Enterprise architecture is still a small, albeit large, community. Although small, but very lively, as in any technical field, to deepen understanding and various PK. 2021 is only a month, from the middle platform, digital to low code, like turning over a book. Fortunately, the “melon” maturity of technical circle is generally not high, not burst. Recently, I have been busy adapting to my new job and writing articles about various regulations. However, I have not been writing as MUCH as I want. Today, I have little feeling about the debate about “central Taiwan”.
Who is the cognitive curve sparing?
The debate on methodology is not only about the needs of methodology itself, but also about the limitations of human cognitive processes. For example, the “Gartner curve” we often talk about is also known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect curve, which is a reflection of human cognitive processes and should be considered as a variant of the “Gartner curve”.
The curve can be deduced as the following figure:
When the new method comes out, generally there will be some “halo”, such as “in Taiwan”, Alibaba made it, I come out to tell you I made it, you believe it or not? Of course I do. We have all the evidence. If I feel anxious, IT is inevitable that I have finally figured out the stupid thing of enterprise architecture. It is not a “silver bullet”, but rather a “silver bullet”. Pull your mule out and ride it!
No matter whether someone else’s is a mule or a horse, the one who pulls his own cart always feels embarrassed, so move the “middle stage” over. It turned out to be as simple as any enterprise architecture in the past. It wasn’t a master project. Are about the same, also may not be able to eat xinxinnianxian flow, that is not fooled, who let me do, the first CTO pull to the day!
Will, of course, “angry” but also “fixing”, some think calmly, we were in solving the internal IT system exactly how to do IT the right questions, make to go to, means nothing but “points”, “close”, “long period of division, close long will points”, think about IT, from the ancients summed up the logic start work, the ancients is very clever. The basis of “split” and “merge” is ultimately a balance between business preference, technology implementation and cost coverage. Willing to pay the cost of air control, like to repair the chimney, under normal circumstances, others can not be managed, only the country’s “clear water and green mountains are gold and silver mountains” policy can work.
So, ali doesn’t open the “middle”, is its own thing, urgent business, the cost can be covered, repeated repetition, later to reduce maintenance cost, again, or business is not important, the system directly throw, data recovery, just as a “heavy” expansion, who said the wise don’t use “stupid”, Isn’t it often said that “bitcoin” is smart “stupid”?
Calm and calm can lead to enlightenment, as long as you remember what the system is for. Are not many enterprises also made “middle stage”? We can do it if we know what “middle Stage” is for. After all, from the perspective of the enterprise architecture in the past, the enterprise internal system should also be gradually grow into the shape, for the enterprise architecture, it is now one of the few several kinds of expression way, and, in my opinion, these expressions may eventually are equivalent, as long as you really want from enterprise to enterprise architecture.
Two, ultimately depends on the “beginner’s mind”
What do companies want? Achieve your goals. To achieve this, the company needs to act as a whole, share information, execute more efficiently, and even if it’s scattered, spread it on one plate, not across the room. From this point of view, as long as you don’t throw sand around the house all day, remember to put it in a plate, your enterprise architecture won’t go too far. With a bit of discipline, you might be able to put together a pile of sand of similar size and shape, whether it’s called a “middle stage” or a business component, or your favorite big or two. If you don’t like it, change the dimensions and put the sand together again, or break up the sand into smaller piles, and you may move from one structure to another.
Of course, it is much more complicated and rigorous to do enterprise architecture than to make sand in a plate. It takes a lot of hard work and dreams. Therefore, even if we do not agree with it, it will not be regarded as anti-innovation and anti-humanity. Moreover, the problem of execution cannot be equated with the problem of the method itself. “Military orders fall down as a mountain.” However, there is not a lack of flexibility in the implementation of military plans. Rigid implementation of the plan, not to adjust to the battlefield environment, that is to blame for failure on the plan? The method of military planning is correct, and Sun Tzu’s Art of War strongly endorses all kinds of calculations. What is wrong is the attitude of execution.
It is not wrong to do “mid-stage”. What is wrong is to focus only on “mid-stage” when doing it. It is also true that enterprises of all sizes can do it. Small as a sparrow is, it has all the five organs, but it really can’t hold a “cow’s heart”. Even if the “heart” is too “cow”, it is a good “heart” as long as it is realistic.
Human cognition is indeed a very magical thing, its process no one can get rid of. In order to speed up cognition, people use various metaphors, such as the ones I mentioned above, but each one is limited, incomplete, and misleading. Does “Middle stage” have a bit of this? May also have, for example, this “in” and this “Taiwan” have not talked for a long time, where is “in”? Is this platform a platform? In addition, all kinds of articles often the continental army team, unmanned aerial vehicles, seals, carrier and so on, if you want to understand these, for example, I think, only go deep into the theory itself, for example, the 30 years of at least through the enterprise architecture theory, otherwise, any one of these for give you to some of the ditch.
In addition, at least have a deeper practice, and then to understand these things, otherwise, a bit like listening to cross talk, a burst of emotional fluctuations, if not want to be a joke, I may not remember how much.
Three, small problems, big defects
It is true that the Central Committee has a small problem, but this small problem is really a big flaw. It is the lack of rigor in methodology. Therefore, it is easy to scold the central Committee. It is not easy to help it, because I cannot find the key point, “ability reuse” this point is “currency”, basically every dare to slip out of the methodology has this ability, this is at most “horse step” not “iron cloth shirt”.
The methodology research and forging lack a bit of heartfelt concern, for many people who do the implementation, can feel a small problem, after all, in technology circles of cow is “a word not bask in code”, though now began to bask in architecture, to the enterprise level but bask methodology or less, we bask is strictly “result”, These “results” may be in my home “cow”, to your home may not be good, want to use, or you “home” according to my “home” to change it.
In fact, after two years of ups and downs, you also know, good “China” is not other people’s “middle”, is to use other people’s thinking, experience built home “middle”, is most helpful in this line of thought, experience, and the system elaboration, refine ideas and experience, is the methodology, practice doing good business, hard work hard, Do the methodology well, so as to benefit the world.
About the author:
Xiaoyan Fu, associate partner of IBM, director of business development and delivery of Financial Core Transformation Team in Greater China, Global Enterprise Consulting Service Department, author of “Bank Digital Transformation” and “Enterprise Business Architecture Design: Methodology and Practice” by China Machine Press.