in their effects. Things like Web 2.0, social networking and the cloud are all disruptive changes and enterprise architecture is something that can help them understand those changes, document them and know what impact they will have. There are always black swan events that will catch people by surprise. The best you can hope for is that you can figure out what the impact will be on your organisation. If you have architecture in place, it puts you in a good position to understand the complexity and impacts."

HP's Ntuli says the architecture's design itself is critical.

"Key to surviving is to build an architecture that will be flexible enough to adapt," he says. "If you have that as a foundation, then you'll be ready.”

Truter says a good design can give the architect the ability to see into the future.

"It will give you the context to identify trends and changes because a part of the role of the enterprise architect is to manage and control the evolution of the enterprise in a changing environment. So if you do your work, you should be able to warn your enterprise that something is coming and be able to react in time. Yes, an enterprise architecture should be somewhat rigid and constrain you, but it should still be flexible."

It's how to align IT resources to business objectives.

President Ntuli, global account director for public sector, HP SA

Adele Melvin, senior manager at Accenture, says a good architecture is long-lasting by definition.

"Architecture principles should endure and you should be able to stick to them. It should start with business outcomes in mind. The components in a portfolio should map directly back to the business capabilities that they enable and support. They could equate to the enterprise architecture domain but the business capability does have its own domain that drives the technology, data and applications downwards. Enterprise architecture should be mapping out the changes in the roadmap."

But sometimes changes in technology do affect architecture design, and in ways that can't simply be worked around. Dariel's Rabson says the financial world is replete with examples.

"The banks have an architecture that has served them well for 20-odd years, which is a 'pull' architecture - everything is based on needing to retrieve information. But now they've had to open up to different channels, cellphones and so on. And now they need a 'push' architecture where devices and channels can send them information. Some banks couldn't actually cope with that. It's difficult to tell what's going to happen 15 years into the future."

Clearly the enterprise architect needs to be a combination of designer, fortune-teller and experienced technologist. Nel says he has one for a client.

"I've spoken to a client about architecture and SOA. He said he's been applying solid architectural thinking all along the line in his career: clear separation of functionality, clear interfaces, proper message flow and no different from modern SOA. Architecture is more about people than it is about technology. It's about how that person works with people, leads and creates a vision for others."

Truter agrees that the lead architect needs to be a people person.

"They need to sell the concept of it and lobby between the different divisions in an enterprise and get them to work together, sometimes without those people realising they are working together. The person has to have the traits of a good [military] general."

And there are no shortcuts, he says.

"We've recently received requests for two junior enterprise architects. What does that mean? Because if you're an enterprise architect, you typically understand all the domains of an enterprise and can engage with the executives. But the feedstock of enterprise architects is the IT environment and that's why there isn't much business sense. You don't see finance and business people very often go into enterprise architecture."

RealIRM's Hatton agrees.

"If you qualify as an engineer, no one is going to let you build a bridge for the next 30 years until you've worked apprenticeships under someone who knows what they're doing."