Reference
As promised in the above reference: How I approached the 11 steps in 1989
when I developed
Ripose &
Caspar
1) Find a meaning: I declared the first conceptual business objective (called
a goal) to be the 'Purpose'
2) Create a mantra: Done by expanding the purpose into 4 benefits/missions
3) Perspective - Jump curves: I did this by expanding the benefits into 11
values & carried out a SWOT analysis on the 11 (determine focus areas)
4) Roll the dicee - deep functionality: Done by asking up to 44 questions
about the focused values which became the KPIs & PIs which delivered the
cost benefit functionality
5) Don't worry - identify the elements: Done by asking 23 fundamental
questions about most of the PIs - became knowledge
6) Blossom - find the use: Done by using knowledge to identify 5 generic
strategies
7) Polarize people: Done by using knowledge to locate the facts - aka data
& database design
8) Churn - versions: Done by creating projects based on prioritised database
design
9) Find a niche - prototype: Done by using pseudo code to design the
applications in project priority
10) Perfect your pitch - marketing: Still busy on this
11) Do not get ground down - persistence: Still busy on this
Regards
Back
***********************************
23 Nov 2018
Unknown information
Having published my post titled 'Useful and
useless information', I feel the need to
pose the following question:
What is worse than useful (explicit) or useless
(implicit or tacit) information?
My answer is: Unknown information - either hidden, missing,
or occluded.
How can you turn unknown information into either useful or
useless information?
My answer is:
1) You
first have to have faith that information has an anatomy/structure
2) That
all the parts/artifacts have a defined relationship with one another
and
3) You
can develop such an anatomy
Without this structure it is anyone's guess.
Regards
ps I will
be writing an article on 'unknown' information over the next few weeks, but
it may be hindered by my upcoming overseas trip
Back
***********************************
10 Oct 2018
Useful and useless information
On the 28 Oct 2016 I wrote an article titled “Useful and useless knowledge”
in which I discussed why I thought that any knowledge we gain could be
useless. After commenting on a LinkedIn post titled “Information vs Data” I
now feel compelled to write this interactive article for the following
reasons:
To read the article please follow this link
Charles Meyer Richter
Principal information architect
Ripose Pty Limited
ps
ps - Is it only a coincidence (or paradoxical) that IT has
the word 'information' in its domain name (when the domain name should be
solutions development and operations (SolDevOps), whereas business/enterprise
attach the word 'architecture' to its domain name?
Back in the 20th century business used to use the epithet 'management information systems' (MIS) which now seems to have fallen into disrepute.
According to my research and experience, until the day
arrives when both business and technology savvy people see the benefits and
values of understanding the term 'information' and identify the anatomy of
'information' (to clearly define the 'system' boundaries between business and
DevOps), 'information' will probably remain more useless than useful.
Back
***********************************
31 Oct 2018
Do we
agree: Or will we agree to disagree?
My interactive web page to finally
determine the outcome of my LinkedIn presence.
Regards
pses
1) My
decision to stay or go depends on my getting a minimum of 10 emails (by May 8
2022) from this
web page signifying a desire to learn and commit to replacing the bad habits
(learnt over the past 48 years) with a good habit (developed 28 years ago)
2) I am
neither responsible for the state of the other approaches nor for the state
of the legacy systems produced by them. I am responsible for providing and
teaching a better approach
3) If you
disagree at any time and refuse to change your mind, please sever the link
between us
4) I will
contact each of my remaining associates (after May 2019) and if I have not
received a positive response, I will sever my connection because
4.1) if I
cannot provide a benefit to the market place, I might as well enjoy the rest
of my life
4.2) The
approaches in the market place do not benefit me and according to my research
and experience neither do they benefit others (other than those making money
from selling them)
5) The web
page has been tested to the best of my ability. I have no peers to help me
edit it
Back
***********************************
21 Oct 2018 My posts
Having published 105 LinkedIn posts since the
24 Oct 2016 I decided to create a table of contents to all my posts (very much like
the one I created for all my LinkedIn articles).
I realise how difficult it is trying to view
other member's articles and posts and as I wanted to ensure that I would be
able to view all my work off line, this was the only option available to me.
I trust that this will enable you to make a
more determined assessment of my 48 years of research, experience and
expertise.
Regards
Back
***********************************
19 Oct 2018 The use of the words 'seems
like':
The operative (key) word is 'seems' (an
illusion) . I am continually amused by the notion that magicians, scientists,
mathematicians & computer scientists keep using illusions that 'seem' to
prove reality, when in fact (in the real world) all they deliver are false
hopes. Yet writers & developers bank on this confusion to redistribute
wealth by making the few rich by taking from the many. Examples of creating illusions:
1) Magicians: They can make a dove appear out
of thin air
2) Scientists: They ‘prove’ that a new
particle (which lasts less than a nano-second) can be created by forcing 2
known particles to collide at high speed
3) Mathematicians: 2 negative numbers multiplied
by each other produces a positive number. Multiplication is a short cut to
addition: -2 multiplied by -3 is the same as (-3) + (-3). In reality 2 wrongs
(negatives) do not make a right (positive)
4) Computer scientists: Domains/projects can
be created without using any proof of their existence by ignoring the logical
AND.
In computer code the use of the logical OR NOT does not work & has to be
replaced with the logical AND NOT
Regards
ps If you want to trust any one who makes
something seem easy, be prepared to ask a lot more questions (between 6 and
23, including would, could and should)
Back
***********************************
14 Oct 2018
Master class: modeling the object called 'Concept'
On the 7th Oct 2018 I published a post showing how I saw the
link between behavior and a concept.
I wonder if anyone can start from scratch and show the logic
behind this model's development in a step by step expose? Or can come up with
a better model/explanation?
Hint:
1) Define the word 'concept' The Simple English Wiktionary
has a definition for: concept. "A concept is an idea that is applied to all
objects in a group. It is the way people see and understand something. The
name used to identify a concept (the concept's label) is a "term"
2) Using keywords, isolate the component parts of this
definition: a) idea b) objects c) group d) people e) term
3) Produce a first cut model
Regards
ps the attached graphic was found by searching the web with
the words 'concept modelling'
pps If no one attempts this exercise I may reveal how I went
about it using these keywords and my 4 logic constructs: Hierarchy; network;
mutual inclusion; and mutual exclusion
Back
***********************************
13 Oct 2018
TOGAF development?
According to my research:
1) “The original development of TOGAF Version 1 in
1995 was based on the Technical Architecture Framework for Information
Management (TAFIM), developed by the US Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD
gave The Open Group explicit permission and encouragement to create TOGAF by
building on the TAFIM, which itself was the result of many years of
development effort and many millions of dollars of US Government investment”.
Source
2) “The development
of TAFIM started around 1986 at the US Defense Information Systems
Agency/Center for Information Management.”
“The 1996 US DoD publication
on TAFIM was the latest version published. TAFIM has been cancelled as a
stand-alone document in 1999. In 2000 the whole TAFIM concept and its
regulations have been re-evaluated and found inconsistent with the newly
developed DoDAF architecture direction. For this reason all references to
TAFIM have been removed from DoD documentation since then”. Source
How does the implicit
deliverables of TOGAF continue to survive when a multi million $ USA Government
tax payer funded project failed to deliver explicit deliverables? Surely
software based on a failed approach cannot claim anything?
3 Aug 2020 -
Update
I have conducted sufficient research that has provided me
with proof which clearly indicates that:
1)
TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework): Developed in 1995 and built
on TAFIM & IAF
2)
TAFIM
(Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management): Developed by
the USA Department of Defense c1991 (abandoned in 2000) and based
on NIST and APP
2.1)
APP
(Application Portability Profile): Developed c1990s based on NIST
2.2)
NIST (National
Institute of
Standards and
Technology): Was renamed from the National Bureau of Standard (NBS 1901 to 1988).
Their researchers at that time were mostly physicists, mathematicians and chemists with a number of them being awarded a
Nobel Prize. Their theories about business and information technology were
therefore incomplete and/or based on the bad habits of their
predecessors
3)
IAF
(Capgemini's Integrated
Architecture Framework): Developed 1996 based on TZF and ideas about EAP
4)
TZF
(The Zachman Framework): Developed 1992 and based on BSP
5)
BSP
(Business Systems Planning); Developed 1980 in IBM
6)
EAP
(Enterprise Architecture Planning): Developed by
Steven Spewak c1990
and based on BSP
My conclusion, therefore, is that TOGAF was built on the bad habits of:
1) TAFIM: built on the bad habits of APP built on the bad habits of NIST
2)
Capgemini's IAF: built on the bad habits of BSP & EAP
3) EAP built on the
bad habits of BSP
4) BSP built on the incomplete knowledge of IBM employees
5) NIST staffed with brilliant scientists who lacked explicit knowledge of
business and
information technology
Back
***********************************
11 Oct
2018 Questions:
Asking the right question at the
right time:
"There are naive questions,
tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate
self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is
no such thing as a dumb question" - Carl Sagan
Yet, "ask a stupid/silly
question and get a stupid/silly answer" - anon
So what is a stupid question?
(Wikipedia):" .
- Those questions that have already been answered, but
the asker wasn't listening or paying attention
- Questions that can be answered with a scant amount of
research and less than a minute of time
- Questions of which the answer should be painfully
obvious to any person with a pulse who has lived on this earth for more
than a decade
- The only stupid question is the one that is never asked
"
Questions need to be asked to
"encourage people to seek knowledge by answering them". Correctly,
in which case you have succeeded & gained useful 'knowledge', or
incorrectly, resulting in a failure to gain any useful 'knowledge' &
should try again - how many times is up to how much time you have.
So which is the better question?:
1) What is a customer? Or: Who are
we?
2) What is a supply chain? Or: Who
do we deal with?
and
3) What is a value stream? Or: What
is an objective?
Regards
Back
***********************************
11 Oct 2018
SAP PowerDesigner
For those who may be interested.
On 5 Oct 2018 I received an email
from an organisation requesting me to write a review for SAP PowerDesigner.
Feeling up to the challenge I responded accordingly.
My review can be found by following
this link
Regards ps
Does anyone notice the similarities
between this product and the other UML based computer aided design (CAD) tools
currently on the market?
Back
***********************************
10 Oct 2018
Am I stupid?
I was accused of being degree-less,
arrogant, self opinionated & a 'know-it-all' (see).
Now of being 'ungracious', writing
"sanctimonious and insulting nonsense" & not knowing anything
about economics. Perhaps it is time to update my 'defense'
1) 'Ungracious': Because I dared to
ask to see how many of the
17 developers
of Agile agreed with each other (as they were regarded as the most
erudite of people). Their names can be found on. Perhaps you need to get them
to defend themselves against the mess Agile projects are in. Perhaps you need
to read some of the 8 million + references. Here are a few to begin with:
1.1)
Source
1.2)
Source
1.3)
Source
2) 'Sanctimonious and insulting
nonsense": Because I dared to question the work of the developers of the
NDIS. See the 122,000 results to my search using the keywords 'Australian
NDIS failures'
3) 'Economic ignorance': Because I
questioned the accuracy of the likes of
Keynes
& Hayek
Get real
Regards
ps I had the audacity to develop my
approach in 1990. Agile in 2001. The NDIS 2013. The economists are yet to get
'it' right'. So am I stupid or what?
Back
***********************************
9 Oct 2018
Summary for
CxO:
My contribution to CEOs, CFOs,
CHrOs & CIOs to help them navigate the plethora of business and IT
planning approaches by showing how the first two deliverables from the
approach's first step is implicit (open to interpretation, unclear) and will
cause all other steps to flounder. I have already offered my 'universal
translator' as interim solution.
Regards
Ps sorry for the spelling mistake.
IMB should have been IBM. Unfortunately LI does not provide the capability to
replace a picture.
Back
***********************************
8 Oct 2018
Analytics
Having received an email asking me
what my interest in a company's product (dealing with 'analytics' -
data-driven decision making)) was I sent a response (which may put
'analytics', in context with regards to 'Big data', 'Data warehousing', 'Data
vault, etc).
As the email was a bit lengthy,
contains a table and due to LI's restriction on characters per post , I have
created a pdf of the email and
have provided the link to it.
Regards
Back
***********************************
7 Oct 2018 Reading books
I was meaning to write a comment on
a post that someone in my connections commented on (by stating they had a
copy of one of the books on their desk).
I am providing a link to this list
with the following warning: if you read 1 book a week it would take you about
25 weeks to get through all 25 (never mind the cost).
In order to get a good picture of
'information' (the main topic of every book) & if the main stream (best
practice) approaches do not seem to have an adequate answer, then the
question you need to ask yourself is:
How do you know every author agrees
with each other? The number of combinations of all 25 agreeing is 1 out of
33,554,432 (< 0.0000028%). As every author in the list wrote their book
after 2007, the chances of them fully understanding their topic is based on some
20 approaches depicted in the inaccurate Venn diagram & the chances of
the developers & practitioners agreeing are 1 in 1,048,576 (<
0.00009). These are hardly good odds. Yet everyone seems to be ignoring the
obvious:
What exactly is information & how
exactly does wisdom, knowledge, data and projects help business operatives
design the most efficient, effective, ethical and easy-to-use solutions?
Regards
ps the link
Back
***********************************
7 Oct 2018 Modeling
Behavior
Acceptable and unacceptable
behavior in business & on LinkedIn
On 20 Sep 2018 I commented on an
article posted by Prasad Nilantha "What are the different FREE MARKET economic of
schools of thought"? I provided my response by addressing the
bodies of work of 4 'economists'. One of the respondents decided to attack my
view point which I can only describe as unacceptable (bad) behavior.
Over the past few days I have been thinking
if there was some connection between behavior & the conceptual viewpoint.
I have now discovered the link. For your erudition I have included the model
of the conceptual world which will show what an objective is & its
relationship to knowledge. I've included the mutually inclusive (Logical AND)
conjunction (the Goal) to show how by ignoring this, the conceptual model can
never be simplified. This should also demonstrate that the conceptual data
model would be useless in trying to describe these relationships. Perhaps
this also shows how I am now able to provide a universal translator to every
other approach.
Regards
ps In 1990 this was the model I
used to automate Ripose. This is my contribution as how to behave in an
acceptable manner in order to gain knowledge. Bad behavior will never yield
peace.
Back
***********************************
7 Oct 2018
What a mess:
It astounds me that so many people follow
the ideas and theories of so many 'eminent' people (aka guru) without
checking where the 'guru' got their facts from. Whenever I come across
someone who proposes a theory, I feel the need to discover who their mentors
were. By 1989 I had come into contact with the following theories:
1) Set theory
2) IBM's management by objectives
theories
3) Peter Drucker's Strategic
planning theories
4) Ed Yourdon's Structured analysis
and structured design methodologies
5) Charlie Bachman's CODASYL
theories
6) IBM's D/L 1 (IBM's hierarchical
database language) theories
7) Raymond Boyce & Edger Codd's
normalisation methodology
8) MA Jackson's Structured
Programming approach
9) James Martin & Clive
Finklestein's information engineering methodology
Today it is a very different
landscape. But the basics have not vanished, Reality has been distorted
beyond anyone's wildest imagination.
Regards
ps I have included the view of the
'information' I had available to me prior to 1989 (which enabled me to sort
out the black holes and the grey areas) compared to what everyone has to
contend with and to try to sort out today (what a mess).
Back
***********************************
Oct 2018 Universal translator:
Post 1 –
1 Oct 2018
On the 30th Sep 2018 I commented on
an article titled "It’s time for companies to end the obsession with
millennials
and hire older workers with skills and expertise". My comment was: [ I
would be more than happy to work for a training organisation and train any of
their students (regardless of age) how to develop computer solutions from
strategic planning deliverables without demanding any salary in return. All
training will be done over the internet using Skype, so no traveling will be
required.
I am also prepared to train trainers. I have a standard template
(developed in 1990 and fully tested) that I use to translate any of the 'best
practice' approaches. Some will require a bit more effort, but in the end,
regardless of the approach used, they will all produce a quality product. I
wonder how many training enterprises will give this any consideration?
Regards
ps Is there a catch? Well all I will ask is a small fee to correct the
student's workshop assignments. The use of the repository and my software
will come at a small price too.. I have included an example of such a
translation, which will translate Lean Agile into a Lean Agile Business
Architected Information Technology (LABAIT) approach. This is not a hoax. ]
Regards
ps I will be adding more
'translators'
***********************************
Post 2 – 1 Oct 2018
I have
now included an example of another translation course, which will train
practitioners how to translate TOGAF into a 'Thoroughly Open Business
Architected Information Technology' (TOBAIT) approach.
Regards
ps the grey areas will be made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will
release more 'babel fish' translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 3 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate
The Zachman into a Zachman advanced Business Architected Information
Technology' (ZaBAIT) approach.
Regards
ps the grey areas will be made
explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel
fish' translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 4 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate a
Design Thinking approach into a Design Thinking Enhanced Treated Business
Architected Information Technology' (DeTBAIT) approach.
Regards ps the grey areas will be
made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel
fish' translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 5 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate a
Systems Thinking approach into a Systems yielding Translated Business
Architected Information Technology' (SyTBAIT) approach.
Regards ps the grey areas will be
made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel
fish' translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 6 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate a
Data Modeling approach into a 'Data advanced Modeled Business Architected
Information Technology' (DaMBAIT) approach.
Regards ps the grey areas will be
made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel
fish' translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 7 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate Balanced
Scorecards into a. Balanced activity Structured Business Architected
Information Technology' (BaSBAIT) approach.
Regards ps the grey areas will be
made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel fish'
translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 8 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate
Information Engineering into a. Information Engineered Business Architected
Information Technology' (IEBAIT) approach.
Regards ps the grey areas will be
made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel fish'
translators over the coming days
***********************************
Post 9 – 2 Oct 2018
I have now included an example of
another translation course, which will train practitioners how to translate
Business Canvasses into a. Business activity Centered Business Architected
Information Technology' (BaCBAIT) approach.
Regards ps the grey areas will be
made explicit during the training courses.
pps I will release more 'babel
fish' translators over the coming days
More to follow
Back
***********************************
30 Sep 2018
A new
master class
After watching a few videos on TED
and a few from the result of my searching the internet with the words
"what is information" (which yielded 3,580,000,000 results in 0.55
seconds), I would like to ask the following question: How can anyone hope to
produce a business information architectural blueprint and then build a
database to produce an information technology management system that
processes data to provide the business with knowledge, if the following
building blocks are not fully defined? So what is:
1) A business?
2) Information?
3) Information architecture?
4) A blueprint?
5) A database?
6) Information technology?
7) Information management?
8) A system?
9) A process?
10) Data?
11) Knowledge?
Regards
ps These are not rhetorical
questions, or do you think me asking these questions is a total waste of
time?
pps My master class provides the
answer to all these questions because over the past 48 years I have had to
answer them
Back
***********************************
30 Sep 2018
Logical joins
My thoughts on the difficulties
enterprise/business architects (EA/BA etc), strategic planners (SP) &
data modelers (DM) face by excluding the 'mutually inclusive' (logical AND or
L:AND) function:
1) EA/BA have difficulties identifying
business objectives. They fail to see the 'L:AND' of business goals. All they
see are the mutually exclusive objects - eg vision or mission or value
2) SP ignore it
3) DM need data to define their
models, therefore:
3.1) Normalisation techniques fail
when trying to use the 'L:AND' as this is a 'conjunction'
3.2) Entity relational modelers do
not see the 'hierarchical' functionality. The best they can come up with is
to use a 'role' type entity - eg a person playing the role as a 'patient'
& 'doctor'
3.3) Object orientation
practitioners have a hard time trying to model the 'L:AND' case in
polymorphism. They let programmers create redundant procedures &/or
develop program language specific 'classes' to try to handle it
3.4) Context or connected modelers
using a 'conceptual data model' fail because of 1, 3.1 &/or 3.2 IT
project failures can be attributed to the combination of these 3 difficulties
as well as implicit deliverables
Regards
ps my software implemented this in
1990 & I teach this in my knowledge modeling course
Back
***********************************
30 Sep 2018
All things (small)
data
Just my thoughts on the
difficulties of Data Modeling with data flows & data stores.
So what are these 'things'? What
is:
1) Data modeling? ATMR "a
process used to define and analyze data requirements needed to support the
business processes within the scope of corresponding information systems in
organizations"
2) A Data flow? ATMR "Dataflow
is a software paradigm based on the idea of disconnecting computational
actors into stages (pipelines) that can execute concurrently. Dataflow can
also be called stream processing or reactive programming". Be prepared
to examine every possible piece of data & see how it flows from one
process to another. Time consuming & inaccurate
3) A Data store? ATMR "A data
store is a repository for persistently storing and managing collections of
data which include not just repositories like databases, but also simpler
store types such as simple files, emails etc". Be prepared to use any of
the following implicit approaches
3.1) Entity Relation Diagrams -
boxes & lines
3.2) Normalisation - you need to
know all the data (see 2)
3.3) Design thinking - ideate
"To generate an idea" which requires brain storming which is time
consuming & inaccurate Good luck with any of these
Regards
ps ATMR = according to my research
Back
***********************************
30 Sep 2018
Start of the
universal translator
After much research, diagnosing,
writing, commenting & a bit of collaboration, I have thought of a
compromise approach.
With all the bloatware enterprise
architecture approaches (TOGAF, Zachman etc), 17 IT developers got together
(2001) & proposed an idea to remove the bloatware & Agile was born.
In 2011, "the Agile Alliance created the Guide to Agile Practices
(renamed the Agile Glossary in 2016)".
Unfortunately, just like ea
approaches split into factions, so too did Agile. Depending on whose
viewpoint, you could either have a 'smooth sail' or a 'bumpy ride'. However,
what would happen if someone came up with an approach to take the best of
these approaches and turn it into a Lean Agile Business Architecture IT
(LABAIT) approach? It could probably look like the diagram I have attached
The 'grey' areas indicate that the
deliverable is still implicit, however with a bit of tweaking the
implicitness of the deliverables will be turned explicit. It will also take a
bit of training to gain the capabilities to become proficient with the
technique as well as a software tool designed specifically for it (you could
use an existing UML based product, but it may need a few mods). Could these
be a deal maker, or breaker?
Regards
Back
***********************************
23 Sep 2018 Crossword puzzle
Here is a cryptic crossword clue;
Anyone care to solve it 2 across. I
am the odd one out in backing a team?
Regards
Back
***********************************
23 Sep 2018
Hash tag Master
class Update
Just updated my master class list
and added the master class on Key words (hash tags, hashtag#tag)
Master classes. I will be running 4
free master classes to demonstrate an approach which produces explicit
deliverables from implicit posted notes stuck on whiteboards during brain
storming sessions carried out by practitioners practicing the likes of
systems thinkers, design thinkers and any other that calls for such an
approach.
1) Keyword
(hashtag) modeling
2) Objectives
modeling
3) Strategy
modeling
4) Data
modeling
Regards
ps Any takers?
Back
***********************************
23 Sep 2018
Knowledge management
On 11 Sep 2018 I provided another
example describing a block chain approach and challenged anyone to identify
if the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless. Herewith another
approach based on knowledge management. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this
approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges
are pointless and meaningless then think again. I am trying to ascertain
whether anyone (with all their training in any of the approaches to
'strategic planning') has the capability of diagnosing their own approach
using their approach. As I have already published my diagnosis of this
approach on my training website page, I decided to include this diagnosis as
well (See Knowledge
management)
Back
***********************************
19 Sep 2018 Knowledge model
overcomes weaknesses
How the knowledge model (KM) overcomes
the weaknesses of object orientation & functional programming
Today 19 Sep 2018 I received an
email that alerted me to an article published on medium.com (23 Jul 2016) written by Charles Scalfani titled
"Goodbye, Object Oriented Programming". In it he cited a number of
examples as to why the 3 'pillars' of OO failed. He then stated that he was
moving on to functional programming.
Using 'disadvantages of functional
programming' in a search returned 3.7+ million results. I found 1 expert in
the field who has used FP since the 1990s & he cited 6 potential
drawbacks ("Functional programming simplified" Dec 2017).
The problem:
1) OOP - you need to create every
conceivable class of object. Where do these 'classes' come from? You will
have to use 'brain storming' to discover every possible 'class'
2) 1 drawback with FP -
"Writing pure functions is easy, but combining them into a complete
application is where things get hard".
Where do the applications come
from? The knowledge model The KM is developed by using a class of business
objective & 23 pertinent questions. A competent knowledge modeller will
uncover all the classes of business objects & form the basis of every
business application
Regards
Back
***********************************
19 Sep 2018 School of hard knocks
For those of you who think I am
degree-less, arrogant, self opinionated & a 'know-it-all' I present this
dissertation about my education in the 'school of hard knocks'.
According to my research there are
only 2 types/genres of architectures/structures used to create a 'code-base':
Hierarchical & Networked.
I integrated the two to form what I
call a ''Hiernet''. I used this structure to diagnose the 7 approaches that I
knew of in 1989 when I built my approach & software:
1) Bachman's "navigational
database model" c1963. Read his work in 1975 - hierarchy
2) Ackoff's 'Purposeful Systems'
c1972. Exposed to his ideas in 1975 - network
3) Codd's 'A Relational Model of
Data for Large Shared Data Banks' c1970. Learnt his approach in 1976 -
network
4) MA Jackson's 'Principles of Program
Design' c1975. Studied his approach in 1978 - hierarchy
5) Yourdon's 'structured analysis
techniques' c1970. Used his approach in 1979 - hierarchy
6) Martin/Finkelstein's
'information engineering' c1979. Learnt this approach in 1982 - network
7) Drucker's 'Concept of the
Corporation' c1946. Studied his approach 1984 - network
The following works on OO were
released after I completed my work:
1) Yourdon's object-oriented
analysis/design late1980s & 1990s
2) Booch Object Orientation c1994
Regards
Back
***********************************
19 Sep 2018 Summary of approaches deliverables
On 12 Sep 2018 I posted that
between the 18th Aug and 11 Sep 2018 I have diagnosed 20 approaches (10
business strategic, 7 IT project and 3 composite planning).
I have now produced a summary of
the 1st step deliverable(s) and ask senior managers to choose which 1st step
deliverable they think is the most explicit (clear; concise; non-ambiguous)
and therefore the most appropriate. I have now included the deliverable from
each of the approaches 2nd step and reveal the approach.
Care (or dare) to have a go at
choosing the approach you feel is most appropriate.
Regards
ps please enter the number you
decide makes most sense
Back
***********************************
19 Sep 2018 Summary of approaches 1st
deliverables
Between the 18th Aug and 11 Sep
2018 I have diagnosed 20 approaches (10 business strategic, 7 IT project and
3 composite planning).
I have now produced a summary of
the 1st step deliverable(s) and ask senior managers to choose which 1st step
deliverable they think is the most explicit (clear; concise; non-ambiguous)
and therefore the most appropriate.
Regards
ps please enter the number you
decide makes most sense
Back
***********************************
19 Sep 2018 Block chain shortcomings
On 8 Sep 2018 I provided another
example describing a business case approach and challenged anyone to identify
if the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on
a block chain approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges
are pointless and meaningless then think again. I am trying to ascertain
whether anyone (with all their training in any of the approaches to
'strategic planning') has the capability of diagnosing their own approach
using their approach. As I have already published my diagnosis of this
approach on my training website page, I decided to include this diagnosis as
well - (See BC
approach)
Back
***********************************
10 Sep 2018
My whiteboard.
The inspiration behind my diagnostic capabilities.
Regards
Back
***********************************
9 Sep
2018
Summary of approaches
Exactly 3 weeks (19 Aug 2018) ago I asked if anyone was capable of
diagnosing whether a business strategic planning or IT project planning
approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
I went on to diagnose and post 19 such approaches and after 21 days
and 6,350+ views I have come to the end of my search (well that is until
someone steps out of the crowd and publishes their approach for me to
diagnose or someone rebukes my diagnosis and can offer a logical and explicit
set of arguments as to why I am completely and utterly wrong).
I have now created a pdf that explains what anyone needs to do, I will
provide you with the inputs, processes and outputs of what you need in order
to build a better approach.
What if you do not? Well enjoy paying the price of training and
retraining and changing from one approach to another and experience the same
'snafu' results.
Regards
ps the link
to my guide
Back
***********************************
9 Sep
2018
Business case approach
shortcomings
On 8 Sep 2018 I provided another example describing a quality control
derivative approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was
excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on a business case approach. Is anyone
capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of this approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See - Approach 2 -
business case)
Back
***********************************
9 Sep
2018
Quality control derivative
shortcomings
On 8 Sep 2018 I provided another example describing a business canvass
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on another quality control derivative
approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of this approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well (See Quality control)
Back
***********************************
9 Sep
2018
Business canvass
On 8 Sep 2018 I provided another example describing a design thinking
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on business canvasses. Is anyone
capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of this approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See Business canvasses)
Back
***********************************
9 Sep
2018
Design thinking
shortcomings
On 8 Sep 2018 I provided another example describing a systems thinking
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on design thinking. Is anyone capable
of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of this approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See Design thinking)
8 Sep 2018
Systems thinking shortcomings
On 7 Sep 2018 I provided another example describing the business
motivation/case approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach
was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on Systems thinking. Is anyone capable
of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are
pointless and meaningless then think again. I am trying to ascertain whether
anyone (with all their training in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning')
has the capability of diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As
I have already published my diagnosis of this approach on my training website
page, I decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See Systems thinking)
Back
***********************************
8 Sep
2018
Business motivation/case
shortcomings
On 7 Sep 2018 I provided another example describing the implementation
of Dr. Deming’s Quality Control approach and challenged anyone to identify if
the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on a business motivation/case
approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if
you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then think again. I am
trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training in any of the
approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of diagnosing their
own approach using their approach. As I have already published my diagnosis
of this approach on my training website page, I decided to include this
diagnosis as well - (See Business
motivation - Approach 1)
Back
***********************************
7 Sep
2018
Quality Control approach
shortcomings
Earlier on today (7 Sep 2018) I provided another example describing
the implementation of a derivative of Dr. Ackoff’s WKID approach and
challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent, mediocre or
pointless.
Herewith another approach based on Dr. Deming’s Quality Control
approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if
you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then think again. I am
trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training in any of the
approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of diagnosing their
own approach using their approach. As I have already published my diagnosis
of this approach on my training website page, I decided to include this
diagnosis as well - (See Dr. Deming -
derivative)
Back
***********************************
7 Sep 2018
Ackoff
triangle shortcomings
On 4 Sep 2018 I provided another example of a strategic planning
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on a derivative of Dr. Ackoff’s WKID
(wisdom, knowledge, information, data) triangle. Is anyone capable of
diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of this approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See Dr.
Ackoff IDK
derivative)
Back
***********************************
7 Sep
2018
Data modeling vs Knowledge modeling
I would like to see anyone try to develop a date model (or even a
knowledge model) using any software tool that requires an initial input of
427 entities placed on 10 A4 pages.
The graphic below shows only 1 of the 10 pages. This model was
generated in 1989 using a CAD tool and imputing all 427 entities which were
originally identified and entered into a spread sheet program using the
Ripose generic knowledge model by Trevor Ainsworth and after
developing the business objectives (purpose, benefits, values and measures)
that needed the 427 entities to support them.
Regards
Back
***********************************
4 Sep
2018
Strategic planning Approach 2
shortcomings
On 31 Aug 2018 I provided an example of the information engineering
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on a different strategic planning
approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach?
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of the information engineering approach on my training
website page, I decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See
Strategic
planning Approach 2)
Back
***********************************
4 Sep
2018
IE Technical Director
I came across a section of a course that Clive Finkelstein and I ran
c1983 I decided to post this just in case there are those of you who doubt my
pedigree and involvement with Information Engineering.
Regards
ps this is why I know I have the wherewithal to compare any business
and IT approach with any other. I was there. I made a mistake with IE but I
was young (36) and had a fair bit to learn and experience. However I learnt
fast as it took me another 6 years to develop a less wrong way.
Back
***********************************
31 Aug 2018
Information engineering shortcomings
On 30 Aug 2018 I provided an example of a 'software product framework
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on the information engineering
methodology. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach? I will provide a
template In my comment.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of the information engineering approach on my training
website page, I decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See
Information
engineering)
Back
***********************************
30 Aug 2018
ArchiMate
On 27 Aug 2018 I provided an example of a 'Contextual modeling'
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on a software product framework
offering a CAD tool that they claim can automate other approaches. Is anyone
capable of diagnosing this approach? I will provide 3 templates (as it
depends where you decide to start your investigation) which should help you
with your diagnosis - In my comment.
Regards ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and
meaningless then think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with
all their training in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the
capability of diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have
already published my diagnosis of the software approach on my training
website page, I decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See
A software
approach)
Back
***********************************
27 Aug 2018
Contextual data model
shortcomings
Today (27 Aug 2018) I provided an example of the 'Data modeling'
approach and challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent,
mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on the approach called contextual
modeling. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach? I will provide a
template which should help you with your diagnosis - In my comment.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of the Data modeling approach on my training website
page, I decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See Contextual
approach)
Back
***********************************
27 Aug 2018
Data modeling
shortcomings
On 26 Aug 2018 I provided an example of the 'Agile' approach and
challenged anyone to identify if the approach was excellent, mediocre or
pointless.
Herewith another well known and used approach based on the approach
called 'Data modeling'. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach? I will
provide a template which should help you with your diagnosis - In my comment.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already published
my diagnosis of the Data modeling approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See Data modeling)
Back
***********************************
26 Aug 2018
Agile shortcomings
On 25 Aug 2018 I provided an example of an iterative approach (TOGAF
which was based on another - the USA DoD TAFIM) and challenged anyone to
identify if the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another well known and used approach based on the approach
called 'Agile'. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach? I will provide
a template which should help you with your diagnosis - In my comment.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach. As I have already
published my diagnosis of the Agile approach on my training website page, I
decided to include this diagnosis as well - (See
An Agile
approach)
Back
***********************************
25 Aug 2018
TOGAF
shortcomings
On 24 Aug 2018 I provided an example of an iterative approach (as
developed by the USA DoD called TAFIM) and challenged anyone to identify if
the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another well known and used approach based on an iterative
approach and based on the TAFIM approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing
this approach? I will provide a template which should help you with your diagnosis
- In my comment.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of diagnosing
their own approach using their approach. As I have already published my
diagnosis of the TAFIM approach on my training website page, I decided to
include this diagnosis as well - (See An iterative
approach - TOGAF)
Back
***********************************
24 Aug 2018
TAFIM shortcomings
On 23 Aug 2018 I provided an example of a 6x6 matrix approach to
planning (as provided to me in an email by Pinterest) and challenged anyone
to identify if the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on an iterative
approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this approach? I will provide a
template which should help you with your diagnosis.
My diagnosis.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach.
Back
***********************************
23 Aug 2018
Zachman shortcomings
On 21 Aug 2018 I provided an example of a balanced scorecard approach
to planning (as provided to me in an email by Pinterest) and challenged
anyone to identify if the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach based on a 6x6 matrix. Is anyone capable of
diagnosing this approach? I will provide a template which should help you
with your diagnosis. My diagnosis.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach.
Back
***********************************
20 Aug
2018
Question 1
Here's another thought of mine, based on an article in a 1970 'Dear
Abby' column: "(There's) no such thing as a stupid question...".
Which "is a popular phrase with a long history. It suggests that the
quest for knowledge includes failure, and that just because one person may
know less than others they should not be afraid to ask rather than pretend
they already know. In many cases multiple people may not know but are too
afraid to ask the "stupid question"; the one who asks the question
may in fact be doing a service to those around them".
So, what is the first question that anyone should ever ask (themselves
or others) just before they embark on any venture/journey, or if they are
already on their way?
I would ask: Should I/we be doing this? The answer to this question
should help uncover the 1st objective (deliverable #1). According to my research,
any other deliverable would be pointless as you will only end up 'painting
yourself into a corner'.
Once you have discovered this 'purpose' your next question should be:
Should I/we be using this as the purpose? This should then get you to find a
few deliverables that corroborate your first deliverable. Your next challenge
is to ask: Should 1, 2, 3, 4 (or more) deliverables suffice?
Regards
Back
***********************************
20 Aug
2018
Balanced Scorecard
Yesterday (19 Aug 2018) I provided an example of a strategic planning
approach (as provided to me in an email by Pinterest) and challenged anyone
to identify if the approach was excellent, mediocre or pointless.
Herewith another approach. Is anyone capable of diagnosing this
approach?
My diagnosis.
Regards
ps Again if you think my challenges are pointless and meaningless then
think again. I am trying to ascertain whether anyone (with all their training
in any of the approaches to 'strategic planning') has the capability of
diagnosing their own approach using their approach.
Back
***********************************
19 Aug
2018
Strategic planning 1
Yesterday (18 Aug 2018) I created a post which, using prime numbers, I
could prove the usefulness (or otherwise) of the "Wisdom, Knowledge,
Information, Data pyramid". I proved that it was a pointless approach.
I now repeat the challenge, issued 3 days ago, to prove (using prime
numbers) whether the attached approach is excellent (smiley face); mediocre
(thoughtful face) or; pointless (frowning face), The simple way of doing this
is to think about the deliverables from each step/phase/action (call them
what you like) and simply using the number of deliverables to assess them
accordingly. I will provide my solution in a few days time.
Regards
ps If you think this is completely pointless then think about how much
money is being paid to the vendors of the plethora of approaches and whether
the student's return on investment (ROI) is being shared with their
customers. There is ample evidence that this is not the case (Gartner,
Forrester, Standish, local press et al) hence my persistent efforts to get
you to look long and hard at the procedures you use to reduce a complex
evolving object (like a business) into a simple static object (like a
computer application) by way of using complex static objects (deliverables
produced in various stages of an approach).
Back
***********************************
18 Aug
2018
Prime numbers
Here's a thought: I will use 4 prime numbers to prove that the DIKW
(WKID) pyramid idea is indeed pointless.
Proof using prime numbers 1, 2, 3 & 5
1) Wisdom - a concept within a construct (N0) which is 1 of 4 (N1)
goals (N2). Thus N7
2) Knowledge - achieved by asking & answering a minimum of 23 (N3)
questions. There are 6 (N4) fundamental questions, 8 (N5) second level (a
combination of 2 fundamental), 5 tertiary level questions & 4 (N1)
'rhetorical'. Thus N7
3) Information - is derived from classifying it into 3 subordinate
artifacts (N6). Thus N7
4) Data - these are facts and therefore needs multiple prime numbers.
Thus N7
Conclusion: Representing the sum total of everything that anyone needs
in order to refer "loosely to a class of models for representing
purported structural and/or functional relationships between data,
information, knowledge, and wisdom" is pointless (N8) QED
Regards
Notes
0) Anatomy of goals (3)
1) 4=2+2 (or 2*2). 2 is the first prime number providing the same
answer adding them together, multiplying them or squaring
2) Benefits (4)
3) 23=(2*2*5)+3
4) 6=2*3
5) 8=2*2*2
6) Conceptual; Logical; Physical
7) A process that produces an implicit result/deliverable
8) 2 or more mediocre areas
Back
***********************************
18 Aug
2018
Test for excellence
Here's an idea: Has anyone thought about designing some sort of test
to determine if an approach (either business strategic planning or
information technology project planning) is: a) Excellent; b) Mediocre or; c)
Pointless (simply a waste of time)?
With so many IT project failures surely poor strategic planning
approaches must be responsible for every failure. Hence the first requirement
of such a test would be to examine every deliverable produced from every
process to enable an 'expert' to judge the category.
If you can determine the category of the deliverable, then that should
help determine the category of the process (and hence the category of the
approach). Hence if the deliverable is:
1) Pointless, then the process producing said deliverable must be
categorised as a 'waste of time'.
2) 'Mediocre' (that is it is too implicit), then the process producing
such a deliverable has to be mediocre. You may find the need to continually
(iteratively) change/refine the structure and content of the deliverable in
order to improve its quality. This could result in the deliverable and
process being classified as 'a waste of time'
Any approach that produces a single 'pointless' result (or 2 or more
mediocre results), surely has to be a 'waste of time'.
Regards
Back
***********************************
17 Mar
2018 University training for
Information Architects:
If a university offered courses to students to study the 'anatomy of
information' what would the curriculum look like?
In 2006 (aged 59) I attended The James Cook University in Cairns in an attempt to
obtain my Bachelor of Information Technology degree. The courses I took were:
1) CP1200 Introduction to Computer Science 1 - High Distinction (HD)
2) CP1300 Introduction to Computer Science 2 - Distinction (D)
3) CP1010 Introduction to Multimedia - HD
4) CU1010 Effective Writing - HD
5) MA1721 Computing Mathematics - D
My final CP1010 course deliverable was my "Dummy's guide to an
effective business systems technique". It was an interactive
presentation introducing the concept of 3 Ripose courses (with the
prerequisites) as part of a university's curriculum.
I have now short circuited the prerequisites & can offer the
courses as an on-line service. Anyone interested in reviewing the course
&/or watch the introductory lecture &/or take the first lecture
&/or watch my "Dummy's guide" (a 7.6Mb download) please head to
my web site and follow the link to my training courses - the link to the
'guide' is at the bottom of the training web page.
Regards
ps "Less is more" & "tempus fugit"
Back
***********************************
17 Mar 2018
What is a knowledge model?
I'm surprised that no one has asked me what my knowledge model
(KM) looks like or how it relates to the business objectives.
On 3 Oct 2015 I published my LinkedIn article called "A world beyond
‘measures’" in which I explained how to 'craft a KM' using the
business objectives, namely the performance indicators.
The benefits of using this approach are that you do not have to know
any of the following:
1) Codd's 13 rules & 3.5 laws
2) Any of the properties of an attribute in relation to what:
2.1) It is
2.2) Its value domain
2.3) Its data type
All this added detail (except 1 above) is addressed in the logical
phase (3 below), once the business proof of concept has been built &
ratified. "If you want a better plan, you need to plan better". One
of the better ways to plan (KISS & agile) is to:
1) Deliver the KM during the conceptual phase - eg 185 entities
2) Use the inherent links in the KM to develop a prioritised business
implementation plan (systems)
3) Use the prioritised knowledge classes (eg 93 entities) to plan the
development of the logical data model (LDM)
4) Use the LDM to generate the logical database schema (LDS of 24
tables) & IT project plans
5) Use the LDS to generate the physical database schema
Regards
Back
***********************************
17 Mar 2018
The Information architect or Ripose Grade 0
In a previous post I mentioned I need to train 10 Ripose grade 0
architects in order to progress my dream.
This video should explain what the RA0 is. In the video I mentioned
it takes 1 to 2 years to become RA0. With dedication and effort this could be
reduced to between 6 & 9 months
Regards
Back
***********************************
17 Mar 2018
Compare frameworks
Has anyone ever thought of being able to compare any planning process
with any other?
For example: When comparing {[TOGAF with The Zachman Framework] or
[TOGAF with Data modelling] or [Zachman with Design thinking] or [Innovation
management with business canvases]} are you able to ascertain whether there
are any:
1) Similarities between them?
2) Common deliverables?
3) Phases that can be used interchangeably?
Surely this is a major prerequisite before deciding on which approach
to use, or what needs to done to switch from one to another or to find out if
the enterprise architect you are about to hire will fit into the 'approach
culture' of the organisation!
My latest document "The right & wrong ways" provides the
tables to assist with this process.
Regards
Responses
1) Charles, NOT A DIG. One of the reasons I
pulled out of the EA threads was just this kind of discussion. Winston has it
right as far as I am concerned and that is not to say anyone is particularly
wrong either. About 30 years ago, I wrote a paper, accepted for publication
by George Washington Uni no less and subsequently published in an anthology
of methodological approaches, arguing for the idea that applying any
methodology, on the basis of being a silver bullet was counter productive.
.At the time, something called the EFQM was all the rage (and this is way
before Zachman) and an organisation known by the acronym CCTA had just
published its first, government sanctioned version of PRINCE, instead I
argued for a kind of mix and match, taking the most appropriate parts of any
and all as circumstances demanded it. I wrote the paper after spending some
18 months build an inventory tracking system following something known as
SSADM with the kind of discipline, attention to detail and rigour that the
military are good at. While building that system, we were obliged to meet the
methodological requirements of a variety of internal and external standards.
So in that instance and every tasking since, there was no single method (edited)
My response
Michael Poulin Thank you for responding to Allen Woods comment. Perhaps I was not specific/explicit in my original
post. Perhaps I should have raised the point that before being able to
compare one approach to another it is necessary to establish a benchmark
'standard'. I did this for Ripose & published it in my article "The
right & wrong ways" (link provided in an earlier post). Using my
'benchmark' (& providing that I can find the deliverables produced by any
other approach) I am able to compare any approach to Ripose & hence any
approach to any other. This also enables me to test the efficiency &
effectiveness of any approach by examining how many explicit deliverables the
approach produces & whether there are any redundant or overlapping steps.
This is my 'silver bullet' So far I have examined 8 'best practice'
approaches & they all failed the test. If anyone thinks they can do
better than Ripose & Caspar, can prove me wrong & show how & why
their approach is better, I am prepared to retire once & for all. It will
save me time & the effort of trying to fulfil my dream (which appears on
another post 'Opening all hailing frequencies'). I am still searching for the
other 9 good people. So far not 1 taker. Regards (edited)
2) My working assumption is that each framework was developed
to solve a problem in ways that the inventor couldn't solve with any other
framework they knew about, without attempting to undertake an exhaustive
research project beforehand. Let's face it, it's like standards, there are
plenty to choose from and if there's not one you like our that fits you can
make up a new one.
I'm sure in
many cases my working assumption is wrong. My question then is if building
upon someone else's framework, rather than creating something new and
different, why not help to evolve the one used to build from? Are we humans
too egotistical that we'd rather develop something that looks "new"
for which we can claim total credit as the inventor rather than simply a
contributor? As to the danger, what danger do you speak of? What
repercussions have people experienced? I'm genuinely curious on this point.
My
response:
Winston thanks for your response. Perhaps it is a case of who came
first.
1) Ego?: I started work on Ripose & Caspar around the same time as Zachman but some 5 years ahead of The Open Group. Plus I developed Caspar
myself. They waited until ArchiMate was developed (2002) to 'automate' their
approach
2) Why do I not help others evolve?: Why do
I not just give up on
Ripose & Caspar, approach one of the best practice' groups & give
them the benefit of my experience? If you look at the structure of their
approaches & compare it to what I built you will find our architectures
are completely dissimilar. I know where they went wrong but why should they
listen to me?
3) The dangers: I have spelt these out in my eBook & on my
web site. I will be working on Book 2 & 3 (which fills out the chapters
using the research I've completed in my article "The right & wrong
ways"). If you start any journey of discovery with the wrong first step,
without knowing your explicit deliverables, you may take a long time to get
to the destination (if ever). The danger is the wasted resources. The number
of failed projects today are similar to those 22 years ago (around the time
that these 2 started gaining popularity)
Regards
3) Kevin (INTJ-Plant) Smith did this in how PEAF. I built our organic business process
model following (comparing first of all) J. Zachman. I do agree with Winston Sucher
The
practice of the Architecture of Business is for business people who make
decisions how to design the business organisations. They are at the top of
the business hierarchy in contrast with Enterprise Architects who are boxed
in IT and see the business from the IT/technology perspectives only.
My
response:
Michael Poulin thank you for your replies. 1) According to my research
1.1) you came to your conclusions nearly 2 decades after I developed Ripose
& wrote my Caspar software, I wonder what would have happened if you had
looked at my work before following The Zachman Framework? 1.2) The diagram
you have included may well be expandable, but it breaks George A. Miller of Princeton University's Department of Psychology
"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our
Capacity for Processing Information". This rule is a great heuristic
& I have used it to in all my work. What a pity others seem to ignore it
2) Perhaps it is time for you to compare your AoB approach with the Ripose
Technique (If AOB is similar to the 6x6 Zachman grid, then I have already
done that for you) Regards
4) Charles, my response was not a criticism of what your trying
to achieve but targeted generally at the technology community at large, and
the humanity to which we operate - point 1. Point 2, again this an
observation the technology community at large and goes to my observations of
such vast body of various works from countless authors. Many of these works
are very valuable in their own right, including your own. Fame and fortune
seem to follow those with the most followers/ adopters/ advocates more so
than the accuracy or value they bring necessary in comparison to other bodies
of work. Point 3 the dangers really then result in wasting time & money
to reinvent the wheel (summarily) [I will take the time to read your book].
This seems to be something the technology community is willing to do
repeatedly, with the non-technology groups having to fund. There does not
appear to be reputation risk/damage nor brand liability at risk, so one might
judge the danger to be negligible in the grand scheme of things. Cheers.
My
response:
Winston thanks for this update. I do appreciate the time you take
to respond & as I embark on what could very well be the last project of
my life, I want to be sure that everything I now write describes what I say
& do & I can teach others to do the same. I am winding down
commenting on other people's posts & articles as I need to concentrate on
my dream. I have ample proof as to what the real issues are. Other people are
pointing to the symptoms, when I have already discovered the causes. Do I
have to apologise for my statements? Am I egotistical? I think not I am
amazed that EAs & data modelers think they can use the existing
approaches to defuse the looming legacy system time 'e-bomb' when I have
proven that it is the approaches themselves that exacerbate the problem. I
tried to explain this in the LI article I published 2 Sep 2015 "Mind map
protocol' & the approach comparison paper I wrote in Nov 2004 (now replaced
by my "The right and wrong ways'), but somehow I am not eminent enough
to be taken seriously. Still at least I am no longer affected by this sad
snafu state of affairs. I will continue to offer my offerings as an efficient
& effective way out, even if I am continually ignored by the majority.
Regards
I thank you
all for your comments. What I was after was to find out if anyone could
provide a definitive mapping between any of the examples? A spread sheet
would suffice. If the framework cannot deliver this simple requirement, then
how can anyone trust it? I've provided an example which compares TOGAF &
The Zachman Framework. Columns: A) The domain, either business or technology
B C H & I) The step taken within the domain eg In TOGAF B&C maps to
the meta TOGAF model & In Zachman (H&I) to the row & column D E
& F) The deliverable produced from the step eg - TOGAF's Architecture
vision deliverables - Catalogues, matrices, diagrams (D&E). In Zachman in
cell 1,2 the Business concept step - the deliverables Business entity &
relationships (F). Are these synonymous? This answers my 3 questions. No to
all of them! Conclusion. 1) There does not seem to an easy way to switch from
one approach to the other 2) An ea trained in one discipline would find it
hard switching to the other In the Ripose Technique I explain every
deliverable & the step in which it is produced. I used my steps to help
map all the approaches. Hence a RA0 could work with any approach if need be.
Regards
Allen I was not able to respond to your reply to Winston so I will have to post my response as a fresh thread. The
purpose of my post was to ascertain if anyone could come up with a definitive
approach to compare 'standards'. Perhaps my original post should have stated
that you can use a spread sheet to carry out this comparison. I have now
created a spread sheet to compare TOGAF and Zachman and found they were not
similar, did not share the same deliverables and no steps were
interchangeable. Which answered my 3 question about these 2. ISO standards
suffer from the same fate. They are implicit at best and nearly impossible to
provide any form of governance at worst. In order for me to carry out my
comparisons I had to first establish a benchmark so having developed Ripose I
was able to use it as the basis for my comparisons. If I have made any
miscalculations, it is because the public documentation available to me was
either implicit or I just do not understand what the author of the approach
was getting at (me bad). I am not sure what business/technology approach you
use, but it would be interesting to see if you could map it to any other, as
I have demonstrated. Regards
5) What do you mean as "planning process" -
management of life cycle of a solution or management of work to be done to
create this solution or mixture of them? In any case, it is necessary to
separate them explicitly. See http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.bg/2018/01/better-architecting-with-explicit.html
Charles
Meyer Richter, more information can be available
for you if you join "a pool of system experts". Of course, the goal
is to improve this approach. I can put you in contact with the convenor of
the working group.
My
response:
Alexander SAMARIN thank you for your comment. Unfortunately I have more
pressing needs to join this group. I already have The Ripose Information
Architecture Group (TRIAG). As I am more than just a system expert (but an
information expert) I can see no real benefit to me to join any other group.
If anyone wants to learn my efficient & effective approach to both types
of planning, all they need to do is ask to join TRIAG. I am simply looking
for candidates who have the capability of learning how to become a Ripose
grade 0. Regards (edited)
6) POET (and PEAF) have defined this some years ago.
Read this and the
next page The way to do it is to use the fundamental ontologies
defined in PF2 and part of that is defining what any framework is composed
of..
·
My
response:
Kevin (INTJ-Plant) Smith Thank you for all your 3 responses. They are off topic,
which I need to remind everyone was "Has anyone ever thought of being
able to compare any planning process with any other?" I have now
completed this task (I wonder if anyone else has tried?) so my thanks to
everyone for their contribution. Hence: 1) I will not be using this topic to
explain Ripose with any one. I have all the research I need as to why I can
use Ripose as a benchmark in order to: 1.1) Compare my approach to yours. I
found they are not compatible whatsoever 1.2) Compare any approach to any
other 2) Obtain the material I need to write Book 2 & 3 of my eBook 3)
Seek funding to find 9 more people who may be interested in learning how I
become a Ripose grade 0 architect & to become one themselves - they will
need my training in the technique & how to use Caspar 4) I can also
demonstrate how a RA0 could use any approach making them more efficient &
effective than they were designed. But why bother when Ripose has the
capability already built into its design If you (or anyone) want to continue
any dialogue with me either do it through commenting on the appropriate articles
or via email (my email address is on my web site). Regards
7) Charles
Meyer Richter @Charles: "They are off topic,
which I need to remind everyone was "Has anyone ever thought of being
able to compare any planning process with any other?" You can either
learn PEAF and comapre it to yours or I can learn yours and compare it to
PEAF. You supplied a long list of things that I needed to do. I did them all,
and none of them helped me understand your approach (which is the first step
for me to be able to compare it to PEAF. @Charles: "Has anyone ever
thought of being able to compare any planning process with any other?"
Yes. It was done some years ago and is embodied in POET. (I won't send the
links again as I think it would start us down the same rabbit hole)
Member
response: PF/POET/PEAF constitute a very useful
comprehensive, layered, conceptual framework/metamodel for the EA domain.
Charles
Meyer Richter Dave Lush I previously said read this in the next 10 pages and then
forgot to give you the link so here's the
link fpf snapping to POET ZACHMAN
TOGAF COBIT ITIL etc
My
response:
Kevin (INTJ-Plant) Smith Thank you for your reply which contained the phrase
"If you want me to map PEAF to something else ...". If I could map
Ripose to the approaches I mentioned then I do not see why you need me to
define all the terms. All these approaches have been documented on the web.
So if you have the time, why not do your own research. After all who knows
PEAF better than you. Suggestion: Start off by creating a spread sheet with 3
rows & 5 columns: Column headings Domain; Step; Focus; Deliverables;
State; Links Rows 1) heading with column names Column 1 row 2) Business row
3) Technology Step is the sequence number of the process you need to focus on
Focus is the name of the process Deliverable is the output you will receive
after the step is completed State is whether the deliverable is implicit
(fuzzy) or explicit (complete in its own right) Links shows the previous step
number that helped create the deliverable Then go through your approach and
fill in the rows Regards
8) By the way Pragmatic EA have just announced that the latest
release of PEAF (and also POET) can be learned for FREE by enrolling in our
self study PEAF Certification course (including certification - exams are
administered online in realtime and marked by me personally) The main entry
page for our training is here From there, people just click the "More Details"
link under the Self Study Option, which will take them to here
with course details etc. From there then just need to click
the "Order Here" link and then enter their details.
My
response:
Kevin (INTJ-Plant) Smith thank you for this. I explained the purpose of my post in a
response of mine to another one of your comments. It is not to discuss any
approach but to how to compare approaches. Regards
9) Charles, I have developed a model which was mapped to all
the major EA tools. Yes, It’s imperative to reach and translate amongst the
various architecture methodologies and tools including Sciences when we can.
My
response:
Perhaps you should create a post
and share your findings. I would of course be interested to see your model.
Lisa
response:
How would I get access to your
tools.
My
response
Lisa Marie Martinez Before you can get to use Caspar, you will need to be trained.
I have provided free
access to iCaspar, which deals with the business Goals
and enables you to do a SWOT analysis.
Back
***********************************
20 Mar 2018
DIKW triangle
The debate on Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom rages
on
On the 11 Feb 2009, an author by the name of Gowry stated the
following in one of her blogs; “Data, Information, and Knowledge are the
fundamental concepts in the creation of knowledge management in the
organizational achievements. Further, these three valuable concepts are the
capital and communication facts in an organization”
She then went on to examine 17 references as to what other individuals
suggested these 3 fundamental concepts meant and provided her opinion as to
the veracity of the suggestions. I have now diagnosed the 17 respondents and
an interesting pattern emerged. Of the 17 opinions: 4 refer to Information, 1
to knowledge and 12 to data. Not one referred to RL Ackoff’s DIKW triangle.
However with a little bit of extrapolation this could soon be remedied.
To read my full diagnosis please see
Back
***********************************
20 Mar 2018
My future
All hailing frequencies open
What a coincident. Both Stephen Hawkins & Albert Einstein passed
away at 76.
I'm 5 years away from their age-of-death. Perhaps it's time to
redouble my efforts to propagate Ripose. I've the Technique & software to
support it. To carry out my plan I will require the following:
1) 10 trained Ripose grade 0 architects
2) A CEO who wants to build a multi-million dollar company
3) A marketing executive who is not afraid of taking on the likes of
TOGAF, Zachman, Design Thinkers & Data modellers
4) A sales executive who'll work with the marketing executive to
overcome the resistance to an idea whose time has to come
5) An investor who likes this idea (a preliminary budget is available)
The key to this success is finding 9 more good people. People who are:
1) Willing to:
1.1) Learn
1.2) Take the leap of faith that the money will be there
2) Unafraid of dumping the inefficient & ineffective theories
& ideologies of the so called 'best practice' approaches
The core document (the 'sizzle') is now complete. It describes the
Ripose pathway & compares 7 'best practice' approaches (showing why
Ripose is the better option). The 'steak' needs the 5 missing ingredients.
Anyone up for the challenge?
All hailing frequencies closed
Ripose: A
journey of discovery
Back
***********************************
20 Mar 2018
Simple objectives
On the 26th Feb 2018, a friend of mine shared a link on Face book that
presented a list containing 23 items that represented a "simple formula
for living". I further refined this list and rearranged the 'items' as
measurements of personal values that will benefit all stakeholders and produced
a purpose statement.
Please see this link for the
final analysis
Here's a challenge: Use any enterprise architecture approach to
improve on what I can do with Ripose. It took me all of 30 minutes to refine
these 23 items. Can you do better?
Back
***********************************
20 Feb 2018
Intertestuality implicitness
Having just read a post on yet another viewpoint as to what an
enterprise is composed of or 'architected' (in that case it was called a
'firm'), I wrote a comment which I now want to go on my record. I stated:
"As a veteran of 47+ years in the field
of business and IT, I keep looking for someone else's way of expressing
'information' in a clear and concise manner (explicitly) rather than using
all the 'flowery' (implicit) language expressed by so few.
If I were as eminent as the late Winston Churchill, perhaps I could
have come up with the phrase to match his "Never was so much owed by so
many to so few". Mine would state 'Never was so much implicitness
bestowed upon so many by so few'."
Regards
Back
***********************************
20 Feb 2018
Information – do no harm
Is today’s marvellous technology causing more harm than good?
Use any search engine to find answers to a query & is likely to
find millions if not billions of references. Has anyone got the time to find
the most reliable ‘information’? What about ‘Fake’ news? Examples:
1) SE: Use ‘information’ to find over 3 billion references:
1.1) Google’s 1st ref defined it as: “Facts provided or learned about
something or someone” & “What is conveyed or represented by a particular
arrangement or sequence of things”
1.2) Wikipedia: “Information is that which informs” & then goes on
to explain it in terms of only data & knowledge, omitting 3 other
important factors
2) Fake news: Because something is propagated via any medium does not
necessarily mean it “tells the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the
truth”. Example: the Hippocratic Oath. How many people believe that it
contains the words “First, do no harm"? According to my source, these
explicit words do not appear in the translation from Greek to English.
Perhaps some ‘marketing’ person decided that this was the way to ‘sell’ it
Regards
Back
***********************************
20 Feb 2018
Model – Data or knowledge
A challenge for data and knowledge management experts,
So you think I know nothing about conceptual or logical modelling
& you know everything! Given these 3 business rules:
1) A Person may be a Customer
2) An Organisation may be a Customer
and
3) A Customer has to be a Person or an Organisation but cannot be both
Could you display these rules in graphical notation (use whatever
modelling tools you like) and use 1 or more of the following approaches:
1) Venn diagram with set theory
2) Entity relationship
3) 3-dimensional Graphical display
4) Role modelling
5) Knowledge modelling
If it took me about an hour to produce all 5, then as an expert data
or self-proclaimed knowledge management modeller it should not take you any
longer.
If you really want a challenge, develop a database schema for each. If
you do not have the capability, ask an expert database designer to accomplish
this.
I can guarantee you that you will need all 5 approaches to prove which
design delivers the optimum database design. If you manage this exercise, you
could tackle the following paraprosdokian: Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a
fruit. Wisdom is not putting in a fruit salad. This challenge should test
your mettle as an enterprise architect as well as a knowledge management
expert
Regards
Back
***********************************
20 Feb 2018
Dream: Plan: Experience
Having now completed the first edition of Book 1 of my eBook 'Dream:
Plan: Experience' I thought of this for
a book cover.
Back
***********************************
20 Feb 2018
My DevOps experience
Just for the record. In 1980 I bought my first personal computer, the
Apple IIe (see photo). The only operating system that came with it at that
time was UCSD Pascal. It was smaller and more powerful than the Nixdorf 820.
With these two pieces of technology, I developed a general ledger
system to assist me with the recording of financial transactions which helped
me reduce my accountant's bill.
In 1983 I developed a video store recording system.
In 1984 I used the technology to help me prototype Information
Engineering's data dictionary system which was later developed on an IBM
personal computer using UCSD Pascal as well.
In 1989 I used a Macintosh SE computer with the Apple operating system
and the Omnis 7 integrated development environment (a database engine and
code platform to develop screens and reports) to develop my strategic
planning and IT project planning engines.
In 1993 I changed my development platform to the IBM pc as it was
cheaper than the Mac. In 1999 I upgraded the IDE to Omnis 3.3 and redeveloped
my 2 planning engines.
In 2010 I developed an allied health booking and accounts receivable
system which ran across the internet using a VPN.
All this was done on the 'smell of an oily rag'.
Regards
Back
***********************************
Feb 2018
My first mini computer
In 1972 I was employed by Nixdorf Computers in Johannesburg and programmed their Series
820 computer (see photo) using the Nixdorf assembler language.
Whilst it looked more elegant than any other mini computer on the
market (more than 46 years ago) the chaotic nature of the program wiring
system (bottom left) made changes very difficult and sometimes very costly.
The more things change the more they stay the same. The only
difference between then and now is miniaturisation, however, the methods of
planning how to turn a dream into a worthwhile experience is represented by
that wiring panel, as chaotic now as it was then.
Back
***********************************
Jan 2018
Projects – successes &
failures
On the 7th Dec, I published my article 'Dream: Plan: Experience'. I
mentioned I was going to write a book with the same title & have now
completed the table of contents (see www.ripose.org/dpe) which will ultimately
deliver my promise.
This is a work in progress & will take time to complete. However,
my main thesis on how to build a better plan is currently available (has been
since 1989). The software support (AI) component was 1st released in 1990
(using the Omnis 7 IDE) & rewritten in 1999 (using the Omnis Studio IDE)
& is available.
My original book was self-published in 1994, the first courses were
developed in 1995 & the first of the training courses revamped in 20I7.
I keep asking myself the question: Why do I persist?
It appears that everyone else who developed an approach to solving the
planning enigma, claims their approach works. Yet there is ample proof that
they fail to achieve their promise.
So (other than financial rewards) why are the followers of these
approaches so 'gullible' when the rates of failure exceed the rates of
success?
I persevere because I know what causes these failures (not just the
symptoms) & perhaps 1-day others may be 'brave' enough to want to learn
how to avoid the traps.
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jan 2018
Information and music
Is there a similarity between a composer writing a body of work for an
orchestra and an information architect designing a body of work for an
enterprise?
Please see my article
Responses:
1) Not nearly having as much knowledge as you
have about information architecture, I have started reading the material you
provided. I really enjoyed the text "running a physical process against
a conceptual or logical object can lead to irrational results". How
translation protocols work and what all the models you provided have to do
with this, remains a mystery for me for now. Maybe you can educate me on
this. Cynefin works in my context of safety, but I'm not sure how it works
for information architecture.
My
response:
Martijn Flinterman MSc Thank you for your reply. information architecture covers
every facet of business, including safety. My passion is to demystify the
meaning behind the enigmatic word called 'information'. As long as others
keep 'filling the swamp' with alligators' (in this case to keep propagating
the use of planning practices like those described in my article) rather than
trying to drain the swamp, my work will never accomplish anything. Does this
worry me? Not really! My life no longer depends on me 'winning popularity
races' against competitors who claim that their 'dongle' is bigger and better
than mine. I can prove everything I say and write. I doubt that my
competitors can do the same. They have had between 25 and 30 years to prove
their case and yet I am able to find a number of glitches in their approach.
To date, I am yet to find anyone discovering a single problem with mine. Then
again 'ignorance is bliss'. If you want to learn anything from me, all you
have to do is decide what part of information you interested in and go from
there. I have courses for all the grades. Regards
2) Very interesting
Charles! Working in safety and quality management, I focus on understanding
and closing the gap between the intentions of the composer (who's not on
stage) and the way the musicians perform. The conductor's (supervisor) role
is very important as well. I'd like to make distinctions between a simple,
complicated, complex and chaotic (Snowden's Cynefin) orchestra environment
too.
·
My
response:
Jos Villevoye Thank you for your reply. Personally, I have never liked
Jazz. To me, it is about making things up along the way and expecting
accompanists to keep up. Then again it seems to me that most people plan
strategically like playing jazz. No wonder the world is so 'noisy'. Regards
Back
***********************************
Dec 2017
Planning traps
So you think you know how to plan. Or are you making it up as you go
along?
Genres of planning There are 2 distinct genres of planning methods
namely, ‘top-down’ (aka ‘strategic planning’) & ‘bottom-up’ (aka ‘project
planning’).
Planning traps
a) Top-down method - ‘paralysis by analysis’
b) Bottom-up approach - ‘a death by a thousand cuts’
Avoidance
To avoid either of these traps, it is vital that you find & choose
an approach that integrates both approaches & bypasses both of these
insidious traps.
Planning failure symptoms
Irrespective of which planning method you choose, there are a number
of common symptoms. Some of these are (Forbes researcher):
1) Having a plan simply for the sake of having one
2) Not understanding the environment
3) Not having the right people
4) 'Shelf life' of the plan
5) A ‘straight jacket’ plan
6) Wrong people in the wrong job
7) Ignoring reality
8) No accountability
9) Unrealistic (or implicit) objectives
Causes of planning failures
Here are 5 causes that produce the above symptoms:
1) Implicit deliverables
2) Incorrect starting process
3) Implicit business models which do not suit the business needs
4) Time wasted on wrong follow up steps
5) The cost of producing the implicit deliverables
Regards
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
Why Ripose?
At long last someone asked me a very pertinent question: 'What makes
me think the processes I am recommending are universal'?
Answer: My experience & expertise spanning 20 years of research
& practice in the domains of coding, program specification, database
design, systems analysis, business analysis, project management, course
development, training & strategic planning, followed by over 2 decades of
practice & development.
I am more of a practitioner than a theoretician.
1) In 1977 I so disagreed with the practices of structured analysis
& structured design but it was not until I discovered the MA Jackson
approach to program design that the pieces began to fall into place as how to
replace the 'waterfall' SASD approach
2) In 1982 I joined Information Engineering & by late 1987 I was
thoroughly disillusioned & decided to find a better approach to:
2.1) Using normalisation techniques to design databases
2.2) The 'iterative' RAD approach to designing systems
In 1989 I designed that better approach & in 1990 I wrote the
compilers to support 'my' processes. It enables all who use it to avoid
falling into 'black holes' by providing them with a safe, fully integrated
& rapid processing 'platform' that sits on the 'event horizon'.
Regards
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
Am I mad?
I have been called mad, biased, ill-informed, ignorant (plus a few
more derogatory adjectives) by 'so-called' professionals and 'experts' in the
field of enterprise architecture and quality assurance (notably Six Sigma).
I have been told I know nothing about systems theory, strategic
planning, digital transformation, value-chains, block-chains, business
canvases not to mention a plethora of ea approaches, so I decided to
write one more article to explain what I view a 'system' to be and to
demonstrate that I am neither mad, ignorant nor ill-informed. Biased I may
be, but then who would not be?
After 47+ years, putting up with the 'nonsensical' (making no sense)
utterings of not only the plethora of ea approaches but also the illogical,
ineffective and overly complicated IT solutions to implementing the implicit
ea (and their derivative approaches) I have come to the conclusion that LI is
probably not the forum for me.
Am I 'spitting the dummy'? Not sure at this moment. There are a few
'adults' on LI so I may stick around for a while longer.
My highly probably last article can be read at this link (updated 20
Oct 2017)
Regards
Responses:
1) Without a method, planned process or
education, people only work in chaos and ad hoc (maturity level 1). If you
undergo surgery you also like that there is a method or planned process. If
people design and build your new smartphone, they use a method or plannend
process. If people try to educate your children, they use a method or planned
process, or when they design an airplane or build a nuclear plant. The big
problem in EA is that practice has shown that some methods and frameworks
just don't work and that the definitions they use are very much flawed
(TOGAF, ArchiMate, etc..) and that consultancy firms behind
these methods and frameworks are not improving their consultancy products
(they call method or framework) fast & good enough. Even in science EA
has managed to get some nonsense articles published which does not help to
advance the community. So in EA we need several true (competing) open methods
and frameworks that are improvements based on practice that WORKS! I hope
Bizbok will be one of them. I really hope ArchiMate will move to OMG and ISO
one day and becomes valuable again. With Dragon1 we try to provide a true
open EA method next year that is under influence of the practitioners for
improvement.
My
response:
Mark Paauwe Thanks for this. I have no doubt that the 'intention' of
every approach is 'well-meaning'. The problem as I see it is expressed in
your last 4 paragraphs: 1) "Improvements based on practice that
WORKS" - I am yet to see how by starting with a wrong assumption, any
approach will work well. I have no doubt that a screw could be 'manipulated'
with a 'hammer' rather than a 'screwdriver', but in the end, the construction
will fall apart 2) Hoping is not a recipe for success: 2.1) BizBok is too
disjointed & just not mature enough 2.2) Archimate was built on UML
technology which was an automation of the failed data flow diagrams of
structured analysis & structured design - if only the developers of UML
had automated the MA Jackson approach or even pseudo code 2.3) ISO is not
good enough 3) 'Trying' is all well & good. I've no doubt that you
deliver. How do you 'back service' previous customers? What words of
assurance can you give them that the version you used on them was just as
good? The great pity is that I was the one who actually delivered a fully
integrated BITGF(a). It is not my fault that no one was (or is) willing to
listen. Regards a) BITGF - Business-IT gap filler
2) Charles, here is a short story - #1: I am on the market for
relatively long time and have seen many JD - no one asked for Six Sigma
skills. # 2: when Business Process Manages found that nobody is interested in
how the processes work, they (BPM) started create fantasies that processes
are adaptable, flexible and so on. Nothing of the mind. The Six Sigma guise
know for sure that all their process optimisation worth nothing if the
outcome is the same. This is why 5 years ago experts agreed that each
business process is a business service to is consumers (who only care about
the outcome and not how the work is done). Those who do not know or
understand this are "mad, biased, ill-informed, ignorant (plus a few
more derogatory adjectives), know nothing about systems theory, strategic
planning, digital transformation, value-chains, block-chains, business
canvases not to mention a plethora of EA approaches". It is already
funny to hear any critics from 'so-called' professionals and 'experts' EA,
who for so many years cannot a) explain what EA is; b) why they still have
difficulties to convince corporate business in the EA value; and c) why EA
are the first candidates for layoff when the company restructuring
My
response:
Michael Poulin of
Clingstone Ltd. thank you for your response. The question
I now have to ask: Is the 'cure' worse than the 'disease'? Medical
practitioners who provide the wrong 'cure' for either the right or wrong
'disease', 'bury' their mistakes. Eventually, the right 'cure' will be found
and hopefully, many will survive. Business process practitioners who provide
the wrong 'cure' due to not fully understanding the 'disease' destroy more
lives (including their own). Eventually, even when the right 'cure' is
recognised, few may survive. This reminds me 2 types of 'cures': 1) The
'Scorpion and the Frog animal fable' - the 'frog' is analogous to the
business operative and the 'scorpion' the IT practitioner 2) Rome burning
while Nero fiddled - 'Rome' is analogous to the business operative and 'Nero'
the IT practitioner The 'disease' is the gap between the understanding of
needs and wants of the business operatives and IT The 'cure' is the plethora
of approaches built on the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers,
Charlemagne, Drs Deming, Drucker and Codd. Perhaps I am mad! (But mad as in
being 'cross') Regards
3) I am not an expert in my field, but you are not a dummy. In
fact your ideas gives us all food for thought! Most people dont like to think
:)
My
response:
Joel-Ahmed M. Mondol thank you for your kind sentiments. It would appear that
not many people want to 'know' either. Which is why I wrote my article
"Thinking Vs Knowing". It is a pity that those who disagree with me
think they know why they do what they do. Most of them are
'Johnny-come-lately' types and will actually do more harm than good. Still, I
am not here to 'save' anyone, merely to voice an opinion as how to do things
better. Regards
4) Charles Meyer Richter I liked your comment on Michael
Porter, I think it is required reading.
My
response:
Peter Bachman Thank you for this comment. I am going to assume that you
are referring to my mentioning Michael Porter in my "Ally of my
ally" article in which: 1) I Provide a link to the Wikipedia which
states "Porter has been criticized by some academics for inconsistent
logical argument in his assertions....." 2) Refers to the article in
Forbes (link provided) which reported that in Nov 2012, The Monitor Group he
co-founded went into bankruptcy Either way, how can anyone trust
'value-chains' or 'value-streams'? My suggestion (which will probably be
ignored) is to identify & explicitly define the following: 1) What
'information' is - I have, see my work on the 'anatomy of information' 2)
Where a 'value' fits in the'information' spectrum - I did this 3) How many
'values' an enterprise requires - 11 4) What the specific 'values' are - I
not only did this but also encapsulated them under their appropriate 'benefit'
Thus far I am yet to see a single approach that handles this issue with any
degree of certainty, yet they want their practitioners & their client to
'trust' them. All I can do is wish them the best of luck. They may yet
succeed, but somehow I doubt it, as their foundations are built on unstable
ground. Regards
5) So ... you're telling us you're ... not ... mad, then? :)
Amen. EA is ripe with people who think method over anything else, who feed
off putting other people down who don't share their narrow and stupid views.
I'm in the same boat in the world of ux and ea as a whole, it's like the
girls is obsessed with giving name to every part of a fixed process or system
and thinking the order, specification and function of each part is more
important than ... the problem were trying to solve.
My
response:
Alexander Johannesen thank you for your comment. What makes me appear to be
'mad' is that I keep wondering why so many people seem to be so 'gullible'
when it comes to either understanding processes or even what the 'problem'
is: 1) I read an article praised by a few on 'An introduction to
cybernetics" as if it is the precursor to any ea's understanding. The
book was written by a medical practitioner in 1957 & starts with 'change'
but does not begin to address the basic input & output artefacts
('information') needed to bring about the first process in the cycle of
'change' 2) The doyens of strategic planning made some major miscalculations,
yet so many ea approaches keep using their work as the starting point for
their practice 3) The doyens of database design construction approaches made
many a blunder yet their work is praised & constantly used 4) The doyens
of UML based their approach on the flawed concepts of the doyens of SA&ST
- aka use case from data flow diagrams 5) The doyens of quality assurance
techniques made some fundamental errors in their processing cycle, yet no one
seems to care 6) Programmers are able to hide business requirements in
computer code yet senior management do not seem to have a clue Regards
(edited)
6) Charles - If I may, there appears to be an error in your formula
near the top of Page 3: "I will now use the formula Strategies are equal
to Objectives times strategies squared (or S=OK2) to calculate this
number." Maybe this should read "I will now use the formula
Strategies are equal to Objectives times Knowledge squared (or S=OK2) to calculate
this number."
My
response:
John
O'Gorman Thank you for noticing this. I have made
the appropriate change. Your comment made me re-edit my document (written at
3:00 am yesterday) by adding a few more links to some previous articles of
mine.
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
The gap
After years of diagnosing the thinking behind the way developers went
about deciding which came first the ‘chicken or the egg’ when it came to
designing an approach to fill the gap between business requirements and
information technology solutions (BITGF) I have finally cracked the ‘egg’.
I can now sum it all up by using those immortal words spoken by Maggie
Smith in the movie ‘The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie’ when she spoke the words
"Dear Miss Brodie, I hope it will be convenient for you to see me in my
office this afternoon at 4:15. Emily Mackay. Four fifteen. Not four, not four
thirty, but four fifteen. Hmm. She thinks to intimidate me by the use of
quarter hours”.
I can now liken ‘Miss MacKay’ to all the existing mainstream
approaches (*) by seeking to maintain the status quo of the BITG (*) by
stating ‘We hope it will be convenient for you all to develop solutions by
continuing to ignore the true nature of information by brainstorming
strategies directly after brainstorming objectives. Hmm. They think they can
intimidate me by the use of brainstorming techniques’.
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
Model a paraprosdokian
On the 22 Sep 2017, I posted a statement that provided the
'paraprosdokian' (*) “Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not
putting it in a fruit salad”.
As everyone has at least once in their lives, made a fruit salad, can
anyone, using their enterprise/business capabilities, build 2 simple models
in less than 1 hour, using a pencil & 1 A4 sheet of paper to address this
in order to provide any would-be chef with the 'information' showing them how
to make a fruit salad? (**) You can use either a:
1) 'Knowledge' model & 'business objectives' model;
Or
2) 'Data' model with any approach you want to use ('value-chain';
'business canvas'; 'balanced scorecard'; TOGAF; ZF et al)
This may be a pithy or simplistic example, but if you cannot solve
this relatively benign simple problem, how can you (even with collaborators)
solve very complex business problems & create AI applications?
Regards
'Paraprosdokian' - look it up if it is still an unknown
** I am offering a prize of $100 (Australian) to the first person who
comes up with an answer in the allotted time frame. Yes there is an explicit
answer using 2 models & I have it, otherwise, I would not have asked this
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
Knowledge & Wisdom
On the 22 Sep 2017, I posted a statement that provided the
'paraprosdokian' (*) “Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not
putting it in a fruit salad”.
Perhaps it is now time to show the link between ‘knowledge’ and
‘wisdom’:
1) Wisdom is a benefit to us all
2) ‘Knowledge’ is achieved through observation, experience, expertise
and techniques gained from being able to ‘measure’ the ‘values’ we gain from
that which ‘benefits’ us achieve our ‘purpose’
Hence I can establish the link between ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ and am
able to express this relationship as a mathematical formula which can then be
proven to be valid or invalid, true or false. Try working this out with any
other approach (*).
Regards *
ps
1) paraprosdokian - "a figure of speech in which the latter part
of a sentence, phrase, or larger discourse is surprising or unexpected in a
way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first
part"
2) I am offering a prize of $50 (Australian) to the first person who
explains if they can see anything wrong with the words and the layering of
them in the upside-down triangle. If you think it is 100% right, please prove
your assumption. Perhaps my diagnostic template will help.
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
Knowledge? What is it?
Is knowledge:
1) ‘processed data’
2) ‘processed information’
3) perhaps “Business-knowledge covers all design characteristics of
the business needed to create, operate, manage, and change its value chains,
as well as to evaluate their performance. It also covers underlying business
capabilities and enabling resources (financial, human, facilities, equipment,
etc.) on which value chains depend”. By the way, does anyone fully understand
what this rhetoric means? Strangely enough, I do, but in order to fully
understand it, be prepared to diagnose the sentence; find at least 4 keywords
and find which of the keyword actually defines 'knowledge'
I will now define knowledge using a 'paraprosdokian' - "a figure
of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or
unexpected & is frequently humorous". Knowledge is knowing a tomato
is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad. Now try using this
proposition to prove whether any of the 3 above are actually valid.
Regards
ps the rhetoric actually tries to define 'information' rather than
'knowledge'
Back
***********************************
Oct 2017
Ego
Just read an article "Why 'Ego' is Destroying the Auto
Business" by Robert Liotti in which the below image appeared.
As an amateur mathematician, I see this equation, that is if it can be
regarded as an equation, as:
1) I = Ego times knowledge or
2) Knowledge = I divided by Ego
Not exactly a true representation or definition of what 'knowledge'
is.
Perhaps it is just meant to be a metaphor.
On a more serious note. I found a quote attributed to Dr Einstein in
which he was purported to have said “I am enough of the artist to draw freely
upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge
is limited. Imagination encircles the world”.
Perhaps if Dr Einstein had used his genius and discovered the formula
for ‘knowledge’ (and/or information/imagination and/or strategy) rather than
the formula for ‘energy’, the BITG (business IT gap) would have been filled a
long time ago
Just a thought.
Regards
Back
***********************************
20 Aug 2017 20 years too late
I am simply amazed! Within a few days, the Open Group announced their
new initiative "Towards a Digital Professional Body of Knowledge"
and the Zachman Institute their "Business Agility
Manifesto Building
for change" (which introduced the words 'business knowledge').
In the case of The:
1) Open Group (TOGAF) - their approach is introduced by using quotes
by Walter R. Fisher (about storytelling) and Eliel Saarman (about designing a
'thing')
2) Zachman Institute (the Zachman Framework) - they introduce their
approach with the opening statement "All initiatives must demonstrably
align with Management Imperatives"
Not bad! I not only tackled this enigma 27 years ago but also wrote an
AI engine to manage not only 'knowledge' but also 'information'. So having
already fully integrated both their initiatives, I am diametrically opposed
to both approaches. My best wishes for the practitioners of both techniques.
I hope the introduction of this artifact does not cause too many disruptions.
Regards
Back
***********************************
20 Aug 2017 Revisiting my ‘Ally of my ally’
Perhaps it is time to revisit my Nov 2015 article "The Ally of my Ally"!
I may have set a personal record. After being 'called out' twice this
week by members of my own network, perhaps it is time for them to review
their connection with me.
I'll hopefully no longer 'incur' their wrath by ceasing to comment on
their postings & articles unless specifically asked to.
What both my esteemed colleagues (& others) have probably failed
to realise is that:
1) I started work on my framework back in 1984. A time when there were
hardly any explicit ‘frameworks’, no internet & I lived in the 'Antipodes'
2) I developed my framework in1989/90 & wrote the AI compilers
3) I tested my theories over the next 27 years & others found them
highly workable
4) As I now had a baseline I was able to compare other frameworks
5) They sought me out (probably) knowing that our approaches would
clash
6) I have no interest in swaying anybody who is so entrenched in their
approach
7) My only interest is to ponder as to why they are so adamant that
they are right & I'm wrong
8) I do not dispute their 'successes'. Where is their AI to assist
others?
Perhaps it is time for them to stop 'busting my head' & if they do
not like what I write, simply ignore, mute, disconnect or prove me wrong.
Regards
Back
***********************************
Aug 2017
BizBok
Following on from my previous comparison of the Operating model canvas
I now ask the question: Which integrates better? Perhaps I should be asking:
which provides the better 'governance' capability?
From my viewpoint the BizBOK covers 'Objectives', 'Strategies', a
minute amount of 'Knowledge', an equally minute amount of ‘Prototyping’ and
adds the inexplicit topic/artifact of 'Information' but leaves the rest of
the integration to other approaches. Approaches which are now able take the
outputs from the BizBOK to use as inputs into their processes. I may continue
with this campaign to use this form of comparison with a few more approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the BizBOK approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?; Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Aug 2017
Digital transformation strategy
I saw a post which presented this graphic. When I tried to comment
& as LinkedIn developers, removed the 'Home' icon from the 'menu' bar,
when I tried to navigate to another comment I made not only did I lose the
words I had typed, but on refreshing the main page, this post disappeared.
THANK you LinkedIn.
My comment was: I fail to see how these 'digital' considerations
differ from those of the 'analogue' approaches. Perhaps I am missing
something. They all seem to use the same words & seem to have ignored
what, imho, is the most crucial of all components.
Perhaps the newer generations (born after 1959) are so disillusioned
with the approaches designed by the older generations (before 1960) that they
decided to invent their ‘digital, social media’ type approach based on the
same foundations as those of the ‘analogue’ approaches.
If the ‘digital' or 'analogue' age developers went back to basics
& examined the raw inputs, processes and outputs used in each
stage/phase/step (call them what you like) they'll soon find out if they find
themselves (or their practitioners) in a perpetual loop trying to sort out
the inputs, processes & outputs instead of solving the problem, that is
if they even know what the original problem was.
Just a thought
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017 Objectives
I think we all agree that objectives are the number one artifact that
consumes much of senior management’s time. Every approach I diagnosed showed
this.
All approaches use brainstorming techniques to identify said
artifacts. Some, such as Balanced Scorecard, Business Model Canvas or Operating
Model Canvas, use the more formal mind focusing approach, but the aim is
still to collect the ideas.
So here is a challenge: I will provide you with 36 business objectives
created by a practitioner using the Balanced Scorecard approach. Your task is
to:
1) Find any duplicates which could reflect redundancies &
2) Use some of these objectives to formulate a purpose for the
business I will offer a prize of Australian $100 to the first person who
comes up with a reasonable purpose statement that matches or betters mine.
In the course that I teach I show how to further refine the remaining
statements into a more workable & formalised format enabling the
practitioner to identify a 'hashtag#tag' for each (those of you like solving
crossword puzzles or semantic modeling should find this a breeze) & to
carry out a SWOT analysis.
Objectives
Customer:
Be a financial success
Provide a selection only of popular brands and models with sufficient
margins
Make shopping with us easy
Provide easy access and parking
Professional service and logistics
Best-in-town finance package
Same-day delivery service
Competitive, but not the lowest prices in
the area
Financial:
Create greater value to shareholder than competing investments would
Increase shareholder dividend
Improve return on capital employed (ROCE)
Improve operating profit
Reduce capital employed
Pay our bills and mortgages on time
Internal:
Chose the right products
Always a free parking spot
Deliver top customer service
Deliver the right products to the right address on time
Chose the right bank or finance institution
Deliver the right products to the right address on time
Reduce customer credit time
Reduce invoicing time
Chose the right products
Hire new product manager
Reduce customer credit time
Reduce invoicing time
Learning:
Develop system for better product management (ABC-method)
Hire new product manager
Change compensation scheme for sales personnel to reflect product
profit margins
Acquire & develop more parking space at the north side mall
Retrain staff in customer care and service
Implement next level logistics system
Increase small vehicle pool
Increase no. Of drivers
Develop system for better product management (ABC-method)
Develop point-of-sale invoicing routine
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017 Operating canvass
Following on from my previous comparison of one form of Enterprise
Architecture I now ask the question: Which integrates better? Perhaps I
should be asking: which provides the better 'governance' capability?
From my viewpoint the Operation Model Canvas (OMC) covers
'Objectives', 'Strategies' and a minute amount of 'Knowledge' but leaves the
rest of the integration to other approaches. Approaches which are now able
take the outputs from the OMC to use as inputs into their processes.
I may continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
a few more approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the OMC approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
June 2017 Enterprise architecture model 1
Following on from my previous comparison of one form of Digital
Transformation, I now ask the question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint the Enterprise Architecture model that uses this
approach (EA1) only covers 'Objectives', 1 class of 'Knowledge' (please
see my next comment) , 'Strategies', 'Prototype' and 'Solutions' but
leaves the rest of the integration to other approaches. Approaches which are
now able take the outputs from EA1 to use as inputs into their processes.
I may continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
a few more approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the EA1 approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
My apologies but I missed the 1 class of 'Knowledge' that this
approach contains, i.e. 'Capability'. As this is the first approach that
tries to find the 'concept' of 'knowledge', I have put on my diagnostician's
hat in order to find out what caused the word 'Capability' to become a 'piece
of knowledge'. My proof is:
I will start with a definition of 'Capability' which is "An
aptitude that may be developed'. So:
1) A defn of the word Aptitude is "Inherent ability"
1.1) A defn of the word 'inherent' is "Existing as an essential
constituent or characteristic". For something to 'exist', it must be
'noun'. To be a piece of 'knowledge' it must be a noun (or gerund), pose a
question & provide an answer
1.2) A defn of the word 'ability' is "The quality of being able
to perform; a quality that permits or facilitates achievement or
accomplishment"
1.2.1) To be able to 'perform' one has to have a skill (a defn
"Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain". So a 'Skill'
is an 'Activity' which poses the question 'How?' & skills are developed
through experience and expertise
1.2.2) 'Achievement/accompishment' are synonyms & can be
summarised by the word 'Offering' which poses the question 'What?
So, a 'Capability' is a piece of 'knowledge' It poses the question
'How to do What?' & answers it.
This is
part of a course I teach anyone who is willing and able to learn from me. It
not only introduces the 23 fundamental knowledge classes (aka entities) that
pose the 23 questions & provides the answers but also how to use 'common
sense' (to expand the 23 into the large number of business entities needed to
satisfy the business' requirements) rather than using normalisation, Object
Orientation or Semantic modeling (or a combination of the 3). The AI set of
compilers I have built provides the capability of not having to play with a
CAD tool to try and place the entities in their appropriate spot and avoid
the myriad of crossed lines that will occur due to the development of
hierarchies and relational joins.
This course
together with the Objectives & Strategy courses will help defuse the
legacy system time 'e-bomb' as the 'legacy' artifact provides the 23rd
fundamental entity which poses the question 'Is there a more efficient,
effective and easier way to to replace the inefficient, ineffective &
archaic databases of the past'?
All the
courses are fully integrated, that is to say, the outputs from each phase are
used as inputs to the next without any duplication or the need to translate
(transmogrify) a single piece of 'information'. This implements true
'governance' (a defn "the action or manner of governing a state,
organization, etc").
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017 Digital Transformation
Following on from my previous comparison of Agile, I now ask the
question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint Digital Transformation (DT) only covers
'Objectives', 'Strategies', 'Prototypes' and 'Solutions' but leaves the rest
of the integration to other approaches. Approaches which are now able take
the outputs from DT to use as inputs into their processes.
I may continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
a few more approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the DT approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Agile
Following on from my previous comparison of TOGAF, I now ask the
question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint Agile only covers 'Objectives', 'Strategies',
'Prototypes' 'Solutions' and Change but leaves the rest of the integration to
other approaches. Approaches which are now able take the outputs from Agile
to use as inputs into their processes.
I will continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
many other approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the Agile approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
TOGAF
Following on from my previous comparison of the Zachman Framework, I
now ask the question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint TOGAF only covers 'Objectives', 'Strategies',
'Prototypes' 'Solutions' and Change but leaves the rest of the integration to
other approaches. Approaches which are now able take the outputs from TOGAF
to use as inputs into their processes.
I will continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
many other approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the TOGAF approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Zachman
Following on from my previous comparison of the Balanced Scorecard, I
now ask the question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint the Zachman Framework (ZF) only covers 'Objectives',
'Strategies', 'Prototypes' and 'Solutions' but leaves the rest of the
integration to other approaches. Approaches which are now able take the
outputs from the ZF to use as inputs into their processes.
I will continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
many other approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the ZF approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Balanced scorecard
Following on from my previous comparison of the Business Process
Re-engineering, I now ask the question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint the Balanced Scorecard (BSc) only covers
'Objectives' and 'Strategies' but leaves the rest of the integration to other
approaches. Approaches which are now able take the outputs from the BSc to
use as inputs into their processes.
I will continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
many other approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the BSc approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Business Process Re-engineering
Following on from my previous comparison of the Business Model Canvas,
I now ask the question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint the Business Process Re-engineering cycle (BPR) only
covers 'Strategies', 'Prototyping', 'Solutions' and 'Change' but leaves the
rest of the integration to other approaches. Approaches which are now able
take the outputs from the BPR to use as inputs into their processes.
I will continue with this campaign to use this form of comparison with
many other approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the BPR approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
IPO
In my previous update I (implicitly) mentioned the 3 fundamental building
blocks used by any intelligent life form to build every object or mechanism
(be the mechanism animal, mineral, vegetable or an artificially intelligent
model created by an intelligent life). The 3 being:
1) Inputs
2) Processes
3) Outputs
After each process the question that has to be asked is: Is/was the
process reasonable (that is did it work and/or was it cost effective)? This
could start a chain of events that could cause a perpetual loop which will
never produce the original objective (that is if the original objective was
'reasonable').
Imho the following graphic (which I used in an article I published in
Oct 2016 called "Reduce
Feedback Loops") represents this notion of mine.
To ascertain whether any approach is capable of solving any problem,
you have to identify all the inputs to every process and ensure that the
output from one process is never duplicated by another process to produce a
similar or different output. This is the task of the diagnostician and not an
analyst. The architecting of the approach will depend entirely on the this.
Get this wrong and the cost to repair the damage will escalate.
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017 Business model canvas
My thanks to Martin Chesbrough for writing the
article "Process - the missing link in Business Model Innovation"
and to Allen Woods for commenting.
I now ask the question: Which integrates better?
From my viewpoint the Business Model Canvas (BMC) only covers
'business objectives' and leaves the rest of the integration to other
approaches. Approaches which are now able take the outputs from the BMC
to use as inputs into their processes.
I will now be embarking on a campaign to use this form of comparison
with many other approaches.
My final questions are:
1) How does the BMC approach plan to defuse the legacy system time
'e-bomb'?
Or
2) Is this going to be put in the too hard basket and left for others
to solve?
Regards
Responses:
1) One small remark - Canvas is in first case a framework, rather than
a model. It lays out ground for analysis... And secondly - both - are high
level abstractions that by no means could be used in real production. When it
comes to production Gant's diagram rules and Excel reigns! (And WBS is the
most important abbreviation in project management!)
My response:
Igor Topalov Thank you for your comment.
1) As a pedantic diagnostician, I
take my use of words & ontology very seriously. According to my research,
'model' & 'framework' are synonymous
2) Having a high level of
abstraction is good but these are too implicit. At some stage, the implicit
abstractions must be transformed into explicit examples & instances that
have a direct bearing on the business. What makes the whole process dangerous
is the BMC being placed in the hands of practitioners who:
2.1) do not know the business they
are dealing with & have to rely on the business operatives experience
& expertise to place the words they are dealing with in the right 'row'
& 'column' or
2.2) know the business but are
working with business operatives who:
2.2.1) Are relatively new to the
business & to the BMC & will follow blindly or
2.2.2 ) Know their business, are
able to place the right words in the right slot but want to know what the
next step is going to be
3) Therefore the BMC has to used
as a means of 'production'. It has inputs & outputs & the canvas is
the process
4) The use of Gantt charts are
fine but they are an arbitrary representation of arbitrary processes &
are on the whole too implicit
5) Spreadsheets may reign but they
are hardly the right tool as they are at most a single user tool &
requires an expert to use them
6) As for the WBS (I will assume
you mean the work breakdown structure), I agree with you. Which is why I used
it to pen my response. The unfortunate part about the WBS is that it does not
help eliminate redundancies
Summarising
all that we have both written, it looks like the BMC is not as useful as some
people make it out to be, as it will not produce repeatable & sustainable
outcomes.
Regards
2) Thank you for prompt and detailed response! Given
limitations of this form of media one shall imply that a lot of details are
being left outside.. I highly respect ontologies and accurate use of terms,
but, in my understanding Model and Framework have SLIGHTLY different purpose
and meaning. Once you extend them with synonyms, say, "skeleton"/or
"simplified" and "template"/"pattern"
(respectively) - that difference may become more obvious. I.e. (hereafter I
omit: in my subjective view) - model is something one creates/uses in order
to better understand process/object/event, and framework is something that
could be used as a tool to better organize process (either cognitive or a
material production). Model shall be VERY flexible, it shall allow to
bend/modify it, to perform experiments, etc... Framework - is more rigid
structure - that helps to build upon it, via using it as a template. Now we
coming to different stages of project execution. Model belongs to initial
phase - prototyping, then we use some framework for better analysis
(knowledge of business domain and sufficient experience are implied) -
analysis, templating, ten we have to rely on experience of person who will
execute WBS (yes, Work Breakdown structure), have it captured in spreadsheets
(common tool available/understandable to virtually anybody) and being tracked
via Gant's chart. So - of course it just obvious truth - but every phase of
intelligent human activity requires different tool, relies on proper
metaphor, and requires sufficient level of appropriate experience.
My
response:
Igor Topalov thank you for your reply. You are right and have every
right to hang on to your viewpoint. Imho to fully understand the differences
between a 'framework' and a 'model' one has to understand not only the
ontology of the terms but also the taxonomy and rules.
You have
(in a way) expressed your understanding of all 3 in your response and if you
now design an approach and tool around your thoughts, you may find the same
outcome as I did in 1989-1990.
To do this
(if you have the time, experience and expertise) you have to get all your
ideas in the right order at the right time. Or as Samuel Smiles, Mrs.
Isabella Beeton and Benjamin Franklin are purported to have stated "A
place for everything and everything in its place".
Good luck
with your endeavors
Regards
3) Charles,
I am struggling with your question "which integrates better". I
visited your website and I believe you are trying to piece together some form
of nirvana. Forgive me if I misunderstand you. Tools like BMC have been
successful (I believe) partly because they are conceptually simple ( so are
accessible to many) and highly targeted. Of course best selling books and
self promotion also help! RIPOSE is relatively unknown (at least to me) and
seems to be confused about what problem it is trying to solve. BSC and TOGAF
exist in different planes to my way of thinking. My advice would be stop
trying to integrate it all up-front and be prepared to work with a more fluid
environment, where people choose to use different combinations of tools and
methods for different purposes (BSC might work well for an existing business,
BMC for a new innovation, and TOGAF might be the right thing for a big,
complex IT shop integrating enterprise systems)
My response:
Martin Chesbrough Thank you for your comments & advice. Imho the word 'integration'
is key to understanding the 'nirvana' type structure I designed & built
1989-91 (a kind of Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe's 'babel fish', the
international translator you stuck in your ear) except mine was designed to
be used with a brain.
When I
started my data processing journey (1970 at 23 & in the backwaters of South Africa)
business systems theory was still in its infancy. For most of my career (up
to 1985) I was bombarded by concepts on systems theory (Structured Analysis
& Design, Business Systems Planning, Management By Objectives,
information Engineering & Strategic planning), project management &
database theory (Normalisation & Object Orientation). These disparate
techniques provided no 'natural' integration links. It was almost impossible
to find 'output' from one technique which could be used as 'input' to another
without having to translate &/or transmogrify the input by using complex
processes which only produced more complex 'output'.
This is why
between 1989/90 I designed & built Ripose together with its set of
compilers, which was my way of placing my experience & expertise (aka
intelligence) into an inanimate machine.
I do not
apologise for Ripose being 'unknown'. While I was undertaking my venture (in Australia),
I sought funding & collaboration but was summarily dismissed,
nevertheless I pursued my passion to bridge the gap (ie integrate) between
the view business operatives' had of their business & what the
technocrats decided to automate.
Good luck
if you & others think that other ideas (built on the techniques I
rejected) will defuse the system time 'e-bomb'. Unless you believe there is
no such problem!
4) Hi Charles, I think we are talking at cross purposes.
First of all I agree with you that there is a problem to solve. I also
agree with you in terms of your assessment of TOGAF and Zachman. I also
admire your passion and perseverance with RIPOSE. I hope you have success and
will continue to succeed in the future.
I used to be firmly in the information engineering camp but these days
I prefer to be adaptive and responsive to new ideas and approaches in solving
problems. 30 years ago it paid to be prescriptive in approaches for IT was
still in its infancy. I think the industry has matured and evolved so our
approaches to solving "system integration" problems has also
evolved.
I'd be interested in whether there are any anthropological studies of
changing Business and IT perspectives towards enterprise architecture
thinking.
My response:
Martin Chesbrough Thank you for your comment and agreement that there is a
looming problem.
1) With regards to Ripose: I am
(at this stage of my life) almost totally retired. I keep Ripose Pty Limited
registered as I want to protect the ripose domain names. I am giving myself
another 3 years before I decide to 'pull the plug'
2) Systems integration: Imho this
is being able to mine the vast ineffective, inefficient & archaic (silo)
legacy system databases (big data) to try to make sense of the data. Once the
older generation designers & developers of the legacy systems are all
gone, I do not believe that the newer generation of designers &
developers have the experience nor the expertise (even with all the approaches
that are available today) to design more efficient & effective software
systems architectures nor the databases that will be needed to support these.
Nor will they be able to design the necessary programs to migrate the data
across
3) Anthropological study: In 2001
I wrote an article called the "Mind Map Protocol" in which I
highlighted, what in my opinion, was the 'social' relationships between the
various 'actors' in both the business & IT domains. In Sept 2015 I
re-published this in LinkedIn Pulse & got virtually 0 interest. In 2001 I
also wrote an article called "Chaos reigns or does it?' Which drew on a
study (by the then Standish Group) as to why IT projects continued to fail.
In 2009 I wrote an article called "Comparing approaches for Enterprise
Architects". So in essence I have done, what I regard to be, such a
study.
Personally
I do not really care whether Ripose gets accepted or not. I am now a
diagnostician & have the experience & expertise to call the shots the
way I see them.
Regards
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Capabilities
I have read and heard so much about 'capabilities' and a complaint a
person (of the opposite gender to me) posted mentioning how few of that
gender were present at a CIO conference - I inadvertently forgot to comment
on that post at the appropriate time.
I decided to post this update to try to explain (perhaps only to
myself) why that person raised this issue. Imho, there are a lot of CIOs who
probably do not have the capability to handle the role - my apologies for
even daring to raise this point.
But first allow me to provide you with a definition of the word
'capability' which reads "An aptitude that may be developed". The
word 'aptitude' can also be defined as "a natural ability to do
something" or "suitability or fitness".
I created the following image in an endeavor to explain (again
possibly to myself and share) the capabilities of the CIO and the managers
that they need to manage.
I wonder how many CIOs will pass the 'capability' test? I am more than
willing to accept that I may be wrong! If I am wrong then is there anyone who
has a more logical and workable solution? However, if everyone is so
convinced I am wrong, then what is the word 'information' doing in the title
of this chief officer?
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Einstein
"Einstein once said - "Ego is inversely proportional to
Knowledge. Lesser the knowledge, more the ego." If you find someone egoistic
in your personal or professional life, most of the time you will find this
root cause to be valid. Learning requires humility and ego does not allow a
person to learn, unlearn and relearn to gain knowledge".
Then the
only solution (and one that the brilliant Dr. Einstein - 1879 to 1955,
probably missed) was to identify the anatomy of knowledge. That would have
increased ones knowledge base and reduced the ego. Then again he would have
had to have explicitly defined what knowledge was and come up with a formula
for it. Perhaps the good Dr. was busy enunciating his formula on the Theory
of Relativity (e=mc squared) whereby he excited generation Traditionalists
(like Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer - 1904 to 1967, head of the Los Alamos
Laboratory and is among those who are credited with being the "father of
the atomic bomb") and (some) Baby Boomers and (possibly) befuddled the
minds of Gen X and Y. In all fairness Dr. Einstein was purported to have
said/written the profound statement 'divine spirits suffer savage opposition
from mediocre minds'.
Go figure!
But what do I know?
My formulae:
1) s=ok squared (the number of strategies is equal to the number of
objectives times the number of knowledge classes squared - The proof of this
can be viewed here
and
2) Knowledge =
Back
***********************************
Jul 2017
Ripose Information Architect
Certification
I have updated the Ripose Information Architect Certification article
to include the 2 additional courses that I will be offering once at least 1
grade 5 architect (trained to deliver the logical database design - also
known as the logical data model) is certified.
These courses will be designed to train project managers (how to
develop subject views) and application programmers (how to design pseudo
code) based on the priorities set by the links/joins/associations in the
logical database design. Without the grade 5 information architect, project
and application planning will fail to deliver an explicit (flexible, stable,
efficient & effective) solution. The legacy system replacement clock is
ticking!
Regards
Back
***********************************
Nov 2016
Sabbatical
Apologies for this non-LinkedIn type comment. As I seem to be getting
no significant response to my LinkedIn comments or Pulse articles, it looks
like it is time for me to take another Sabbatical & resume playing MMORP
games like World of Warcraft, Rift, Aion, Final Fantasy 15, Forsaken World,
Neverwinter & Diablo 3. I was wondering if anyone wants to join me in my
fight against virtual demons? At least this way I can get a few difficult
quests done & help someone else with their quests.
Back
***********************************
9 Nov 2016
What if I’m right?
I have just published my latest article ‘What if I'm right?'
Spoiler: It could be quite confronting and scary. Then again some people
regard me as a bit of a 'freak' but I will continue to assert my viewpoint
and play in my sandpit for a while longer.
Back
***********************************
Nov 2016
Business simulator
With so many new business failures (Bloomberg & Forbes), with all
today's technology. shouldn't someone build some form of
business simulator?
Oh wait, is this not what the 900+ enterprise frameworks supposed to be?
However, they simply take too long to simulate a business! So why do we trust
'experts' with no real business experience, whose claims are based on assumptions,
innuendos & opinions, with no timely & repeatable method of
simulating a business help build a business? Would anyone trust their lives
to a pilot who had not spent at least a few months training in a flight
simulator?
Back
***********************************
Nov 2016
Assumption & assertion
I would like to believe that I know the difference between an
'assumption' & an 'assertion'. In my informative years (up to the age of
19) I assumed all the assertions made by my parents & elders (teachers,
politicians & other professional experts) were true. After a while, this
became very confusing as the outcomes (results) of a lot of the assumptions
& some of the assertions produced hardships for the majority & benefits
for the minority. What if life was treated like a giant program based on
sequences, selections and iterations?
Back
***********************************
Nov 2016
Information revealed
I would like to believe I have a firm grasp on the processes &
responsibilities of an information architect. Having researched this for 40+
years I understand what information is. Can anyone please explain to me why
information is synonymous to (rather than the overarching artifact that
encapsulates) data, processes, enterprise, business, systems, strategies,
projects etc. Adding the word 'architect' after each of these words does not
explain the processes nor the responsibilities of any of them. If information
is not the prime artifact, then what is???
Back
***********************************
Nov 2016
Systems & Strategies
For those of you who have not been following my forays into my
followers liking or commenting on topics and then commenting on them, I have
been advised by an eminent person that I am "so far short of being a
qualified SYSTEMS person as to be laughable'' For this person and anyone else
that is at all interested, I have now looked up the definition of the word
'system' "An ordered manner; orderliness by virtue of being methodical
and well organized" and the word 'strategy' "An elaborate and
systematic plan of action". If these are not synonymous then I might as
well retire for good.
Back
***********************************
Nov 2016
‘PEACE’
Perhaps 'peace' (an acronym for please everyone, align common
elements) is too big a picture to get one's mind around! How many broadminded
people have the time or inclination to be even prepared to look for the
'common elements' let alone try to 'align' them with another person's
viewpoint? Whilst 'war' (an acronym for wastes all resources) is easy for the
'narrow-minded bigot'. All they have to do is keep a circular argument going,
throw illogical logic and unsubstantiated quotes into the mix. Then again perhaps
I am a 'narrow-minded bigot' for writing this & hence should just be
ignored.
Back
***********************************
31 Oct 2016
Rabbit holes & sharks
After 'locking horns' with a few more erudite and well-meaning people
here on LinkedIn, I have decided to write an article called 'Rabbit-holes and sharks'.
It may take a while as I have to think carefully to avoid both.
Back
***********************************
30 Oct 2016
COBOL 88 level
Does anyone remember using the COBOL level 88 conditional name clause?
It was probably one of the most powerful tools providing a Boolean
(true/false) function. This concept seems to be a lost 'art' and no one seems
to appreciate (other than perhaps myself) how powerful this construct is when
used in knowledge (not data) crafting. The closest any language has come to
it is the case construct, but it is not quite the same.
Back
***********************************
30 Oct 2016
Agile exposed
On the 26th Oct 2016, I published an article called 'Whether I'm right or wrong'
as a response to an article on 'Big Data'. I have added some history on the
emergence of the rapid application development cycle (RAD) and later on the
spiral model. It is clear from this study that the 'Agile' approach is
nothing more than a rehash of the work by Barry Boehm (1935 - date &
hence 12 years older than me). If anyone is really interested in what an implicit
formula looks like please see his mathematical formula used to calculate the
software development effort for a program.
Back
***********************************
Oct 2016
Business problem solution
One day CIOs will realise that enterprise architecture & solutions
architecture often cross paths. EA needs to solve 8 business problems &
IT 3. The boundaries between the 2 domains are very grey & the problem of
uncovering business knowledge is left to the sa who are in no position to
solve it. EAs have a problem understanding the basic 5 building blocks of
knowledge. They simply do not understand encapsulation, polymorphism,
inheritance, inclusion or relationships. Data analysts too have this problem
(at least they may understand BCNF). A new article of mine will soon explain
this.
Back
***********************************
Oct 2016
Goal game for children
After seeking help to build a knowledge crafting app, I found a game
creating app. I'll now spend time building the knowledgeCraft app on my own.
It may take a while. I recall building an app at Uni (CP1010) - I created my
idea, developed the project plan (incl costs) & created the game using
sprites & the lingo language. If 'grownups' refuse to heed my warning on
the dangers of using CAD drawing tools (business architecture) &
normalisation techniques (data architecture), perhaps I need to teach
children the basics of knowledge crafting. Next, I'll develop a goalCrafting
game for children.
Back
***********************************
Oct 2016
Child’s toy
I wonder if anyone would be interested in assisting me build a child's
mobile application that will teach them the basic fundamentals of knowledge
crafting. What I need is a simple application that enables me to place a
canister on a screen together with an object, say a peanut. The child will be
able to move the peanut into the canister, put on the lid & label the
canister 'Peanut'. The rest of the game will be pretty much the same, except
it will need some logic to tell the child when they have made a mistake, like
labeling the Peanut canister 'Apple'. It may sell a lot of downloads.
Back
***********************************
24 Oct 2016
Justice conflict
If the so called powerful minds of our politicians & political
party leaders cannot get the basic structure of the Justice Department right,
then the political stoush between the Attorney General and the Solicitor
General will continue to be a general nuisance to the nation as a whole. The
Government portfolios need to be overhauled and structured along the lines of
the benefits and values our Parliament has to deliver to the nation. The UN
is another prime example of this failure. 'Cry, the beloved planet'!!
Back
