Adventures in Consulting

DoDAF Conference

My company is speaking at a DoDAF 2.0 conference . . . 

Exalt Consulting Group to Participate in Conference on New DoD Technology Standard

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Oct. 27, 2008 – Two partners from Exalt Consulting Group will have central roles in next week’s conference on the Department of Defense Architectural Framework 2.0, the standard that will improve interoperability and enterprise data sharing within the network-centric battle space.  Exalt’s Andrew Heifetz will make introductory remarks as the chairperson on the second day.

 

            Hosted by the Institute for Government Defense and Advancement, the U.S. Department of Defense Fall Symposium is a three-day conference that will outline the upgrades of DoDAF 2.0 and its data-centric approach to architecting that is based on the establishment, maintenance, and discipline of a formal architecture metadata structure.  The event is essential for the systems engineering industry because it provides architectural examples for modeling complex systems, which can lead to development of new defense capabilities.

    

B|D|A|T|S(TM) Architecture Methodology

After several years of developing and using architectures we developed our B|D|A|T|S™ architecture methodology.  "B|D|A|T|S” symbolizes the business, data, application, technical, and security views of an architecture. We expanded the core methodology to cover and federate four levels of architecture: enterprise, integration, solutions, infrastructure.  Enterprise architecture looks across the entire organization as well as the eco-system of suppliers and customers.   Integration architecture looks at a family of systems and end-to-end processes whiles solutions architecture address a single system.  Infrastructure architecture deals the shared data centers and core services.  This level is more applicable if you’re building the "cloud" instead of using it.   

One the biggest problems we encounter, is that everyone has a different take on what architecture means to them.  One person’s enterprise architecture can be another person’s solution architecture.      Applying B|D|A|T|S™ views across the four levels really helps us overcome the ambiguous meaning of architecture and define its purpose and scope (“fit for purpose”).  For example, the business view of enterprise architecture is very different from the business view of infrastructure architecture.  The enterprise layer would look at the business model and capabilities while the infrastructure layer would focus on service catalogs and levels The other important aspect of the methodology is the ability to federate or link across the layers.  This provides line of site from the business model to the individual applications and projects.  It allows different architects to maintain the right level of abstract to suit their objectives - but still have the ability, when needed, to drill down to more detail or drill up for a bigger picture.

   

Federation is an important concept since most enterprise architectures are simply too large and complex to be described within a single integrated architecture (and by a single architectural team). A single architecture would be either too abstract and wouldn't be useful (30,000 feet and climbing anti-pattern), or would need to compile massive amounts of data that would be impractical (boiling the ocean anti-pattern).  The federation approach allows for distributing, linking, and discovering architectural information across disparate teams.

Tech Ed 2008 Observations

I had three interesting observations from Microsoft’s TechEd 2008 conference earlier this summer:

1. Advancing the Architecture Profession
2. SOA was passé
3. Bill Gates is bullish on architecture modeling

Advancing Architecture

There were a lot of seminars on architects and the architecture profession.  Overall, everyone felt the trend was the increasing importance of architects.  The top three take-aways:

1. Architecture will become increasing important as other IT skills get commoditized and outsourced (infrastructure, development, etc.). 
2. An architect’s soft skills are as, if not more, important than technical skills.  Architects really need old fashion consulting skills.  Not a new insight, but Microsoft and TOGAF and defining nice competency models.    
3. Architecture is a very young discipline as compared to engineering or computer science.   Old analogies about buildings and city planning aren’t helping communicate the role of the architect.

SOA was passé 

While there was a major SOA track, the focus was more on where the services would reside, in the “cloud”, in a local data center, or rented via SaaS.  No one was really talking about how SOA was going to revolutionize business and how to add SOA to your company.  This change in direction is good for the industry.  The abstract talk combined with vendor marketing was creating a backlash. 

Architecture Modeling

During Bill Gate’s last speech at Microsoft, he talked about two software areas that he was really excited about.  One of these was architecture modeling (the other was robotics).   Microsoft’s next generation of tools (visual studio) will include a “federated” repository to store and link various models from across the enterprise.   Visual studio will also include modeling and visualization tools.  Microsoft has been pushing Model Driven approaches is various ways over the years (BizTalk, SSIS, Operations Center, SML, etc.) but now they are working a unifying strategy. 

Given the industry weight of Microsoft and IBM (through Rational and Telelogic) we may really see advanced in modeling as it applies to EA.  This can only be a good thing given the pain around current Enterprise Architecture tools.

Architecture Anti-patterns: JIT Hiring

I was at a Microsoft Conference and saw an entertaining presentation on architecture anti-patterns.   My favorite was JIT Hiring.  This anti-pattern is when a company or consulting firm gets funding for a project and then goes out and hires the personnel just in time to deliver the solution.  We all know that people aren’t spare parts in a supply chain that can be hired just in time to deliver a solution.   The result is predictable – a dysfunctional, under-performing team. 

In our company we also call it the “Food Court” anti-pattern – one could go out to the food court in a mall and randomly assemble a team with the same cohesion and performance. 

It is possible to rapidly assemble a team experienced professionals.  I’ve seen it work in rare instances where the team members had a shared understanding.  Either they had worked together in the past or came from environments with the same culture.   In other cases, the team leaders worked very hard forging the team and building esprit de corps.   

Project managers should pointy ask about key personnel on the team.  How long have they been with the organization, how long have they worked together, etc.  And, of course, watch for the bait and switch anti-pattern.