Architecture and Engineering
It seems that I am having to take side journeys whilst trying to get back to the issue of complexity. It seems necessary, however, for me to assert a position regarding the linkage between architecture and engineering in the context of the enterprise.
Within the Enterprise Architecture community and the wider information systems architectural community, there seems to be a developing trend to move away from the term Enterprise Architecture and towards Enterprise Engineering. I have considerd this move and actually started moving towards it in the language of my client work. However, a recent experience has reasserted for me the view that architecture is the language we seek at the interface between the business, its aspirations, and the information systems which support the achievement of those aspirations.
Recently I attended a traditional latin mass at a Cathedral in Melbourne with all its attendant mystery and ritual. I realised as I sat there transfixed by the experience, that here was a process being applied to the use of a technology (and great Cathedrals are certainly technological achievements) that was a perfect expression of the aspirations of a community.
In like manner, the discipline of Enterprise Architecture was intended to express the vision of the enterprise in a means that would allow it to be translated into the relevant technologies to deliver that vision or aspiration.
One of the conclusions I have drawn is that the push to move to the use of the term enterprise engineering instead of enterprise architecture is flawed. The discipline of EA was intended to be the means for expressing the vision of the enterprise. As you will see my thinking has evolved to encapsulate techno-social systems. Such systems have a deep impact on the evolution of human communities. And once you put the pieces together it becomes obvious that what we are actually talking about is the evolution of the human enterprise. Ever since those earliest ancestors of homo sapien sapien picked up rock and bone and turned them into tools, the ascent of man has been the story of human evolution through the application of process to the use of tools to either shape or respond to the environment. The very use of those tools has even shaped the evolution of our own bodies - the opposable thumb being a great example.
The discipline of architecture in the built environment is one of expressing the aspirations of a community, group or family in the shape of a built environment. Engineering is about taking the architectural vision and translating it into pipes and bricks and cement and all of the other materials that make up a built environment. Therefore, to try and reframe EA as an engineering discipline is to remove the business vision from the organisation. We are then back to the IT centric view which expresses the solution in terms of databases and transactions and communication systems. Engineering at the solution layer is right. The concept of a solution architect has never been about anything more than working out how to put the pieces together.
It is fundamentally wrong to try and reframe EA though. If we remove the architecture from the concept then where does the enterprise go to, to express the linkage between the enterprise goals and aspirations and the processes and technologies used to deliver that vision. To further try and reframe it because the IT industry has done a poor job of providing EA services is, again, a flawed approach.
EA expresses the concept of Aristotle's "holon" in it's holistic intent. With Husserl I believe that the disciplines of information systems are the source for the philosophy of our time. For that philosophy to be relevant it must, as expressed by Hegel, represent "it's very age comprehended in thought". EA is the right frame of reference for expressing the aspirations of the organisation. Enterprise engineering does not in my humble opinion.
Technological Society?
This may seem like an oblique way to tackle the question of complexity, but I think it will become evident as we pull together the threads of this discussion over the next few posts.
In reviewing the literature on technological development and social systems development I was struck by the consistent reference to the thought that we live in a technological society - and that somehow, we are the first generations to do so. In addition we somehow think that the complex issues we face as a society such as climate change are somehow new and difficult to understand and respond to.
I will return to the question of climate change and the human response to it in a later blog.
For the moment, I would like to address the observation that a technological society is somehow new. Dare I suggest that there is a certain generational arrogance implicit in this view. It is true that the volume of technological change is unprecedented. However, technological change is not.
Our earliest ancestors began a new phase in the ascent of man when they started to manipulate bone and rock to use them as tools. Since that time we have adapted and developed new tools, new practices for the use of those tools and as a result the ascending ape species known as man increasingly shaped the environment instead of just responding to it.
EcoThought staff regularly use the principles of Enterprise Architecture when seeking to understand and manage complexity. The underlying principles we use suggests that humans and organisations apply principles and processes to the use of technology to shape or respond to the environment.
The application of process to the use of technology is a consistent part of the rise of the human enterprise.
As an example, the tools depicted above were developed by Cro-Magnon man. A range of simple tools are depicted - they are forms of technology. Each of them were used to perform a task or process which met the needs of the individual and the community. With these tools the cro-magnon communities could begin the processes that would lead ultimately to the formation of larger communities. What is important to note though is that the application of technology was still a feature of these ancient communities.
Transformation and Inflection Points
Transformation and Spirituality
Jonas Salk, the medical pioneer who developed the vaccine for polio went on to undertake significant research into the cycle of existence for various species. In his work he concluded that there were three very distinct patterns to the lifecycle of any species. In brief they were:
• Following long and stable growth, the rate of growth suddenly spurts upward, after which the species ceases to exist;
• Growth accelerates, then rapidly declines, then accelerates, then declines again, fluctuating throughout its entire existence;
• A long period of steady growth is maintained, then spikes upward and then hits a plateau on which it maintains itself from then on (this is the normal pattern for species which survive).
In the third type of transformation, the species reaches a “point of inflection” which divides the entire mode of the species’ existence into two distinct epochs. At the point of inflection, a transformation is triggered in the existence of a species which creates the conditions conducive to the long term survival of the species. Salk concluded that the human species was entering the point of inflection and that there would have to be a significant shift in human values and modes of survival if the species was to continue to survive. Critical to this period was that Salk concluded that as a result of our work on genetics and other related fields we have reached a point where we can affect the genetic outcome, and closely aligned to this that we had reached a point where we could, through the application of human will, affect the outcome of our own evolution.
The Practice of Enterprise Architecture
The practice of Enterprise Architecture is rapidly becoming established in the Corporate environmnent as a basis for linking the development of systems and capabilities to business outcomes. However EA as a field is still relatively new and the field is developing rapidly as Enterprise Architects gain experience in the application of the discipline to resolve business problems and identify new capability requirements. EcoThought is contributing to the development of that body of knowledge in corporate environments.
However, whilst the field of Enterprise Architecture is comparatively new, it has it's roots in the basis of the Human Enterprise itself. This linkage will be explored in a later post. This blog explores the Enterprise Architecture model itself.
When is the Time to Innovate?
I have listened with interest to the discussions surrounding how to respond to the global financial crisis. Amidst the clamouring noise I heard one message which, whilst unsurprising, is still, nevertheless disappointing. Many suggest that we now just tighten our belts, and just keep things ticking over "until conditions improve". We should stop all spending on research and just do what we already know.
To this I ask the question framed above - when is the time to innovate? We have just come through a period of great wealth in Australia. As a country we became very comfortable, but the economic rationalists suggested that we should save that wealth for harder times. An admirable concept - but we were told that we should not spend money on research. Yet the paths to future wealth all go through the road of innovation and research. Australia has built it's current wealth on the sale of primary goods. Our industry has been demolished and sold off over time. We are left with a country that is primarily dominated by primary industry and tertiary services industries - many of which repatriate their profits to other countries.
The key to our children's future is to innovate. Can someone tell me when the best time to do that might be?
Sustainability as a Principle
I was recently pondering a range of initiatives which have been either stopped as a consequence of questions of sustainability or which were framed to achieve enhanced sustainability. In all cases that I have looked at there appears to be a strong skewing to one aspect of sustainability - the natural environment.\
As a systems thinker I have often been struck by the fact that sustainability is generally only seen in terms of the natural environment. I think there is a more holistic view of this issue of sustainability.
I believe there are three distinct aspects to sustainability:
Sustainability in terms of the natural environment
Sustainability in terms of human performance; and
Sustainability in terms of the human enterprise.
Of Accountants, Project Managers and Long Term Thinking
During the past week I was asked to sit in a value management workshop for the design of a new facility for emergency management. While sitting in the workshop I was struck by the short term viewpoints which seem to dominate our thinking as a society. As discussed elsewhere in this website, the design of new working environments needs to incorporate human considerations in its design. There is a fine balance between form and function and the need to provide work environments in which humans can act and work effectively for sustained periods of time. This is no more evident than in the context of emergency management centres where high information workloads are combined with long hours and high impact decision to create difficult working environments.
During the workshop I was struck, however, by the dominance of short term thinking which seems to dominate our present modes of thinking.
On Being Human
So much of what we do in EcoThought revolves around understanding how to design environments to create sustainable human living environments, that I could not help but take some time out to consider what it actually means to be human.
Setting aside belief systems as a basis for defining what it means to be human, one rapidly comes to the bedrock that Descartes encountered when he coined the well known phrase "cogito ergo sum" - (I am thinking, therefore I exist). From this bedrock Descartes rebuilt his philosophy on the basis of his belief in a "perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God". In a global society, however, where for many a belief in such a God is not a part of their existence, how do we move from this bedrock to understand what it means to be human.
Posts by date
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Categories
- Complex Systems (1)
- Complexity (2)
- Corporate Behaviour (1)
- Enterprise Architecture (3)
- Government (1)
- Human Behaviour (4)
- Human Enterprise (2)
- Human Sustainability (5)
- Human Transformation (2)
- Short Term Thinking (2)
- Uncategorized (3)
- Vision (3)
Beige Thinking Built Architecture Case study Complexity Complex Systems consumer worship Enterprise Architecure Human Aspiration Human Enterprise human performance Human Transformation Innovation Jungian Thinking National Infrastructure Nietzsche On Being Human Online Business Online etiquette Philosophy political dogma role of Government Sustainability systems thinking The Blogsphere The Human Condition Trust
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Licensing Panel
If you want to see my LinkedIn profile, click on this button:
