A viewpoint on business architecture
We are hearing more and more about the concept of business architecture these days, as a specialized professional area of expertise. What follows is a personal viewpoint, developed over a number of years of study and experience.
In the context of growing interest, it is fair to ask, “What is the specialization that is represented by business architecture?” In answer to that question, I like to turn the phrase around and ask, “What do we mean by the architecture of a business?”
When I speak about the architecture of a business I use the word in a very broad sense, in line with this definition of architecture from the Oxford English Dictionary: “Construction or structure generally; both abstract and concrete.” This definition suits the way that the word is commonly used in relation to any complex subject, such as the architecture of the human mind, architecture of politics, architecture of belief, or the cognitive architecture of humor.
Based on this definition the term architecture includes the clear understanding of some phenomenon as well as guidance for building something. Both senses can be applied to the architecture of business. An architectural approach can be used to describe a business in order to be very clear about the impact of interventions in its structure and functionality. At the same time, to the extent that businesses are actually designed, an architectural approach to designing and building businesses can also be very valuable.
One theme that I will briefly discuss here, and perhaps come back to at a later date, is the importance of conceptualizing businesses as systems. Again, in this case I like to use a very general definition, this time from an expert in organizational systems, Bela Banathy: “A [system is a] configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships.”
A challenge for those of us who think of businesses as systems is to articulate just what kind of system a business or an enterprise is. More as a placeholder than anything else, I will simply mention some types of systems (or aspects of business systems) that I believe need to be considered for a complete architectural view of business. Business architecture, as I conceptualize it, is complex and multidimensional. It is more than an organization chart. It is more than business processes. Without further defining the following terms I will suggest that we should consider an enterprise to be simultaneously an economic system, a socio-technological system, a semantic system, an accountability system, a purposeful system, a power system, and a cultural system. Most importantly, from my point of view, it is essential to recognize a business or other enterprise as a form of living system. The key point here is that if we do not clearly understand the kind of system we are dealing with, any interventions into enterprise systems can’t possibly be as effective as it needs to be.
It is astonishing to me that the human dimension of business is a controversial subject, but I find many colleagues who disagree that business is all about people. One thing that I am just beginning to address in my own thinking about this subject is the importance of the emotional dimension of enterprise. Human emotion is what gives rise to desire, to value assessment, and even to that old standby “requirements”. An important aspect of the architecture of a business is its brand architecture, and branding is all about engaging the emotions of those one hopes to engage in business. Another important aspect of the architecture of business is culture, and cultural factors are rooted in human feelings.
One of the themes I have been stressing in my own work for the last several years is an aspect of business architecture that I think of as levels of organization. To quote myself from an earlier publication: “The micro-architecture of business is something like the molecular structure of the fundamental ’stuff” from which businesses are made. … The macro-level of business architecture addresses the equivalent of an anatomic level of structure and functionality of the individual enterprise. … The eco-architecture of business addresses multiple enterprises as they interact with each other in a marketplace environment.”
In later blog entries I hope to address these subjects in further detail, as well as such ideas as an architecture of business intent, architecture of realization of business results, and an appropriate architecture of measurement and metrics, IT architecture as a proper subset of business architecture, various configurations of business ecosystems and value networks. Power structures in businesses and other enterprises, architecture that includes physical things, architectures of business culture, semantic implications of industry ontologies and controlled vocabularies, boundary conditions and boundary objects, process vs. practice, impact of technology on informal social networks in the workplace, systems engineering of the intelligent enterprise, the need for humility in the face of business complexity, and business architecture as a timeless approach to technology and business change.
January 26th, 2008 19:37
Your writing reminds me of one of my favourite books: Stewart Brand’s How Buildings Learn.
Yes, there’s the built environment, but homes are about the families and individuals who live in them.
When I was at the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo this past August, I was amused at the exhibit by Le Corbusier. The Modulor scales informed the design of apartments perfect for the French, but didn’t work for Germans who were 2 to 3 inches taller. It’s no surprise that there was a battle between the designers who want to preserve the “perfect” dimension, and the reality of occupants who would likely bump their heads in the tight quarters.
January 28th, 2008 02:44
Thanks for the compliment, David. I take the comment on writing as high praise. As you know, I have concerns about analogies between social systems and other built systems. Not because social systems aren’t (to some extent) built, because they are, I think (to some extent), but because of the very different intrinsic nature of social systems vs. physical artifacts.
Acknowledging that there might be something to learn from the analogy, it might be interesting to think about what it means to have to live in social systems where we bump our heads!
February 2nd, 2008 14:19
[…] getting back to the more detailed subjects that I mentioned in this post on a business architecture viewpoint, I thought I should say a few words about the concept of a system. This is fundamental, not only […]