Skip to main content

Data-centric architecture, for better services

John Schmidt of Informatica argues that the digital transformation of an organisation is better supported by focussing on the organisation's data, rather than its IT applications.  An application-centric approach structures an organisation's IT by the applications, each of which has a business owner and defined functions.  This works as long as these functions remain separate.  But when more processes are moved online, when the processes become more complex and involve multiple business areas, the emphasis needs to shift away from the individual applications, to the processes and the data that they use.

I agree with this point of view.  Software development (of individual programs) moved to this approach a long time ago, primarily with the introduction of object-oriented programming. Basing the structure of programs around the data elements, rather than the processes, made it easier to change the processes.  A data-centric approach to architecture is taking the same approach on a larger scale.

The difficulty can be in explaining the advantages to the business areas.  In software development, the choice of program structure is an internal matter for the programmers to decide.  In architecture, the decision is more visible, because it is often the business areas who pay for, and choose, the IT applications that we deploy.  So we need materials to explain why this is a good idea, using non-technical language (or "speaking human", as a colleague put it).  I don't have an easy answer for this, but I'm working on it.

My thanks to Ian Anderson for alerting me to John's post, via the UCISA EA mailing list.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Presentation: Putting IT all together

This is a presentation I gave to an audience of University staff: 

In this seminar, I invite you to consider what the University’s online services would be like, if we worked together to design them from the perspective of the student or member of staff who will use them, instead of designing them around the organisational units that provide them. I’ll start with how the services might appear to that student or member of staff, then work back from there to show what this implies for how we work, how we manage our data, and how we integrate our IT systems. It might even lead to changes in our organisational structure.

Our online services make a vital and valued contribution to the work of our students and staff. I argue that with better integration, more consistent user interfaces, and shared data, this contribution could be significantly enhanced.

This practice is called “Enterprise Architecture”. I’ll describe how it consults multiple organisational units and defines a framework …

Service Excellence, Digital Transformation and Enterprise Architecture

Our University Secretary has sponsored a major review of the University’s administrative processes, coining the banner “Service Excellence”.  The aim is to look at the services we provide to staff and students with a fresh eye, making them more effective, more efficient, and focussed on the user rather than administrative convenience.

Our CIO is sponsoring a similar programme called “Digital Transformation”. This will replace old paper-based processes, starting with the question of what would processes look like if we designed them afresh for the modern connected world.  The aim is to make processes that are more focussed on the user and hence more effective and efficient.

Both of these ambitious programmes will need an effective enterprise architecture, if they are to succeed.  Digital Transformation is intrinsically about using opportunities provided by new technology to improve services and, as such, it requires effective technology services to make data available when needed, to pro…

Not so simple...

A common approach to explaining the benefits of Enterprise Architecture is to draw two diagrams: one that shows a complicated mess of interconnections, and one that shows a nicely layered set of blocks. Something like this one, which came from some consultants:


I've never felt entirely happy with this approach.  Yes, we do want to remove as much of the needless complexity and ad-hoc design that litters the existing architecture.  Yes, we do want to simplify the architecture and make it more consistent and intelligible.  But the simplicity of the block diagram shown here is unobtainable in the vast majority of real enterprises.  We have a mixture of in-house development and different third-party systems, some hosted in-house, some on cloud infrastructure and some accessed as software-as-a-service.  For all the talk of standards, vendors use different authentication systems, different integration systems, and different user interfaces.

So the simple block diagram is, basically, a l…