thinking differently about enterprise architecture 2017

Thinking differently about Enterprise

ArchitectureDr. Mikkel H Brahm, Head of Architecture, Nordea Digital Banking

Slides available athttps://www.slideshare.net/mikkelbrahm/

thinking-differently-about-enterprise-architecture-2017

Agenda

• Orthodox thought style and taken-for-granted assumptions

• Complexity thought style and taken-for-granted assumptions

• Practical implications of adopting a different thought style

• Summary

Orthodox EAWhat characterizes this thought style?

1 Orthodox EA presumes autonomy (and rationality)Individual is primary and apart from other individuals

2 Orthodox EA presumes determinacySpontaneity and improvisation is absent or insignificant

3 Orthodox EA presumes opennessEverything can (and should) be shared and modelled

4 Orthodox EA presumes enterprise intentionalityEnterprise treated as Entity with own strategy and goals

5 Orthodox EA presumes agreement(Not aligned) Individual goals are illegitimate / selfish

Assumptions that characterise orthodox EA

1. Autonomy

2. Determinacy

3. Openness

4. Intentionality

5. Agreement

• The individual is primary, makes meaning of experiences,and makes rational decisions about which course of action to take

• Knowable set of stimuli-response; If we know what factors into a situation,then we can predict what will happen in that situation

• Information is assumed to be shared openly / freely available,so that everything can (and should) be modelled/documented

• The Enterprise is treated as an entity with intentionality,and conflicting individual intentionality is made illegitimate

• People are assumed to agree on goals and means,or at least architecture cannot begin until agreement is reached

ComplexityWhat characterizes this thought style?

people have function for each otherwe are born into relationships to people upon whom we depend

1 Interdependence enable and constrain our actionsSocially unacceptable behavior can damage relationships

Norms what it is normal to do aka customs

+ Values how we make value judgements

culture eats strategy for breakfast

Peter Drucker

Culture the way of life / living / organizing

2 We often act habitually / acceptably to garner support. Provocative actions can lead to renegotiation of norms.

Phronesis = wisdom / practical judgmentKnowing what it is right to do = being a virtuous person

Techne = technical knowledge / knowhowCraftsmanship that can be taught

3 Power dynamics enable and constrain what it is prudent to say both for subordinates and for the power holders

4 Power is never equally distributed. Any leverage can be used to further one’s interests in any other area.

Linear causality Culture forms Behaviour OR Behaviour forms Culture

Circular or Transformative causality Culture forms Behaviour AND Behaviour forms Culture

5 Collaborative innovation hinges on mutual trustthat others can contribute what we ourselves cannot

Radically different assumptions

1. Autonomy

2. Determinacy

3. Openness

4. Intentionality

5. Agreement

1. Mutual interdependence

2. Self-disciplining and Spontaneity

3. Hidden Transcript and Public Transcript

4. Figuration of relationships with power-differentials

5. Web of Intentionality - Collaboration and Competition

Practical implications

What difference does it make how I think?

Practical examples of Orthodoxy

Outcome

Mean /Objective

Mean /Objective

Mean Mean MeanMean

LinearCausality

=>Predictable


Mean Mean

Mean

Mean

Outcome

Organisation / needs in t0 = organisation / needs in t1

i.e. we control when the organization does and does not change

t0 t1


Idealization of stable statesSplitting thought from action as a means to control

Analyze Design Execute

Unfreeze Change Freeze

Technology and Mechanisms

1. Autonomy

2. Determinacy

3. Openness

4. Intentionality

5. Agreement

1. Interdependence

2. Self-disciplining

3. Hidden Transcript

4. Power Figuration

5. Collaborate/compete

1. Transcription

2. Turing machines

3. Knowable but complicated

4. Scripted action & prescription

5. No responsiveness

What difference does Complexity make?

Intentionality in aWeb of Intentionality

Someone’s intention

Other people’s intentions


Mean Mean

Mean

Mean

Outcome

Organisation / needs in t0 ≠ organisation / needs in t1

i.e. we have to continuously validate, learn, replan, refactor and sometimes pivot

t0 t1

Good enough to take 1 step

Step 2+ subject to change


Acceptance of emergence and lack of controlLeader strategizes and influences

Analyze Design Execute

Unfreeze Change Freeze

Organization is not fozen

Organization cannot be fozen

Cross-functional groups with trustful relationshipsSynergy, Learning, Innovation, Production

SummaryTwo different ways of thinking about change

Orthodox EA(eg TOGAF/ADM)

Organization = SystemUniversal goal Linear causality

Organizational knowledgeUnfreeze > Change > Freeze

Resistance to changeAnalyze > Architect/Design > Realize

My emerging view(Complexity)

Organizing = Enabling/constrainingWeb of intentionality

Transformative causalityKnowledge withheld or shared

Influence Ongoing ChangesDomination and Resistance

Piecemeal Growth

ENTERPRISEIntentional process (of doing business)

emerging from enabling/constraining figurations of relationships always in flux

ARCHITECTUREOrganisation of structuring structures

including, but not limited to, materiality and mechanisms

Stacey, Ralph D. and Mowles, Chris (2016).Strategic management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity to Ways of Thinking About Organisations. 7th ed. United Kingdom: Pearson Education.

Stacey, Ralph D (2012).Tools & Techniquesof Leadership and Management.Routledge.

Jackall, Robert (2010).Moral Mazes –The World of Corporate Managers.Oxford University Press.

Scott, John C (1990).Domination and the Arts of Resistance - Hidden transcripts.Yale University Press.

Elias, Norbert (1978).What is Sociology?Columbia University Press.

Elias, Norbert (1991).The Society of Individuals.Basil Blackwell.

Latour, Bruno (2005).Reassembling the Social – An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.Oxford University Press.

Mead, George Herbert (1934).Mind, Self, & Society.The University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977)Outline of a Theory of Practice.Cambridge University Press

Scott, John C (1998).Seeing like a State – How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.Yale University Press.

Guenther, Milan (2013).Intersection – How Enterprise Design bridges the gap between Business, technology and People. Elsevier.

Ries, Eric (2013).The Lean Startup – How today’s Entrepreneurs use Continuous Innovation to create radically successful Businesses.Crown Business.