Tom Graves / Tetradian

Reading James Taylor’s recent piece “Business rules are king“, pretty much every one of my enterprise-architecture alarm-bells went off.

Yes, it’s a good article – recommended reading. And I would strongly agree with its implication that there’s a real and urgent need for discipline around business-rules. But the reason for the alarm-bells is that it’s promoting business-rules as ‘the answer’ – and for the most part IT-based ‘business-rules engines’ at that.

Which us places straight back in Taylorist territory, along with all those other classic IT-driven business failures such business-process re-engineering. Not a good idea…

The reasons why it’s not a good idea are three-fold:

• placing all the business-rules into an automated system will lead to a ‘fit and forget’ attitude unless there is a very strong emphasis on rule-maintenance – one of many ‘human factors’ that were forgotten about in BPR’s rush to ‘IT-ise’ all business processes
• identification and codification of business-rules assumes that the rules that can be derived from the people who run the existing processes are sufficient, invariant, accurate and complete – which, as early-generation knowledge-management also discovered, they rarely are…
• the viability of using automation for decision-making is dependent on the context – a fact of which frighteningly few IT-system designers seem to be aware

There seems to be a view that everything can and must be reduced to simple rules, following a cart-before-horse thinking that everything should be done by IT, and simple rules are what IT handles best. In other words, dangerously back-to-front. It’s bad enough trying to get anything useful out of IT for decision-support; but using IT for all decision-making – which is the ‘nirvana’ that the article would evidently prefer – is likely to be lethal. And I don’t quite know what we as enterprise-architects can do to prevent this headlong rush into repeating the exact same mistakes as in BPR and the rest – all that’s different this time is that it’s more explicitly coming from the ‘rules’ part of the process, rather than process-implementation overall.

This is clear if we look at it from the perspective of context-space mapping:

The point is that there’s a spectrum of abstraction of rules: principles sit at the low-abstraction end of this spectrum, rules sit at the high-abstraction end – in fact a conventional ‘rule’ is actually an extreme abstraction of a principle that applies to a specific context. If we try to use the wrong level of abstraction, especially in the wrong context or wrong type of context, we are all but guaranteed to hit serious trouble. And I see little to no awareness of that fact in most of the current literature on business-rules: instead, there seems to be an assumption that just about everything can be reduced to simple binary rules that can be implemented by simple IT, because that’s what we want to happen. In other words, the entire approach seems driven by little more than wishful thinking – which again is not a good idea…

IT-systems and simple business-rules work well together: both operate on a binary true/false logic, and both will enable high-speed binary-logic decision-trees – in other words, over on the lower right-hand side of the usual Cynefin-derived context-space base-map.

Most IT-based analytics – over on the upper-right of the base-map – work on the same binary logic as the simple systems, but introduce the ability to handle more and more layers of complication. The catch is that each layer of analysis takes a finite amount of time – which takes it further away from the ‘Now!‘ demanded by real-time decision-making. And the only real result of increased computing-power has been to increase the levels of complication in the analytics, sometimes beyond anyone’s ability to understand it – as was the case with the software systems used in many of the risk-calculation models that drove the current financial crash.

IT-systems are still not good at handling non-binary modal-logics – “the logic of probability, possibility and necessity”, such as expressed in the MoSCoW set of requirements-priorities of must, should, could and can wait. Humans are very good at modal-logic; IT isn’t. James Taylor’s article refers to pattern-based decision-making, which places it somewhat on the upper left of the base-map – but note again that each pattern-match must always take a finite amount of time, and it does not fit well with the underlying binary-logic of current IT-systems. Using IT as decision-support for human decision-making is generally okay, but the more that IT is involved, the higher the risk of what Dave Snowden describes as ‘pattern-entrainment’ – in other words, premature selection of a pattern, trying to force-fit a pattern to the context rather than ‘listening’ to the context itself. Current IT is getting much better at near-real-time pattern-matching, such as face-recognition or smile-recognition on most present-day digital cameras. Yet as anyone who’s used such systems would know, they’re nowhere near accurate enough to decide when a picture is actually any good – and sometimes we don’t want a smile in the picture. Much the same applies in business: using automated pattern-matching is great for decision-support, but extremely dangerous for decision-making.

And no IT-system is likely to be much good at dealing with real-time chaos, ‘the new’, where no possible pattern exists because it is new – but again, real people can handle decision-making in such contexts via skills and principles. In those contexts, there are no rules – and yet business-rule proponents seem to promote the delusion that their ‘business-rule engines’ can handle everything.

So I’m wary: very wary. Before letting any of such systems loose on any real-world context, I would want to make very sure that they’ve done the appropriate context-space mapping, and matched the decision-making methods to the respective contexts. But I don’t see much evidence of that: what I see instead is way too much wishful-thinking, and an almost desperate desire on both the business-side and the IT-side to try to force the world to fit their respective delusory dreams of ‘order’ and ‘control’. Oh well… Guess we have to wait and let them fail yet again, even more expensively, and then set out to tidy up the mess? – though I do worry that we’re getting close to the point where we’re no longer able to afford such expensive mistakes, in any sense of the word…

Several people asked me to cross-post to other ‘economics’ sites the previous post on ‘Whuffie’ and currencies‘. I wasn’t comfortable doing so without editing-out the comments about the ‘Ready? Fire! Aim…’ syndrome, which were specific to the conversations to which that post referred: hence the re-work in this post here. I’ve also taken the opportunity to extend some parts, to link it more strongly to my ‘day-job’ of enterprise-architecture.

So: what can we learn if we tackle economics as enterprise-architecture? In other words, as if it was just another exercise in whole-of-enterprise architecture, the same as we would do for any large organisation (such as described in my book ‘Doing Enterprise-Architecture‘)? After all, ‘the economy’ is just another enterprise – it happens to be at a very large scale, but the exact same principles should apply.

(This’ll be another long one, hence I’ll place a ‘Read more…’ link here.)

Read more…

Spent much of the past couple of days getting overly-involved in two great threads on Venessa Miemis‘ ‘Emergent by Design‘ blog:

• Social Capital is not the same as Whuffie
• What could the future of money look like?

The first thread started with a very necessary attempt to distinguish between social-capital and reputation-based ‘currencies’ such as Cory Doctorow’s imaginary ‘Whuffie‘ (as described in his sci-fi novel “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” – the ‘magic kingdom’ being Disneyland, of course ). The key distinction that Venessa drew – and I think she’s right – is that social-capital is collective, a ‘network effect’ of the social context, whereas reputation is an attribute within the frame of that social-network, typically attached or attributed to the individual: in other words, they’re not the same, and should definitely not be treated as being the same.

This lead to the second thread, about ‘the future of money’, because much of the discussion in the ‘Whuffie’ thread was about the supposed need for some kind of ‘alternative currency’. (Clearly some people in the thread had hoped that ‘Whuffie’ would be it, but despite the efforts of well-meant initiatives such as The Whuffie Bank, it became evident quite quickly that it wouldn’t and couldn’t work in a ‘currency-like’ way.) There was – and at present, still is – a lot of discussion about various ‘currency-like’ proposals, such as TimeBanks, ITEX cashless payment, ‘Quids’ alternate-currency, and so on.

But what I found immensely frustrating was that almost none of them were thinking in true economic terms – and I wasn’t very popular for pointing out this unfortunate fact. Instead of enquiring what an economy is, what it needs to do, what purpose it serves, and so on – what would seem to be essential first-principles concerns about the context – they’d all assumed automatically, without question, that some kind of currency was ‘the answer’, and hence rushed off to create it. In other words, exactly the same mistake as far too many IT-folks: “here’s the solution – how can we force your problem to fit it?”

Ready? Fire!!! … aim…?

oops…

Yeah… really frustrating…

No-one with any sense would doubt that there are serious problems with the present ‘money-economy’ – not so much ’serious problems’ as ‘close to catastrophic failure’, in fact. Everyone in that conversation recognised this – which is why they were pushing so hard for alternatives. But the catch was that none of the alternatives actually resolved the core reasons why a money-economy won’t work; most of the proposed ’solutions’ not only replicated those problems, but actually made some of them worse. What was so frustrating was that in each case it took no more than a couple of minutes’ analysis not only to show that it wouldn’t work, but why it wouldn’t work. Yet no-one, it seemed, wanted to hear this: instead, off they want, charging off down their respective blind-alleys in the blind certainty that they’d found ‘the solution’.

What’s wrong with money, then? Short answer is: a lot. To give just a few examples:

• It only deals with point-to-point transactions, not network-effects – especially at a societal level.
• It’s designed to work with ‘alienable’ physical objects, but now no longer has any actual anchor in the real world – instead, we have literally trillions of supposed ‘money’ in imaginary ‘derivatives’ sloshing around the globe.
• It’s very easy to ‘game’ via artificially-constructed price/value mismatches.
• The implied ‘gravitation’ structure of money-based capital means that it tends to create ‘winner-takes-all’ accumulations – exacerbating social imbalances, often in the extreme, requiring separate action to try to redress the balance.
• Attempts to link ‘intellectual property’ into the money-system have resulted in a system which purports to match finite ‘alienable’ entities (physical ‘things’) with potentially-infinite ‘non-alienable’ entities (information) – which by definition cannot balance.
• Many organisations – particularly banks – are legally ‘entitled’ to invent money from nowhere, in effect assigning themselves an ever-increasing share of the society’s resources.
• A currency, by definition, relies on trust in the institutions that manage that currency, which in this case is the banks – yet much of that trust has been lost, and at present remains at an all-time low (hence the strong societal interest in options for ‘alternative currencies’).
• There are no built-in mechanisms to manage assignment of resources to those ‘outside’ of the monetary exchange-system (particularly children, parents, elderly, disabled and their carers, but also artists, scientists, thinkers, futurists, ‘creatives’ of any kind) – these stakeholders can only be served by ‘external’ mechanisms such as taxation (which are clunky and kludge-ridden at best), or by forcing them to do work within the money-economy (which means that their actual needed work can no longer be done).
• There is a very strong tendency towards short-termism.
• There is a very strong tendency to try to force everything into a crude, ludicrously-simplistic ‘double-entry life-keeping’.
• There is a very strong tendency to assume that ‘value’ exists only in monetary terms, as ‘valuations’ of ‘resources’ – hence, for example, a forest supposedly has no value until it is cut down, a mountain has no value until mined for its minerals, and so on.
• There is a very strong tendency to assume that anything which cannot be counted and ‘valued’ in monetary terms either does not matter or does not exist.

The societal impacts of these problems are rapidly approaching catastrophic levels. Yet none of the proposed ‘alternative currencies’ tackle more than a minute fraction of that list: most offer at best a localised kludge that might address a couple of issues whilst creating several more.

Let’s be blunt about this: the present system does not work. It actually never has – and that’s not surprising, because it was only ever intended to deal with point-to-point ‘trade’-transactions between fairly large groups (tribes, communities etc), hence it’s bit unfair to expect it to be able to run the entirety of an economy. But to create something that does work, we do need to go right back up to the level of the entire economy, and work our way back down from there. Which, yes, might – might – include some kind of ‘currency’ to tackle specific types of transactions: but not as the core of the economy itself.

This is actually no different from any other whole-of-enterprise architecture. (The only distinction is that it’s an ‘enterprise’ at the scale of an entire society, but that’s all.) So we would use the same overall approach:

• Who (and/or what) are the stakeholders in this enterprise?
• What are the core values? What is ‘value’ in this context? What is valued, and by whom? In other words, what determines ‘appropriate’ in this enterprise?
• What are the assets, functions, locations, events, capabilities and decisions within this enterprise? – in other words, the resources of the enterprise that need to be managed, distributed, shared and used in the most appropriate manner.
• What are the value-propositions that this enterprise needs to offer to and with its stakeholders?
• What mechanisms and responsibilities would be needed to create, deliver and monitor those value-propositions?
• What governance would be needed to ensure that all activities within the enterprise are optimised to be ‘on purpose’?
• …and so on.

To me, every attempt at a currency will inherently fail because it cannot take network-effects into account: by its nature, a currency is a mechanism for governance of point-to-point transactions, without any direct means to link to whole-of-system impacts. So I honestly believe that all of these attempts at ‘alternative currencies’ are a waste of time: we should be far better served by putting the same effort into understanding how an economy actually works.

And the key to that, to my mind, comes down to perhaps the scariest fact of all: there are no rights. ‘Rights’ are a social fiction; but the mutual, interlocking responsibilities that underpin those purported ‘rights’ are a social reality. If we want those purported ‘rights’, where we need to start is with creating a better understanding the ways in which those real responsibilities need to interlock: a focus on ‘rights’, like a focus on ‘currency’, is at best an unhelpful distraction from this requirement.

Where this gets gets scarier still is that our entire present economic model is based on a concept of ‘right of possession’ – hence a ‘right to personal property’. But there are no rights: only responsibilities are real. And in a network, there is no ‘personal’: only the network is real. Right at the fundamentals of economics, ‘personal property’ is just another fiction – and a very dangerous fiction at that. Yet personal responsibilities for societal resources – the appropriate management, maintenance and use of those resources – are real. And as with ‘rights’, those interlocking responsibilities result in something that looks almost exactly the same as ‘personal property’ – but we now know how we get there, via those responsibilities.

If we turn it this way round, we end up with something that looks very similar to what we have at present: but it resolves all of the structural flaws of a ‘money-type’ economy, and we also know exactly how we get there.

Once we know that that’s what we need to aim for, then we can start talking about ‘intermediate currencies’ and the rest, as part of a transitional ‘roadmap’ towards that more workable model. But those ‘alternative currencies’ are only an intermediate step, and we don’t start from there.

That’s what would change these sad attempts at ‘Ready? Fire! Aim…’ into a more viable ‘Ready? Aim? Fire!’ – and rekindle the fire in our social economy.

Several people have asked me for more information about the book I’m writing at present, ‘The Business Anarchist‘, so here’s a quick summary of the themes and structure.

Who or what is a ‘business-anarchist‘? Anyone who works with inherent uncertainty in business in an intentional, disciplined way – working with the uncertainty rather than trying to ‘control’ it. Often it’s not so much a person as part of a business-role – a necessary part of that business-role. (Most of the examples in the book will come from my own field of whole-of- enterprise architecture, but the same principles apply in just about every other type of business-role.)

Why ‘anarchist’? Anarchy is about working without rules, working ‘outside the box’. When ‘business as usual’ breaks down, a disciplined form of anarchy is probably the only way through to something new that works well in the new business context.

‘Kiddies-anarchy’ and real anarchy: Anarchy has had a very bad press in the past, mainly because of what I describe as ‘kiddies-anarchy’ – an overdose of presumed ‘rights’ without responsibilities, especially in terms of causing disruption and destruction without any awareness or respect of the consequences for anyone else. Real anarchy is very different – arguably the most difficult of all political forms, because there are no easy rules to fall back on or to blame. Some entire organisations have been run on anarchic lines – the Quakers have done so for centuries – and even some businesses – such as Ricardo Semler’s Semco Group – but here we’re mainly focussing on an often-unnoticed yet everyday set of roles and responsibilities within an ordinary, everyday type of business.

What kind of business? Any business, and any type of business – for-profit, not-for-profit, government or social – from a huge global conglomerate right down to the local bridge-club or the school parent/teacher association.

Business-analyst and business-anarchist: Business-analysts deal with certainty and predictability: they refine the figures, crunch the numbers, track the trends. When your business world is reasonably stable, you need your analysts to help you optimise efficiency and maximise returns. But when your business world is not certain, not predictable, that’s when you’ll need your anarchists. And you’ll need your anarchists then, too. Your analysts can only tell you how to do more of the same, better – which is good, of course, in its own context, but it doesn’t help when what you really need to do is something different.

What’s different about how business-anarchists work? The quickest one-line answer is that analysts rely on rules and algorithms; anarchists rely on guidelines and principles.

What principles should business-anarchists rely on? Obviously this varies from one context to another, but from my work in whole-of-enterprise architecture the three most important design-principles seem to be these:

• There are no rules;
• There are no rights; and
• Money doesn’t matter.

These three principles, and a fourth follow-on principle, Always enhance adaptability, provide the overall structure for the book.

There are no rules: Rules provide a spurious sense of certainty that can let us down badly when our business-world changes around us. The real world is much messier and more complex than any system of rules that we could devise. Hence at times it’s necessary to start off from the assumption and expectation that there are no rules: instead, we have to rewrite the rule-book, by working back to the core-principles from which the rules originally arose. A simple everyday business-example of this is embedded in the ISO-9000 standard on quality-systems:  work-instructions provide ‘the rules’ that we need for real-time practice and process, but when the world changes, we need to rewrite the work-instructions by working upward to procedure, policy and, if necessary, overall vision.

There are no rights: ‘Rights’ are an important social fiction, but as with rules, they don’t actually exist in the real world, and in themselves they tell us almost nothing about how to create the conditions that such ‘rights’ would require. In practice, apparent ‘rights’ arise from mutual, interlocking responsibilities – so it’s those responsibilities, and not the purported ‘rights’, that are where we need to start. This has important implications for business-architecture and enterprise-architecture that will be explored in some depth in the book – for example, we need to ask serious questions about “What do shareholders own?” if they possess all the ‘rights’ for the business but without any real responsibilities.

Money doesn’t matter: Money is important for every business, of course, especially in a commercial context – but as with rules or ‘rights’, it’s not the place where we need to start. Money is also only one small part of the overall economy in which the business operates: reputation, trust, attention and respect all need to exist before any money will be placed on the table. And if we state – or show – that we’re only interested in ‘making money’ from our customers and community, why would anyone want to engage with us? As with other ‘rights’, money is solely a social fiction, and profit is an outcome of being ‘on purpose’ to values: to achieve the profits that we may desire, we first need to start from values, with a values-architecture that describes how we engage with everyone within the extended-enterprise of the business.

Always enhance adaptability: Change is the only certainty: we therefore need to design for that fact. Mistaken notions about rules, rights and money often serve only to slow us down, placing the business at risk as the world changes around us. This sections of the book explores how to embed the ‘business-anarchist’ principles into everyday business-practice, especially in business-architecture and enterprise-architecture.

—

More details to follow over the next few days, including book-cover, cover-blurb, ISBN numbers and so on. Publication-date is fixed as late-April, so I need to keep moving!

As can be seen from the comments to the previous post, the demands that we find another name for this framework-that-has-no-name have become increasingly strident.

Various urgent online and in-person conversations have ensued. The only directly-meaningful name we came up with was ‘solution-space mapping‘, but several people have disagreed with that, and in any case there is already a well-established usage of the acronym ‘SSM’ in this context, namely Checkland et al’s Soft Systems Methodology.

There’s a long-standing software tradition of assigning arbitrary names as working-titles for projects. Someone suggested ‘Eric’, which was a name they’d used when developing an IT system for an airline, and which reminded me of a nonsense-phrase I’ve often used, that “anything unknown is called Fred”.

But even an arbitrary proper-name seems too concrete for something that is necessarily abstract and, as a name, necessarily temporary. We couldn’t think of any meaningful acronym, so we played with sounds for a while, until someone came up with this:

tinc

It’s the sound of the penny dropping, as someone ‘gets it’; the small bright sound that the imaginary light-bulb makes at the ‘Aha!’ moment in solution-space. A quick, recursive echo of a sound. And it’s also a contraction of what this name really is: a temporary inconvenience.

Since it’s clear we’re not even allowed to use the name of the framework that this isn’t in order to describe what it isn’t, we would have to apply the same process to give us a temporary name for that. So we might note that in Welsh the plosive sound ‘toof!’ would be spelt as twf, which should give us a relatively-safe acronym for That Welsh Framework. (‘Twf‘ is also the name of the Welsh Language Board website, by the way – “Cymraeg o’r Crud, Two Languages from Day One”.)

So there we have it: tinc, for the framework, and twf, for the-framework-that-it-isn’t. A temporary inconvenience, but it’ll have to do for now.

As may be seen from his comments to my previous posts on ‘Cynefin and chaos’, Dave Snowden has expressed extreme displeasure at my/our usage of the term ‘Cynefin’ to describe the solution-space nominally described by the Cynefin framework.

Anyone have any suggestions for an alternate term that could be used for this purpose, please?

Many thanks.

Another ‘exploratory’, following on from the previous post on ‘Complexity, Chaos and Enterprise Architecture‘, in terms of the Cynefin framework, and again developing out of Dave Snowden’s excellent webinar on complexity and ‘abductive reasoning’.

Cynefin framework (original (c) Dave Snowden / Cognitive-Edge c.2003)

Cynefin is probably one of the most useful conceptual tools that I hold in my ‘consultant’s toolkit’. It is an enormously powerful and enlightening framework to understand the relationships between the simple, the complicated and the complex, and to understand why long-proven approaches such as Taylorism and Six Sigma can sometimes (or often, these days) go spectacularly wrong.

Yet for several years now – in fact pretty much since I first encountered Cynefin – I’ve been concerned that there’s been very little attention paid to the role of the Chaotic domain. So that’s the theme I want to tackle here: how may we reclaim the Chaotic, to make Cynefin more complete?

(I’d better say upfront that there’ll be a fair amount here that Dave and others may disagree with, sometimes quite vehemently – and that’s okay, because this is definitely a ‘work in progress’, and probably with gaping holes in the reasoning in places. I need that critique if this is going to work in practice. In no way do I consider that any of the other work in Cynefin is somehow ‘wrong’ – particularly not the work that Dave and others have been doing in the Complex space, which I regard as crucially important in business and elsewhere. All I’m suggesting here is that perhaps we need to approach the Chaotic domain with the same degree of discipline as we do with the others – and not simply ‘run away’ to the Simple or the Complex as soon as we hit the Chaotic, which is about all that standard Cynefin offers at the moment.)

This one will again be long (my apologies…), but should be useful to anyone who’s familiar with Cynefin, or has any practical concerns about how to handle inherent uncertainties in business and elsewhere. More after the ‘Read more…’ link, anyway.

Read more…

Courtesy of a link by fellow enterprise-architect Sally Bean, I’ve just spent the past couple of hours viewing and then reviewing an online seminar on complexity by one of the thought-leaders on complexity-theory and practice, Dave Snowden:

From Induction to Abduction: a new approach to research and productive enquiry

This seminar will provide a summary of both the theory and practice of a new approach to research based on the large scale capture of self-interpreted micro-narrative.  The approach has been described as the first technique for distributed ethnography and has been developed over the past decade with project based funding from the US, UK and Singapore Governments in the context of risk assessment, horizon scanning, cultural mapping and weak signal detection.  It allows the linkage of research with knowledge management and impact based measurement.  Current projects involve measuring the impact of development projects in Africa, narrative based knowledge management for the US Army in Afghanistan and cultural mapping of various inner city communities within the UK.

The theoretical origins lie in the application of complex adaptive systems theory to social systems together with new understanding about the nature of human decision making from the cognitive sciences. The seminar will summarise the theory, but will also use a series of projects to combine theory with practice.  One of the goals is to create learning systems that work on continuous capture of material in the field as it happens linked with a capacity for feedback loops and sophisticated representations that allow people to learn by doing, building on the micro-narratives of day to day experience.  Narrative forms of knowledge lie between the experiential and the symbolic, allowing complex interactions and interventions in multiple social situations.

Abductive reasoning is, as Dave explains, “the logic of hunches”, and plays a key role in helping to develop understanding of how themes emerge in social contexts such as in business and elsewhere. It’s all fascinating stuff – very strongly recommended. The depth and versatility of the techniques will be a real eye-opener to anyone who hasn’t previously seen Dave’s work, and its applicability to whole-of-enterprise architecture and the like should be self-evident.

Read more…

Danny Greefhorst of Netherlands enterprise-architecture consultancy ArchiXL emailed me with a query about my book Doing Enterprise Architecture:

I was especially interested in the part where you talk about architecture principles given that I am currently writing a book on that topic. You specifically mention the relationship between values and architecture principles. Do you have specific examples of these values and architecture principles that were derived from them?

The key distinction between values and principles is that values are about emotion - a feeling about something – whereas principles are expressions of thought – a rationalisation, followed by decisions about what to do about that something.

A value is often expressed as a single word, such as ’safety’ or ‘trustworthiness’ or ‘fairness’.

A principle is usually expressed as a more considered structure: for example, the TOGAF section on Architecture Principles suggests the following:

• an assertion or label such as ‘Business Continuity’
• a descriptive statement (in that example, “Enterprise operations are maintained in spite of system interruptions”)
• a more detailed rationale (e.g. see that TOGAF example)
• a summary of architectural and design implications (ditto)

In thiscase, the principle of ‘Business Continuity’ devolves in part from the value ‘Trustworthiness’: to ensure that we can trust the business to deliver what it says it will deliver, one aspect is that we will need to plan and design for business continuity. The practical implications include concerns such as design for fail-safe and safe-fail (‘brown-out’), monitoring for failure, real-time or near-real-time failure impact-analysis, failover process-choreographies and so on.

(TOGAF v9 ch.23 asserts that “Architecture principles are a subset of IT principles”: this might make sense for IT-architecture, but makes no sense at all for a true whole-of-enterprise architecture. More accurately, architecture principles and IT principles are orthogonal sets which intersect in IT-architecture principles; courtesy of its unhelpful IT-centrism, TOGAF unfortunately treats higher-order architecture-principles and IT-architecture principles as if they’re at the same level in the values/principles hierarchy, which they’re not. This can be seen most clearly in the first principle in TOGAF’s example set, ‘Primacy of principles’: it should be immediately obvious that this would have a broader scope than solely IT.)

Note that there may be a many-to-many relationship between values and principles – for example, ‘Business Continuity’ also has some links to the value ’safety’ as well as ‘trustworthiness’; the TOGAF principle ‘Compliance with law’ links to both ‘fairness’ and safety’; and so on. Some principles may also have only indirect links to values: the principle ‘Primacy of principles’ is one such example, which in effect applies more to the way in which all principles devolve from values.

Back in March I wrote a fairly lengthy post on ‘value-trees’ in enterprise-architecture‘, which includes this general theme. The example I gave there was a simplistic one about profit as a key value for a commercial organisation:

A suite of principles devolve from this value: for example:

• the outcomes of value-chain processes shall be measured in monetary terms;
• costs of all activities shall likewise be measured in monetary terms (hence techniques such as Activity Based Costing);
• verifiable mechanisms shall be used to contrast these two sets of measurements, to derive a measurement of the value in its specified terms – i.e. profit, in this example.

To do this, we’ll need to:

• aggregate (‘roll up’) all the outcomes and costs; and for management purposes
• disaggregate (‘drill down’) through the business-units and groups and clusters, all the way back down to individual activities.

The connections and transforms for aggregation and disaggregation are the branches for the value-tree.

There’s more detail on this and how to work with value-trees in practice in the chapter on ‘pervasive’ services’ in my book The Service Oriented Enterprise. If anyone wants me to do a reference-sheet on this, please let me know?

Key point is that:

• vision/purpose is the emotive (literal?) ‘wake-up call’ for the overall enterprise, the means by which we connect with or belong to the enterprise
• values are what we feel about/from that purpose
• principles are what we think about those values (i.e. what we think about what we feel); which in turn lead to
• missions, goals and objectives, that describe what we intend to do to express what we think about what we feel.

Obviously, there is some interaction between those dimensions – what we do challenges what we think and feel, and so on – but there is a sort-of hierarchy here that’s best expressed in that sequence of ‘belong > feel > think > do’.

Hope this helps for now?