.
Well, it seems that way to me, at least.
In Gartner’s recommendations there are enough elements of two-way flow based on interconnected people and technology for me to be able to set out the above headline without feeling like too much of a mindless attention-seeking idiot.
“a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology”
That working definition of wirearchy as a principle supports, I think, all of the conclusions and recommendations (below) reached by Gartner analysts. Please feel free to argue with me if you wish .. I will listen and would like to believe I am not so egotistical as to entertain a range of different perspectives and opinions (and after all, who really cares, other than me, if I think I am probably more right than wrong ? 😉
When I speak of organizing principle (which seems pretty large), please note that Gartner states their recommendations apply to “variety and complexity in markets, economics, nations, networks and companies” … seems principle-ish to me.
Heh .. “architect the lines, not the boxes” (another of their phrases) … less top-down hierarchy, and more of who-and-what-is-connected-horizontally-and-why ?
I’ve emphasised in bold font a couple of phrases here and there from the announcement on the Gartner website.
.
Gartner Identifies New Approach for Enterprise Architecture
Egham, UK, August 11, 2009 — Enterprise architects must adopt a new style of enterprise architecture (EA) to respond to the growing variety and complexity in markets, economies, nations, networks and companies, according to Gartner, Inc. Analysts advised companies to adopt ‘emergent architecture’, also known as middle-out EA and light EA, and set out definitions of the new approach.
“The first key characteristic of the emergent approach is best summarised as ‘architect the lines, not the boxes’, which means managing the connections between different parts of the business rather than the actual parts of the business themselves,” said Bruce Robertson, research vice president at Gartner. “The second key characteristic is that it models all relationships as interactions via some set of interfaces, which can be completely informal and manual – for example, sending handwritten invitations to a party via postal letters – to highly formal and automated, such as credit-card transactions across the Visa network.”
Gartner has identified seven properties that differentiate emergent architecture from the traditional approach to EA:
1. Non-deterministic – In the past, enterprise architects applied centralised decision-making to design outcomes. Using emergent architecture, they instead must decentralise decision-making to enable innovation.
2. Autonomous actors – Enterprise architects can no longer control all aspects of architecture as they once did. They must now recognise the broader business ecosystem and devolve control to constituents.
3. Rule-bound actors – Where in the past enterprise architects provided detailed design specifications for all aspects of the EA, they must now define a minimal set of rules and enable choice.
4. Goal-oriented actors – Previously, the only goals that mattered were the corporate goals but this has now shifted to each constituent acting in their own best interests.
5. Local Influences: Actors are influenced by local interactions and limited information. Feedback within their sphere of communication alters the behaviour of individuals. No individual actor has data about all of an emergent system. EA must increasingly coordinate.
6. Dynamic or Adaptive Systems: The system (the individual actors as well as the environment) changes over time. EA must design emergent systems sense and respond to changes in their environment.7. Resource-Constrained Environment: An environment of abundance does not enable emergence; rather, the scarcity of resources drives emergence.
Gartner said that enterprise architects must be ready to embrace the inversion of control. Where in the past, they controlled all EA decision making, they must now accept that that business units demand more autonomy. For example, they must understand that employees demand that they can use their personal devices, there is increased integration with partners and suppliers, customers demand access to information using the technology of their choice, and regulators require more information.
“The traditional top-down style worked well when applied to complex, fixed functions — that is, human artefacts, such as aircraft, ships, buildings, computers and even EA software,” said Mr Robertson. “However, it works poorly when applied to an equally wide variety of domains because they do not behave in a predictable way.
The traditional approach ends up constraining the ability of an emergent domain to change because it is never possible to predict – and architect for – all the possible avenues of evolution.”
.
Powered by Qumana
Sorry to say this out loud, but I don’t find this at all encouraging from the point of view of Wirearchy. In fact, were organizations to follow this Gartner prescription, the implementation of Wirearchy would be delayed, possibly crippled outright.
Several truths:
1. This is appearing now because enterprise architecture is totally discredited. The enterprise wants no part of slow-to-decide, endless-expert-battle, “gets in the way” approaches and hasn’t for years. It’s tired of being told “no” (dressed up as “we’ll look at this”). Businesses have been busy for several years buying and using technology around IT’s restrictions and EA remains an IT function.
2. While the prescription may open up technological possibilities, it does not in any way deal with the deeply hierarchical intention of EA, and the deeply hierarchical attitudes of architects (the two fit together and reinforce each other: you don’t become an architect unless you “fit”). This is — to use Dave Snowden’s Cynefin interpretation — a “domain of the complicated”. The experts argue amongst themselves and appear to be peer-oriented. They resist mightily anyone else entering that conversation: they are the Party Central Committee practising Leninist “Democratic Socialism”, pure and simple.
3. Why anyone would want to architect (in advance) all the possible avenues of evolution betrays the intention. Wirearchy is a co-evolution. It thrives on being ever more agile, ever more flexible, ever more responsive as this is what brings the parties together and binds them together in a productive (meaning, things happen!) conversation. Leaders emerge issue by issue. The formal structure acts as a “side of the pool to push off of” in terms of mobilising resources, money, etc.
The monopoly of IT, aided and abetted by the short-sightedness of “low price competitor” business models, finance as slashers-and-controllers, and HR as “how detailed and rigorous can these job descriptions and performance evaluations be”, is built on the false notion that the future is (a) fully predictable and (b) if not predicted, can be held at bay. Neither is true.
What this Gartner press release is is public notice of the end of the chimera of architecture. Those promoting Wirearchy will — as with individuals using their own technologies and business areas buying around IT — take their business elsewhere.
Thanks, Bruce.
I know I can count on you to be “smarter than the average bear” .. that’s one of the various reasons I love the fact that you are a friend with whom I can “go deep” with these kinds of issues .. especially since you know so much more about technology than me.
I was just picking up on Gartner’s (superficial, as you expose it) observations on the increasing presence of bottom-up and side-to-side connecting, and their seeming nod to the notion that there’s no longer a one-size-fits-all model .. hence their fallback on to the term “emergent”.
BTW, Bruce .. I agree completely with this statement (below) that you have made.
And (for me) an important clarifying point. In my tag line, I state “social architecture” .. and since I see the “sociality” as something that flows between people at all times present and future, there is little fixed-ness or static about it (as you point out).
3. Why anyone would want to architect (in advance) all the possible avenues of evolution betrays the intention. Wirearchy is a co-evolution. It thrives on being ever more agile, ever more flexible, ever more responsive as this is what brings the parties together and binds them together in a productive (meaning, things happen!) conversation. Leaders emerge issue by issue. The formal structure acts as a “side of the pool to push off of” in terms of mobilising resources, money, etc