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…
Categories: Business, Complexity / Structure, Enterprise architecture Tags: Business, business architecture, effectiveness, enterprise, Enterprise architecture, enterprise canvas, service architecture, service-oriented enterprise, story, values, viable system model
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…
Categories: Business, Complexity / Structure, Enterprise architecture Tags: Business, business architecture, business model, business model canvas, complexity, effectiveness, enterprise, Enterprise architecture, enterprise canvas, metamodel, methodology, responsibility, viable system model
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?