Why Architecting an Enterprise and ICT?
My first article in a series about Enterprise Architecture and IT was titled ‘Why architecting an enterprise should not be IT-centric’. One of the commentators lucidly asked if I could also write an article on the first four words of the title. My first thought was that there was not much new to be said about this topic: treatises on enterprise architecture customarily put forward why one should architect enterprises and ICT.
In the second instance, after reading Luciano Floridi (see also my article on Actors in Enterprise Architecture) the idea dawned upon me that the answer is less straightforward than what I first surmised. Moreover, I started to doubt the validity of the regular motivation for doing architecture in organizations. Or at least, more can be said about it and in my opinion trying to improve the answer is important for the foundation of the profession of architecting in organizations.
This article is going to come up with a different answer than what is usually presented as the goal of enterprise or digital architecture. First, we present several answers to the ‘why’ question from some leading figures in the EA field. Then I probe whether we (architects) should be unequivocally happy with the answer? The answer, as you already expected, of course, is that I think we should not be satisfied. The remainder of this article tries to give a new answer to the ‘why’ question that hopefully is able to ground the field with a more ambitious “raison d’etre”.
Maybe at this point, you have the opinion that before answering ‘why’, I should answer the question of what ‘architecting in organizations’ is. Especially, because you may know that that question has and still does spark lots of heated discussions. But, I hope you have some patience, I will come back to this question later on.
The motivation for doing architecture in organizations
A good starting point is the Enterprise Architecture method TOGAF. In its introduction, TOGAF states that the purpose of Enterprise Architecture is to ‘optimize … processes into an integrated environment that is responsive to change and supportive of the delivery of the business strategy’. Benefits are efficiency, effectiveness and reduced risks. In short, architecting is to optimize integration in the organization to reap the benefits of being integrated.
Furthermore, let us look at what some influential thinkers in the field say about this question. Roger Evernden argues that enterprises (and ICT within enterprises as well) have an architecture, so he rephrases the question as ‘do we want to manage the evolution of the architecture’? Then he continues and states that when doing architecture well, you get positive results like synergy, cost reduction, collaboration and agility. Gerben Wierda in a massively watched animation describes a situation whereby not doing architecture one ends up with a ‘hairball architecture’ which is impossible to change. Enterprise architecture is needed to keep the application landscape robust as well as flexible and efficient. In the same vein, Martin Fowler argues that good architecture in software is to promote that the system maintains or even increases the changeability over time.
All in all, the experts in the field have the same meaning on the ‘why of architecture’, namely to build an enterprise or ICT construct that fulfils essential quality characteristics so as to fulfil the strategic vision of the enterprise. As I mentioned, there is more discussion on the ‘what of architecture’ than on the ‘why of architecture’.
Inspiration
Compare these goals for doing architecture with what the famous Finnish architect Alvaro Aalto said: “The ultimate goal of the architect…is to create a paradise. Every house, every product of architecture… should be a fruit of our endeavour to build an earthly paradise for people.” (thanks Gerben Wierda for providing this quote in “Chess and the Art of Architecture”). To give another example, Le Corbusier wanted to build “houses for the masses not merely to inhabit, but to truly live in”. In general, physical architects have high aspirations for doing their work. Our digital (enterprise) architecture ambitions turn out very pale compared to these inspirational and ambitious goals of physical architects.
In essence, the goal of the enterprise digital architecture field is to strive for effectiveness and efficiency. This is attractive because it is neutral and objective. It does not seem to involve any political and moral choices, which we ‘as engineers’ are very happy to avoid. (Poel and Royakkers, Ethics of Engineering) And the supporting role has a nice flavour of modesty attached to it. However, Poel and Royakkers argue that effectiveness and efficiency are not always worth pursuing as they suppose an external goal in relation to which they are measured. To give an extreme example, doing architecture for a criminal organization is not a good thing to do, although the effect of the architecture could be the utmost effectiveness and efficiency of criminal activities. So, by having an external goal we as architects run the risk of achieving immoral goals by promoting effectiveness and efficiency.
Apart from this problem, to put it bluntly, the aspirations of physical architects are inspiring for me and those of enterprise digital architecture are not. Using the WHY-HOW-WHAT model of Simon Sinek the Enterprise Architecture story runs as follows. We architect organizations and ICT, which is WHAT we do. Then, we explain HOW an architected organization is better in its robustness, flexibility and efficiency. WHY we do so is to facilitate that the organization can fulfil its goals.
This WHY does not conform to the standard of Simon Sinek’s WHY. The WHY of Sinek must be a belief, a purpose, it should spark positive feelings. Our architecture story addresses the rational mind, not the emotional mind. It is not an inspirational WHY.
I do admit there is a crucial difference between the two different architecture fields. Physical architecting designs physical structures that of itself are directly used. An enterprise digital architect designs constructions that are a means to an end, i.e. to support the goals that the organization is striving for. But let us not give up too quickly and leave it at that. The question is, can we formulate a WHY of architecting that is inspiring and independent of the goals of a specific organization for which it is done. And in so doing, inspire the field of enterprise and digital architecture.
Can we do this without defining what architecture is? I will first discuss this question and then try to answer the WHY question.
What is architecting an organization and ICT?
As I mentioned in the introduction, the question ‘why we are doing architecture’ has received much less attention than the question ‘what architecture in organization and ICT’ is. A lot has been said about that and several definitions have been put forward. I will not give an overview of these definitions and their differences and similarities, but what is more important is the role architecture plays in the bigger picture.
Architecture comes from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων (architéktōn). Architéktōn is composed of two parts: ἀρχι (archi: to be the first, who commands) and τέκτων (tecton: mason, builder). So, the architect is literally the chief builder or the principal craftsman. Doing architecture or being an architect is part of building something. Or using a different word for building, architecture is part of the constructing process.
So, according to this etymology, the enterprise or digital architect has a primary role in building or constructing an organization or ICT. We can replace the question about the goal of architecting in organizations by a more general question: why are we constructing or building an organization or ICT as part of it? Naturally, this is a very general question, however, let us try to answer it.
What are organizations and ICT constructs ‘good for’?
Why are we constructing organizations or ICT systems? Every organization for itself defines a mission, a vision and describes what goals the organization is pursuing. Also, when building an ICT construct, one defines what the ICT system is supposed to do.
Although in business theory there has been discussion whether the goal of a business should just simply be to make a profit or that it should have a more benevolent purpose, the latter viewpoint is now generally accepted as the best choice. Hence, if we generalize to the most abstract level, it is rather safe to say that we are building organizations and ICT systems to do some good for the world. Of course, for specific situations, goals need to be set more clearly to guide the development of the organization or the ICT construct, but in general, when building an organization or ICT construct people will agree that the net result must be to promote goodness in the world.
With this abstract formulation, we are on the terrain of ethics again. Luciano Floridi in his work on the philosophy of information and ICT created constructionist ethics that try to say more about ‘what good is’. Resembling medical ethics, he distinguishes doing no harm and promoting well-being as the two most basic ethical principles. He states that actors (organizations or ICT constructs) should (in my wording):
1. do no harm to ‘entities’ by damaging or disturbing their well-being.
2. promote the flourishing of ‘entities’ by preserving, cultivating and enriching their well-being.
Finally, the WHY of architecting
To solidify the previous paragraph in a mission statement for enterprise and ICT architecture:
“An enterprise or ICT architect helps building a construct that will flourish in its lifetime. This construct will have a positive influence on its environment in which it lives, be it human, natural and non-natural.”
Instead of concentrating on the quality characteristics of the construct that we build, this mission statement focuses on the construct in its environment in its own right. I think, such a vocation is more inspiring than ‘just’ building effective and efficient constructs in support of an external goal.
Two remarks on this. Building organizations or ICT that in all respects have positive effects is unrealistic. In some area’s some harm will be done, in other areas well-being is promoted. It will always be the case that the pros and cons must be weighted, and one strives for a positive net result.
Another complicating factor is that we must act in the light of uncertainty. In many cases, we just do not know how things turn out and we simply do not know whether positively meant constructions turn out to have a negative impact. However, to turn that around, our first duty is to try to know: we must try to understand before we act. The principle to prevent harm means that one must not interfere too hastily with the world and abstain from engaging in actions if one does not need to.
We are, as Floridi calls it, homo poieticus or ‘homo creator’ or ‘homo builder’.
“Homo poieticus is a demiurge (half god) who takes care of reality, to protect it and make it flourish.”
And this is especially true for the species of architects, that have the role of being chief builders with an important responsibility towards the construct that he or she is helping to create and develop.
