Introducing a simple way to do basic architecture work planning using ArchiMate.
In order to keep control of architecture in a complex ever changing work its important to understand the workload. We often have complex projects interconnected, with shifting priorities; architects are asked for many things from stakeholders; to support both our architects and stakeholders I ask for a simple road-map with some supporting views. When a business stakeholder gives new priorities the architect can then easily take an intelligent conversation on what needs to be re-prioritized.
I Abstract away from real work and made up some examples here. So lets cover the Basics; Its far better to ask for basic views using only a subset of architecture elements than to expect fully blown models when you are trying to get a level of consistency and need to balance the levels of complexity with varying levels of competency you invariably face when dealing with a large number of architects.
The Work Package
The key element I want to talk about today is the work package in the implementation and migration layer of Archimate. Work is exactly as in English – its effort that is performed. We define the packages in architecture because it gives us many advantages – In modelling the packages we can accurately represent the effort our teams must take and the impact it has on our architecture over time.
I tend to align work packages to the SAFe methodology even though we are not strictly using it at the moment – a work package is a unit of work that effectively can take 2 calendar weeks or more, and they should be modular; a package should provide value all by itself – rather than relying on anything else. This is important if we are to ensure we provide continuous value over time.
Work can be product related (implementing a new service within a product for example) or it may be related to a specific project or objective – for example we may have a concern around quality of a service which needs corrective actions for improvement, or we may have an initiative to reach a specific management goal.
The Work Road Map
Something I ask all my domain architects to do is a work road map – anything that is going to take more than a week to complete or will tie up one or more resources should appear here.
I ask that the domain architect connects with both Product Manager & Service Manager in order to get a perspective of whats actually going on in terms of work within the specific products and services.
Each block on the “Road map” (its a road map view in BiZZdesign’s Enterprise Studio) is a work package which has start and end dates. The arrows on this diagram are denoting dependency. We need to understand the dependencies between work packages, and in the example above “My Collaboration Program” is composed of several projects
Having all work modelled on the one road-map with the associated views allow us to ensure there is no duplication of work happening in the organisation and helps us understand our full workload – it should be regularly used with product managers to prioritise what happens next. Of course every work package on an architecture model can be navigated so we can understand all the places it exists.
We could add a number of other elements to the roadmap view – including plateau’s which would give us a stable state to connect architecture to – for now we are talking of the minimum basics.
Motivation View My Collaboration Program
Its important to note that this is a concern – not a risk – anyone can have a concern – it can be like a requirement, or we can express worries in the same way. Building a motivational view like this gives me something I can discuss with the different stakeholders; with a bit of practice you can create these in meetings, capturing concerns and assessments from the stakeholders. None of my motivation views have stakeholders expressed in them, because in our case the stakeholders are made apparent by the repository structure. I could include them in the motivation view.
There’s a school of thought that we should hide negative concerns, and I don’t agree with that – if we hide them, we can never fully address them, and also we may live with a wrong idea on something – for example, I could spend my career thinking that architecture workload for products is unclear and improperly scoped, when a conversation with the right person might simply inform me that I was wrong – there could be processes in place that I just haven’t been aware of, and for that reason, were never included in my architecture.
Motivational Views are there to explain why we do things. Above i show a simple motivation view – I have been advocating modelling something similar to above because of simplicity – the basic idea behind the view is to explain the “Why” behind the work packages we have – in an ideal world you can develop a full justification and more complex motivational model but for now – The basic things we want to have answered:
- Drivers – in the case above the driver / concern is a customer need. This driver reason behind why everything is happening for the work package. Normally I have one driver that’s motivating the whole view, at the top.
- Assessments – These are the observations that are forming the rationale behind the work package. In a typical conversation with our stakeholders they will make many assessments on things that we could capture. and connect to our concern. When discussing with stakeholders they normally frame the problem (Driver) and then come up with a whole bunch of things to motivate that. These are effectively assessments.
- Requirements – Requirements are the glue that holds everything together in architecture and we could talk about them at length – For now in this simplified mechanism for drawing concerns we create requirements that would mitigate or provide a positive effect on our observations; for example if the observation is that “The media server crashes frequently”, then a good requirement might be: “Media server solution created & implemented to ensure a 99.999% up time”
- Goals – The requirements together meet one or more goals. Its important that the goals address the needs of the driver.
- Values – The goals have a positive influence on different values -we could define some standard values at our team level – so we can reuse them. If my boss says “We need to reduce maintenance costs” – we could easily automatically generate a view that shows all the goals that provide this value – and show the work packages with them. When we do that suddenly I can have an informed discussion with my boss – I can say – sure we can do that – but look at the road map – we need to de-prioritize some projects accordingly because of resource constraints – Its a much better discussion to have than answering “yes boss” and then trying to juggle a dozen projects you don’t have time for, get overly stressed and then fail to deliver anything.
I could have added positive or negative influences, I could have made our time restriction a constraint – many things could be done to improve the motivation view, but for the sake of simplicity I normally ask someone to do something basic like above.
Prioritizing The Requirements
Once I have the motivation views in place I normally prioritize the requirements – I am normally using MoSCoW rules (Must have, Should Have, Could Have, Won’t Have). This normally influences package definition – we may decide we address our requirements is several packages – for example, high priority tasks may need to be in a priority project and then you can define secondary projects that can be de-prioritized.
Implementation & Migration View
Once we understand the motivations behind our concerns we can take the requirements from our concerns and realize them within a work package like I have done below for the platform implementation project:
The above view further defines the work package. The key components are:
- The Work Package – which everything connects to.
- The Roles – That are required with the work package – I find it handy to have the association relationships describe how much time is actually required from each resource.
- The Requirements and Goals – these are from the motivational view – they tie the motivations to the work package.
- Deliverables – these are things that the work package needs to deliver to be successful.
- Other Architecture elements – A work package can realize any number of other architecture elements – for example we may create a work package to realize a specific service.
Business Validation & Other Related Things
I will introduce a couple of basic mechanisms we can use to validate our work packages – none of which should take more than a few hours to create if you have a solidly defined idea of your business case and understand your audience. If you do not understand those things I would say the following practices are even more important. Its very important we do not start work unless we can clearly understand the scope of the work, or the values & benefits it provides.
Below I show a couple of typical requirements or principle that an organization might place upon its businesses; most organizations have some kind of principles we need to be aware of:
- Products should be returning a revenue of 1MEUR – This doesn’t mean in a year necessarily – but the plan should be in place for when this will happen.
- For every EUR we invest we should have a return of 10EUR – Its a basic profitability rule of thumb.
- We should try and get our product costs covered by pre-selling ideas to customers. Having a customer commit to buying a completed product fully justifies its cost.
User stories are a basic form of requirement – they take the form : As <someone> I want to <do something> in order to <achieve some value>.
When you write a series of these with different stakeholders you gain a better understanding of who needs what and why. Take a look at the video:
I have already mentioned TELOS in another blog – its an acronym used for feasibility checking. (Technical, Economic, Legal, Operational, Scheduling) Its another thing I could write a lot more about because it is so useful.
Business Model Canvas
When defining a work package for a service or product we may want to consider creating a business model canvas. A reasonable video introduction is below:
We can create a Business Model Canvas that connects directly into BiZZdesign’s Enterprise Studio – its a type of view that can be created in an Archimate model.
Summing It Up…
The mechanisms described here are not complex and do not take much time to implement. For myself, most work packages can be defined and modeled with associated motivation views inside of an hour – the modeling is not the hard part – the more difficult part is clearly deciding what your goals are, who you need, if your business case is strong, and requirements. modelling these individual elements forces an architect and their stakeholders to clearly think about every element.
We could talk in terms of risk here – if you cannot create a business canvas, for a service I could question the fundamental business case. If you cannot identify stakeholders a risk around the understanding of cost and basic feasibility could be raised. With resources being limited and the need to deliver value being ever greater following the methods I describe above give you a good way to describe work and its implications and give a good foundation that can be used to continually manage a complex workload and ensure that the workload is prioritized in a way that you are getting the correct value at the correct time.