Tom Graves / Tetradian

An important email for me this morning, from management consultant Ray McKenzie, that’s triggered off a significant re-think on the role and label for one of the nine main cells in the Enterprise Canvas model:

While you labelled the bottom row of ‘Enterprise Canvas’ as Value, somehow as I read through the material I kept thinking ‘Governance’, not sure if this was your intent or just my imagination.

And yes, he’s right: of course it’s ‘Value-Governance’ – of course! Why on earth didn’t I see that before? I knew that ‘Management’ wasn’t right when I wrote it, but I couldn’t find the right alternative. Yet there it is, staring me right in the face: of course it’s ‘value-governance’! – in fact, given its role, at the intersection of ‘our value’ and ‘the past’, it really couldn’t be anything else. Using the term ‘value-management’ for that single cell gives it completely the wrong flavour – in fact that’s the main function of the ‘value-direction’ cell in the somewhat-external ‘guidance’ group, so it’s already covered elsewhere. Management is something that happens throughout the service, not just in one place – but it is fair enough to say that overall governance-activities for a service tend to be concentrated in one subdomain of that service, enacted via its own domain-specific roles.

Value-governance makes sense here in both directions on the Canvas’ grid. On the vertical ‘our value’ axis, ‘value-proposition’ deals mainly with what we will do (future); ‘value-creation’ is concerned with what we are doing (present); whilst ‘value-governance’ looks at what we will do, but perhaps even more at what we have done (past), to ensure that they match up correctly. And in the horizontal value-web axis, ‘value-governance’ sits on the backchannel – completions and the past – to hold the balance between what comes in as ‘value-return’ from the customer-side of transactions, and what goes out as ‘value-outlay’ on the supplier-side.

Hence duly-amended versions of the key diagrams – first, the ’service-cross’ version of the ‘brick’:

…and the ‘robot-chicken’:

Not many people use the shorthand two-letter codes for cells and flows, but these should change from VM to VG (for the cell-label), and XM to XG (for the flow-label). The XG flow now focusses primarily on matters relating to governance between the layers (rather than getting mixed up with overall management and direction, which should probably be associated more with the XD guidance-flow).

In all, this cleans up an inconsistency that had been bugging me for ages in the structure of the Canvas, but I hadn’t been able to see what was wrong or why. Hence, once again, many thanks to Ray McKenzie for this.

Another week, another twittering of Tweets and other connective coincidences of the … oh, whatever you want to call it. Usual categories, usual possibly-useful items, usual ‘Read more…’ link:

Read more…

One of the most essential tasks in enterprise-architecture is that of enabling conversations on architectural issues, with any groups of stakeholders, anywhere across the enterprise.

Our toolsets play an important role in those conversations. The right tool used in the right way can really help the conversation, help create new shared understandings across the silos and the specifics of each distinct discipline.

But the wrong tool – or even the right tool used in the wrong way – may instead act as a real barrier against awareness and understanding. Getting the balance right is critical to creating the clarity we need – yet the requirements, and the balance, are different for every type of architecture-conversation.

We’ve long had a good range of frameworks and toolsets for IT-oriented architectures. Some were aimed more at systems-development; others more at taxonomy and ontology and metamodel-development; others again at modelling dependencies across IT systems and ‘business/IT-alignment’; and yet others at requirements-traceability, governance and project-management. Yet they all had one thing in common: their whole focus was about precision, about certainty – because that’s what system design and development really needs.

But as enterprise-architecture at last begins to break out of the IT-centric box that it’s been trapped in for the past couple of decades, we start to hit up against some real limitations of those toolsets:

• most of the underlying metamodels and model-types are still very IT-centric
• user-interfaces are usually complicated, abstract, often intolerant of error, and in some cases even downright ‘user-hostile’
• most of the tools – especially at the high-end – are too expensive for general use
• diagramming is usually abstract (‘boxes and lines’) rather than ‘real-world’ (trucks, people, machines, servers, cables etc)
• support for versioning and for tentative ‘what-if’ experiments ranges from poor to non-existent
• none of the user-interfaces are well-suited for use in real-time exploratory conversations

There’s also still no common exchange-language to transfer architecture-information between the tools that we already have – and even when we get one, we’ll need it to go wider than that, anyway. A lot wider.

When we look at how we actually work with executives or process-designers or security-architects or the like, the tools we most often use at present are a whiteboard or a sketchbook – nothing else has the flexibility that we need. None of the existing tools allow us to play ‘what-if?’ as well as we can on a whiteboard; and the precise formal rigour of model-validation is far more of a hindrance than a help in this kind of work, where half the time we don’t even know what kinds of architectural-entities are involved – the whole point is that that’s what we’re aiming to find out!

But we still need some kind of toolset-help here: images on whiteboards and sketchbooks aren’t easy to share – I’ve often seen people simply photograph the results and pass the image-files around as ‘the model’ – whilst office tools such as Visio and Powerpoint give a spurious illusion that the results have been captured with enough rigour to be re-usable (which they’re not), and are usually too slow and cumbersome for an across-the-table discussion anyway.

So here’s our challenge: develop a toolset for the ‘conversations’ end of the enterprise-architecture spectrum – one that will work on laptops and netbooks, on the new tablet and touchpad systems, and preferably right down to smartphones as well.

It needs to be able to cover any aspect of enterprise-architecture – from business-models to skills to security to process to disaster-recovery to operations to knowledge-management to applications to service-management to IT-infrastructure to building-infrastructure and anything in between.

It needs to be able to adapt itself to the needs and worldviews and language of each of those groups of stakeholders – and provide some means of translation between each group, too.

It needs to be fast, easy to use, engaging, enjoyable, preferably tactile too – yet have a fully-structured methodology and metamodel behind it.

It needs to allow freeform development of models and diagrams – yet still be capable of linking to the formal rigour of the ‘top end’ systems.

Coming the other way, it needs to help us explain the structures and reference-models that we already have in our ‘top-end’ systems – and explain the reasoning behind those models, too – whilst still keeping people actively engaged in the conversation.

And more and more, architects are beginning to recognise that spurious certainty is a real risk for the enterprise – so this also toolset needs to help our stakeholders become more comfortable with uncertainty and change.

Working with a loose consortium of colleagues – including Adrian Campbell, Kevin Smith, Milan Guenther, Nigel Green and others – we’ve done a fair bit of work on this already:

• preliminary metamodels and file-structures
• probable user-interface workflows on tablet (mouse/stylus) and touchpad (finger) interfaces
• probable user-experience interactions in multi-stakeholder conversations
• some suggested methodologies
• some key features, such as AudioNote-style synchronised voice-recording and Prezi-style zooming ‘infinite’ workspace
• support for a broad user-extensible range of model-types – potentially-unlimited, including user-defined types
• support for indefinite nesting/layering of models and model-types
• support for freeform-drawing, notes, embedding of user-selected icons and images
• support for reports that enable us to describe some or all of the enterprise as a story

There’s a lot more to do to get this even to an alpha-release state in any format or platform; and whilst all of us, in the group so far, have ‘done our time’ in software-development and the like, none of us is sufficiently available (or, in my case at least, really up to the speed or quality needed) for professional-level app-development on current systems. So we’re going to need help to make this happen.

I for one would prefer to see this as an Open Source or at least freeware/shareware type of development, so as to get this out into as general a usage as possible. (As I see it, this kind of toolset should have many other applications outside of enterprise-architecture, such as in strategy-development, tactical planning etc.) But if some commercial developer wants to take it on, that would be fine too, as long as we can keep the final end-user cost down to app-levels (perhaps $10-30 at most) rather than the three-, four-, five- or even six-digit sums we sometimes see for other toolsets.

So: over to you. Any offers of help or advice? Any other comments or suggestions?

I fear I’ve overdone it this week – almost twice as many as usual. Still, that’s what I collected as the week’s Tweets and links, so here y’is, y’all. Usual categories, after the usual ‘Read more…’ link.

Read more…

Architects are designers too. Application-architecture designs link across an array of applications, process-architects design ways to link processes together, business-architects design business-models and their linkage into the everyday practices of the organisation. That much should be obvious, I would presume.

Yet in practice – and certainly as the scope widens – more and more of our actual day-to-day work consists of creating and enabling new conversations: architectural conversations between business and IT and anyone and everyone else in the overall enterprise. The ‘one idea’ of all architecture is that things work better when they work together, with efficiency, with clarity, on purpose: and to make that happen, we need to get people to talk with each other. Simple as that, really.

One practical problem we face is that the architecture tools that we have available to us at present are not that well-suited to that purpose. For some conversations, yes – but those tend to be the most technical of the conversations. For the ordinary-yet-important conversations with everyday stakeholders, we’re not well-served at all. And as we move more and more out of the purely technical domains and towards a true ‘architecture of the enterprise’, the more that gap is going to get in our way.

One tool to rule them all?

What we really need is something that’s probably impossible in practice: a single tool that will cover the whole spectrum from the loose, freehand sketching and storyboarding of architectural issues and requirements, all the way through to the tight rigour and discipline that we need in specifications for real-world design and implementation.

We also need that imaginary ‘one tool’ to cover another whole spectrum of usages, from centralised repositories and very large ’scorecard/analysis’ displays through to multi-screen desktops to single-screen laptops to tablets and touchpads right down to handhelds and smartphones.

The big, expensive enterprise-architecture toolsets such as System Architect or ARIS or Troux Metis tend to sit over in one corner of the matrix between those two spectra: they embody the formal rigour of software-, system- or process-design and simulation, and they need big repositories, big servers and big displays to deliver their best performance. These are also definitely not tools that should (or even can) be used by general users – a fact I know from painful first-hand experience of the months we had to spend tidying up the mess that our business-managers made of our repository after we’d foolishly allowed them to play with it for a single week…

Then there’s the mid-range: toolsets such as Avolution or BizzDesign Architect or Sparx Enterprise Architect, or Alfabet or Essential. All of these are well suited to laptops and other larger single-screen systems, and each tend to emphasise particular themes: metamodelling with Avolution or Essential, for example, or Archimate business/IT-alignment with BizzDesign or Sparx, or IT-infrastucture configuration with Alfabet. They all have some kind of internal repository, which in turn supports some kind of diagramming; but it’s not always easy to share – especially across a whole multi-organisation enterprise. And these are still tools for specialists – not something that we can use with everyday business-folk, as I discovered the hard way when I presented a set of BPMN diagrams at an executive-meeting…

Down in the far corner, though, there’s almost nothing: no usable toolsets for idea-thrashing with ops-staff, developers, executives and all the other myriad non-specialists. Office tools such as Powerpoint and Visio are just-about-okay for documentation after the event – though they provide little to no support for architecture-rigour at all – but they’re far too slow and cumbersome for real-time discussion. So it’s no surprise that for most architects I know, their most important tools are a whiteboard and a sketchpad – and not only do those provide no linkage to formal architecture-rigour, but it’s usual not even possible to record and share the results. Which means that we have almost nothing with which we can engage people in the architecture itself – in the discipline of the architecture.

But what would such a toolset look like? What aspects of architecture-discussions could it cover?

Enabling interactive conversations on architectures

One project that I’ve been involved in (as a member of its alpha-test team) is Alex Osterwalder’s iPad app for his Business Model Canvas framework – perhaps take a look at the videos on Alex’s post. That’s also a key reason why I developed the Enterprise Canvas concept, to extend the same basic idea to the whole-of-enterprise scope. And there’s also a swathe of iPad or smartphone apps that cover themes such as sketching or mindmapping or outlining or project-management, that do at least enable us to record in a form which can be stored and re-used later.

The real aim, though, is to get to some kind of toolset that is freeform enough to be used in live discussions, yet beneath the surface embeds at least some of the rigour needed for architecture-development. There are some great hints towards this in an article in HBR by Michael Schrage, ‘How Your Smartphone Will Transform Your Elevator Pitch‘, which are worth noting in some detail here:

… His [business-idea] was undeniably clever, but aspects of his business model weren’t clear to me. He had his elevator pitch answers down pat, but I wanted to learn more. Unprompted by me, Osman whipped out his smartphone and handed it over. I was watching a decent video clip illustrating his product’s features and functionality. I could tap to hear testimonials. I could tap to play with a simulation of the software. In a matter of moments, the device had transformed Osman from an entrepreneur I was having a conversation with to a guide and narrator of an interactive experience. My focus and attention alternated between what he said and what appeared onscreen. Sometimes he’d take, touch, and hand back the device; other times, I’d point to something onscreen and ask another question.

The object — and our interaction with it — became an intimate part of our conversation. We couldn’t have discussed either [his product] or his answers to my questions the same way without it. An idle part of me wondered how cool it would be if our conversation (and my questions) could be recorded and time-stamped along with what was appearing onscreen. Osman refused to allow his smartphone to decay into a sales tool or product pitch — although those elements were baked into the material — and instead used the device as a medium to both reinforce his conversation points and invite new questions and comments from me.

I can say without hesitation that this felt technically and interpersonally different from “laptop-on-the-table” presentations I’d experienced 1,000 times. We were standing up, drinking coffee, chatting, and taking turns holding, viewing, and manipulating this device. The kinesthetics, eye contact, questions, and interruptions revolved as much around the device as us. We would have been worse off without it.

And, further on in the article:

Elevator pitches are important. The ability to boil down the essence of your innovation into a tasty forty-second sound-bite remains essential. Only now, the pervasiveness, ubiquity, and visuality of mobile devices quantitatively and qualitatively changes the ecology of interpersonal interaction. It’s no longer about what you say and how you say it; it’s increasingly about what you hand over.

What do you hand over that transforms the conversation? What do you hand over that visually and interactively adds value to your spoken words? What do you hand over that complements and supplements your pitch? What do you hand over that invites and inspires the curiosity you want? What do you hand over that makes you more persuasive?

… “Hand-it-over” innovation pitches can be seamlessly slipped wherever your prospects desire. Indeed, an excellent measure of “hand-it-over” effectiveness is whether the person who you “hand-it-over” to actually asks you to send what they’ve been seeing and interacting with.

So let’s summarise some of the key themes there:

• it’s not a presentation, it’s an interaction – a two-way or multiway conversation
• the interaction is kinesthetic – it involves touch (ie. handling and interacting with the device) as well as listening and seeing
• if practicable, the interaction itself should be recorded, as an annotation on the original presentation
• if practicable, it should be possible that the whole interaction can be shared

Beyond the whiteboard

That’s what we need for that part of our enterprise-architecture work – a toolset that enables us to engage directly with our stakeholders. And it needs to go both ways, too: to take a model or diagram from the formal ‘big-system’ part of the toolset-spectrum and share it and discuss it; and also enable and capture discussions about requirements, about trade-offs, about different understandings and paradigms and worldviews and expectations and assumptions across all the myriad of different perspectives in the enterprise. Both ways. About anything – about any aspect of the architecture.

Which also means that we must have some kind of language to enable us to move information up and down through that spectrum, across different devices, different systems, different toolsets. (It seems very unlikely that one vendor will ever cover the whole range that we need – but the information itself must be able to move around in any form that we need, yet always anchored back to the formal rigour required by each architecture-domain.) So that’s another hurdle to cross, because no such language exists at present.

So, given all of this, how could we improve on the venerable whiteboard and sketchpad? How could or would we record that kind of interaction? And how can we support a form of diagramming that is as interactive and illustrative as a whiteboard-session, yet still enables the underlying rigour? The specialist EA toolsets may be too cumbersome for this kind of interactive use, but surely we can create something with more rigour than Powerpoint or Visio?

That’s our challenge here. Comments/suggestions, anyone?

Been having a fairly intense (but good ) discussion on the LinkedIn Enterprise Architecture group, about standard economics and its impact on enterprise architecture. This is one of the many side-threads popping up off Kevin Smith’s now long-running discussion on “EA is not the glue between IT and ‘The Business’, EA is the glue between strategy and execution”. I don’t know whether this set of posts from various participants will make much sense to anyone else, but it seems worthwhile to post it where others can see it if they wish.

(Note that I’ve done a small amount of editing of the original posts by trimming and snipping ['...'] and, in one case, concatenating posts from the same person. I believe I’ve kept the sense intact in each case, but if not, please let me know straight away? Thanks.)

For me, in this case, the start-point was a post by Harold ‘Hal’ Stull:

When in doubt I always think Econ 101. An organization manages three resources (capital, labor, and material) to produce a product. If a customer pays more for the product more than the value of the resources consumed, the company shows a profit for its risk and will continue operating. As an architect of any kind, I have to discover the “Who, what, when, how, where, and why” of the client’s operation and add something that may possibly increase the perceived value of the product to his customer or reduce the resources needed to produce it.

I also try to stay away from absolutes: Truth, Best, Optimum, Consistent, etc. I can do a whole lot with organizational and interface symantics. I would never say “ontology” in front of a client, but being able to work with higher abstractions helps me choose and squeeze value from tool kits. (But I see there is another thread for that topic).

As you’d probably guess, given some of the other posts on this weblog (such as ‘Economics: the worst term-hijack ever?’), I kind of jumped at Hal’s comment about ”When in doubt I always think Econ 101.”:

Hmm. That assumes that ‘Econ 101′ makes sense and works in the real world, which it doesn’t. That’s the problem.

You say: “An organization manages three resources (capital, labor, and material) to produce a product.”

The answer would be “Sort-of…”. More accurately, Econ 101 treats all of those items (including non-financial capital, such as conceptual and/or social capital) as ‘possessable objects’ that are the ‘property’ or ‘possession’ of an individual or of an organisation-as-corporate-person. Unfortunately this would take a long post to explain, but in essence the ‘possession’-based concept of economics is a parasitic overlay on the actual economy, which operates on mutual-responsibility rather than possession. The quickest summary is that Econ 101 is inherently dysfunctional and inherently unsustainable: so if we’re to build an enterprise-architecture that will work for an organisation, we need to focus on the responsibility-based economy behind the possession-based delusions of Econ 101, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by those delusions.

To give one very quick example, most conventional ‘business-models’ that I’ve seen assume a very simple Econ 101 market-sequence of:

attention (via advertising) > transaction (via sales) > profit

For enterprise-architecture, we need to deal with a much broader range (e.g. including non-active stakeholders [e.g. government, community, non-clients] and also anti-clients and others who are active participants but who are not involved in sales-transactions), and a much more complex market-sequence, such as:

reputation > trust > respect > attention > conversation > relationship > transaction [ > profit] > reputation > …

We also need to understand that ‘the enterprise’ is not the same as ‘the organisation’: an organisation is bounded by rules, roles and responsibilities (e.g. legal responsibilities), whereas an enterprise is bounded by vision, values and commitments (see my presentation ‘What is an enterprise?‘)

True, an organisation is a type of enterprise, but for most enterprise-architecture the relevant enterprise is typically at least three steps larger in scope than that of the organisation in scope. (We develop an architecture about an enterprise for an organisation.)

Using the assumptions of Econ 101 will guarantee that we will deliver an ‘enterprise’-architecture that will fail in the longer term. To build an architecture that works, we must think wider than that.

Read more…

Another week’s worth of Tweets and links – rather more than usual, this time. Same categories as usual, though, following the usual ‘More info…’ link:

Read more…

Another slidedeck that I should have uploaded to Slideshare ages ago: a quick (8-slide) answer to the question  ’What is effectiveness?‘.

Understanding overall effectiveness is a core concern for enterprise-architectures, and for all of its subsidiary domain-architectures within the enterprise. The key idea here is that there are five distinct dimensions to effectiveness:

• efficient: makes the best use of available resources
• reliable: can be relied upon to deliver the required service
• elegant: supports simplicity, clarity and other human factors
• appropriate: is ‘on purpose’
• integrated: links everything together across the whole context

Businesses tend to focus obsessively on efficiency, almost to the exclusion of everything else; but we won’t achieve effectiveness overall unless we rotate our attention continuously across all of those dimensions, in a consistent and balanced way.

Here it is, anyway: another one to Share and Enjoy?

Finally got round to uploading to Slideshare my old (2006) slidedeck ‘Introduction to SCORE‘.

SCORE (Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, Effectiveness) is a kind of ‘upgrade’ to the good ol’ SWOT strategy-assessment framework.

I developed SCORE perhaps a decade ago when I got fed up of the limitations of SWOT, especially in enterprise-architecture assessment. There are a few minor-yet-significant changes to the language, but the main change is addition of a new focus on impacts on overall effectiveness, and the explicit search for usable metrics. I’ve also reworked the method so that it’s used in an iterative, re-entrant way rather than solely as a ‘one-shot’ checklist.

The slidedeck includes a worked-example, based on a real project that we did for a utilities company several years ago.

Here it is, anyway: Share and Enjoy?

One of the comments on the previous post on the unacknowledged risks of  ’cooperative IT’ triggered off an essay-length response that really deserves its own post. So here it is.

The comment that started it off was from Ric Phillips. (I’ve trimmed it slightly, but you can see the original here.)

The innovations that led to mini-computers led to the increasing importance of information processing based on the technology’s ability to capture and model transactions (atomistic events). It really did change the nature of work and organisations and made a new kind of information available.

It wasn’t really the advent of PCs that changed things. If the information about the world that could be stored in them and used had not changed radically they would have simply replaced the niche occupied by terminals. But they allowed people to simulate sheets of paper and type writers. And spreadsheets – which were existed prior to software and were done on very large sheets of paper. Later came sound files, photographs, building designs, industrial machinery, complex electronics (like audio mixing decks) and a thousand other things that are now simulated in software.

In this wave computers became personal productivity tools. The changes to how personal productivity expressed itself in our lives when assisted by the new ‘virtual’ things PCs could provide is what changed our jobs, our professions and be extension our lives.

The internet started out as an extension of publication and communications models that already existed. But (in this case much more slowly that in previous transformations) our activity on the internet started to capture large amounts of information that previously wasn’t subject to computation – social information, information about opinions, subjective value, and what we might call (tentatively) knowledge.

There are intersecting trends (consumerisation for example). But mobile computing, ubiquitous data, web 2.0 and so on are all converging to create a new domain of information – information that allows us to model and manipulate in computers new and extremely complex things. Once again this will transform organisations. But this time maybe even whole societies.

I don’t see this as an impending disaster. Our world is changing again. As a strategic profession EAs need to get their heads around this. We are leaving the era of ‘information processing’ and ‘ICT’ and entering the era of social computing and Knowledge Technology.

Reading it again, I now realise that this critique has completely missed the point: all it’s doing is extolling the virtues of each of the transformations in technology, yet seemingly ignoring any possibility that there might also be vices associated with those virtues. Yes, each of those transformations are real and valuable to some context, and that is indeed a key driver for change. Yet the change itself is not the risk, and neither is the technology: it is the dependence on that technology that creates the risk.

So, as I put it in my response, I strongly agree that “mobile computing, ubiquitous data, web 2.0 and so on” are not in themselves an impending disaster. The same applies to their initial impact on organisations and “maybe even whole communities” – in general I see those impacts as desirable, even if certainly not something we can ‘control’.

What does worry me is what happens next. As an EA I’ve spent many months at clients tracking down all those small private-to-a-workgroup spreadsheets and databases and log-files and the like that were a) business-critical and b) unmaintained, undocumented, not backed up, inherently fragile [such as trying to use MS Access as a multi-user database, which it was never designed to do], unregistered, and in many other ways a real business risk. Whenever some key person changed jobs, or a single hard-drive failed, or a sysadmin triggered an automated application-upgrade, or any other of a myriad of seeming-trivial events, that business-unit would literally lose that part of its mind – and an entire business-process, affecting an entire cross-functional workstream, would grind to a halt until someone could work out what had gone missing and how to set up yet another kludged workaround.

When the business-application is non-critical, kludges usually don’t matter: it’s how people learn, it helps get things done, and it’s exactly what ’shadow-IT’ is for. The new mobile technologies and the like are brilliant for this – just as spreadsheets and single-user databases were (and still are). Everything’s fine as long as they’re essentially used in the same way as Lego bricks or a Meccano set or the like – a ’serious toy’ that can be used to knock out a quick prototype to test out an idea, or perhaps even to keep around as a vaguely-useful tool and talking-point. And as long as they’re used for that kind of purpose, it shouldn’t matter much when they do fail – especially if we can use that failure as a way to learn what to do differently next time. In other words, we accept failure as part of the deal – it’s ’safe-fail’.

But don’t try to use a ’serious toy’ for anything that’s business-critical. It’s not inherently wrong, but it’s simply not ‘fit for purpose’: they’re not robust enough, resilient enough, agile enough, secure enough, and so on – which means that as a system we cannot set them up to ’safe-fail’ in such a context. Sure, you could use Lego to build a house (it’s been done), or Meccano to build a bridge (that’s been done, too), but the effectiveness of doing so is questionable at best, especially over the longer term.

It’s the ‘-ilities’ that usually matter most in architecture. The functional requirements for a system are usually much the same at any scope or scale, but the qualitative or so-called ‘non-functional’ requirements are what will usually make or break the system in practice. Building an IT system that can handle half a dozen strictly-sequential requests in half an hour or even half a minute is relatively trivial; building one that can handle thousands or even millions of parallel, interleaving, fragmented, potentially-incomplete requests every second is not trivial at all; and yet the functional requirements are essentially the same. That’s the difference between a ’serious-toy’ prototype, and serious engineering with serious architecture and serious service-management and support behind it.

What we have right now in mobile-computing, ubiquitous-information and cloud is a whole bunch of serious-toys desperately pretending to be more than they are, and – more worryingly – being sold and used as if they’re more than they are. Sure, the function is there – but that’s easy. It always is. Getting them beyond that ’serious toy’ stage is not easy – and because it’s hard work to get there, it hacks into the short-term profits, too, so it’s not exactly popular amongst the money-obsessed.

So we have here all the ingredients for a ‘perfect storm’: more and more of individual people’s lives and livelihoods being placed onto platforms that are inherently unstable and unsustainable, because little or none of the work to make them stable and sustainable is as yet in place or even in progress. If you’re not already seriously worried about what will happen when large chunks of our society literally lose their collective mind and memory through the failures of these kludged-together toys, you’re not thinking hard enough about the architecture of the enterprise… 

The lessons of history are plain to see, and it’s also plain to see that the level of unaddressed risk has been raised each time, with even the earliest-period risks still not fully addressed even now. You Have Been Warned?