Architecture Development

Michael Porter recommends distinguishing operational effectiveness from strategy. Strategy is about developing sustainable differentiation based upon strategic positioning.

“Strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals' or performing similar activities in different ways.” [Porter 1996]

Porter’s strategy formulation helps to connect strategic intent with execution. Mapping activity systems helps to verify interactivity consistency and identify when activities are reinforcing.

Strategy formulation is also influenced by the Agile culture, which insists on the importance of experimentation. Strategy is seen as a set of strategic assumptions that need to be experimentally verified. Strategy professor, Adam Brandenburger, observes: “the assumptions underlying your business model are embedded in all your processes”. Therefore, he recommends challenging these assumptions when formulating strategy [Brandenburger 2019]:

The digital era has seen the rise in popularity of the concept of the business model. Sometimes the use of the words “strategy” and “business model” are interchangeable. Peter Seddon and Geoffrey Lewis examine in detail the meaning of two frequently used – and misused – terms, namely, “business model” and “strategy”. They argue that as used by leading thinkers these two terms might reasonably be interpreted as having roughly equivalent meanings [Seddon 2003].

A business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value. It provides an analytical way of connecting strategy to execution. A business model has three components [Johnson 2008]:

Regardless of their quality, the odds that implementing the strategy and associated business model(s) will fail are high. Why?

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” (attributed to Peter Drucker)

In an HBR article, Donald Sull [Sull 2015] and his co-authors analyze why strategy execution unravels. They acknowledge that strategy alignment processes are fine; the issues are due to unreliable commitments from colleagues. Furthermore, strategic plans are just a set of assumptions that need to be verified.

“No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” (attributed to Helmuth van Moltke, Prussian military commander)

Other strategy execution issues are:

A clear and unified corporate identity can be critical to competitive strategy. It serves as a “north star providing direction and purpose” [Greyser 2019]. Corporate brand identity starts from the enterprise mission and vision. It must be consistent with the culture and capabilities of the enterprise.

Jez Frampton believes that great brands are “business strategy brought to life” [Wind 2016]. The authors of Beyond Advertising: Creating Value Through All Customer Touchpoints point out that brands never had more ways to reach and engage people. The image of the brand is now the result of the experience of people across all channels.

In a digital world, brand experience depends on the effective bridging of the enterprise strategy with its operating model. Marketing can no longer manage brands in silos, relying on classical marketing and advertising tools. Marketing people must now become members of multi-disciplinary teams that manage brand experience holistically.

Agile architecting borrows concepts from Value Engineering (VE), which was pioneered by L.D. Miles from General Electric^®. VE is an approach directed at “analyzing the function of systems, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies for the purpose of achieving their essential functions at the lowest lifecycle cost consistent with required performance, reliability, quality, and safety” [Mandelbaum 2006].

In the digital age, value cannot be reduced to functional benefits. Value definition includes the emotional dimension; for example, reducing anxiety, providing fun, or a sense of affiliation.

The central idea is to provide benefits to clients and other stakeholders at the lowest reasonable cost. The value of a product can be increased either by maintaining its functions and features while reducing its cost, or by keeping the cost constant while increasing the functionality of the product.

The Experience perspective defines value from a client perspective. It analyzes a client’s job-to-be done; their pain points and gains. It also covers the emotional dimension of the experience, starting from an outside-in view that places customer needs and problems at the center. Design thinking and market research are incorporated into the broader Agile architecting discipline.

The Work System perspective defines the ability of the enterprise to deliver client benefits efficiently. It starts with analyzing commonalities across value streams; this helps to identify activities that could be shared, thus contributing to architecting the operating model.

The Technical System perspective covers the software and hardware parts of the enterprise. It starts from analyzing domains such as payments, mortgage lending, or federated identity management and also includes architecting the physical world. The software architecture discipline is part of the broader Agile architecting discipline.

Analyzing what the enterprise “is” starts by defining the boundaries that connect:

Defining boundaries covers:

When modeling the enterprise as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), architects should pay attention to leveling, boundaries, dependencies, and interactions: a CAS “is characterized by intricate hierarchical arrangements of boundaries and signals” [Holland 2012]. The definition of levels, boundaries, and interactions is a lever used in Agile Architecture to influence the evolution of the enterprise.

Experience Design combines customer research and product discovery during a set of design thinking iterations. This is not a linear process; it alternates between divergent and convergent thinking. Customer research borrows from marketing research, anthropology, and design thinking to capture and analyze customer needs and desires. Product discovery applies divergent and convergent thinking in the solution space to discover which products and features could satisfy customers. Customer research and product discovery apply outside-in thinking and aim at framing problems and solutions through the lens of the customer.

Journey Maps bridge outside-in thinking with inside-out thinking by defining which activities deliver the experience customers expect.

Value Streams complement the outside-in view by representing all the activities, both value and non-value creating, required to bring a product from concept to launch (also known as the development value stream) and from order to delivery or provisioning (also known as the operational value stream). More detail about value streams can be found in Lean Value Stream Mapping.

Event Storming helps Agile teams to explore the domain. The identification of domain events, commands, persona, or entities facilitates a structured conversation about the domain. The participants of an event storming workshop share knowledge of the domain to establish a common vocabulary or ubiquitous language. Domain events help to identify boundaries. Commands help to identify responsibilities to be allocated to services or components.

Readers who would like to zoom in on building blocks can read Building Blocks Overview and use Building Blocks Logic.

Emergence refers to what appears, materializes, or surfaces when a complex system operates; desired or undesirable functions or outcomes emerge. An example of an undesirable outcome is the pollution that results from operating cars. Architecture aims to develop systems that deliver predictable and desirable outcomes.

However, as enterprise complexity grows, unpredictable and sometimes undesirable outcomes appear. Agile architecting aims at benefiting from emergence while minimizing unnecessary complexity and undesirable outcomes.

John Holland observes that “emergent properties often occur when coevolving signals and boundaries generate new levels of organization. Newer signals and boundaries can then emerge from combinations of building blocks at this new level of organization” [Holland 2012]. The more complex a system becomes, the more emergence is likely to appear.

As enterprises grow in complexity, they increase in resilience, become more capable of handling complex ecosystems, and are less likely to be imitated by competitors. However, complexity has a cost and can threaten the future of an enterprise if it gets out-of-hand.

To mitigate undesirable complexity growth, Agile architecting recommends using the levers below:

Relaxing control favors emergent over designed or micromanaged solutions, which are often inferior. Favoring emergence does not mean it is impossible to steer the evolution of the enterprise.

John Holland suggests steering complex systems by modifying their signal/boundary hierarchies. The components of complex systems are bounded sub-systems or agents that adapt or learn when they interact. Defining the boundaries of sub-systems and their rules of interaction has a major influence on the evolution of the system [Holland 2014].

Agile architecting steers the evolution of the enterprise by modifying its organization and changing the allocation of authority, responsibility, and accountability.

Does emergence mean that intentional architecture is no longer needed? This document makes the case that intentional architecture brings value. However, the architecture discipline needs to evolve. Enterprises need to shift from a Big Up-Front Design (BUFD) to continuous architecture. As James Coplien [Coplien 2010] argues:

This document views architecture development as a combination of intentional and emergent architecture. It promotes enterprise segmentation to facilitate concurrent development and architecture refactoring.

Lessons learned from the strategy field apply to intentional architecture too. The success of intentional architecture depends on the reliability of commitments, which is covered in Architecting the Agile Transformation.

Intentional architecture should be simple, focused, and compact because:

Intentional Architecture will cover this topic in more detail and show how intentional architecture can be combined with continuous architecture.

Agile architecting adopts Set-Based Concurrent Engineering (SBCE) practices from Lean Product Development [Ward 2014]:

SBCE requires architecture thinking to decompose the product or the product platform into sub-systems.

When weak solutions are eliminated, architecture has to evolve. Continuous architecture facilitates incremental changes to the product or platform architectures.

Architecture refactoring refers to the architecture restructuring that occurs when architecture evolves.

In an Agile world, evolvability is becoming a top-quality attribute. The objective should be to architect a system in such a way that will allow change without damaging any non-functional qualities.

The modularity of this document enables the formulation of specific architecture development approaches tailored to solve specific enterprise problems. Intentional Architecture describes patterns that can guide the definition of tailored approaches that use and combine the O-AA building blocks.

A description of building blocks, their links, and how to segment the enterprise can be found in Building Blocks Overview.