tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post7158407943866919505..comments2019-09-27T19:10:17.415+00:00Comments on Services Fabric: Why Service Orientation should start with Systems and not (always) end in systemsNigel Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426482151464159257noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-45838624691557959522009-02-17T00:03:00.000+00:002009-02-17T00:03:00.000+00:00Really interesting discussion - so many facets of ...Really interesting discussion - so many facets of it to comment on. I agree about needing to be cautious about using the term 'Systems Thinking', because there seem to be many differing perspectives on what systems thinking is (it's not unlike Enterprise Architecture in that respect), in addition to what Nigel has described here. <BR/>Some people equate it with systems dynamics. <BR/>Peter Checkland provides a good description of his 'softer' perspective on it here. He sees it more as an ongoing 'process of enquiry' http://www.open2.net/systems/practice/pet.html<BR/><BR/>John Seddon also calls his approach for applying Lean thinking to service design, 'Systems Thinking' yet it's quite different from Checkland's.<BR/><BR/>I've just been reading Patrick Hoverstadt's book on the Fractal Organisation which is basically 'Viable systems modelling for managers' and which tries very hard to use language that is meaningful to mere mortals. I can't really judge whether he's been successful because I had already swallowed the Systems Thinking 'red pill' before I'd read it. See the review on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R8J3GRHQSBOQECybersalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258055798612329124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-33539116234884837912009-02-09T22:09:00.000+00:002009-02-09T22:09:00.000+00:00Adrian, Nigel and I have some shared background, s...Adrian, Nigel and I have some shared background, so this might be a bit too much inside to make complete sense.<BR/><BR/>It constantly frustrates me when the business teams talk in terms of applications - and because the business teams didn't have a great deal of staff turnover, they know the applications better than some of their architecture counterparts. Of course the architects that I am thinking about are really part of the business, but the business has a tendency to think of them as rather lightweight - not enough IT to be useful and not enough business to be credible.<BR/><BR/>So, somehow a way of looking at the business as a simulation of itself can become a way t get the necessary traction - somehow to get the necessary traction to have a kind of parallel Systems Thinking implementation of the business to show what is happening IN REAL BUSINESS TIME is perhaps one way to get the necessary traction. Of course that isn't terribly easy! The trick is to do enough of it to show how better to think about it - informational only using the existing transaction streams to show places for improvement.<BR/><BR/>Remember that to be disruptive (which is after all what we are talking about here), you can't use the tools of the incumbents. Also remember that in any disruptive approach the first solutions don't do the current stuff as well as the current implementations.Chris Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436436994311245922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-42242819282863731442009-02-09T18:49:00.000+00:002009-02-09T18:49:00.000+00:00Tom, Nigel,Tom's AusPost example reminds me of som...Tom, Nigel,<BR/><BR/>Tom's AusPost example reminds me of some similar approaches we've taken in the past, including a CBT that related process, to information, then applications and middleware etc. This type of approach definitely has the potential to make the different perspectives and their inter-relationship more transparent hence making information systems architecture more real.<BR/><BR/>However, my question (How do we make systems thinking REAL in the same way that applications are perceived?) was really about how to develop a greater appreciation of systems thinking in general. So REAL in the sense of "natural". Put it another way, should systems thinking / engineering be taught and at what stage in education should it be taught?Adrian Apthorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13234549587011771041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-70703531542473578152009-02-09T16:50:00.000+00:002009-02-09T16:50:00.000+00:00Adrian,you might find this link of interest:Seven ...Adrian,<BR/><BR/>you might find this link of interest:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://ow.ly/cAw" REL="nofollow">Seven Rules of Business Alignment</A><BR><BR/>I downloaded the full .pdf and have got halfway throught it. It much reference to the value of Business Architecture and the associate absraction from 'apps'.Nigel Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426482151464159257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-72724311195870878322009-02-08T21:26:00.000+00:002009-02-08T21:26:00.000+00:00Adrian (this is a repost of my earlier comment whi...Adrian (this is a repost of my earlier comment which I should've proof read!),<BR/><BR/>I think question we should ask is “How do we make information system's architecture real?” And I think the answer is to demonstrate the connectedness of the world today and point out that its not possible to look at IT as something separate from people and processes in that information system and therefore its architecture must holistic. The numerous failed implementations of packages and bespoke software should demonstrate the need for other than an 'application' perspective. The application is just part of the whole and must be consistent with the other parts – for example, as we say, it must 'respect' the business operating model.<BR/><BR/>I know you have found ways to express this connection to the operating model right up to the CEO regarding country level operating differences in DHL. But I'm sure business folk will continue to think 'applications' and we architects will continue to push for a holistic, systems thinking, approach. Much like CxOs never really see each others point of view – maybe the answer for us lies with the credibility (trust relationship) between the CIO and the others (assuming the CIO understands the need for architecture!).Nigel Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426482151464159257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-11310582837298469012009-02-08T20:06:00.000+00:002009-02-08T20:06:00.000+00:00Nigel, AdrianWhat we did in AusPost to make the sy...Nigel, Adrian<BR/><BR/>What we did in AusPost to make the systems-thinking ideas real was to construct a Business Functional Model (aka Enterprise Function Model), which provided a layered view of the entire scope - it was immediately nicknamed 'Post On A Page'. This got the managers and other business folks thinking holistically as a matter of habit - they could see where their work fitted in with the whole, and so on.<BR/><BR/>We than mapped the business information onto that, and then mapped the apps onto the information-map - the opposite way round to how it's usually done. This showed us all manner of overlaps and gaps in information coverage and sourcing; and because it's linked to the holistic model, we can see straight away where the impacts would be.<BR/><BR/>So we don't talk about 'systems' as such, we talk about 'business functions' - which in effect are mid- to high-level services, described independent of implementation (IT, manual, machine or whatever).<BR/><BR/>We deliberately bypass any mention of IT-applications or the like until we really do need to talk about implementations. That way we can keep it in the abstract systems-thinking space for as long as possible. And again, the longer we can hold back on that, the more we're able to apply non-IT-centric exploratory techniques such as VPEC-T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-56906052226483257762009-02-08T10:13:00.000+00:002009-02-08T10:13:00.000+00:00Nigel,This fits well with my view that SOA comes n...Nigel,<BR/><BR/>This fits well with my view that SOA comes naturally as a result of good architecture, which in itself requires a systems thinking and systems engineering approach. After all most of the key tenets of SOA are well established systems engineering principles put in an information (or business) systems context.<BR/><BR/>The challenge (or at least one of them) I see is how to tear the 'business' away from the comfort blanket of talking about / managing their IT tools. Many times recently I've lamented the demise of business analysis, and techniques like VPEC-T help us in improving the situation, but there is still this desire to deal with more tangible concepts; my application. How do we make systems thinking REAL in the same way that applications are perceived?Adrian Apthorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13234549587011771041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23402499.post-39862547938454095752009-02-08T09:21:00.000+00:002009-02-08T09:21:00.000+00:00Hi NigelYour VPEC-T methods provide a perfect coun...Hi Nigel<BR/><BR/>Your VPEC-T methods provide a perfect counterpart to business-oriented SOA, because one of their core aims is to identify the values that do and need to pervade the layered services of the enterprise.<BR/><BR/>As I've described in my book "The Service Oriented Enterprise" (contents and sample chapters at http://tetradianbooks.com/2008/12/services/ ), the essential anchor for a service-orientation is the enterprise vision and values. From a Systems perspective, using Stafford Beer's 'Viable System Model', the values percolate through every service and every part of the enterprise via the 'pervasive services' that support enterprise values such as privacy, security, health & safety, knowledge-sharing, innovation and, in a commercial context, profit.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps meet up sometime to explore how we can link the two sets of methods together, to create a full business-oriented service-architecture?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com