Architects involved in organisational redesign or compliance challenges face various complex legislation or internal policies developed from the perspective of a particular stakeholder. How can they come up with associated EA recommendations without adding even more complexity? Jeanne Ross from MIT has been saying for several years that too much complexity in organizational transformations destroys EA value. This is even a more pronounced hazard when confronting Digital Transformation opportunities.
Most organizations tend to get more complex over time. New processes, roles and reporting lines are added. New steering groups and advisory boards are established. New cross-functional initiatives are launched…all with the best of intentions. But the cumulative effect is increased complexity, which means that goals and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) start to conflict with each other. As a result, we spend even more time in internal meetings, and have increased trouble reaching a consensus on key decisions. Ideally, we should try to avoid too much complexity in the first place when we make changes, but, as with the case of Technical Debt, it takes a conscious effort and supporting principles to accentuate the need for greater simplicity.
Various “world class” practices explain how to categorize the enterprise environment and suggest various rules on how to customize a given framework or method such that it becomes useful in a given context. Such guidelines, though, are not a cure for a lack of common sense and the careful and thorough analysis of the context. It is not inherently intuitive, though, to comprehensively and systematically consider various factors for a cohesive end result. For example, one has to consider the ever shifting business and technical environments, resources, emerging technologies, and management practices.
At the same time, enterprises are subject to market pressures and exponentially changing landscapes. They must pursue their best to shorten their time to market for products/services and transform legacy systems into modernized architectures. Choices increasingly include choosing among various paths to achieve cloud capabilities and microservices architectures. Key objectives given such intimidating challenges also include the need for more agility and resilience.
Those who are not afraid to accept the role of “Czar Orchestrator,” and its heavy crown in their role as Chief Architect, should therefore evaluate the concept of Management Mesh from VeriSM. The meaning of word “mesh” suggests a “weblike pattern or construction,” which means that we don’t have to choose from a rigid set of rules and patterns. Instead, we can use this mesh pattern. It has 4 key aspects that can be logically combined to create the smallest useful set of building blocks. This approach can help enable your enterprise to operate more effectively and efficiently in delivering value for the customer while remaining compliant and competitive.
Authored by Alex Wyka, Senior Consultant and Trainer