Architecture Roles as explained to your mum

Some years ago there used to be a great Architecture web site called skyscrapr.net. Unfortunately the site is now deep in the dusty bowels of interweb (If your interested you can still find it here http://web.archive.org/20070205174052/www.skyscrapr.net/). Skyscrapr spawned a number of really great stuff including arcast, which Ron Jacobs looked after for a number of years and was great (if your interested in that check out http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/arcast.tv)

One of the things I most liked about Skyscrapr was a short video that helped to explain the roles of different kinds of Architects, called “Meet the architects”. As Marty puts it in his vision

“Does your mother not quite understand what you do?”

And here is some of the wisdom of the different Architect roles

Solution Architect Get it done
AKA: Application Architect, Software Architect, Data Architect, Integration Architect
The Solutions Architect is responsible for the design of one or more applications or services within an organisation, usually within the scope of a division. Examples of such applications are: Internet banking solution for a bank, company wide knowledge sharing portal for a law firm, distributed point of sales solution for a retailer etc. Some solutions architects specialise in certain areas of a solution such as a data or integration.
In short, Solution Architects decide which technologies to use. They work very closely with developers to ensure proper implementation. They are the link between the needs of the organisation and the developers.

Infrastructure Architect The answer? Stability and security
Infrastructure Architects design the cities in which business applications live and work. They make sure that the power is on, the environment is healthy, the buildings are secure, the streets are safe, and that the traffic flows. Ultimately, the organisation looks to them to keep the data safe and the business processes running. To meet these goals, the infrastructure architect must work with development to define mechanisms and standards that allow applications to achieve the security, reliability, manageability, transparency, and policy compliance essential to the modern business. With responsibilities that span every business process and every aspect of the organisation, Infrastructure Architects often have invaluable insight into what the organisation does well and poorly, and how it can improve.
In short, Infrastructure Architects find the pragmatic solutions to the requirements of the organisation as presented by the Strategic architect. They like to make things work. They know robust and secure systems keep everything running smoothly.

Enterprise or Strategic Architects A vision of how to put it all together
The job of Enterprise Architects is to keep the business and its IT systems in alignment. They strive to maximise the return on IT investment by making sure that IT spending is prioritised towards business opportunity, and by optimising the impact of investments across the organisation’s portfolios of services, resources, projects, and processes. Enterprise Architects must be a bridge between business leaders, development, and operations to ensure that mutual understanding is achieved, goals are realistic, and expectations are properly managed. Enterprise Architecture is about the big picture — how people and technology work together to produce world-class long-term results.
In short, Enterprise Architects create the master blueprint that guides their organisation’s business and IT systems. They have the vision and long-term perspective that gives an organisation direction.

As far as career paths go software developers often end up following the Solutions architect path. Infrastructure Admins often follow an Infrastructure architecture path. And people who have worked across both lines often end up as either Enterprise or Strategic architects, sometimes ending up being called “Chief Architect”, though there are no hard and fast rules here. The Chief Architect role is to keep the other architects in line and call on them when needed. Often the Chief Architect will be a trusted advisor to the organisation’s CIO. In most organisations the CIO will have a strong business management acumen (first and foremost), with a degree of Architecture and Programme management understanding. Typically the CIO will call on the Chief Architect and Programme manager as trusted advisors in decision making. Interestingly Bill Gates, the former CEO of Microsoft has always considered himself to be a chief architect. It’s also worth mentioning that depending on the size or complexity of your organisation technical staff will often fulfill multiple architecture roles.

So in conclusion all three of these architect roles are all fairly important to successful delivery of healthy, well governed ICT Services.

Meet the Architects

Kimball KungFu – let’s not loose it!

So doing a Kimball course this week in Sydney Australia and Bob and Ralph dropped a bit of a bombshell. In the next few years it’s likely that the 6 founders will all take a well earned retirement, when that happens they will role up the company and it will cease to exist. I find this very sad indeed and essentially end of an era. The Kimball group have contributed immensely to the subjects of data warehousing, dimensional modeling and ETL, over 3 decades. What’s great about the Kimball Group is that they have stayed true to being vendor independent, extremely rare in this day and age, especially in BI/DW space.

So what is too be done here? I propose they establish a Kimball community site and appoint a number of individual master practitioners to maintain and contribute to it. I’d suggest that these practitioners be limited to just 6 people at any one time and all be published and recognised book authors in the space of BI/DW. Think it makes sense to limit the numbers of core practitioners so that changes suggested by the community are distilled and tested before being added to the methodology. Practitioners should be vendor agnostic, a pretty hard ask but totally in line with the Kimball methodology. Of course community members could over time take on the roles of the 6 master practitioners if one of them wanted to step down, but would need to agree up front a willingness to spend time work with the new practitioner to help establish them.

Further the Kimball Group should start an exam certification program so as to insure that all practitioners using the Kimball method demonstrate their understanding of it. Monies for certification would go towards funding and keeping a vital community alive and well and ideally drum up new business in the space. Not to mention making the goodwill value of the company worth considerably more. Of course the worst possible thing that could happen would be for the Kimball Method to be owned by a vendor, that would of course spell a fairly quick kiss of death to an amazing and highly needed brand.

I’d love to hear thoughts from others on this as I really think it’s possible that we loose an extremely valuable practice over time. It’s a little like a Kimball KungFu school, you don’t want to loose the style or the history and contribution of a group of people that have spent their lives contributing to techniques that have saved our bacon countless times. Incidentally KungFu roughly translates to “Skill achieved through hard work”

ETL with Feedback

One of the things I’ve never really understood in data warehouse architectures is why there isn’t a feedback loop from Warehouse systems back to the operational source in other word Extract Transform Load and Feedback. Not saying the goal of most Warehouse projects isn’t to answer questions across the spectrum of operational systems. However data cleaning and profiling can detect many source system data issues and although validation reporting can pick up and address these issues it’s a pity there isn’t a feedback loop that provides source systems with fixes to their systems of considerable benefit to those sources. Of course this isn’t always possible for systems that are in archived state but for systems that are still active one would think that would be very beneficial.

I’m certain I’m not the only one to think this way so wondering if anyone has invented a system that provides updates back to sources so that issues can be addressed there?

20140318-213727.jpg