IT-eye

My last blog about common information models (CIMs) gave a general idea about common information models. By now you might wonder what is purpose of using common information models is, so I will try to address this by explaining the strategic importance of standardization in digital information exchange, either business to business (B2B) or application to application (A2A). Read the rest of this entry »

Currently I’m working on my master of science thesis about designing an approach or recipe on how to use IEC CIM based messages in a top-down approach, starting with a business process chain and working my way down to information services and IT systems. As part of this thesis I recently visited the CIM User group Conference in Genval, Belgium, near Brussels. During this bi-anual conference, I learned a lot about how utility organizations in both Europe and North-America are performing digital information exchange using common information models. Read the rest of this entry »

As I stated earlier, I like to call myself an architect. Regardless of whether or not this is deserved, it means I myself am likely to be subject of at least one of these dogmas. While this makes it harder to discuss them without a bias or the tendency to defend my own position, it does offer the opportunity for a different type of discussion: one where, rather than pointing at a dogma and yelling out loud that everyone else is wrong, I can only do the pointing, then blush because I know I’m just as guilty. This is one of those moments (and probably not the only one ).

Everytime I write an architecture, I strive to make it ‘understandable’ for people without a background in either architecture or IT. On some level, it makes sense: what I’m trying to do is hand over guidelines to people without such background, which would be hard if they couldn’t understand a thing I’m saying. So, I describe the architecture in natural and understandable language – not stupidly simple, but without jargon and without overdone verbosity, outlining both the statements I make and the reasoning behind them. The end result is a clear document, that doesn’t devolve into expositions in jargon about the formulation of a principle, isn’t 500 pages long and is generally quite readable.

Then that exact document is only read by people with exactly the background I wasn’t targeting – software engineers, the various types of architects and, if you’re lucky, a few managers close to IT (and all of them complain that it doesn’t give enough detail; but that’s a different subject…). But it’s not read by the audience I targeted. Yet, next time I describe an architecture, I’ll do the same thing.

Of course, I might be alone in this. Others might opt to forgo the ‘readable’ criterion (or at least adapt it for a different audience). Yet others might actually get it to land in my target audience. I’m a bit at a loss what, and if, I should do to ’solve’ this dogma. To me, a dogma it is and, considering what I still use as my definition of architecture, a dogma it will stay.

On another note, for now, I’m out of material for this series. Feel free to suggest some other dogmas in the comments!

JaValid 1.2 has been released today. To see what has changed check the release notes.

You can download the new release from sourceforge. Also check out the documentation for all new features and how to upgrade to the latest release.

Please send feedback to: feedback at javalid dot org or post on this thread. Thanks!

For more information visit: http://www.javalid.org

Have fun with the new release!

A little break from the dogma’s of architecture here, as I’ve been thinking about something that I feel needs to be vented. I still have one or two more dogmas to post about, but they’ll come a bit later.

As everyone must have noticed, the world as a whole is struggling with two prominent themes at the moment:

In one corner, weighing in at billions in damages from lost income, unemployed workers (and their families) and bankrupt companies, is the global economic downturn. It is the grand cause of most companies focusing on cost savings nowadays, and has also caused us here at IT-eye to put extra focus on the cost-saving capabilities that IT can deliver.

In the other corner, weighing in at a global destruction of ecosystems, melting icecaps and the possibly permanent change of climates in every part of the world, is the issue of climate change. Climate change, like the economic crisis, has caused a massive shift in how companies approach their own business system, but mostly, how they approach their market. ‘Going Green’ is hot and, even despite the economic downturn, willingness to contribute or, at least, to appear to contribute seems higher than ever. Just search for ‘Going Green’, and you’ll get millions of results – often combining Green and cost-saving.

What do these have to do with each other? Well, the combined effect of these issues seems to be an increased interest of customers not only in what they’re getting, but also in how a company delivers. To me, it feels like banks can reap massive benefits from an image of decency and sensibility now, as opposed to those currently ‘falling down’ from what is perceived (rightfully so, in my humble opinion) as ‘greediness’. In other sectors, look at Google and its ‘Don’t be evil’ adage, and its continued focus on stimulating research on renewable energy.

What this seems to indicate is that there is a competitive advantage to be gained from image. This, of course, is not new – brands and their delivery are key aspects of managing a succesful company. But I’m wondering if the current global situation is causing enough shifts in this to make the question of how a company delivers important enough to base a strategy on it. In essence, what I’m saying is that Treacy & Wiersema’s 3 value disciplines, or Porter’s Generic Strategies, might need revising. Remember those? Treacy & Wiersema proposed three distinct ways in which companies could deliver unique value to customers:

1. Operational Excellence, or focusing on price & ease of purchase & use
2. Product Leadership, or focusing on innovation & features of your product
3. Customer Intimacy, or focusing on customers & delivering tailored solutions

I propose to add a fourth to this:

1. Consumer Trust, or focusing on building an image of being responsible & considerate of the impact of the company’s actions on environment and society

This requires thought on its consequences and how it differs from the other three value disciplines. Will it be a sustainable source of competitive advantage, or will it die out as soon as the economic crisis (or the climate change crisis) has blown over? Worth a thought!