Comments on: Architecture for Dummies

By: Phil Gilbert | Perspectives in Process

Phil Gilbert | Perspectives in Process — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:30:13 +0000

Smokin’ the Dummy…

OK, I have the perfect opportunity to quote from one of Texas’ great musicians, Terry Allen, but Dylan’s new record is too good to cut short. So instead of linking to Terry’s music, I’ll just tell you that if you…

By: Phil Gilbert

Phil Gilbert — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:06:35 +0000

Ha! OK… we’re almost in agreement. I agree with you that its everyone from the CEO on down who needs to re-think the situation in the context of the tools of today. In the post I not only say that technologists must be driven to understand how they fit within the business goals (which is something above the level of ‘business requirements’ for a given project; it needs to be communicated in the context of a balanced scorecrd or whatever measurement the CEO uses) but I also say that the correlary has to occur within the business. But the correlary of IT’s understanding of where they fit within the balanced scorecard (and how we/they impact it very day) isn’t ‘SOA for Dummies’… it’s coming to a strategic understanding of which levers afecting the corporate goals can most effectively be pulled using technology. Once understood, then architecting the technology can occur because now the architect understands the goal.

Of course, this is somewhat iterative (the “form and function” quote came to mind), but it’s not going to be achieved because a business person reads a simplistic 300 page tome about technology architecture…. any more than building the house of my dreams will be improved if I first read an Architecture 101 book (although a solution-oriented book, like a tour of Fallingwater might help).

That business people need to understand the strategic import of technology and the advances (and related empowerments) of the past 10-20 years is unassailable. I don’t think this is that book… and I don’t think that book has yet been written… Harvard Press, are you listening?

By: bruce

bruce — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:35:24 +0000

Fair comment, Phil, and I agree with you on the goal. I guess the issue is who needs to be educated, business or IT. You’re saying IT needs to get the business religion. But they THINK they already have it. So I’m saying a better approach is to give ~~dummies~~ business managers the tools to say, No that’s not exactly what we want.

IT is fine when the business is left to creating “business requirements documents.” It’s when they start specifying implementation that IT gets nervous. But the business specifying IT implementation is in some sense a driving principle of BPM, so I say “Dummies, arise. In knowledge ye shall find power!”

By: Phil Gilbert

Phil Gilbert — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:59:05 +0000

Hi Bruce… yep, actually I agree with much of what you say… but you misunderstood one aspect of my post… I am _not_ advocating advocating any more A or S’s. We have enough of those. The heart of my post is that the business, top-down (from the CEO) has to take a much more active role on understanding where technology fits in their world strategically, as opposed to driving the change from the “service” on up. The business is the building, and SOA is the (technology) foundation. I don’t advocate a “BOA” layer… because that IS the business. How we drive those messages throughout the organization is more important than driving the SOA messages throughout the org, and in a world of scarce resources, messaging priorities have to be made.