As more and more people busy themselves with architecture, discussion around this discipline seem to go around in cirles. Talking to practitioners, it seems that we all have experienced more than once discussions around questionssuch as
- What is architecture really?
- How should we document architecture?
- What does it mean to do architecture?
- Who do we do architecture for?
- etc.
Even though these questions are interesting from an academic perspective (and yes, I'm actively pursuing this line of research), in pracctice we just have to get the job done!
It appears that traditionally, architecture is concisered to be an engineering discipline: we figure out what it is we want to achieve, what the gap is between where we want to go and where we are, make a plan, and implement it in the organization. These days, however, more and more people with a non-engineering / IT backbground are involved in architecture work, leading to renewed attention to disciplines such as
- business architecture
- strategic architecture
- social architecture
- etc.
Different people with different backgrounds getting involved in this field, implies that the way we consider orgazations shifts too (probably from a "machine perspective" to a "social perspective", see e.g. images of organization). It follows that the way the fundamental questions raised previously deserve different answers too.
I am partiularly interested in the impact that this shift has on the question of how to do architecture, as well as the role of architecture models. My hypothesis is as follows: in a social perspective of organizations, doing architecture means influencing the people that make an organiztion to move in a certain direction which can be clarified by architecture models.
This post is an open invitation for all readers to share their thoughts, experiences, and best practices with respect to the above hypothesis.
7 comments:
I'm already involved in some hot debates about enterprise architecture versus real architecture. So here I will say only something about the modeling part. I think that modeling is only really useful when you can use the models for prototyping and running simulations in multiple dimensions. E.g. like real architects are using BIM to create new opportunities. The newest BIM tools are 6D and are covering the whole life cycle. And a BIM tool are not architect-only tools and the architect is not the owner/creator of the model. All stakeholders are equally involved in the modeling activity.
When will the enterprise architects learn something from the progression made by the real architects in the last few decades?
Thank you for bringing this up Bas!
The concept of 'Social Architecture' has been wandering in my mind for a few years now. Untill now, I had no one to exchange questions and ideas.
I just googled 'social architecture' and 'social system' again, turned to Wikipedia and stumbled on the next interesting page:
http://tinyurl.com/3f9max7
Here, a lot of the things I have thought of in the past period are brought together.
I particularly like this site because it enables me to keep a distance from 'technology' and keep thinking outside boxes, for the time being.
According to Arcturus.org, "the purpose of social architecture is to make known the tools and practices for the conscious construction of a planetary civilization."
This leads me to my earlier thought that in the case of Social Architecture it might be particularly purposeful to distinguish meta-architecture and something like a situational or contextual architecture.
Under the tab Capabilities, Arcturus.org mentions:
"STRATEGIC CORPORATE VISIONING PROGRAM. Visioning workshops and illustrated strategic designs highlighting shared values, higher purpose, strategic intentions, and a variety of key corporate and governmental objectives."
The meta-architecture could be universal and free of spatio temporal bounderies. The situational architecture could be based on capabilities and constraints in context.
Now the next question I ask myself is: where and why do you want or need a social architecture?
-Organization?
-Civil society?
-Community or Club?
-Family?
-Governmental institutions
-Social movements?
-Interest group or union?
Religions are human constructs but to what extent are they social architectures? I think Freemasonry is a carefully crafted meta-architecture.
You hypothesis is: "in a social perspective of organizations, doing architecture means influencing the people that make an organiztion to move in a certain direction which can be clarified by architecture models."
Is Arcturus.org a bad start? I think not.
What examples of Social Architecture do you have in mind?
Ernest.
@peterbakkerr : thanks for your insightful comment. I agree that enterprise architects can learn a lot from the progress that has been made in the physical architecture world. Unfortunately i'm not too familiar with that field, but googling "BIM 6D" gave me a lot to think about.
I'd like to invite you to write a post for this blog on how 6D translates to the digital world of enterprise architecture. interested? Sounds like a great topic!
@ernest buise - the pleasure is all mine! The concept of "two (or more!) perspectives on architecture" is not entirely new. I think it can be traceed back all the way to C.P. Snow's "two cultures" and the wonderful book "images of organization". One perspective is still dominant, though, and personally I'd like to get to grips more with the other perspective.
you referred to Arcturus. I wasn't aware of that site yet. The topics raised on
http://www.arcturus.org/arcturus3/?q=node/2
seem very appealing indeed. Lots of things to think about. At first glance, it seems that the Arcturus site supports my hypothesis.
To answer your question: i'm looking for examples of "doing architecture" in the context of organizations; companies such as banks, manufacturers, retail, police etc. What does it mean to approach issues that tend to be labelled as "work for enterprise architects" from a social perspective?
Hi Bas,
Thanks for the offer. But I'm a sketcher and very bad in writing articles :-) I (@pbmobi) send sometimes "learning from real architects" tweets in the hope that enterprise architects become interested in real architecture.
And maybe someday The Open Group will become really open and will look how similar organizations in the real architecture world work...
For now my spare time is filled with thinking how you can model businesses when you see them as self-organizing scale-free and small-world networks :-)
Hi Bas,
First of all thanks for the very interesting blog post. I agree upon that there has been too little focus on how people act and relate to the concept of Enterprise Architecture.
Second of all I believe that most enterprises are that unique that is it rather difficult to come up with a framework or an approach to deal with integration of Enterprise Architecture into the “social architecture”. In social systems cultures is the biggest obstacle and the biggest enabler in order to achieve adaption and change the behavior of the executives, middle managers and workers.
Third of all, culture is a psychological and a state of mind so the social architecture depends entirely on how well those responsible to deal with the organizational issues related to the concept of change management.
Fourth of all, I believe that Karl E. Weick (Making Sense of the Organization) and Stafford Beer (Hearth of the Enterprise and / or Brain of the firm) established the foundation for social architecture, but as you say (if you read between the lines) in your blog post further studies are needed in order to find more alternative theories, falsify theories and for that matter develop contemporary theories on how the concept of social architecture can be integrated with the Enterprise Architecture .
Best regards
Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin
CoherencyArchitect.com
Hi Bas and others, please read my thought on your blog post at my personal blog.
Post a Comment