It is with a sense of déjà vu that I discuss architecture yet again. However, it seems appropriate to share a few ideas since there is still a pervasive notion that architecture in the context of business and information systems is an option, and that it really matters very little whether you have it or not.
It becomes crucial to have an architecture established and applied to the organisation and its information systems.
In many ways there is the idea that it adds to the time and cost of projects without adding real value. Nothing could be further from the truth - in fact it is all in the architecture!
What is the role of architecture? Some simple questions will illustrate this:
- What data is used and how is it utilised for business processes?
- What business objectives are supported by business processes, which in turn are supported by systems, which are supported by data?
Being able to answer these questions is what architecture is all about.
A good way of looking at it would be to examine four key dimensions of what would typically be required in such an architecture and its role in the organisation.
At the top is the business process layer, which describes the actual business functions carried out in the execution of the organisation`s business strategy.
Next is the application layer. This includes all the applications the organisation uses to support the business processes and includes the architecture which drives the development and interaction of the applications.
The third layer is the infrastructure: for example, the network, operating systems and hardware environment.
The fourth is the architecture layer on which the business processes, applications and infrastructure are built. In essence this also means the way in which the layers are interdependent.
Ability to respond to change
The more volatile, complex and rapidly changing the business environment, the more crucial it becomes to have an architecture established and applied to the organisation and its information systems. An example is where a company does business through intermediaries and has to respond rapidly to market dynamics in going direct, via call centres and over the Web. If a sound architecture is already in place, such as where the architecture supports legacy "wrapping" into components and Web-based front-ends to applications, the ability to respond quickly to this new market demand is significantly enhanced.
I know you have often wondered what could possibly take so long as the business waits in anticipation for IT to deliver. Much of the time it takes to respond to business requirements is tied up in finding out where things are and how they work. Architectural integrity is required to help organisations transcend major change. For example, corporate data is out of control because no consistent architecture has been applied to systems, including data. If we applied architectural concepts we would have consistent enterprise-wide management over data, functions and processes.
Most organisations have many data definitions and data is stored in many different places: for example, customer data. Each application works with its own definition of "customer", and one of the great challenges facing data managers is to maintain multiple versions of customer data across applications.
For instance, if a customer changes his address, how do you ensure it is changed across multiple applications? Do you actually know in how many places the address is used? A question such as this is merely a symptom of data out of control. This is a data modelling issue that must be addressed as it simply highlights our lack of flexibility or understanding of the impact of the data dimension on our business.
Architecture of buildings
By way of analogy we need to draw on something that is well understood, such as the architecture of buildings: in many ways this is a good example. It is unheard of to start building anything without a plan and the more complex the structure you are building the more detailed such a plan will be.
Herewith a few correlations by way of example. The plan will address all the issues of flexibility, such as movable internal walls (adapting to business change).
The plan will be explicit in terms of the permanent underpinnings, foundations and extensibility points. With this plan in hand it is quick to assess the viability of a proposed change or extension; without such a plan it would be difficult and even dangerous.
This is where the analogy fits perfectly. The better the business and information architecture of the organisation, the quicker and easier it will be to change and adapt the systems to the organisation`s requirements.
As a businessperson you would be concerned if you were presented with a proposal for a construction project without an architecture and plan. I am suggesting you should be equally concerned about an information systems project without an architecture and plan.
Share
