Technology Architecture Vs Solution Architecture – I generally speak more of real architectural problems than architects (the navel is something that corporate architects are particularly likely to do and I like to get away from it as much as possible), but there is something about the roles for the architects that you recognize who says a lot about the way you see architecture. There is something that I call “Orthodoxy” (or good old -fashioned corporate architecture – GOFEA; see GoFai), which says that business architecture concerns high -level strategic problems, while – parasics, solution architects are more on details and technology. Implicitly, that says that “corporate architecture only concerns level and strategy.”
I am invited to write this because I recently came across a blog article announced in different architectural groups on LinkedIn. By the way, there are several architectural groups on LinkedIn, and with the exception of the corporate architectural network – which is so not modified that very off -topic articles end there – they tend to be managed by commercial interests and they tend to consist mainly of positions which are part of the marketing presence of companies in the field of corporate architecture. This even leads to occasional censorship. Which proves once again that there is no free lunch. People who maintain groups must be paid and, as there are no paid subscribers, editorial work is paid by those who have something to sell. This is even true for groups that seem to be managed by neutral associations (which are sometimes only another interesting form of commercial enterprise, but I move away).
Technology Architecture Vs Solution Architecture
Anyway, this does not mean that what is distributed is by definition absurd, of course. Commercial interests are an important part of innovation and skills. But I thought that this Leanix blog presented the Orthodox position. I have recreated their photo, which is quite clear:
Solution Architecture Manager Roles And Responsibility Ppt Example
According to Leanix, “technical architects […] provide technical leadership for development teams” and examples are “Java Architect” or “Infrastructure Architect”. “Architects of solution […] ensure that the technical integrity and the consistency of each solution at a certain stage of their life cycle [and] must have a very wide knowledge”. Not all projects receive an architect of solution, only when “the risks associated with technology are perceived as significant” or “when we outsource development to an external team”. Finally, “the main interest of a company architect is to describe the company in terms of commercial entities, its properties and relations between them and the external environment”. The concerns of corporate architecture “are the life cycles of applications and which technologies are used by which one” and “[ensure] that the company as a whole has integrity and consistency. The level of detail in a company architect between is generally limited, delegating decisions to specialists allocated to each particular field. ” The whole configuration is classic, and for me, it always seems to arise from the desire of corporate architects to explain what makes them so special anyway, which makes them different. In this regard, it is a little revealing that corporate architecture is often defined by its practitioners as what is
There are two serious problems with the classic approach: you also need a strategy objective when you manage deep technology and you have to pay attention to (techniques) relevant details to make a good strategy. These are not aspects that you can delegate, it is an integral part of what it is to be an architect. The creation of a cloud strategy, for example, requires knowledge of low -level details such as latency or certain arcanic rules of regulators linked to data protection, to mention something non -technical. Not taking into account this “deep” knowledge will take you on paths that will fail spectacularly, burning money as you go. As I have argued in the failures and the art of corporate architecture, the high -level business architect without detail is mostly useless in the fight to solve the urgent problems that architecture must solve. Pay attention to details, for example. In failures: the position of a pawn (detail) can win or lose a game of chess, in architecture: ignoring technical details can make or undo a strategy.
The first change and the most obvious is that for me, corporate architecture is not distinct from others, it encompasses them. Company architecture covers all the architecture of the company. The problems of the architecture of the company need to solve the enormous complexity of all the dependencies and the unknowability of all the details (sometimes key) and the future. Corporate architecture is not an area that allows itself to be decided in independent pieces neat, because in reality, the parts are not at all independent. Thus, technical problems can influence the strategy (in fact, this can occur even more often than the opposite: cloud computing has not been invented because companies demanded it) as well as the strategy influences technical problems.
It is impossible to make a substantial amount of work really effective (and useful) when you are just active in the upper left corner. The upper left corner is important, yes, but it is not the only work zone (and it must be addressed differently from orthodoxy preaching, but that is another subject). Company architects must also (and perhaps even mainly) engage on the level of solution architecture or even technical architecture. For example, when they ensure that the different technical areas of the company do not contradict each other, something that cannot be managed by simply acting in the upper left corner. And when people try to do so by acting only in the upper left corner, they offer tools like “architectural principles”, which are generally useless and often toxic.
Understanding Solution Architecture [infographic] By Helios
Architecture has a solid strategic vein, not just corporate architecture. Even the technical architect must think strategically. He or she does not solve a current problem, he does so with the intention of making the right strategic contribution. And it is not the same thing as following the strategy flowing higher. On the one hand: the strategy of a company changes much more often than the central structure of its landscape (do not let gurus and experts deceive you on this point). The architecture of this landscape must therefore be robust under such uncertainty, and which requires its own strategic choices. I saw companies doing 180 degrees on the strategy in certain areas (for example from B2B to B2C), but they had to do it with the landscape which had not been designed for the new strategy (for example B2C), because it was optimized (more or less) for the original strategy (for example B2B). The success depended on the robustness of this landscape under this uncertainty. The right architects guide the evolution of corporate landscapes so that they are well prepared for such changes (agile, anyone?). In fact, one of the worst things you can do is the design of architecture from the commercial strategy, then “below” (cascade), since the commercial strategy of an organization generally changes much faster than the heart of its landscape. Interestingly, this cascade approach is exactly what all the main Orthodox frames preach.
We could ask ourselves why. Svyatoslav Kotsev of Melbourne University did an excellent job to map the history of business architecture frameworks and all gave them to the planning of IBM’s commercial systems in the 1960s. This approach always reigns most of the EA approaches to date (see Svyatoslav Kotusev, The History of Enterprise Architecture: Review, 2016).
The third important change is that, in my opinion, you cannot be a good company architect without broad
Those daily, as both feeds on each other. The paper tigers that live in the upper left corner, which can draw pretty images in the PowerPoints with certain boxes and arrows, and which can establish some simple (but rather toxic) rules, are not so effective and useful. There are not far enough business architects that can withdraw the real thing. Often, corporate architects are those who have lost contact with what they are architects and their transition to a high strategy and low technology is more a flight than a fight.
How To Draw Useful Technical Architecture Diagrams
In my opinion, a real corporate architect will study for example the blockhain at a depth that he can have an idea of strength (and weaknesses!) And this really understands technology at a sufficiently deep level. Business architecture is more than shouting “Blockchain!” Yeah! “,” Big data! Go! “,” Cloud! Yippy! ”. Billions of euros, dollars, yen, books, Franks, etc. are lost to failed and ineffective transformations each year due to these approaches to architecture (by architects and non-architects, I could add).
Looking at this way, you see – from the fact that corporate architects must also have an overview of organizational and psychological problems – how he must be a good business architect and why you have to pay (rare) good business architects these big dollars … 🙂 🙂 🙂
Now it is of course impossible for one person to know everything about everything and it is not even necessary. This is why it is important to pay attention to the relevant details and the competence of the company architect in part depends on this competence and the organization of architecture governance in such a way that the organization as a whole
Cloud solution architecture, salesforce solution architecture, enterprise solution architecture, iam solution architecture, solution architecture consulting, togaf technology architecture, ai solution architecture, it solution architecture, information technology architecture, solution architecture diagrams, mdm solution architecture, solution architecture framework
