top of page

Why Internal Architecture Rating Didn’t Truly Reflect What Was Happening -Part 2

As we discussed in the part 1 of this blog, it’s clear that complexity of technical implementation is not the measure of architecture excellence.


As you are aware, there are literally hundreds of methodologies, individual architect preferences, frameworks, and then there are business opportunities and technological challenges, all of which add to the overall complexity.


Everyone understands the importance of architecture review and rating, but they believe it will take too much time and be too costly. This is something we've been hearing for the past 20 years or so. Project assessment and project alignment initiatives are frequently person-centric, project-centric, non-standardized, and lack a common structure.


Architecture is practiced in every industry because things are extremely complex, and they have limited time and resources. In other words, architecture is not done in civil engineering, manufacturing, or other industries because they have easier things to do. They also have a limited budget, limited resources, and a tight schedule. They practice architecture because things are complicated and they have limited time and resources. So, why is it that doing architecture in IT projects takes so much time? Why is it consuming so much resources? And why aren't you getting anything in return?


And the list will go on. In this melee, the project owner has no time to focus on the need to create value for clients, users and key stakeholders.


5. Multiple stakeholders - What is the best way to deal with the stakeholders? As a result, everyone is attempting to address a set of stakeholders who are relevant to their project, each with their own set of skills and knowledge. Often, missing out on the stakeholders that are critical during the system lifecycle.


6. Technical Issues - Every project is tailored to address a few technical issues as well as business opportunities. So someone might say, "I'm trying to assess network models," while another might say, "I'm trying to assess middleware architecture, distributed processing," and still others might say, "We're looking at managing devices and gateways." Oh, you see, what I'm saying is that I'm trying to review the process optimization. The data modelling team, network team, application development team, middleware team, UI (User Interface) team, rule development experts, security team, etc. are working in isolation, trying to find solution to their respective challenges.


7. Business Issues - Due to Pandemic, it's important to prioritize your investments and project portfolio. Evaluate technology alignment with business goals, explore business innovation and its impact on new products and services, increase in revenue, cost reduction, compliance requirements to heightened financial control etc


8. Architecture Artifacts - Everyone would establish their own set of priorities. As a result, there is a lack of clarity and completeness, and whatever artifacts were available were relatively limited, and they would not fit into the frameworks, stakeholders, or use cases, whether technical or business.


Artifact formats (documents / models): And the worrying thing was that they are all created in different formats. So, even if some of the models (Strategy models, process models, network models, application models, component models, deployment models etc.) are created, they exist in different files, and file types. And in a short span of 3-6 months, all these models are outdated as the cost and time of updating these isolated models are very high. This a classic example of how to create legacy architecture. An architecture which loses its value in less than 4-6 months from the date of creation. The real value of Architecture happens when such models could be used for 4-6 years as the basis of change, upgrade and new opportunities


10. System life vs Project life – This is another area of big concern. Even though professionals with Architecture skills, are trained in understanding the complexity and changes during system life, often they end up creating models which are limited for just first or second release of the system i.e. project delivery takes precedence over system life issues. As a result, Architecture turns legacy and this is anyone’s guess that you can only create a legacy system using a legacy architecture models. Our expectations are that Digital System should have life of 6-8 years ( it could be less / more based on certain type of solutions), as a result the architecture artifacts must be created which are independent of implementation details, independent of technology environment. Also, very clearly separate technology (specifications) with technology (implementation).


It's crystal clear why project heads aren't receiving their full worth from architecture evaluations, as internal rating did not truly reflect what was happening. The internal team’s desire to glorify software features was so strong that they didn’t care if the software could deliver the intended value for the business stakeholders.


The Program Directors, with this leading Financial Institution, confided – “At one point in time, I had 12 projects. It was not possible to use these frameworks with different projects; there were too many frameworks. We can't deal with all the technology problems. They didn't have the capacity to handle all the business responsibilities. It took a very long time. I'll put in a lot of effort and get a little out of it”.


So, the Fast-track Architecture rating requires us to address these problems. I'm so glad that in the last two decades we've made major progress in breaking down all the barriers. We could potentially gain value in four to five weeks. We've seen this with some of the biggest corporations and projects around the world.


Our team will rate various architecture models such business strategy models, business process models, system models, technology models, implementation models, operation models. Once completeness and consistency of each of the models (mentioned above) are rated, then we rate inter-relationship between these models in fulfilling business use cases. This helps in identifying the gaps and lapses. The ICMG Rating process uses Enterprise Anatomy models as a basis for evaluation and impact analysis.


ICMG Architecture Rating Scale


1 Doubtful ,Questionable ( 0 - 20 %) 2 Incomplete and Inconsistent (20 - 40 %) 3 Good, Possibility to Improve (40 -60 %) 4 Very Good, Verified (60-80 %) 5 Excellence, Proven & Clearly demonstrated (80 - 100 %)



Are struggling to correctly represent what is happening internally?

296 views0 comments
bottom of page