Monday, July 11, 2005

Why I Blog?

I posted my first blog on May 4th, 2005 -- just over three months ago -- I've probably posted fifty more since.

I'm constantly amazed how little I know about blogging. Nevertheless, I keep plodding forward, one posting at a time. I'm learning while blogging.

I blog to hopefully share smart informative content and to sometimes be funny.

In my many and varied readings and cyber travels as ITscout, I run across an amazingly eclectic mix of all kinds of diverse and interesting information. When I find something especially worthwhile, I like to share it with the ITscout Blog audience.

Cyber Passionate

I'm a passionate person.

I'm passionate about computing. I'm passionate about cognitive psychology (i.e., how the meat between your ears processes information). I'm passionate about architecture -- whatever that is.

Plus, I've got a long history of being a natural-born cyber crusader.
  • I worked side-by-side with the late Ted Codd (Dr. Edgar Codd), inventor of the relational model, and his partner, Chris Date, the famous author who literally wrote the very first database management textbook.
  • I crusaded way back when -- helping introduce VAXes into DEC.
  • I crusaded during the period while the software industry transitioned, first to client-server, then to object-oriented, and later to service-oriented.

My current crusade revolves around a very simple theme: Standardization & Consolidation SAVES MONEY!

Three key audiences need to be kept in mind when dealing with software:
  • the worker who deals with information
  • the developer who builds applications, or extensions to applications
  • the IT department which needs to maintain directories, manage systems, or provide support
"There is a need for one architecture that addresses all these needs."

Architecture is always about two sets of activities:
  1. modeling
  2. documenting
Enterprise Architecture consists of four sets of models:
  1. Business Architecture
  2. Data Architecture
  3. Application Architecture
  4. Technology Architecture

Business Architecture models business processes

Data Architecture models business objects

Application Architecture models business solutions

Technology Architecture models technology portfolios

In order to standardize & consolidate, Technology Architecture models require:
  • category trees (i.e., classification hierarchies)
  • products organized by category
  • related vendor information
  • legend icons that visually cue multi-dimensional context

What's needed...

A repository and presentation tool to explain and mesh strategy (management's need) with operations (IT's need).

Having only individual silos familiar with what they have (which is more the norm than not), causes inflexibility in enterprises and is very costly. What companies need is to have a classification hierarchy so that people can easily navigate to the information they need.

It is critical that there be common content that is usable by all different levels. Management needs to see it at a strategic level. IT needs to see it at an operations level. Both need to see it as it changes, so that both areas are continually in synch with one another. Something must be there to hold everything together.

Strategy exists at the domain level. Management needs to see the categories in a very robust way with technology areas interdependent with other technology areas. This provides management with a framework from which to make investment decisions.

There needs to be clearly explained both the current and target states of each domain. Strategic decisions and purchase decisions are based on this information. It allows companies to explain what they are thinking, and the reasons why they are making certain decisions. It helps in "building the journey" to show people what they have and where they're going.

Investment decisions need to be based on strategy. That is a key aspect of what Enterprise Architecture is all about.


Anonymous Jack Krupansky said...

I think it's great that you're passionate about computing. I used to be passionate about computing, but the industry has descended into such a dark age of unproductive pursuits that I see little of what goes on to be passionate about. I spend more time thinkly about what else to do such computing offers such a gloomy future.

One issue is that IT has evolved so well that it essentially is a reflection of the organization it supports. The problem is that most organizations are in such a sad state of disorganization (airlines, car companies, large portions of the tech sector, newspapers and magazines, utilities, etc.), that any further evolution of IT in pursuit of synergistically supporting the organization is in fact very counter-productive. The companion problem is that IT has gotten so complex and the organization so dependent on IT, that many organizations are simply precluded from changing because it's virtually impossible to change both the organization and IT in lock-step, even if they indeed knew what changes to make to the organization.

The truth is that quite a number of current organizations simply need to be liquidated. How many IT executives and managers want to be part of that, let alone lead the charge?

-- Jack Krupansky

6:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home