Archive for the ‘Enterprise Architecture’ Category

Focus: Requirements Reuse

February 22, 2018


Requirements is what to feed engineering processes. As such they are to be presented under a wide range of forms, and nothing should be assumed upfront about forms or semantics.

What is to be reused: Sketches or Models  ? (John Devlin)

Answering the question of reuse therefore depends on what is to be reused, and for what purpose.

Documentation vs Reuse

Until some analysis can be carried out, requirements are best seen as documents;  whether such documents are to be ephemeral or managed would be decided depending on method (agile or phased), contents (business, supporting systems, implementation, or quality of services), or purpose (e.g governance, regulations, etc).

What is to be reused.

Setting apart external conditions, requirements documentation could be justified by:

  • Traceability of decision-making linking initial requests with actual implementation.
  • Maintenance of deliverables during their life-cycle.

Depending on development approaches, documentation could limited to archives (agile development models) or managed as intermediate products (phased development models). In the latter case reuse would entail some formatting of requirements.

The Cases for Requirements Reuse

Assuming that requirements have been properly formatted, e.g as analysis models (with technical ones managed internally at system level), reuse could be justified by changes in business, functional, or quality of services requirements:

  • Business processes are meant to change with opportunities. With requirements available as analysis models, changes would be more easily managed (a) if they could be fine-grained. Business rules are a clear example, but that could also be the case for new features added to business objects.
  • Functional requirements may change even without change of business ones, e.g if new channels and users are introduced addressing existing business functions. In that case reusable business requirements (b) would dispense with a repeat of business analysis.
  • Finally, quality of service could be affected by operational changes like localization, number of users, volumes, or frequency. Adjusting architecture capabilities would be much easier with functional (c) and business (d) requirements properly documented as analysis models.

Cases for Reuse

Along that perspective, requirements reuse appears to revolve around two pivots, documents and analysis models. Ontologies could be used to bind them.

Requirements & Ontologies

Reusing artifacts means using them in contexts or for purposes different of native ones. That may come by design, when specifications can anticipate on shared concerns, or as an afterthought, when initially unexpected similarities are identified later on. In any case, reuse policies have to overcome a twofold difficulty:

  • Visibility: business and functional analysts must be made aware of potential reuse without having to spend too much time on research.
  • Overheads: ensuring transparency, traceability, and consistency checks on requirements (documents or analysis models) cannot be achieved without costs.

Ontologies could help to achieve greater visibility with acceptable overheads by framing requirements with regard to nature (documents or models) and context:

With regard to nature, the critical distinction is between document management and model based engineering systems. When framed as ontologies, the former is to be implemented as thesaurus targeting terms and documents, the latter as ontologies targeting categories specific to organizations and business domains.

should be managed separately

With regard to context the objective should be to manage reusable requirements depending on the kind of jurisdiction and stability of categories, e.g:

  • Social: No authority, volatile, continuous and informal changes.
  • Institutional: Regulatory authority, steady, changes subject to established procedures.
  • Professional: Agreed upon between parties, steady, changes subject to established procedures.
  • Corporate: Defined by enterprises, periodic, changes subject to internal decision-making.
  • Personal: Customary, defined by named individuals (e.g research paper).

Combining contexts of reuse with architectures layers (enterprise, systems, platforms) and capabilities (Who,What,How, Where, When).

Combined with artificial intelligence, ontology archetypes could crucially extend the benefits of requirements reuse, notably through the impact of deep learning to visibility.

On a broader perspective requirements should be seen as a source of knowledge, and their reuse managed accordingly.

Further Reading


Healthcare: Tracks & Stakes

February 8, 2018


Healthcare represents at least a tenth of developed country’s GDP, with demography pushing to higher levels year after year. In principle technology could drive costs in both directions; in practice it has worked like a ratchet: upside, innovations are extending the scope of expensive treatments, downside, institutional and regulatory constraints have hamstrung the necessary mutations of organizations and processes.

Health Care Personal Assistant (Kerry James Marshall)

As a result, attempts to spread technology benefits across healthcare activities have dwindle or melt away, even when buttressed by major players like Google or Microsoft.

But built up pressures on budgets combined with social transformations have undermined bureaucratic barriers and incumbents’ estates, springing up initiatives from all corners: pharmaceutical giants, technology startups, healthcare providers, insurers, and of course major IT companies.

Yet the wide range of players’ fields and starting lines may be misleading, incumbents or newcomers are well aware of what the race is about: whatever the number of initial track lanes, they are to fade away after a few laps, spurring the front-runners to cover the whole track, alone or through partnerships. As a consequence, winning strategies would have to be supported by a comprehensive and coherent understanding of all healthcare aspects and issues, which can be best achieved with ontologies.

Ontologies vs Models

Ontologies are symbolic constructs (epitomized by conceptual graphs made of nodes and connectors) whose purpose is to make sense of a domain of discourse:

  1. Ontologies are made of categories of things, beings, or phenomena; as such they may range from simple catalogs to philosophical doctrines.
  2. Ontologies are driven by cognitive (i.e non empirical) purposes, namely the validity and consistency of symbolic representations.
  3. Ontologies are meant to be directed at specific domains of concerns, whatever they can be: politics, religion, business, astrology, etc.

That makes ontologies a special case of uncommitted models: like models they are set on contexts and concerns; but contrary to models ontologies’ concerns are detached from actual purposes. That is precisely what is expected from a healthcare conceptual framework.

Contexts & Business Domains

Healthcare issues are set across too many domains to be effectively fathomed, not to mention followed as they change. Notwithstanding, global players must anchor their strategies to different institutional contexts, and frame their policies as to make them transparent and attractive to others players. Such all-inclusive frameworks could be built from ontologies profiled with regard to the governance and stability of contexts:

  • Social: No authority, volatile, continuous and informal changes.
  • Institutional: Regulatory authority, steady, changes subject to established procedures.
  • Professional: Agreed upon between parties, steady, changes subject to established procedures.
  • Corporate: Defined by enterprises, periodic, changes subject to internal decision-making.
  • Personal: Customary, defined by named individuals (e.g research paper).

Ontologies set along that taxonomy of contexts could then be refined as to target enterprise architecture layers: enterprise, systems, platforms, e.g:

A sample of Healthcare profiled ontologies

Depending on the scope and nature of partnerships, ontologies could be further detailed as to encompass architectures capabilities: Who, What, How, Where, When. 

Concerns & Architectures Capabilities

As pointed above, a key success factor for major players would be their ability to federate initiatives and undertakings of both incumbents and newcomers, within or without partnerships. That can be best achieved with enterprise architectures aligned with an all-inclusive yet open framework, and for that purpose the Zachman taxonomy would be the option of choice. The corresponding enterprise architecture capabilities (Who,What, How, Where, When) could then be uniformly applied to contexts and concerns:

  • Internally across architecture layers for enterprise (business and organization), systems (logical structures and functionalities), and platforms (technologies).
  • Externally across context-based ontologies as proposed above.

The nexus between environments (contexts) and enterprises (concerns) ontologies could then be organised according to the epistemic nature of items: terms, documents, symbolic representations (aka surrogates), or business objects and phenomena.

Mapping knowledge to architectures capabilities

That would outline four basic ontological archetypes that may or may not be combined:

  • Thesaurus: ontologies covering terms, concepts.
  • Document Management: thesaurus and documents.
  • Organization and Business: ontologies pertaining to enterprise organization and business processes.
  • Engineering: ontologies pertaining to the symbolic representation (aka surrogates) of organizations, businesses, and systems.

Global healthcare players could then build federating frameworks by combining domain and architecture driven ontologies, e.g:

Building federating frameworks with modular ontologies designed on purpose.

As a concluding remark, it must be reminded that the objective is to federate the activities and systems of healthcare players without interfering with the design of their business processes or supporting systems. Hence the importance of the distinction between ontologies and models introduced above which would act as a guaranty that concerns are not mixed up insofar as ontologies remain uncommitted models.

Further Reading

External Links

Ontologies as Productive Assets

January 22, 2018


An often overlooked benefit of artificial intelligence has been a renewed interest in seminal philosophical and cognitive topics; ontologies coming top of the list.

Ontological Questioning (The Thinker Monkey, Breviary of Mary of Savoy)

Yet that interest has often been led astray by misguided perspectives, in particular:

  • Universality: one-fits-all approaches are pointless if not self-defeating considering that ontologies are meant to target specific domains of concerns.
  • Implementation: the focus is usually put on representation schemes (commonly known as Resource Description Frameworks, or RDFs), instead of the nature of targeted knowledge and the associated cognitive capabilities.

Those misconceptions, often combined, may explain the limited practical inroads of ontologies. Conversely, they also point to ontologies’ wherewithal for enterprises immersed into boundless and fluctuating knowledge-driven business environments.

Ontologies as Assets

Whatever the name of the matter (data, information or knowledge), there isn’t much argument about its primacy for business competitiveness; insofar as enterprises are concerned knowledge is recognized as a key assets, as valuable if not more than financial ones, and should be managed accordingly. Pushing the comparison still further, data would be likened to liquidity, information to fixed income investment, and knowledge to capital ventures. To summarize, assets whatever their nature lose value when left asleep and bear fruits when kept awake; that’s doubly the case for data and information:

  • Digitized business flows accelerates data obsolescence and makes it continuous.
  • Shifting and porous enterprises boundaries and markets segments call for constant updates and adjustments of enterprise information models.

But assessing the business value of knowledge has always been a matter of intuition rather than accounting, even when it can be patented; and most of knowledge shapes up well beyond regulatory reach. Nonetheless, knowledge is not manna from heaven but the outcome of information processing, so assessing the capabilities of such processes could help.

Admittedly, traditional modeling methods are too stringent for that purpose, and looser schemes are needed to accommodate the open range of business contexts and concerns; as already expounded, that’s precisely what ontologies are meant to do, e.g:

  • Systems modeling,  with a focus on integration, e.g Zachman Framework.
  • Classifications, with a focus on range, e.g Dewey Decimal System.
  • Conceptual models, with a focus on understanding, e.g legislation.
  • Knowledge management, with a focus on reasoning, e.g semantic web.

And ontologies can do more than bringing under a single roof the whole of enterprise knowledge representations: they can also be used to nurture and crossbreed symbolic assets and develop innovative ones.

Ontologies Benefits

Knowledge is best understood as information put to use; accounting rules may be disputed but there is no argument about the benefits of a canny combination of information, circumstances, and purpose. Nonetheless, assessing knowledge returns is hampered by the lack of traceability: if a part of knowledge is explicit and subject to symbolic representation, another is implicit and manifests itself only through actual behaviors. At philosophical level it’s the line drawn by Wittgenstein: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”;  at technical level it’s AI’s two-lanes approach: symbolic rule-based engines vs non symbolic neural networks; at corporate level implicit knowledge is seen as some unaccounted for aspect of intangible assets when not simply blended into corporate culture. With knowledge becoming a primary success factor, a more reasoned approach of its processing is clearly needed.

To begin with, symbolic knowledge can be plied by logic, which, quoting Wittgenstein again, “takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it.” That would be true on two conditions:

  • Domains are to be well circumscribed. 
  • A water-tight partition must be secured between the logic of representations and the semantics of domains.

That could be achieved with modular and specific ontologies built on a clear distinction between common representation syntax and specific domains semantics.

As for non-symbolic knowledge, its processing has for long been overshadowed by the preeminence of symbolic rule-based schemes, that is until neural networks got the edge and deep learning overturned the playground. In a few years’ time practically unlimited access to raw data and the exponential growth in computing power have opened the door to massive sources of unexplored knowledge which is paradoxically both directly relevant yet devoid of immediate meaning:

  • Relevance: mined raw data is supposed to reflect the geology and dynamics of targeted markets.
  • Meaning: the main value of that knowledge rests on its implicit nature; applying existing semantics would add little to existing knowledge.

Assuming that deep learning can transmute raw base metals into knowledge gold, enterprises would need to understand, assess, and improve the refining machinery. That could be done with ontological frames.

Further Reading

External Links

Open Ontologies: From Silos to Architectures

January 1, 2018

To be of any use for enterprises, ontologies have to embrace a wide range of contexts and concerns, often ill-defined for environments, rather well expounded for systems.

Circumscribed Contexts & Crossed Concerns (Robert Goben)

And now that enterprises have to compete in open, digitized, and networked environments, business and systems ontologies have to be combined into modular knowledge architectures.

Ontologies & Contexts

If open-ended business contexts and concerns are to be taken into account, the first step should be to characterize ontologies with regard to their source, justification, and the stability of their categories, e.g:

  • Social: No authority, volatile, continuous and informal changes.
  • Institutional: Regulatory authority, steady, changes subject to established procedures.
  • Professional: Agreed upon between parties, steady, changes subject to established procedures.
  • Corporate: Defined by enterprises, periodic, changes subject to internal decision-making.
  • Personal: Customary, defined by named individuals (e.g research paper).

Assuming such an external taxonomy, the next step would be to see what kind of internal (i.e enterprise architecture) ontologies can be fitted into, as it’s the case for the Zachman framework.

The Zachman’s taxonomy is built on well established concepts (Who,What,How, Where, When) applied across architecture layers for enterprise (business and organization), systems (logical structures and functionalities), and platforms (technologies). These layers can be generalized and applied uniformly across external contexts, from well-defined (e.g regulations) to fuzzy (e.g business prospects or new technologies) ones, e.g:

Ontologies, capabilities (Who,What,How, Where, When), and architectures (enterprise, systems, platforms).

That “divide to conquer” strategy is to serve two purposes:

  • By bridging the gap between internal and external taxonomies it significantly enhances the transparency of governance and decision-making.
  • By applying the same motif (Who,What, How, Where, When) across the semantics of contexts, it opens the door to a seamless integration of all kinds of knowledge: enterprise, professional, institutional, scientific, etc.

As can be illustrated using Zachman concepts, the benefits are straightforward at enterprise architecture level (e.g procurement), due to the clarity of supporting ontologies; not so for external ones, which are by nature open and overlapping and often come with blurred semantics.

Ontologies & Concerns

A broad survey of RDF-based ontologies demonstrates how semantic overlaps and folds can be sort out using built-in differentiation between domains’ semantics on one hand, structure and processing of symbolic representations on the other hand. But such schemes are proprietary, and evidence shows their lines seldom tally, with dire consequences for interoperability: even without taking into account relationships and integrity constraints, weaving together ontologies from different sources is to be cumbersome, the costs substantial, and the outcome often reduced to a muddy maze of ambiguous semantics.

The challenge would be to generalize the principles as to set a basis for open ontologies.

Assuming that a clear line can be drawn between representation and contents semantics, with standard constructs (e.g predicate logic) used for the former, the objective would be to classify ontologies with regard to their purpose, independently of their representation.

The governance-driven taxonomy introduced above deals with contexts and consequently with coarse-grained modularity. It should be complemented by a fine-grained one to be driven by concerns, more precisely by the epistemic nature of the individual instances to be denoted. As it happens, that could also tally with the Zachman’s taxonomy:

  • Thesaurus: ontologies covering terms and concepts.
  • Documents: ontologies covering documents with regard to topics.
  • Business: ontologies of relevant enterprise organization and business objects and activities.
  • Engineering: symbolic representation of organization and business objects and activities.

Ontologies: Purposes & Targets

Enterprises could then pick and combine templates according to domains of concern and governance. Taking an on-line insurance business for example, enterprise knowledge architecture would have to include:

  • Medical thesaurus and consolidated regulations (Knowledge).
  • Principles and resources associated to the web-platform (Engineering).
  • Description of products (e.g vehicles) and services (e.g insurance plans) from partners (Business).

Such designs of ontologies according to the governance of contexts and the nature of concerns would significantly reduce blanket overlaps and improve the modularity and transparency of ontologies.

On a broader perspective, that policy will help to align knowledge management with EA governance by setting apart ontologies defined externally (e.g regulations), from the ones set through decision-making, strategic (e.g plate-form) or tactical (e.g partnerships).

Open Ontologies’ Benefits

Benefits from open and formatted ontologies built along an explicit distinction between the semantics of representation (aka ontology syntax) and the semantics of context can be directly identified for:

Modularity: the knowledge basis of enterprise architectures could be continuously tailored to changes in markets and corporate structures without impairing enterprise performances.

Integration: the design of ontologies with regard to the nature of targets and stability of categories could enable built-in alignment mechanisms between knowledge architectures and contexts.

Interoperability: limited overlaps and finer granularity are to greatly reduce frictions when ontologies bearing out business processes are to be combined or extended.

Reliability: formatted ontologies can be compared to typed programming languages with regard to transparency, internal consistency, and external validity.

Last but not least, such reasoned design of ontologies may open new perspectives for the collaboration between cognitive humans and pretending ones.

Further Reading

External Links

Flawed Code vs Model in the Loop

November 27, 2017


Repeated announces of looming software apocalypse may take some edge off vigilance, but repeated systems failures should be taken seriously, if only because they  appear to be rooted in a wide array of causes, from wrongly valued single parameters (e.g 911 threshold or Apple’s free pass for “root” users) to architecture obsolescence (e.g reservation systems.)

Spreading hazardous digits (Mona Hatoum)

Yet, if alarms are not to be ignored, prognoses should go beyond syndromes and remedies beyond sticking plaster: contrary to what is suggested by The Atlantic’s article, systems are much more than piles of code, and programming is probably where quality has been taken the most seriously.

Programs vs Systems

Whatever programmers’ creativity and expertise, they cannot tackle complexity across space, time, and languages: today’s systems are made of distributed interacting components, specified and coded in different languages, and deployed and modified across overlapping time-frames. Even without taking into account continuous improvements in quality, apocalypse is not to loom in the particulars of code but on their ways in the world.

Solutions should therefore be looked for at system level, and that conclusion can only be bolstered by the ubiquity of digitized business flows.

Systems are the New Babel

As illustrated by the windfalls benefiting Cobol old timers, language is arguably a critical factor, for the maintenance of legacy programs as well as for communication between stakeholders, users, and engineers.

So if problems can be traced back to languages, it’s where solutions are to be found: from programming languages (for code) to natural ones (for systems requirements), everything can be specified as symbolic representations, i.e models.

Model in the Loop

Models are generally understood as abstractions, and often avoided for that very reason. That shortsighted mind-set is made up for by concrete employs of abstractions, as illustrated by the Automotive industry and the way it embeds models in engineering processes.

Summarily, the Automotive’s Model in Loop (MiL) can be explained through three basic ideas:

  • Systems are to be understood as the combination of physical and software artifacts.
  • Insofar as both can be implemented as digits, they can be uniformly described as models.
  • As a consequence, analysis, design and engineering can be carried out through the iterative building, simulating, testing, and adjusting various combinations of hardware and software.

By bringing together physical components and code into a seamless digitized whole, MiL brings down the conceptual gap between actual elements and symbolic representations, aka models. And that leap could be generalized to a much wider range of systems.

Models are the New Code

Programming habits and the constraints imposed by the maintenance of legacy systems have perpetuated the traditional understanding of systems as a building-up of programs; hence the focus put on the quality of code. But when large, distributed, and perennial systems are concerned, that bottom-up mind-set falls short and brings about:

  • An exponential increase of complexity at system level.
  • Opacity and discontinued traceability at application level between current use and legacy code.

Both flaws could be corrected by combining top-down modeling and bottom-up engineering. That could be achieved with iterative processes carried out from both directions.

Model in the Loop meets Enterprise Architecture

From a formal perspective models are of two sorts: extensional ones operate bottom-up and associate sets of individuals with categories, intensional ones operate top-down and specify the features meant to be shared by all instances of a type. based on that understanding, the former can be used to simulate the behaviors of targeted individuals depending on categories, and the latter to prescribe how to create instances of types meant to implement categories.

As it happens, Model-in-loop combines the two schemes at component level:

  • Any combination of manual and automated solution can be used as a starting point for analysis and simulation (a).
  • Given the outcomes of simulation and tests, the architecture is revisited (b) and corresponding artifacts (software and hardware) are designed (c).
  • The new combination of artifacts are developed and integrated, ready for analysis and simulation (d).

Model in the Loop

Assuming that MiL bottom-up approach could be tallied with top-down systems engineering processes, it would enable a seamless and continuous integration of changes in software components and systems architectures.

Further Reading

External Links

Focus: Enterprise Architect Booklet

October 16, 2017


Given the diversity of business and organizational contexts, and EA still a fledgling discipline, spelling out a job description for enterprise architects can be challenging.


Aligning business, organization, and systems perspectives (Hans Vredeman de Vries)

So, rather than looking for comprehensive definitions of roles and responsibilities, one should begin by circumscribing the key topics of the trade, namely:

  1. Concepts : eight exclusive and unambiguous definitions provide the conceptual building blocks.
  2. Models: how the concepts are used to analyze business requirements and design systems architectures and software artifacts.
  3. Processes: how to organize business and engineering processes.
  4. Architectures: how to align systems capabilities with business objectives.
  5. Governance: assessment and decision-making.

The objective being to define the core issues that need to be addressed by enterprise architects.


To begin with, the primary concern of enterprise architects should be to align organization, processes, and systems with enterprise business objectives and environment. For that purpose architects are to consider two categories of models:

  • Analysis models describe business environments and objectives.
  • Design models prescribe how systems architectures and components are to be developed.

Enterprise architects must focus on individuals (objects and processes) consistently identified (#) across business and system realms.

That distinction is not arbitrary but based on formal logic: analysis models are extensional as they classify actual instances of business objects and activities; in contrast, design models are intensional as they define the features and behaviors of required system artifacts.

The distinction is also organizational: as far as enterprise architecture is concerned, the focus is to remain on objects and activities whose identity (#) and semantics are to be continuously and consistently maintained across business (actual instances) and system (symbolic representations) realms:

Relevant categories at architecture level can be neatly and unambiguously defined.

  • Actual containers represent address spaces or time frames; symbolic ones represent authorities governing symbolic representations. System are actual realizations of symbolic containers managing symbolic artifacts.
  • Actual objects (passive or active) have physical identities; symbolic objects have social identities; messages are symbolic objects identified within communications. Power-types (²) are used to partition objects.
  • Roles (aka actors) are parts played by active entities (people, devices, or other systems) in activities (BPM), or, if it’s the case, when interacting with systems (UML’s actors). Not to be confounded with agents meant to be identified independently of their behavior.
  • Events are changes in the state of business objects, processes, or expectations.
  • Activities are symbolic descriptions of operations and flows (data and control) independently of supporting systems; execution states (aka modes) are operational descriptions of activities with regard to processes’ control and execution. Power-types (²) are used to partition execution paths.

Since the objective is to identify objects and behaviors at architecture level, variants, abstractions, or implementations are to be overlooked. It also ensues that the blueprints obtained remain general enough as to be uniformly, consistently and unambiguously translated into most of modeling languages.

Languages & Models

Enterprise architects may have to deal with a range of models depending on scope (business vs system) or level (enterprise and system vs domains and applications):

  • Business process modeling languages are used to associate business domains and enterprises organization.
  • Domain specific languages do the same between business domains and software components, bypassing enterprise organization and systems architecture.
  • Generic modeling languages like UML are supposed to cover the whole range of targets.
  • Languages like Archimate focus on the association between enterprises organization and systems functionalities.
  • Contrary to modeling languages programming ones are meant to translate functionalities into software end-products. Some, like WSDL (Web Service Definition Language), can be used to map EA into service oriented architectures (SOA).

Scope of Modeling Languages

While architects clearly don’t have to know the language specifics, they must understand their scope and purposes.


Whatever the languages, methods, or models, the primary objective is that architectures support business processes whenever and wherever needed. Except for standalone applications (for which architects are marginally involved), the way systems architectures support business processes is best understood with regard to layers:

  • Processes are solutions to business problems.
  • Processes (aka business solutions) induce problems for systems, to be solved by functional architecture.
  • Implementations of functional architectures induce problems for platforms, to be solved by technical architectures.

Enterprise architects should focus on the alignment of business problems and supporting systems functionalities

As already noted, enterprise architects are to focus on enterprise and system layers: how business processes are supported by systems functionalities and, more generally, how architecture capabilities are to be aligned with enterprise objectives.

Nonetheless, business processes don’t operate in a vacuum and may depend on engineering and operational processes, with regard to development for the former, deployment for the latter.


Enterprise architects should take a holistic view of business, engineering, and operational processes.

Given the crumbling of traditional fences between environments and IT systems under combined markets and technological waves, the integration of business, engineering, and operational processes is to become a necessary condition for market analysis and reactivity to changes in business environment.


Blueprints being architects’ tool of choice, enterprise architects use them to chart how enterprise objectives are to be supported by systems capabilities; for that purpose:

  • On one hand they have to define the concepts used for the organization, business domains, and business processes.
  • On the other hand they have to specify, monitor, assess, and improve the capabilities of supporting systems.

In between they have to define the functionalities that will consolidate specific and possibly ephemeral business needs into shared and stable functions best aligned with systems capabilities.


The role of functional architectures is to map conceptual models to systems capabilities

As already noted, enterprise architects don’t have to look under the hood at the implementation of functions; what they must do is to ensure the continuous and comprehensive transparency between existing as well a planned business objectives and systems capabilities.


One way or the other, governance implies assessment, and for enterprise architects that means setting apart architectural assets and business applications:

  • Whatever their nature (enterprise organization or systems capabilities), the life-cycle of assets encompasses multiple production cycles, with returns to be assessed across business units. On that account enterprise architects are to focus on the assessment of the functional architecture supporting business objectives.
  • By contrast, the assessment of business applications can be directly tied to a business value within a specific domain, value which may change with cycles. Depending on induced changes for assets, adjustments are to be carried out through users’ stories (standalone, local impact) or use cases (shared business functions, architecture impact).

Enterprise architects deal with assets, business analysts with processes.

The difficulty of assessing returns for architectural assets is compounded by cross dependencies between business, engineering, and operational processes; and these dependencies may have a decisive impact for operational decision-making.

Business Intelligence & Decision-making

Embedding IT systems in business processes is to be decisive if business intelligence (BI) is to accommodate the ubiquity of digitized business processes and the integration of enterprises with their environments. That is to require a seamless integration of data analytics and decision-making:

Data analytics (sometimes known as data mining) is best understood as a refining activity whose purpose is to process raw data into meaningful information:

  • Data understanding gives form and semantics to raw material.
  • Business understanding charts business contexts and concerns in terms of objects and processes descriptions.
  • Modeling consolidates data and business understanding into descriptive, predictive, or operational models.
  • Evaluation assesses and improves accuracy and effectiveness with regard to objectives and decision-making.

Decision-making processes in open and digitized environment are best described with the well established OODA (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) loop:

  1. Observation: understanding of changes in business environments (aka territories).
  2. Orientation: assessment of the reliability and shelf-life of pertaining information (aka maps) with regard to current positions and operations.
  3. Decision: weighting of options with regard to enterprise capabilities and broader objectives.
  4. Action: carrying out of decisions within the relevant time-frame.

Seamless integration of data analytics and decision-making.

Along that perspective data analytics and decision-making can be seen as the front-offices of business intelligence, and  knowledge management as its back-office.

More generally that scheme epitomizes the main challenge of enterprise architects, namely the continuous and dynamic alignment of enterprise organization and systems to market environment, business processes, and decision-making.

Further Reading

On The Holistic Nature of MBSE

October 1, 2017


Interestingly, variants of MBSE/MDSE acronyms put the focus on the duality of the concept, software on one side, systems on the other.

MBSE is by nature a two-faced endeavor (Sand Painting Navajo Rug)

As that duality operates for models, systems, and organizations, MBSE offers a holistic view on enterprise architecture.

Models and Software

Models are symbolic representations of actual contexts in line with specific purposes: requirements analysis, simulation, software design, etc. Software is a subset of models characterized by target (computer code) and language (executable instructions). Based on that understanding, MBSE should not be limited to DSLs silos and code generation but employed to bring together and manage the whole range of concerns and artifacts.

Systems and Applications

The hapless track record of Waterfall and the parallel ascent of Agile have clouded the grounds for phased development processes. But whereas agile schemes are the default option when applications can be developed independently, external dependencies prevent their scaling up to system level. That’s when system engineering takes precedence on applications development, with MBSE introduced to manage shared models and support collaboration between teams.

Organization and Projects

As epitomized by agile development models, projects can be driven by specific business needs or shared architecture capabilities. Whereas the former are best carried out iteratively by autonomous teams sharing skills and responsibility, the latter entail collaboration between organizational units along time. MBSE provides the link between standalone projects, phased processes, and enterprise organization.

MBSE provides a holistic view of organisations and systems.

By providing a holistic view of changes in organizations, systems, and software, MBSE should be a key component of enterprise architecture.

Further Reading


Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP): Lost in Translation ?

July 2, 2017


The intent of Unified Architecture Framework Profile (UAFP) is to “provide a Domain Meta-model usable by non UML/SysML tool vendors who may wish to implement the UAF within their own tool and metalanguage.”

Detached Architecture (Víctor Enrich)

But a meta-model trying to federate (instead of bypassing) the languages of tools providers has to climb up the abstraction scale above any domain of concerns, in that case systems architectures. Without direct consideration of the domain, the missing semantic contents has to be reintroduced through stereotypes.

Problems with that scheme appear at two critical junctures:

  • Between languages and meta-models, and the way semantics are introduced.
  • Between environments and systems, and the way abstractions are defined.

Caminao’s modeling paradigm is used to illustrate the alternative strategy, namely the direct stereotyping of systems architectures semantics.

Languages vs Stereotypes

Meta-Models are models of models: just like artifacts of the latter represent sets of instances from targeted domains, artifacts of the former represent sets of symbolic artifacts from the latter. So while set higher on the abstraction scale, meta-models still reflect the domain of concerns.

Meta-models takes a higher view of domains, meta-languages don’t.

Things are more complex for languages because linguistic constructs ( syntax and semantics) and pragmatic are meant to be defined independently of domain of discourse. Taking a simple example from the model above, it contains two kinds of relationships:

  • Linguistic constructs:  represents, between actual items and their symbolic counterparts; and inherits, between symbolic descriptions.
  • Domain specific: played by, operates, and supervises.

While meta-models can take into account both categories, that’s not the case for languages which only consider linguistic constructs and mechanisms. Stereotypes often appear as a painless way to span the semantic fault between what meta-models have to do and what languages use to do; but that is misguided because mixing domain specific semantics with language constructs can only breed confusion.

Stereotypes & Semantics

If profiles and stereotypes are meant to refine semantics along domains specifics, trying to conciliate UML/SysML languages and non UML/SysML models puts UAFP in a lopsided position by looking the other way, i.e towards one-fits-all meta-language instead of systems architecture semantics. Its way out of this conundrum is to combine stereotypes with UML constraint, as can be illustrated with PropertySet:

UAFP for PropertySet (italics are for abstract)

Behind the mixing of meta-modeling levels (class, classifier, meta-class, stereotype, meta-constraint) and the jumble of joint modeling concerns (property, measurement, condition), the PropertySet description suggests the overlapping of two different kinds of semantics, one looking at objects and behaviors identified in environments (e.g asset, capability, resource); the other focused on systems components (property, condition, measurement). But using stereotypes indifferently for both kind of semantics has consequences.

Stereotypes, while being the basic UML extension mechanism, comes without much formalism and can be applied extensively. As a corollary, their semantics must be clearly defined in line with the context of their use, in particular for meta-languages topping different contexts.

PropertySet for example is defined as an abstract element equivalent to a data type, simple or structured, a straightforward semantic that can be applied consistently for contexts, domains or languages.

That’s not the case for ActualPropertySet which is defined as an InstanceSpecification for a “set or collection of actual properties”. But properties defined for domains (as opposed to languages) have no instances of their own and can only occur as concrete states of objects, behaviors, or expectations, or as abstract ranges in conditions or constraints. And semantics ambiguities are compounded when inheritance is indifferently applied between a motley of stereotypes.

Properties epitomize the problems brought about by confusing language and domain stereotypes and point to a solution.

To begin with syntax, stereotypes are redundant because properties can be described with well-known language constructs.

As for semantics, stereotyped properties should meet clearly defined purposes; as far as systems architectures are concerned, that would be the mapping to architecture capabilities:

Property must be stereotyped with regard to induced architecture capabilities.

  • Properties that can be directly and immediately processed, symbolic (literal) or not (binary objects).
  • Properties whose processing depends on external resource, symbolic (reference) or not (numeric values).

Such stereotypes could be safely used at language level due to the homogeneity of property semantics. That’s not the case for objects and behaviors.

Languages Abstractions & Symbolic Representations

The confusion between language and domain semantics mirrors the one between enterprise and systems, as can be illustrated by UAFP’s understanding of abstraction.

In the context of programming languages, isAbstract applies to descriptions that are not meant to be instantiated: for UAFP “PhysicalResource” isAbstract because it cannot occur except as “NaturalResource” or “ResourceArtifact”, none of them isAbstract.

“isAbstract” has no bearing on horses and carts, only on the meaning of the class PhysicalResource.

Despite the appearances, it must be reminded that such semantics have nothing to do with the nature of resources, only with what can be said about it. In any case the distinction is irrelevant as long as the only semantics considered are confined to specification languages, which is the purpose of the UAFP.

As that’s not true for enterprise architects, confusion is to arise when the modeling Paradigm is extended as to include environments and their association with systems. Then, not only that two kinds of instances (and therefore abstractions) are to be described, but that the relationship between external and internal instances is to determine systems architectures capabilities. Extending the simple example above:

  • Overlooking the distinction between active and passive physical resources prevents a clear and reliable mapping to architecture technical capabilities.
  • Organizational resource lumps together collective (organization), individual and physical (person), individual and organizational (role), symbolic (responsibility), resources. But these distinctions have a direct consequences for architecture functional capabilities.

Abstraction & Symbolic representation

Hence the importance of the distinction between domain and language semantics, the former for the capabilities of the systems under consideration, the latter for the capabilities of the specification languages.

Systems Never Walk Alone

Profiles are supposed to be handy, reliable, and effective guides for the management of specific domains, in that case the modeling of enterprise architectures. As it happens, the UAF profile seems to set out the other way, forsaking architects’ concerns for tools providers’ ones; that can be seen as a lose-lose venture because:

  • There isn’t much for enterprise architects along that path.
  • Tools interoperability would be better served by a parser focused on languages semantics independently of domain specifics.

Hopefully, new thinking about architecture frameworks (e.g DoDAF) tends to restyle them as EA profiles, which may help to reinstate basic requirements:

  • Explicit modeling of environment, enterprise, and systems.
  • Clear distinction between domain (enterprise and systems architecture) and languages.
  • Unambiguous stereotypes with clear purposes

A simple profile for enterprise architecture

On a broader perspective such a profile would help with the alignment of purposes (enterprise architects vs tools providers), scope (enterprise vs systems), and languages (modeling vs programming).

Further Reading

Enterprise Architecture

External Links

EA’s Merry-go-round

June 14, 2017


All too often EA is planned as a big bang project to be carried out step by step until completion. That understanding is misguided as it confuses EA with IT systems and implies that enterprises could change their architectures as if they were apparel.

EA is a never-ending endeavor (Robert Doisneau)

But enterprise architecture is part and parcel of enterprises, a combination of culture, organization, and systems; whatever the changes, they must keep the continuity, integrity, and consistency of the whole.


Compared to usual projects, architectural ones are not meant to address specific business needs but architecture capabilities that may or may not be specific to business functions. Taking a leaf from the Zachman Framework, those capabilities can be organized around five pillars supporting enterprise, systems, and platform architectures:

  • Who: enterprise roles, system users, platform entry points.
  • What: business objects, symbolic representations, objects implementation.
  • How: business logic, system applications, software components.
  • When: processes synchronization, communication architecture, communication mechanisms.
  • Where: business sites, systems locations, platform resources.

These capabilities are set across architecture layers and support business, engineering, and operational processes.

Enterprise architecture capabilities

Enterprise architects are to continuously assess and improve these capabilities with regard to current weaknesses (organizational bottlenecks, technical debt) or future developments (new business, M&A, new technologies).

Work Units

Given the increased dependencies between business, engineering, and operations, defining EA workflows in terms of work units defined bottom-up from capabilities is to provide clear benefits with regard to EA versatility and plasticity.

Contrary to top-down (aka activity based) ones, bottom-up schemes don’t rely on one-fits-all procedures; as a consequence work units can be directly defined by capabilities and therefore mapped to engineering workshops:

Iterative development of architecture capabilities across workshops

Moreover, dependency constraints can be directly defined as declarative assertions attached to capabilities and managed dynamically instead of having to be hard-wired into phased processes.

That approach is to ensure two agile conditions critical for the development of architectural features:

  • Shared ownership: lest the whole enterprise be paralyzed by decision-making procedures, work units must be carried out under the sole responsibility of project teams.
  • Continuous delivery: architecture driven developments are by nature transverse but the delivery of building blocs cannot be put off by the decision of all parties concerned; instead it should be decoupled from integration.

Enterprise architecture projects could then be organized as a merry-go-round of capabilities-based work units to be set up, developed, and delivered according to needs and time-frames.

Time Frames

Enterprise architecture is about governance more than engineering. As such it has to ensure continuity and consistency between business objectives and strategies on one side, engineering resources and projects on the other side.

Assuming that capability-based work units will do the job for internal dependencies (application contents and engineering), the problem is to deal with external ones (business objectives and enterprise organization) without introducing phased processes. Beyond differences in monikers, such dependencies can generally be classified along three reasoned categories:

  • Operational: whatever can be observed and acted upon within a given envelope of assets and capabilities.
  • Tactical: whatever can be observed and acted upon by adjusting assets, resources and organization without altering the business plans and anticipations.
  • Strategic: decisions regarding assets, resources and organization contingent on anticipations regarding business environments.

The role of enterprise architects will then to manage the deployment of updated architecture capabilities according to their respective time-frames.

Portfolio Management

As noted before, EA workflows by nature can seldom be carried out in isolation as they are meant to deal with functional features across business domains. Instead, a portfolio of architecture (as opposed to development) work units should be managed according to their time-frame, the nature of their objective, and the kind of models to be used:

EA portfolio

  • Strategic features affect the concepts defining business objectives and processes. The corresponding business objects and processes are primarily defined with descriptive models; changes will have cascading effects for engineering and operations.
  • Tactical features affect the definition of artifacts, logical or physical. The corresponding engineering processes are primarily defined with prescriptive models; changes are to affect operational features but not the strategic ones.
  • Operational features affect the deployment of resources, logical or physical. The corresponding processes are primarily defined with predictive models derived from descriptive ones; changes are not meant to affect strategic or tactical features.

Architectural projects could then be managed as a dynamic backlog of self-contained work units continuously added (a) or delivered (b).

EA projects: a merry-go-round of work units.

That would bring together agile development processes and enterprise architecture.

Further Reading

Squaring EA Governance

April 18, 2017


Enterprise governance has to face combined changes in the way business times and spaces are to be taken into account. On one hand social networks put well-thought-out market segments and well planned campaigns at the mercy of consumers’ weekly whims. On the other hand traditional fences between environments and IT systems are crumbling under combined markets and technological waves.

Squaring Governance in Space and Time (Jasenka Tucan-Vaillant)

So, despite (or because of) the exponential ability of intelligent systems to learn from circumstances, enterprise governance is not to cope with such dynamic complexities without a reliable compass set with regard to key primary factors: time-frames of concerns; control of processes; administration of artifacts.

Concerns & Time-frames

Confronted to massive and continuous waves of stochastic data flows, the priority is to position external events and decision-making with regard to business and assets time-frames:

  • Business value is to be driven by market opportunities which cannot be coerced into predefined fixed time-frames.
  • Assets management is governed by continuity and consistency constraints on enterprise identity, objectives, and investments along time.

Governance Square and its four corners

Enterprises, once understood as standalone entities, must now be redefined as living organisms in continuous adaptation with their environment. Governance schemes must therefore be broadened to business environments and layered as to take into account the duality of time-frames: operational for business value, strategic for assets.

Control of processes and administration of artifacts can then be defined accordingly.

Time & Control: Processes

Architectures being by nature shared and persistent, their layers are meant to reflect different time-frames, from operational cycles to long-term assets:

  • At enterprise level the role of architectures is to integrate shared assets and align various objectives set along different time-frames. At this level it’s safe to assume some cross dependencies between processes, which would call for phased governance.
  • By contrast, business units are meant to be defined as self-governing entities pursuing specific objectives within their own time-frame. From a competitive perspective markets opportunities and competitors moves are best assumed unpredictable, and processes best governed by circumstances.

Enterprise Processes have to align business and engineering objectives

Processes can then be defined vertically (business or Systems) as well as horizontally (enterprise architecture or application development), and governance set accordingly:

  • At enterprise level processes are phased: stakeholders and architects plan and manage the development and deployment of assets (organization and systems).
  • At business units level processes are lean and just-in-time: business analysts and software engineers design and develop applications supporting users needs as defined by users stories or use cases.

Models are then to be introduced to describe shared assets (organization and systems) across the enterprise. They may also support business analysis and software engineering.

Spaces & Administration: Models and Artifacts

Whatever the targets and terminologies, architecture is best defined as a relationship between concrete territories (processes and systems) and abstract maps (blueprints or models).

Carrying on with the four corners of governance square:

  • Business analysts are to set users’ narratives (concrete) in line with the business plots (blueprints) set by stakeholders.
  • Software engineers designing applications (concrete) in line with systems functional architectures (blueprints).

Enterprise Architecture uses maps to manage territories

As for the overlapping of business and development time-frames, the direct mapping between concrete business and system corners (e.g though agile development) is to facilitate the governance of integrated actual and numeric flows across business and systems.

Conclusion: A Compass for Enterprise Architects

Behind turfs perimeters and jobs descriptions, roles and responsibilities involved in enterprise architecture can be summarized by four drives:

  • Business stakeholders (top left): adjust organization as to maximize the versatility and plasticity of architectures.
  • Business analysts (bottom left): define business processes with regard to broader objectives and engineering efficiency.
  • Software engineers (bottom right): maximize the value for users and the quality of applications.
  • Systems architects (top right): dynamically align systems with regard to business models and engineering processes.

Orientation should come before job descriptions

Whereas roles and responsibilities will generally differ depending on enterprise environment, business, and culture, such a compass would ensure that the governance of enterprise architectures hinges on reliable pillars and is driven by clear principles.

Further Reading


Your content with a new angle at

IT Modernization < V.Hanniet

About IT Modernization

IT Modernization < V. Hanniet

software model driven approaches

Caminao's Ways

Do systems know how symbolic they are ?