19 discussions LinkedIn sur les MOOC

Accès 110 discussions LinkedIn en 4 ans d'innovation collective ouverte pour anticiper le numérique

samedi 2 février 2013

Crowdsourcing an Entreprise Architecture for a publishing project


Peter MurchlandPeter Murchland



(...)tdk
Or how about from the latest comments of the quoted discussion :
Digital = Culture + Ethics + Power + Intellectual Property ? 


(...)tdk
"logging IP in digital format, rather than IP of digital assets per se"
Yes indeed.

Let me share some bit of context in France.

Since the 70s, there have been several ways to name the information systems of the enterprise :
"informatique" :
"systèmes d'information" (et de communication) : information [and communication] systems
and in 2011,
"numérique" which could be translated into numerical, numeric or digital.

In business, a word generally conveys some reality or shared perceptions among business players.

"informatique" meant just a tool to automate some defined work (such as HR management ou billing management or accounting management),
"système d'information" suggested that all these independant tools should be managed as a whole, a system
"Système d'entreprise" has not come through but "Architecture d'Entreprise" (Enterprise Architecture) yes (US/UK culture dominance ?)

Now there is "numérique" and some are talking instead of "directeur des systèmes d'information" (DSI), about "directeur des systèmes numériques" (DSN), which could convey the same mutation of a CIO into a CDO (Chief Digital Officer).

The question is :
what fundamental shift(s), if any, do these formula changes convey ? 


(...)tdk
@Oleg,
" ASys Digital EA= Culture + Ethics + Power + Intellectual Property+... Our schemes of activity description at all levels are generated automatically on the basis of the information in the single data base".

How do yo capture Culture, Ethics, Power, IP in your "single data base" ? 


(...)tdk
@Frederic,
"[1]Should we take the word "digital" as EA in digital society or
[2] EA focus on digitization of brick and mortar enterprises ? "

Let me react first à [1] and leave [2] for the moment (there might be an (several ?) interesting door(s) behind)

What do you mean by "digital society" ? 


(...)tdk
@Frederic
you say
a "digital society"
is a society where a lot of exchange do happen we a third party meant that is a computer or an "digital device".

your definition seems to go round. 


(...)tdk
So a digital activity is characterised by the use of a computer.

Would you say "système d'information" (information systems) and "systèmes numériques" (digital systems) are equal ways to name the same thing ? 


(...)tdk
@JD,
intesresting ;
thank you to have recalled the couple "digital - analog", which invites to
revisit [analog] and think about new communications such as flavours or odours or behaviours ? 


 (...)tdk
And behaviours ?

What could be frightening is, that until now, you were conveying only explicit/conscious/intentional communication. 



 (...)tdk
AUV : autonomous unmanned vehicules...(are they ?)

The behaviours i was thinking about were not these but those for commercial use. 


 (...)tdk
 @Matt,
"i love how you are seeking to raise awareness and align what is being done in France"
Thank you.
Well, i was raised and educated in France, live in France (my parents are Vietnamese and my name is Tru , pronounced as [tchu]). We all are influenced by our native culture/language and we need to share, at least digitally.

"I have a discussion group on LinkedIn" : how about sharing the link(s) ?


 (...)tdk
 @Frédéric,
"système d'information" (information systems) and "systèmes numériques" are the same they are all meant to say : ICT at internet era.

maybe.

Why in your opinion did the CIGREF (a French association to which the top 120 French IT user companies and administrations suscribe in order to share IT management practices) and SYNTEC (a French association on the supplier side) change in 2011
* - "systèmes d'information" for "numérique", for CIGREF)
*- "informatique" for "numérique", for SYNTEC ?


 (...)tdk
digital enterprise architecture" is another name for "information technology"

Would you say equally
"I deliver digital enterprise architectures" and "i deliver information technologies" ?

"information technology" is a subset of an "enterprise architecture" :
When you deliver an EA to client, do you deliver information technologies as well ? 


(...)tdk
 @Matt,
on "architecte des affaires électroniques" .

"électronique" is ideed another word for "digital".

Odd enough, we talk in France about "messagerie électronique" for email, not "messagerie informatique" nor "messagerie numérique" nor "messagerie digitale" nor "messagerie technologique".

As you see, a common language is difficult to put in place within the Gaellic villages even under French Philosopher René Descartes's inspiration and even should all IT professionals of the world agree upon, you will need to train end users and board members.

To get back to the discussion, i am like anyone around, i am exploring the next frontier (in a sense of US culture) :
two ways of exploration :
*- questionning and debating,
*- (trying to) set back from my own experience,


(...)tdk
  @JD
"the terms, and the underlying concepts, (...) in a manner which is meaningful to all parties.

the question is
* what are the concepts ?
* if the use of several terms are assessed, is it opportune to dig under the surface and seek the reasons why ?

when there is some sea changes at stakes, and it is the case, i would think it is worth to do it.

Now about digital enterprise architecture : from a pure semantic perspective (please correct me if i am wrong), it can be
* an architecture of a enterprise which is digital, then

* 1.1 what is a "digital enterprise"
* 1.2 are there enterprise which are not digital?

* an "enterprise architecture" which is digital[ized], then

* 2.1 what are the software tools that might capture en enterprise architecture
* 2.2can we operate an enterprise architecture without such a tool?



(...)tdk
@JD
"digital enterprise architecture is very ambiguous".

I would rather recognize that this term fails to convey what the next generation of enterprise might be.

It is like "numérique" in France.

Besides saying that "numérique" convey a general and holistic and pervasive and extended etc. use of IT, there is not much more in dominant thinking (to my limited perception when discussion within public social networks).

Beyong Enterprise 2.0 coined by Pr. Anfrew McAfee (again US thought leadership), and saying 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 what is really in ? 


(...)tdk
@Matt,
"case studies".

You are fully right.

Should we want to challenge the relevancy of a framework, -for a French native, a "conceptual frame to work together" -, we need case studies that we should be able to examine together.

Besides, these case studies should be simple : if the framework fails for a simple case, why should it succeed for complex cases ? 



(...)JD
Tru -- "digital enterprise architecture is very ambiguous". I would rather recognize that this term fails to convey what the next generation of enterprise might be." Agreed.

The next generation enterprise will be some combination of 'digital' and 'physical' depending on the industry and the product/service being offered.

For example, the nature of book publishing is changing from 'physical' to substantially 'digital'. That said, there were over a million books published in 2011 thru a combination of 'print on demand' and self-publishing. Physical publishing is also changing from long print runs and traditional book store distribution, to print on demand and direct shipment.


(...)tdk
@JD,
thank you to bring in a case study that anyone can contemplate.

Let's start a co-design in an iterative way. I go first :

The Business Processes (as per the corpus above) are :
- write
- edit
- distribute 



(...)tdk
 "Value systems" is phrase (or term, or formule, or locution, or expression , what is the right english word ?) which appears in rank 11 among the (ordered ?) list of objects displayed in JD's EA framework which i recall here :

*1. Business strategy model;
*2. Organizational structure;
*3. Organizational governance;
*4. Business capabilities;
*5. Business processes;
*6. Business transactions;
*7. Business information;
*8. Business applications;
*9. Enterprise Value streams,
*10. Enterprise Value chains;
*11. Enterprise Value systems.

The relationships and dynamic flows between the components, and the times, costs, value created, quality, and workload associated with the components.

For the case introduced by JD above, -a publishing enterprise-, could we say that the following objects that i state as "Business Process" form the "Enterprise Value System" ?
- write
- edit
- distribute 






(...)tdk
 @Frederic,
for Verlaine and Shakespeare, unfortunately, i do not know.


I have only limited experience with two books :
* "La fonction télécoms de l'entreprise" (The Telecom department of the enterprise), 170 pages, published by Masson (company bought by Dunod), 1997,

* "L'externalisation des télécoms d'entreprise" (télécoms outsourcing), 240 pages, published by Hermes Lavoisier, 2005.

But what do you think of the case study brought in by JD ( a publishing company) to explore together what the next generation of enterprises could be and the possible impact on management practices such as Enterprise Architecture ? 



(...)Frederic
(...)
PS: I am currently writing a book (to be release in Aug. 2013) but nothing to do with business (Cultural History and I don't recognize myself in the process pattern)


(...)tdk
@Frederic,

publishing involves not only the author, but many more parties.
If you are self publishing, you should find yourself coping with these various parties and tasks that should be executed in a certain order.

Your comment proves that the case study brought in by JD is highly relevant.

Good luck with your book.  


(...)tdk from a next door discussion taking place at the same time

"Publishing a book on Cultural History" is a not a normal and every day problem"
oups.
I meant for Frederic and he might find opportune to leverage the skills gathered by the active members of this group to enhance his value proposition to his customers. 


 
(...)Frederic
@Tru, Ok I am convinced then let's take It as a case.
Where EA can help me in my publication let's say I have an editor like most writers. My book's only IP is Authors' rights and my only IT system is my Macbook, MS office and an email address. Will I need a strategy/EA to deliver value to my customers?


(...)tdk
ok 
let's start with activities (Business Process) as described by Frederic by simply taking the expressed verbs :

* write,
* edit
* deliver value

what kind of value do you deliver to your "customers" ? 


(...)tdk
@Matt,
thank you for the link on "digital enterprise architecture". May i suggest to reserve it until we finish the case ?

Thank you to think with Frederic to answer to the question "what kind of "value" he intends to deliver to his "customers". 


(...)tdk
 @JD,
thank you for this forward analysis and the next steps to go.

But how about letting Frédéric to express himself what kind of value he intends to deliver to his customers by writing a book on Cultural History ?


(...)tdk
@Frédéric,
thank you for your input.
If i enhance the list as followed, how would you enrich it :

- assess what the market has provided before
- write
- edit
- have my customers receive an original body of knowledge 


(...)tdk
 @Matt,
"how and why we came to accept JD B's framework/method"
Which one ?
The EA framework
* Business strategy model;
* Organizational structure;
* Organizational governance;
* Business capabilities;
* Business processes;
* Business transactions;
* Business information;
* Business applications;
* Enterprise Value streams,
* Enterprise Value chains;
* Enterprise Value systems.

The relationships and dynamic flows between the components, and the times, costs, value created, quality, and workload associated with the components.

or the Value analysis model
* Value Proposition
* Creation
* Realization
* Awareness
* Delivery"

For me, because it is here on this very page, interpretable/intelligible by senior professionnals without having to navigate through an external site.


(...)tdk
@Frederic,
would you agree with the Value Proposition as stated by JD ?  


(...)tdk
" @Tru, I will focus on the content quality, the whole process details I will let that to white collars to handle. Also, I am afraid my editor do not have an EA. " 


(...)tdk 
Frederic,
thank you for this new input.
The list of tasks is now :

* assess what the market has provided before
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content
* [other "process" details]
* edit
* have my customers receive an original body of knowledge

With the roles as distributed
Frederic
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content

White collars
* assess what the market has provided before
* other "process" details
* edit
* have Frederic's customers receive an original body of knowledge

I would like to raise the following question :
Once your "customers have received the original body of knowledge", what do you imagine they will react (do, feel, say, etc.)
  


 (...)Peter
 Tru, Frederic, Matt, JDB

It is good to see a real world, practical case study being used to mediate better understanding. I would offer a couple of comments - about roles and about scope

a) Frederic has been volunteered as the enterprise so he should be seen as the owner and arbiter of the business architecture and any clarifications about his enterprise - current or intended

b) JDB took the practical step of identifying the case study opportunity and outlining an EA methodology which could be applied (the debate over the relative merits of different methodologies should be pursued in a different topic)

c) Tru has taken up the role of EA, with JDB acting as mentor and advisor to Tru on the application of the published methodology.

Let's stick with these roles, and avoid debating whether different people should take up these roles or different methodologies or techniques should be used. (...)
Regarding scope - it is rather unusual to be considering a single person enterprise (which is how Frederic is presenting himself). (...)



(...)tdk
@Peter,
thank you for your interest and welcome aboard.

"Let's stick with these roles, and avoid debating whether different people should take up these roles or different methodologies or techniques should be used".

Structuring this "real exercice" might close some unexpected/unknown exploration paths.
Besides, if it is decided without debating, then we will leave the practical mindset that inspires this exercise ( we are not incorporated aren't we and there is no CEO).

The key role is the client, and here, it is up to Frederic to keep that role alive.

For all other roles, we have multiple hats and i would think that they should be all welcome.


(...)tdk 
* assess what the market has provided before
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content
* [other "process" details]
* edit
* have my customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor how my customers will react (do, say,...)

With the roles as distributed
Frederic
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content

White collars
* assess what the market has provided before
* other "process" details
* edit
* have Frederic's customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor Frederic's customers reaction (do, say,...)

@Frederic,
are you 100% positive that you want to leave the last task (monitor how your customers react) to your editor ?

(...)tdk
* define a governance between the stakesholders based on value ("IP rights" for Frederic,...)
* assess what the market has provided before
* plan an initial version and a second version
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content
* [other "process" details]
* edit
* have my customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor how my customers will react (do, say,...)
* monitor the sales

With the roles as distributed
Stakeholders
* define a governance based on value

Frederic
* plan an initial version and second version
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content

White collars
* assess what the market has provided before
* other "process" details
* edit
* have Frederic's customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor Frederic's customers reaction (do, say,...)
* monitor the sales

New question :
Who are the "stakeholders" of this "enterprise" ?


(...)tdk 
* assess regulatory context (Convention de Berne, tax,...)
* define a governance between the stakesholders (Frederic, editor, the publisher, the distributors) based on value ("IP rights" for Frederic,...)
* assess what the market has provided before
* plan an initial version and a second version
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content
* [other "process" details]
* edit
* have my customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor how my customers will react (do, say,...)
* monitor the sales

With the roles as distributed
Frederic, editor, the publisher, the distributors
* define a governance based on value

Frederic
* assess regulatory context (Convention de Berne, tax,...)
* plan an initial version and second version
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content

White collars
* assess what the market has provided before
* other "process" details
* edit
* have Frederic's customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor Frederic's customers reaction (do, say,...)
* monitor the sales 

 
(...)tdk
Note on "copyrights" in France.
In France, "copyrights" are not handled the same way as copyrights in US or UK.
"Le Code de la propriété intellectuelle" defines two kind of rights :
* "droit moraux"
* "droits patrimoniaux"

From a business perspective,
"droits moraux" can not be traded. The business impact is more or less similar to the US/UK "credit".
"droits patrimoniaux" are more or less similar to the "copyright". they can be traded.
The blending of "exceptions aux droits d'auteur", "obligations de concurrrence loyale et de non parasitisme" are more of less the US/UK "fair use".

Warning : the above is my own opinion and driven from my personal experience.
Please note that i am not a lawyer nor i am qualified to give legal advise and it is your entire responsibility to consult if opportune a qualified professional.


(...)tdk 
Frederic,
you have just named stakeholders : "people" or as said above "customers" or as JD said "consumers".

but how do these stakeholders impact in the list of task ?


(...)tdk
@Frederic,
how would you react toi JD suggestion to ensure "quality content"


(...)tdk 
Before being a "counterfeiter", you have to be a "customer".

And as JD put it :
"those books from which additional products or services can be derived"

Let me remind a question stated above :

"are you 100% positive that you want to leave the last task (monitor how your customers react) to your editor ?" 


(...)tdk
"If you are big you can bypass some rules".

Not quite sure that it still does apply to counterfeit copyright in B2B.
The risk are not legal but human, marketing, commercial,...
Here is the analysis underneath.


(...)tdk 
* assess regulatory context (Convention de Berne, tax,...)
* define a governance between the stakesholders (Frederic, editor, the publisher, the distributors) based on value ("IP rights" for Frederic,...)
* assess what the market has provided before
* plan an initial version and a second version
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content
* [other "process" details]
* edit
* have my customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor how my customers will react (do, say,...)
* monitor the sales

With the roles as distributed
Frederic, editor, the publisher, the distributors
* define a governance based on value

Frederic
* assess regulatory context (Convention de Berne, tax,...)
* plan an initial version and second version
* write
* review, rewrite to deliver quality content
* monitor Frederic's customers reaction (do, say,...)

White collars
* assess what the market has provided before
* other "process" details
* edit
* have Frederic's customers receive an original body of knowledge
* monitor the sales


(...)tdk 
@JD,
thank you for your comment. I was not aware of all this related to IP.

To get back to the exercice, can we contemplate that bringing in "IP" has modified the draft EA, namely the task

"monitor Frederic's customers reaction (do, say,...)"

which from outsourced has been internalized, everything else left unchanged ? 


(...)tdk
"Copyright/IP infringement, including plagiarism, is a complex task"....just like IT.
and to cope with IT complexity, we build an IT architecture which feeds EA and is feeded by EA.

For IP, could we think of an IP architecture ? 


 (...)Peter
(...)
My response to Frederic and Tru would be to say:

a) This case study remains atypical because it is more focused on the ecosystem that Frederic is part of, than on the enterprise that Frederic operates as author
b) This does not mean that the value chain analysis is wrong or shouldn't be done - it is simply that it is providing him with insights about the operation of the ecosystem and market of which he is part.
c) This demonstrates to me the value of modelling - it is making explicit the various stakeholders, interactions, etc so that he can better understand who is responsible for what, what options / choices exist, and how he might influence the outcome he is trying to achieve
d) This is not exactly EA - in a single person enterprise, there is no scope for designing an alternate enterprise - only scope for choosing to think, act and behave differently
e) As indicated before, the readers are not his customers - they are consumers of his output, so they are stakeholders that he needs to understand. He only has one customer - the publishing house.

All that said, it is a worthwhile exercise in allowing people to better understand how EA techniques can be used to deliver value, and that the techniques can be used beyond the scope of the enterprise to enable a better, shared understanding of the ecosystem in which an enterprise operates, as much as the ecosystem that an enterprise is.
(...)
I appreciate the time and effort that the three of you have devoted to developing the value chain perspective of the publishing industry. 


(...)tdk 
@JD,
under the role which has been suggested by Peter above, what would you assess that has been produced so far according to your EA framework ?

The EA framework
* 1.1 Business strategy model;
* 1.2. Organizational structure;
* 1.3. Organizational governance;
* 1.4. Business capabilities;
* 1.5. Business processes;
* 1.6. Business transactions;
* 1.7. Business information;
* 1.8. Business applications;
* 1.9. Enterprise Value streams,
* 1.10. Enterprise Value chains;
* 1.11. Enterprise Value systems.

2. The relationships and dynamic flows between the components, and the times, costs, value created, quality, and workload associated with the components.  


(...)tdk
@JD
thank you for your response.
If i am following you, the next step would be a mapping exercise between Frederic input and your publishing process model.
How about starting directly from Frederic's input ?

Here is a link to "Open Innovation and Open Savoir-faire on LinkedIn", a site where this exercise is shared with the ecosystem

Please find a link to the drawing (thanks to Dropbox) under Creative Commons BY-SA to allow reuse and capitalisation.

Drawing  available here through dropbox.

(...)tdk 


(...)tdk


(...)tdk 

(...)tdk


(...)tdk