Archive for May, 2010

The Open Enterprise Manifesto

BetterMeans, a company with obviously motivated individuals came up with a very nice idea of changing the corporate model. In their “Open Enterprise Manifesto” they summarize the problems of current corporate model and point out to a need of a new model. The main problems of the existing corporate model are pointed out as suppressed innovation, mistrust within organization, reward model etc. Open enterprise model introduces following concepts to the corporate model

  • Values-Centered instead of goal oriented
  • Democracy instead of top-down management
  • Currency based compensation

The problems starts at this point. Instead of analysing the current system holistically and finding out the sources of the problems, these problems are assumed to be the core problems and solution is based on them. Mistake is making this assumption. Corporate model is not there because some people had good ideas. It’s based on capitalist economic system and its values. We can historically state that current corporate model is not the most effective one, it has it’s on evolution. The question to the open enterprise is this: are you trying to evolve the current corporate model or trying to change current economic system and how it works with a paradigm shift?

If manifesto is trying to make a revolutionary change (my feeling is this is the goal), then the scope must be a lot bigger than corporate model. There’s nothing to discuss about why open enterprise model is good or bad. This is not the correct scope. It’s very naïve to think one can apply positive concepts like open source development, web-based services, democracy, being environment friendly etc. and it’ll fix all the problems. This is called “ready-fire-aim syndrome“. Zeitgeist movement is also trying to define the future similarly maybe with a better scope but also failing to identify the root causes of the problems such as “right of possession”.

If the idea is more local, the goal is only trying to improve the corporate model without assuming changes of the economical model, values of the current economical model is completely forgotten. Strength of capitalism is highly under estimated.

Microsoft and Enterprise Architecture

May 11, 2010 1 comment

Mike Walker answers the question very clearly in his post:

– Does Microsoft have an EA framework, methodology or a EA product?

– No.

He explains the “Enterprise Architecture Toolkit (EATK)” is not a framework but just one tool in the EA Toolbox. Here’s some disappointing bullets I noted from the alignment between TOGAF and EATK:

3. Create Architecture Models

There are a variety of activities have to occur to create architecture models.
1. System Architecture Document – First you need a place to describe those modes. The EATK uses the System Architecture document for this task.
2. Visio – Most architects and developers use Visio to model their architectures. The EATK has linked valuable information from the AMR so that the shapes in the model link to real assets and patterns.
3. AMR Pattern References – The AMR provides the facility for storing assets and building blocks that an organization has standardized upon.

B. Business Architecture

Supports the document management and workflow aspects however there is limited automation to these tasks.

It’s also very unfortunate that Microsoft sees enterprise architecture as an IT practice that encompass all of the various IT aspects and processes. Tom Graves explains enterprise is bigger than the organization, let alone IT, and enterprise architecture cannot be it practice. Gartner also identifies this as one of the pitfalls of enterprise architecture.

I wish we could see Microsoft more business oriented rather than technology oriented. Unfortunately this became a pattern for them despite community feedback (here on oslo, here on workflow foundation, …)

Simple Events vs. Complex Events

A Conceptual Model for Event Processing Systems” article from IBM discusses how event processing can be used to realize EDA. Article gives a good overview of event processing and defines a conceptual model for it. The goal of the conceptual model is

to form the basis for implementations of event processing systems and event-driven applications, and to provide a common framework for specifying, comparing and contrasting event processing solution architectures and implementations.

Article provides a basis for implementations of event processing systems but it definitely doesn’t provide any framework for specifying event processing architectures. This is not possible if event producing concept is reduced to Producer – Processing – Consumer relations. If the scope is not the event processing but the architectures which makes use of complex event processing, we should talk about business processes and business entity lifecycles, not producers and consumers. In this scope, the definitions for simple/complex events provided in the article will not be enough neither.

  • Simple events are those which occurs in business processes usually because of a transition in the lifecycle of a business entity. Some of these events are interesting even for other business processes and they’ll be published as notifications.
  • Complex events, however, are the outputs of complex event processing. They’re created by processing a stream of events and applying rules.

There’s a section in the article called “Business Event Processing”. I don’t know how it made into this article. Are there also “Technical Event Processing” which is most likely not interesting for business, maybe also doesn’t add business value? This section shows me very clearly that the publishers of the article were not able to see CEP in a higher scope. They’re in the level of producers and consumers, the level of implementing an event processing system, not using it.

Categories: Enterprise Integration Tags: ,