Archive

Posts Tagged ‘viable system model’

Enterprise Canvas as service-viability checklist

September 14th, 2011 2 comments

One of the more valuable uses of the Enterprise Canvas is as a checklist to verify completeness and viability of services, in any context within the enterprise.

By ‘completeness’ I mean that we check that the service has all the connections and support and flows that it needs to play its full part in the respective layer of the enterprise value-network.

And ‘viability’ here is in the sense described in the Viable System Model, that the interdependencies that the service needs both to operate in the ‘now’ and to change appropriately over time are all in place and in action.

In a service-oriented architecture and and a service-oriented view of enterprise, everything is or delivers or represents a service. Which means that everything in the enterprise will rely on those interlinks and interdependencies. Which is why a model-type such as Enterprise Canvas, which explicitly sets out to model those interdependencies, could be very useful indeed. :-)

So here’s an as-brief-as-I-can-make-it how-to introduction on using Enterprise Canvas for this purpose, creating models with the simplified version of the Enterprise Canvas notation.

Read more…

Upward and sideways from business-model (short version)

July 29th, 2011 No comments

As all-too-usual, the previous ‘how-to’ post ‘Upwards sideways from business-model‘ – to complement the earlier post on transforming from Business Model Canvas to Archimate, to plan and verify the implementation – has turned out to be huge, because it included all of the explanation and context. Here’s a stripped-down version without any of the explanation – just the checklist-questions for the exploration and modelling.

This takes us from the core frame in Enterprise Canvas:

To the complete Enterprise Canvas frame, by including questions on investors and beneficiaries (below the core) and guidance-services for direction, coordination and validation (above the core):

Because the Enterprise Canvas is recursive, the questions here will apply not just to the overall business-model, but to every ’child’-service and sub-service that we’ve previously identified and mapped in our Archimate models.

Investors and beneficiaries

Quick summary of suggested questions to use in this assessment:

  • What energies, resources or other items are or need to be invested in this service (business-model)? From what or whom (the investors) will these be provided, or made available? Via what relationships and transactions? Using a VPEC-T assessment, what values, policies, events, content and trust would apply to each of those relationships and transactions?
  • What energies, resources or other items are or need to be returned or extracted from this service (business-model)? To what or whom (the beneficiaries) will these be provided, or made available? Via what relationships and transactions? Using a VPEC-T assessment, what values, policies, events, content and trust would apply to each of those relationships and transactions?
  • In what ways are the invested energies and resources used and/or transformed within the service? In what forms is ‘excess value’ extracted and returned from the service as dividends to its beneficiaries?
  • What forms of assessment and governance are used to ensure that the balance of investment and dividend is acceptably ‘fair’ to all parties?

Guidance – direction-services

Quick summary of suggested questions to use in this assessment:

  • Who or what will provide run-time management for the business-model – such as to plan and manage the operations, allocate resources, and collate and interpret performance-reports, and make run-time tactical decisions?
  • Who or what will guide changes to the business-model – such as to research and report on the external environment, and develop strategy?
  • Who or what will keep the business-model on track to the vision and values of the organisation and of the overall shared-enterprise – such as to maintain policy, purpose and identity?
  • Via what means – the ‘How’ and ‘With-What’ of business-services and business-processes – will all of these requirements be enacted in practice?
  • Who or what will provide coordination and choreography for all of this?
  • Who or what will provide governance for all of this?

Guidance – coordination-services

Quick summary of suggested questions to use in this assessment:

  • Who or what will provide run-time coordination for this business-model, within the various components and processes of itself, with its customers, and with its suppliers and other partners?
  • Who or what will guide the execution of change to the business-model – such as via project-management?
  • Who or what will define, guide and coordinate longer-term change, to develop and adapt to changes in the broader context for the business-model – such as via portfolio- or programme-management?
  • Via what means – the ‘How’ and ‘With-What’ of business-services and business-processes – will all of these requirements be enacted in practice?
  • Who or what will define or provide the standards, protocols and policies to guide all of this?
  • Who or what will provide governance for all of this?

Guidance – validation-services

Quick summary of suggested questions to use in this assessment:

  • Who or what will identify the full set of value-themes that would apply to this business-model?
  • For each value-theme in scope, who or what will assist in creating awareness of this value-theme throughout the design, implementation and execution of this business-model, both within the organisation and with its customers, suppliers and other partners?
  • Who or what will assist in developing and/or embedding the skills and capability to execute run-time support for each value-theme in scope?
  • Who or what is responsible for executing the required support for each value-theme at run-time? Are they fully aware of and capable of enacting those responsibilities at run-time to the standards required? Via what means – the ‘How’ and ‘With-What’ of business-services and business-processes – will all of these requirements be enacted in practice?
  • Who or what will monitor and verify compliance (and more) to the required standards of support for each value-theme in scope?
  • Who or what is responsible for ‘closing the loop’ to support continuous improvement on each value-theme in scope?
  • Who or what will define or provide the standards, protocols and policies to guide all of this?
  • Who or what will provide governance for all of this?

Over to you: hope it’s useful, anyway.

Upwards and sideways from business-model

July 29th, 2011 6 comments

The past few posts in this series have focussed on moving ‘downward’ from the business-model, towards implementation, such as might be modelled in Archimate notation. That’s an aspect of the business-architecture / enterprise-architecture interface that makes immediate and practical sense to most people.

Yet to complete and verify the business-model and its proposed implementation, we also need to look upward into the extended-enterprise, and sideways into other aspects of the business-architecture space – otherwise the business-model could well fail in ‘unexpected’ ways. This post explores how to do that exploration, using the Enterprise Canvas frame as a checklist and guide.

(This is an adaptation of material that’s explained in more detail in my books The Service-Oriented Enterprise and Mapping the Enterprise, but there should be enough here to use straight away without needing to refer to either of those books.)

This’ll be another long one, so continue after the ‘Read more…’ break.

Read more…

Viable System Model and Group Dynamics cycle

January 3rd, 2009 1 comment

I’m currently trundling my way through writing the next book, The Service Oriented Enterprise – still on-track for publication at the end of this month, I’m delighted to say – and came across an interesting point about Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model that I hadn’t noted before. It may be important for anyone who’s applying systems-theory principles in enterprise-architecture.

I base much of my architecture-work on a rethink of Tuckman’s Group Dynamics project-lifecycle as an overview-model of the overall workings of an enterprise:

  • forming: purpose, identity, strategy; also far-future
  • storming: people-issues; kind-of orthogonal to time – anywhere from far-future to far-past
  • norming: plans and schedules; also near-future
  • performing: production; also ‘now!
  • adjourning (or mourning): completions; also near- to mid-past

But when we look at the management-section of Beer’s Viable System Model, only three of those five are covered:

  • system-5 ‘policy’: aligns to ‘forming’
  • system-4 ‘strategy’: aligns to later part of ‘forming’, plus ‘norming’
  • system-3 ‘direction’: aligns to later part of ‘norming’, plus ‘performing’

(For those who don’t know the VSM, ‘system-2′ is about inter-process coordination, and ‘system-1′ about service-delivery, the detail-level of the ‘performing’ phase: they don’t really apply here.)

There’s no VSM coverage at all of the ‘storming’ phase, the people-issues – which seems odd, considering Beer’s very strong personal bent towards left-wing participatory politics. And although VSM ‘system-3*’, random-audit, does sort-of touch the ‘adjourning’ phase, it’s only on a very occasional basis – not the continuous process needed for completions and lessons-learned and the like.

This may stem from the VSM’s history as a model of the information flows for management and the like; but it still seems a huge hole in the coverage of what’s actually needed for systemic design of management processes. Is there any way that the VSM does actually cover that hole? And if not, what would we need to do to fill it?