Understanding Architecture Value

Value is a key focus area of architecture which is often misunderstood. This blog explores this subject..

Value & Professionalism

It has sometimes amazed me how far architecture can be devalued in an organisation. As an Enterprise Architect, I have not only had to show the value to different business stakeholders, but on occasion I have even had to explain it to architects. The reality is, there are a lot of misconceptions around what architecture is and what architects should do. I started to explore expectations in my blog “What is an IT Architect?” because I wanted to get consistent value from my architects.

Getting our stakeholders to understand value can be a hard nut to crack,. They often have their own ideas of what architecture is which normally revolve around technology. I have found the differentiation between a technical specialist and an architect can sometimes be blurry in the minds of our stakeholders. Communication of the different aspects of architecture in a language that stakeholders can understand is essential.

As architects, It’s very important that we work to ensure we are not perceived to be a painful function by our stakeholders. This happens if architects go from meeting to meeting just criticizing other peoples work. It starts with a mindset.

Stakeholders need to understand that, as architects, we are working with solutions and not problems; we must be encouraging by nature and we must take time to express things in terms of positives and growth where possible. We want to be working with our stakeholders rather than against them. Our role is normally to advise – at the end of the day architects do not usually own the business. If we ask rather than tell, engaging our stakeholders with a positive attitude, we can show our value as architects, the value of architecture, and our stakeholders can become the architecture marketing department.

Showing value enables an Enterprise Architect’s stakeholders to look good. This helps us gain stakeholder commitment and makes life easier for everyone at the same time.

For me personally, the best moments come when someone who is not an architect stands up in front of an organization, shows some of the things that we have done together and passionately shows the value that has come through a project, attributing it to architecture not because they have to, but because they genuinely see the benefits, and want everyone else to.

The Reason I Started To Internally Blog

One of the reasons I started internally blogging in my company was that I could not get enough face to face time with stakeholders to express architecture value. I had to show them value by influencing the people around them.

When management has multiple escalations and start to breach service level agreements, they will often start to search for a root cause. Not having architecture is akin to not planning and not managing risk.

In those cases, where poor planning leads to a risk being realised we do not scream “I told you so”. It’s an opportunity to show how as professionals we can help. In those situations normally people are under a lot of pressure.

There are are a lot of techniques we can apply to help identify issues, and when we have a model repository in place, with a competent architecture team we can not only help with solving architecture issues as they are unfolding but we can also put in the steps to ensure those problems don’t happen again. Having a good architecture concerns management process helps with that.

Planning Work

In order to get a baseline of consistency and understanding the blogging helps a lot. Normally I have meetings where I explain things, as we tackle practical problems but if in a meeting i am introducing a lot of key concepts its easy to overwhelm people with the technical side of architecture.

As an example the first time I introduced mechanisms for work planning with ArchiMate. At the backbone, even though i simplified it, still some people didn’t quite follow. The Planning Work With Archimate blog helped. It gave people a reference they can follow at their own pace. It helped me because I can set a consistent expectation.

I think its the most popular blog I have at the time of writing this blog; its been re-blogged and shared a few times, and received a few comments, which is fantastic.

I think the reason for its success is a lot to do with the fact it has clear value. It offers an easy way to use the ArchiMate modelling language to track and define work; which can be challenging – especially if your architects do not have direct line reporting to you.

Capturing the value from stakeholders

To begin with, I think its a mark of any professional that they think about value regardless of what is being done.. It’s a general life idea – if you think about who you are doing things for, why you are trying and try to anticipate needs, the chances are, your resultant work will be better.

Normally at the beginning of a project I am establishing requirements; I sit down with the team and create a series of user stories.

To my mind if you are having trouble defining fully formed user stories for your work, the chances are you need to talk someone and get a little help in understanding the needs of the stakeholders. Most commonly when I see user stories go wrong its because people have missed the bit at the end that speaks of value. It’s interesting to see how often people cannot directly express the value in the things they do; its common to think because value is implied it doesn’t have to be explicitly defined. The problem there is what is an obvious value for one person is not always obvious for another.

In architecture ISO 42010 they give a good ground list for types of stakeholder to consider in our architectures.

Understanding and taking time to explicitly define the needs of our stakeholders is the first step to building an architecture that maximizes the usage of the architecture and its value to all stakeholders.  When we validate an architecture that we have created with a user story we are validating the creation of value.

Why Doesn’t Architecture Always Bring Value?

Not correctly practicing architecture leads to not getting value from it. If an architect starts the architecture work after a project, or views the creation of architecture as a documentation exercise, its normally lost most of its value.  If an architect only concerns him/herself with producing a couple of technical diagrams, again, its lost a lot of value.

Much of the value in architecture is in its application and the process taken to define it. How we decide what appears in the documentation, all the decisions made around the architecture, as well as the needs of all the stakeholders should be managed & documented as a project progresses for architecture to achieve its intrinsic value. 

A Common Problem With Commitment

Because stakeholders don’t always understand what architecture is or how its practiced, it simply isn’t practiced in some cases.

We can have a good group of people that want to do architecture but are not given time. In management terms, architecture is often measured in documents, because these are tangible:

Its easy to see architecture as a documentation exercise if you are working with processes that demand specific types of deliverable, because the emphasis is on the resultant documents. If you write a description of a service it makes sense to plan the service, consider risks, agree the service, and capture the reasons for it. You have to give architects time to plan and think. That thinking time should be spent properly – preferably following some kind of methodology where the thought process is documented.

Even with a management commitment of 70% of an architect’s time allocated to be spent doing architecture, there can still be a fundamental gap if our stakeholders do not understand that architecture process is much more important than these documents.

If architects spend a majority of their time just filling in documents for management, technical writing or building presentations, they will not have time to actually follow methodology and design. Every view an architect does is to manage a concern from a specific stakeholder – therefore you can say every view that is not completed represents a risk that a stakeholder hasn’t been fully considered. Time must be given to do baseline architecture and analysis. It improves the quality of the resultant work and more importantly it ensures not only architects provide value, but their designs do.

A good architecture designed by a proficient architect meets the needs of its stakeholders and shows how it does that – it identifies and mitigates risk. On the flip side, a document that is put together without architecture design is likely to lack good quality. In these cases you will normally see failures in operations – either lower productivity where things are not efficient – or in complete failure of process leading to penalties.

Value In Architecture Modelling

I’ve heard it said a few times that architecture is about drawing boxes; even from some architects. It’s not. 

First the obvious. The tools we use are modelling tools not drawing tools. Most people see an ArchiMate diagram in a presentation and miss the true power behind it – because our views all contribute towards a fully relational model we can easily traverse the model using our tools, and more importantly can use it to easily help management understand the impact of change – at the simple level architects can navigate the model – like shown here – for PRTG Network Monitor:

We can expand out those nodes and see all the relationships, to other elements, and then drill down through those.  We can reuse the elements int he model in different ways and generate views. The more information we put into the models, the more value we get out. Each of the elements and relationships can have its own documentation. Seeing a picture sent in mail is nothing like having the interactive model implemented and available to traverse.

The act of modelling with a proficient modeler building a standard view – nearly always raises questions on how things work, and which things should be connected to other things; these questions open up areas that can easily be forgotten, and its better for the architect to think things through in design phase with stakeholders, than to blindly move onto executing a project. The costs can be very high if part way through a project you need to scrap everything an start again, and architecture can help prevent such things happening.

In addition to all of this we can apply metadata to an architecture model – making it possible to represent a myriad of different interests to our stakeholders, if we take time to model, and use the right information sources; and then use our models to inform and enable our business leaders.

Summing Up The Value Of Modelling

I will sum up some of the value of modelling architecture:

  • Consistent communication – everyone get the same views in a repository and common understanding; there’s a reduction in communication overhead.
  • Enabling Scaling – having consistent communication in a common place makes it easier for us to on board new resources, and for many architects to work together in the enterprise.
  • Reduced time to find things – Navigating through a model from element to element enables us to easily find related information quickly.
  • Can abstract many views from the same model. As you develop some views with relationships, you enable automatic generation of other views reusing the same information
  • Reduction of work – If you rename an element in one view it renames it in all views – in the same way the element documentation is automatically reused.
  • Cost savings – having architecture modeled gives us opportunities to easily see and optimize architecture, as well as to identify risk.
  • Better more reusable architecture – modelling forces us to break down complex tasks into reusable components.
  • Reduced complexity – in a model we can focus on only parts of it in different views to make it easier to consume to different stakeholders.
  • A model develops itself – as it starts to mature using algorithms we can find new relationships rather than have to explicitly state them.
  • Better understanding – at the same time as we establish new components, it normally raises new questions around how things fit together and forces us to think. We can also very precisely and easily model and understand the impact changes in the technology, organization or other architecture layers have on our architecture.

The value of ArchiMate

The Archimate full model shows the different layers that make up ArchiMate. Each layer contains different types of elements in the modelling language – for example we have Business Layer business services, Business functions, business processes. 

The ArchiMate language specifies the different types of elements and the ways that they are allowed to connect. You can see that ArchiMate covers everything from the why (motivation layer), to the what (Strategy, Business, Application, Technology, Physical & Implementation). This enables us to represent how all of these things work in conjunction with each other. 

Following the strict rules of the ArchiMate language forces us to think a certain way – to consider our internal working components and how ex expose them out in different layers. It also has the added benefit of enabling us to derive relationships. A simple example – Owen is related to Max, and Max is related to Christopher – and we could represent this on a model with the association relationships. Even if we do not explicitly say it; because we know these relationships exist the modelling software knows that Owen is related to Christopher. More complex derivations exist – which means that as we mature a model,, it starts to provide value beyond what we directly model.

Summing Up The Value Of Archimate

To sum up the value of ArchiMate:

  • Internationally known standard – each element and relationship has a very specific meaning. using this standard i can take a model from a completely different company and understand its meaning.
  • Multiple layers – breaking down into layers such as Business, Application, and technology, enables us to align to many standard methodologies such as TOGAF, and to easily differentiatiate these different concepts.
  • Better architecture structure – Because ArchiMate has strict rules on what can connect to what, and how elements are used it forces us to think in a more service oriented value driven way.
  • Better connected architecture – Essentially with all the layers together we can answer the questions what, why, when, how, who? The layered approach make it very flexible.
  • Better intimacy with stakeholders – Because we define viewpoints for each of the stakeholders we can provide better value for them and get 
  • Aligns to ISO 42010. Archimate as a language was designed to complement ISO 42010 and make it easier to conform to this standard. ISO42010 introduces concepts of elements and relationships – Archimate creates different types of these elements and relationships, that reduces the amount of work we need to describe concepts.

The Value Of ISO 42010

I speak about ISO 42010 quite often because it lays down the things you need for an architecture to be completely documented.

Everything in ISO 42010 has a purpose and everything that we do not do in there could be represented as a risk.

Its great we do Visio diagrams  with infra and we cover some technology, but for these Visio views to be valid we need to understand the decisions that are made related to them. We need to understand the concerns that different people who need the systems we design have, which includes things like risk. We need to understand how it is that the Visio diagrams produced meet the needs of different people. ISO 42010 lays down a structure that could be used for this.

When you run through an architecture and ask how each individual requirement is being met by the architecture you provide, questions and concerns start to arise. Its better for a single architect or a team of architects to sit down and address them and actually think through the design process, than it is for a project team to start booking lots of meetings with different people.  understanding the needs (concerns) of our stakeholders forms the foundation for formal risk analysis – because the risk is basically recognizing where a need might not be met for some reason. Using a managed approach to architecture concerns provides significantly better coverage of your risks.

When we enter projects there’s often a lot of people asking the same questions – who is doing what, how and where? how will the requirements be managed or realized. Its not supposed to be a project managers role to make those decisions – its supposed to come though someone smart sitting down and creating an architecture design.

Applying Discipline to Architecture

Applying discipline to architecture raises many hard to answer questions that need to be managed. If they aren’t captured and answered at design time they will come up later at some point during an escalation. If you don’t apply a method to your architecture, and do it throughout a project things will get missed resulting in project overheads, delays, and costs in both penalties and incidents.

Applying discipline helps us effectively manage change, and it helps to ensure that issues that may cause problems come up sooner rather than later. 

The alternative to this approach of following methodology is to be surprised – this is characterized for example, by getting part way into a project and realizing the active directory you had build needs to be rebuilt – or discovering that one part of the service you provide will just never work with another part, forcing you to look for some kind of bad designed compromise to meet deadlines.

ISO 42010 essentially gives us an international standard on what an architecture description should include – it enables us to build traceable architectures that meet the needs of our stakeholders, and it does so in a very scaleable way, It enables a consistency of understanding and expectation when transferring architecture from point to point. 

Explicit Value In Motivation Modelling

Up until this point its worth noting that most of the value i have spoken about is relating in generic terms to the benefits given, but of course ArchiMate and some other modelling methodologies allow us to represent values within the architecture going well beyond the generic.  ArchiMate has the motivational layer which is there to show the reason why we do things, and has an actual value element – and of course we can easily derive value normally by just looking at our goals, and outcomes.  Take a look at the example:

The example is a motivation view for an architecture concern. As part of our common practice we might connect values to our goals directly in the model. When you follow the flow of the motivation view above from top to bottom – the values become obvious at the point we get to the goal element – so we model them too.

All architecture should provide value, and in this case we explicitly define it for this requirement (Reduced Capital Expenditure, Reduced Maintenance Cost, Modern Future proof solution).

An implementation & migration viewpoint is focused on how we deliver and meet requirements, and not its value – which is one of the key reasons I also state in addition to implementation and migration, motivational modelling is also a good idea. Of course because this is part of a model we are presented with a powerful mechanism for prioritization workloads – when our management wants to run initiatives to reduce costs for example – we could easily auto generate a viewpoint to show which of our work packages contribute to that, and then we can take a discussion with those stakeholders about re-prioritizing workload in a structured fashion and understand how our other values and goals are effected in doing so.

Summing it up…

Architecture and design before doing things are an essential mechanism for avoiding risk and cost. Architecture is a discipline, and unless you take time to do things before during and after a project you never realize its value. Architects must think and be trained; and they must be given time to run through a design process that applies methodology in order to get the value. If we do this, we will literally save millions of euros in penalties, and will have better more focused projects with a significantly higher success rate. Communication overheads will reduce and better communication will be enabled.

To those who think architecture is only drawing pictures – I would say you do not understand what an architect is, or what an architect does, and would recommend you read ISO 42010; For each part of an architecture design ask the question  “does that provide value, and what is the risk if I do not do that?”

To those that leave architecture to the end of a project, I would say, you’ve lost most of the value architecture could have given you already – because you didn’t see the risks coming fully, may have missed some requirements and you likely had a communication overhead. There’s still some value in doing it so others may follow what you went through and why, and of course anything that adds to an architecture model is a good thing. 

Architecture discipline brings architecture value. I would love to hear from you. 

Planning Work With ArchiMate

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.‚Äč

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

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:

TELOS

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.