“Flow is an optimal state of consciousness where we feel our best and perform our best” – a state where “you are so focussed on a task that everything else disappears.”
Stephen Kotler – The Art of the Impossible
By Lizette Robbertze, Organization Optimization Architect and Digital Strategist
As architects, we often think about that dream job where you can design a perfect technology architecture that would enable the Business to such an extent that it achieves a substantial competitive advantage based on its innovative and exemplary technology solutions. However, in real life, we mostly have to either try and fix an existing legacy architecture or, in the rare cases where we have the mandate to create a new architecture for a business domain, find that this brand-spanking new architecture still has to integrate into some existing legacy architecture, leaving us battered and bruised by the time of go-live.
So, how do we move out of the constant need to fix defect root causes in non-optimal technology landscapes and move to creating architectures that has flow and can be our legacy in life?
Indeed, it can’t be to only change current architectural designs to the latest and greatest architectural styles, since there will always be a new style—there has to be a different ‘mechanism’ for creating architectures. A mechanism that will enable optimal collaboration and efficiency within the total technology landscape to such an extent that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
It also can’t be about architecting an optimal “End State,” as the Business enabled by the architecture is not static—it changes constantly to align itself to the latest customer buying trends and, is competing with others that have found innovative ways to excel in the latest geopolitical system. Rather, it is about achieving and maintaining agility and resilience in the technology landscape while enabling an optimal flow of data and transactionality.
(Please refer to my previous article: “Five steps to principle-based technology transformation”. https://www.architectureandgovernance.com/applications-technology/five-steps-to-principle-based-technology-transformation/)
In my opinion, an architecture that will ensure such agility, resilience, and flow must be based on the following criteria:
- A holistically planned “Structure” (as one would do when creating the architecture for a new building) – intended to be as simple as possible to prevent the unknown change consequences found in complex environments.
- Maintenance of the “Stature“, or optimal performance, of the landscape.
Additionally, a technology landscape is a system within a Business system, which again operates within the larger geopolitical system. All such systems operate at optimal efficiency only if there is a symbiosis between the components within the system. Such symbiosis requires alignment, focus and governance – ensured through:
- Achieving “Multipartisan Alignment” – alignment within the architecture, with the requirements of Business, and with the external technological trends
- Using the services of a “Transformation Decision Centre” or Advisory Board to govern and prioritize changes to the architecture
The section below examines each of the four criteria in more detail.
- Holistic Structure
Structure exemplifies the patterns used in defining/creating architectures. The more well-defined (based on a small set of decision-making principles), simpler (e.g., event-based, loosely coupled and standardized), and modern such patterns are, the more agile the resulting architecture.
While large businesses usually opt for federated architectures where each business line makes its own technology decisions, there always comes a point where the Business decides to either integrate some of the business lines, start global cross-selling, or engage in some other type of collaboration that would require the different parts to work in unity and therefore, we do need to maintain a “holistic” structure.
However, in contrast to architectures for buildings, technology architecture structure needs to evolve. Therefore, frequent evaluations of the technology landscape are required to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Then, design strategies such as the “Blue Ocean” can help enforce the strengths while overcoming the weaknesses through modernization.
- Optimal Stature
Stature identifies the efficiency and supportability of the technology landscape. Landscapes with low stature scores break often and require many resources to support and maintain, which, of course, can be a significant expense on the technology budget.
Stature must be planned while defining the architecture, using, for example, feedback mechanisms for error handling, control enforcement, and documented architecture descriptions to enable support and maintainability.
Unfortunately, in our latest ways of agile working, this facet of architecture is often neglected to achieve short-term change goals in record times – usually as knee reactions to immature business requirements.
- Multipartisan Alignment
Both horizontal, vertical, and circular alignment are required for any business.
Figure 1 below shows all the components / participants in any business system.
Figure 1: Components in any Business system
3.1 Vertical Alignment
Vertical alignment is required to transport information within the different layers of the architecture – it needs to move through all areas of the organization and, be stored for future reference.
Figure 2 below shows all the different layers in a technology architecture.
Figure 2: The different layers in a Technology architecture
The movement of information is usually achieved through API integration or file sharing. The design of seamless data-sharing activities can be complicated where data structure and stature are not formally managed – for example, where:
- Data lineage is unknown.
- Data formats are not specified and enforced in data dictionaries.
- Data is moved between modern and legacy environments.
- Data validation rules are unknown or wholly misaligned across the environment.
Data storage is another interesting topic, for apart from protecting the information against cyber threats or, as an asset to the organization, alignment within the data stored will unlock immense value/insights and become the foundation for successful Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence initiatives.
3.2 Horizontal Alignment
The current trends of using SaaS solutions and moving to the cloud have made the technology landscape’s maintenance and risk management extremely difficult. There is no complete control over the performance of the end-to-end landscape.
Any of the parties can change their solutions (software and/or infrastructure configurations) at any point, and those changes can have various impacts – which can be tested if known but which often slip in under the radar.
Figure 3 below shows a typical horizontal view of a technology architecture.
Figure 3: Horizontal view of a Technology architecture
3.3 Circular Alignment
Businesses must survive in very competitive environments and, therefore, need to frequently update their business models (products and services, distribution channels, pricing strategies, and marketing tactics) and, operating models (people and process structures).
Ideally, updates would be planned according to a well-defined strategy – serving as the focus for transformation. However, in today’s agile world, these change requirements originate mainly from short term goals with poorly defined requirements , enabled via hot-fix solutions – the long-term impact of such behaviour should be known to all architects.
Especially where multiple business units create individual changes without considering the impact on others who use the same technology components.
Therefore, to ensure proper circular alignment within an organization, a central body, understanding the holistic Business and the technologies that enable the Business is a critical need. I call this central body a “Transformation Decision Centre” – as discussed in point 4 below.
- Transformation Decision Centre
The Technology Decision Centre has the following objective:
To maintain flow within Business and Technology architectures – therefore, to ensure multipartisan alignment through the most optimal structure and the most efficient stature.
Figure 4 below shows the positioning of a Transformation Decision Centre.
Figure 4: Positioning of a Transformation Decision Centre in an Organization
To achieve this objective, it needs to ensure:
- Transformation is focussed across the organization according to a pre-defined and well-understood transformation strategy.
- A holistic view is maintained of the structure, stature, and alignment within the Business and its technology architecture.
- The holistic view is used to update transformation requirements – using methodologies such as “Blue Ocean”, where decisions are made about what to remove, what to enhance, what to add and what to reduce.
- Services of experts in the industry are used to advise on optimization requirements and strategies.
- Transformation initiatives are prioritized to ensure they are aligned and, where relevant, to assist with the creation of pertinent business cases.
- Governance all transformation deliverables to ensure they positively impact the Business as a whole.
Therefore, the Transformation Decision Centre will assist in creating FLOW within the Business and its Technology Architecture.