My presentation to the Open Group London conference, October 2013

1. What can Enterprise Architecture
learn from Systems Thinking?
Richard Veryard
Open Group Conference
London October 2013

2. Preamble 1
4
Who Am I?

3. Preamble 2
Describing both EA and ST as practices
A body of knowledge
A community of
practitioners
A discourse (way of
talking)
Practice
A professional service
5
A tool or instrument
for achieving some
defined goals.

4. Preamble 3
On the Unreliability of Labels
• Labels like EA and ST are almost impossible to pin down. People waste
much effort squabbling about definitions. Extreme precision doesn’t
always make any sense.
• In this talk, I shall refer to “Enterprise Architecture” and “Systems
Thinking” as if these were reasonably well-defined (but possibly
overlapping) regions of practice.
• There are many different schools of EA and ST, and the internet is
awash with squabbles between rival schools. (Especially on Linked-In).
• There is also a significant gap between what people think practitioners
OUGHT to be doing and what practitioners ACTUALLY DO.
• So please take my use of the labels “Enterprise Architecture” and
“Systems Thinking” with caution.
7

5. Schools of EA
• Modernist, Engineering
(James Martin, John
Zachman, TOGAF)
• Classical, NeoClassical
(Christopher Alexander)
• Baroque, Complexity, H
ybrid (Nick Gall)
• Post-Modern (VPEC-T)
• Pragmatic (CapabilityLed Planning)
8

6. Schools of Systems Thinking
• Systems Dynamics
(Forrester, Meadows)
• Soft Systems
Methodology
(Checkland)
• Quality and Process
(Deming, Seddon)
• Cybernetics (Beer)
• Organic
(Bateson, Maturana)
• Ethical
(Vickers, Churchman)
with apologies to Kandinsky
9

7. Is that it?
“But that’s not what I call
systems thinking!”
“But that’s not what enterprise
architects really do!”
10

8. Three Questions
• What do EA and ST have in common?
– Common Goals?
– Common Ground?
– Shared Frustrations?
• What can EA and ST learn from each other?
– Stance
– Style
• What opportunities are there for practical collaboration between EA
and ST?
12

9. Shared Frustrations
who is WE?
• We can clearly see some major
problems with the structure and
behaviour of large enterprises
and public sector ecosystems.
• We can also see why current
initiatives are likely to fail.
• But the people in charge of these
systems don’t appreciate the
valuable contribution we could
make.
13
• We are often unable to get
access to working at “the
right level”.
• We are forced to work on
fragments of the problem
rather than the whole.

10. Common Self-Belief
• “We are better than
anyone else at
abstraction and
generalization.”
• “We are better than
anyone else at big
picture, joined-up
thinking.”
14
• Abstraction 
ungrounded
metaspeculation?
• Big picture thinking 
infinite escalation.

11. Common Ground
Similarities
Enterprise architecture and systems
thinking share some important
characteristics.
• Overlapping range of concepts and
techniques for tackling difficult
business problems.
• Practitioners face similar challenges
when working with large and
complex business organizations and
ecosystems,
• Similar difficulties and frustrations
in trying to engage stakeholders in
joined-up “big picture” thinking.
15
Differences
There are also some significant
differences, which create a real
opportunity for collaboration and
exchange.
• Different techniques
• Different perspective
• Different strengths

12. Are EA and ST the same thing?
• We have a concept of “system”.
• We consider the whole enterprise “as a
system”.
• We consider human activity systems as
well as mechanical systems (such as
software).
• We are good at abstraction and
generalization.
• We are good at “big picture”, joined-up
thinking.
BUT
16
A human icon
makes a system
into a human
system!

13. What does “enterprise-as-a-system” mean?
• Enterprise as an open or
closed system?
• Enterprise as a human
activity or sociotechnical
system?
• Enterprise as a
dynamic, complex
adaptive or viable system?
17
What is an enterprise?
Are humans inside or
outside the system?
Which notion of
dynamic?
Which notion of
complexity?

14. Different Notions of System?
ST (sometimes)
EA (sometimes)
• “System” is part of the problem • “System” is part of the solution
space.
space.
• We try to understand the
• We explore why the existing
structure and behaviour of
solutions aren’t performing
complex systems.
(AS-IS).
• We then intervene to improve
• We create blueprints for
their structure and behaviour.
improved solutions (TO-BE)
Both EA and ST practitioners should be
alert to the possibility that different people
may use words in different ways.
18

15. Different Notions of System Thinking?
And what about third-order
cybernetics?
First Order Cybernetics
• Systems thinking gives us a
model of what is going on …
• … from the viewpoint of a
neutral and all-seeing observer.

19
What things should we be
looking at? (“Ontology”)
Second Order Cybernetics
• Systems thinking helps us to
make sense of what is going on
…
• … from the viewpoint of an
engaged participant.

How we can know about these
things? (“Epistemology”)

16. One EA School – Capability-Led Planning
21

17. Asset-Specificity
Delegating a capability always introduces an additional capability –
namely governance.
outsourced
services
noncore
procurement
of …
shared
services
procurement
of green
coffee beans
core
…green
coffee beans
assetspecific
services
Decomposing a capability into smaller capabilities always introduces
an additional capability – namely that of coordinating multiple
capabilities to produce coherent outcomes.
22

18. Simple Capability Dependency (Weak)
Actual Supply
Procurement
Logistics
Agreed Supply
23
What is the nature of
this dependency?
Tight/loose coupling?
Procurement
Negotiation
Required Supply

19. Three Levels of Capability
Capability
Type of Risk
Type of Error
(Root-Cause
Analysis)
Pricing
Typical
Service Type
Execution
Capability
Operation /
Transaction
Performance Risk
A component
service will not
work as specified
Error of Execution
The failure of a
planned action to
be completed as
specified
Input-Based
Factory
Service
Coordination
& Control
Capability
First-Order
Learning
Composition Risk
The component
services will not
work together as a
whole as intended
Error of Planning
The use of a wrong
plan to achieve an
aim
OutputBased
Information
Mapping
Service
Strategic
Capability
24
Scope
SecondOrder
Learning
Implementation
Risk
The proposition will
not work in its
context-of-use
Error of Intention
The supplier
adopting an aim
that is unwanted by
the user
ValueBased
Business
Management
Service

20. Issues
Algebra
• Composition
• Decomposition
Scope
• Escalation
• Regression
Whole / Part
Relationship
• Holism
• Reductionism
25

21. Warning of the doorknob - escalation
Design a doorknob
Is a door the best
way of controlling
access to your
office?
27
Do you really need a
traditional office with
four walls?
…
Source J.P. Eberhard
Is a doorknob the
best way of opening
and closing a door?
Is capitalist
democracy the best
way to organize our
economy?

22. Warning of the doorknob - regression
Design a
doorknob
Technologies for
fitting metal
objects to hands.
28
Metallurgy
Atomic physics
Source J.P. Eberhard
Study the shape
of a man’s hand
Subatomic
physics

23. Different Stance?
(tongue in cheek)
Based on: Albert Hirschman
ST as realist, reactionary?
EA as progressive, visionary?
• Purposive action to improve some
feature of the political, social, or
economic order may only serve to
exacerbate the condition one wishes to
remedy. ("perversity thesis").
• Attempts at social transformation are
often unavailing, that they will simply
fail to "make a dent." ("futility thesis")
• The cost of the proposed change or
reform is often too high, especially if it
endangers some previous, precious
accomplishment. ("jeopardy thesis")
• Urgent action is necessary to avoid
imminent danger ("The Imminent
Danger")
• All reforms work together and reinforce
each other, rather than being
competing ("The Synergy Illusion")
• History Is on Our Side.
29

24. Why New Systems Don’t Work
(Possibly)
Errors of Execution
• Passive adoption
(resistance)
• Poor
implementation
30
Errors of Planning
• System as designed
system in use
• Poor choice of
technology
(technology fetish)
Errors of Intention
• Changing
requirements
• Local global
• Short-term
longer-term
• User customer

25. Why Old Systems Don’t Work
(Possibly)
• Complexity
• Changing requirements
• Attempts to eliminate
complexity
• Hidden agenda
• Cybernetic Entropy
• Enterprise Ferality
– management controls
becoming less effective over
time
31
– POSIWID (Stafford Beer)
– “an autocatalytic
phenomenon that is selfperpetuating” (Steve Brewis)

26. Collaboration
• Ability of large teams to • Different people
address large and
working on different
complex problems
scales
– EA
– ST
– EA + ST
– One scale isn’t
automatically better than
any other scale
• Multiple viewpoints and • Interoperability
between different
perspectives
scales and viewpoints
– ISO 42010
– Lenscraft
32
Compare and contrast how EAs
work in teams with how STs work
in teams?

27. References
• C. West Churchman, The Systems Approach and its Enemies (1979)
• J.P. Eberhard, “We Ought to Know the Difference” in Gary T. Moore (ed)
Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (MIT
Press, 1970) pp 364-365
• John Gøtze and Anders Jensen-Waud (eds), Beyond Alignment: Applying
Systems Thinking in Architecting Enterprises (College Publications 2013)
• Albert Hirschman, The Rhetoric of Reaction (1991)
• Richard Sennett, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of
Cooperation (2012)
• Richard Veryard, Towards Next Practice Enterprise Architecture
(LeanPub 2013)
• Geoffrey Vickers, Human Systems are Different (1983)
33

28. Contacts
www.replyltd.co.uk.
r.veryard@replyltd.co.uk
http://twitter.com/richardveryard
34