Abraham, I'd like you to meet John

by Jeff Tash

I recently was reading an EACommunity Discussion Topic in which a member, Michael W., was complaining about his “frustration with the variety of approaches and pseudo-approaches which all purport to be Enterprise Architecture.” 

Michael’s comments grabbed my attention. I decided to write a response. 

But I was a newbie. I had never submitted any feedback before. I’ve been strictly a READONLY member of the EACommunity. I’m no thread contributor. 

But with Michael’s plea for help, I felt like I had a compelling story to share. 

So, it was at that exact moment, as I sat at my PC, reading the discussion topic entitled, “Will the real EA please stand up?”, sharing that author’s concerns over the lack of rigor and discipline in enterprise architecture -- that’s when I decided to jump into the fray.

I have never been one who felt compelled to put pen to paper… oops… d’oh… I mean… fingers to keyboard. I’ve been quite happy just being able to express myself freely as a public speaker -- a role where I have had the privilege of developing a close personal relationship with DCI, the parent of EACommunity and DCI’s founder -- George Schussel. Our history together stretches back twenty years. Since 1983, I have presented to tens of thousands of attendees at various DCI Worlds & Conferences worldwide.

Enough small talk. Let me share with you how I responded to Michael’s remarks regarding enterprise architecture. 

I began by pointing out how it’s correct to say, but sad to report, that enterprise architecture has remained painfully stuck at an immature stage of its evolutionary development. It feels like we’ve all been at this same place for a very long time -- with gloomy prospects of anything improving any time soon. This lack of hope has led many to conclude that enterprise architects are doomed to depression if not downright despair. [Prozac and Zoloft are the drugs of choice among today’s corps of enterprise architects.]

A chief problem with enterprise architecture is that it hasn’t yet hit that sweet spot -- that elbow along the exponential growth curve where the graph suddenly spikes upward. As author Geoffrey Moore might say, enterprise architecture hasn’t yet crossed the chasm. It’s mired, instead, in Moore’s tornadoes.

Confusion, chaos, disorder -- those are characteristics of any emerging technology. The lack of rigor and discipline is not unique to enterprise architecture. It’s typical of all emerging technologies. Consider Web Services. In that area standards are currently getting spit out in a process that often resembles what you might expect if you accidentally dropped a chain saw into a vat of Jell-o.

Enterprise architecture is sick. It needs eXtreme "new" medicine.

Let me share with you an approach I've taken where we've had some considerable success. It’s called eXtreme Enterprise Architecture (XEA). Think of it as Abraham Maslow meets John Zachman.

For those of you unfamiliar with Abraham Maslow, you can read a brief bio by visiting http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html.

For any of you who are both a member of EACommunity and unfamiliar with John Zachman, perhaps you might want to consider changing careers -- because buster -- I think you’re in the wrong field. John Zachman is the father of enterprise architecture. His Zachman Framework is the closest thing there is to a standard in the EA community. [See www.zifa.com]

Abraham Maslow was a famous psychologist best known for his "Needs Hierarchy." Basically, Maslow's theory was that some needs take precedence over others. While everyone seeks to be self actualized, you can only afford that luxury when you've already taken care of more basic survival and safety needs.

What does Maslow's needs hierarchy have to do with enterprise architecture? I think plenty. Led by the charismatic techno-preacher John Zachman, I contend that enterprise architects are stuck in an endless pursuit -- continuously striving for the enterprise architecture equivalent of self actualization -- but without first taking care of more primitive, lower-level needs.

This self actualization metaphor refers to EA's obsession with taking a top-down approach that always starts with an analysis of business requirements. The elusive goal is virtually always the same -- to somehow align IT with business strategy.

XEA is eXtreme

I liberally borrowed the “eXtreme” prefix from my old friend Kent Beck. Kent and I used to occasionally co-locate together -- sometimes at my place in Wellfleet on Cape Cod -- and other times in Capitola, California, near Kent’s place [back then]. We were working together on an edge-of-continent to edge-of-continent project -- very leading edge. As you probably may know, Kent along with his pal Ward Cunningham, have played a major part in the emergence of the software development methodology known as eXtreme Programming (XP). [Hey Kent… if you’re reading this… just remember that imitation is the greatest form of flattery!]

XEA suggests to the CIO that you first better make sure you have your lower level architectural needs under control before you start worrying about being self actualized.

Look at how Maslow's lower-level needs -- safety & survival -- differ from higher level being needs. Nobody worries about their self esteem when they're gasping for air. Similarly, focusing on alignment with business strategy is irrelevant if your technology portfolio is leaking oil, spitting gas and spewing smoke.

We’ve had some considerable success using XEA -- eXtreme Enterprise Architecture -- an approach that focuses initially on establishing a product-centric technology portfolio.