Upload
uwe-friedrichsen
View
1.449
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Towards complex adaptive architectures A journey from hypes and habits to real needs
Uwe Friedrichsen, codecentric AG, 2015
@ufried Uwe Friedrichsen | [email protected] | http://slideshare.net/ufried | http://ufried.tumblr.com
Formal part of value creation Solution: machine
Dynamic part of value creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamic high dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t 1970/80 today
Age of crafts manu- facturing
Age of tayloristic industry
Age of global markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets, little competition
Local markets, high customi-zation
Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. The “bathtub” curve
Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13
Formal part of value creation Solution: machine
Dynamic part of value creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamic high dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t 1970/80 today
Age of crafts manu- facturing
Age of tayloristic industry
Age of global markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets, little competition
Local markets, high customi-zation
Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Pre-industrial era
Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13
Tailor-made solutions
“Mastery is key to success”
Formal part of value creation Solution: machine
Dynamic part of value creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamic high dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t 1970/80 today
Age of crafts manu- facturing
Age of tayloristic industry
Age of global markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets, little competition
Local markets, high customi-zation
Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Industrial era
Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13
Cost-efficiently scale production
“Get more done with less people is key to success”
Formal part of value creation Solution: machine
Dynamic part of value creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamic high dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t 1970/80 today
Age of crafts manu- facturing
Age of tayloristic industry
Age of global markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets, little competition
Local markets, high customi-zation
Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Post-industrial era
Source: BetaCodex Network Associates, “Organize for complexity”, BetaCodex Network White Paper 12 & 13
Continuously respond to changing demands
“Continuous customer communication
is key to success”
Industrial era
• Cost-efficiency • Scalability • Repeatability • Stability
Drivers for organizations
Post-industrial era
• Cycle times • Adaptability • Flexibility • Resilience
Market
Observe
Derive Goals & Create Plan
Execute Execute
Command & Control
Execute
Command & Control
Execute
Command & Control
Command & Control
Tayloristic Organization
Tayloristic Organization Pros • Cost-Efficient • Easy to scale simple/complicated tasks Cons • Sluggish response to change drivers • Very fragile with respect to complexity à Great for wide and slow markets, Bad for narrow and dynamic markets
Market
Observe
Derive Goals & Constraints
Beta Organization
Share Goals & Constraints
Collaborating autonomous
Teams
Inspect & Adapt Inspect & Adapt Inspect & Adapt Inspect & Adapt
Beta Organization Pros • Responds well to change drivers • Deals well with complexity • Scales quite well Cons • Centralized definition of goals & constraints à Modern leadership model for narrow and dynamic markets
Market
Complex Adaptive Organization (Cybernetic Organization)
Continuously communicate
Organization continuously adapting to market needs & demands
Cybernetic Organization Pros • Best response possible to change drivers • Perfect for dynamic, complex markets Cons • Effective, but not necessarily efficient • Not suitable for simple/complicated tasks à Great for narrow and dynamic markets, Bad for wide and sluggish market
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Complicated
(Business functions)
Complex
(Business processes)
Highly complex
(Business nervous system)
Software crisis
Software engineering
PC
LAN
Internet Business Support
of IT
Selective
Holistic
Complicated
Complex “Moore’s law”
Mobile IoT
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Complicated
(Business functions)
Complex
(business processes)
Highly complex
(Business nervous system)
Software crisis
Software engineering
PC
LAN
Internet Business Support
of IT
Selective
Holistic
Complicated
Complex “Moore’s law”
Mobile IoT
We are here …
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Complicated
(Business functions)
Complex
(business processes)
Highly complex
(Business nervous system)
Software crisis
Software engineering
PC
LAN
Internet Business Support
of IT
Selective
Holistic
Complicated
Complex “Moore’s law”
Mobile IoT
… but we still base most of our decisions on that
We are here …
Formal part of value creation Solution: machine
Dynamic part of value creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamic high dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t 1970/80 today
Age of crafts manu- facturing
Age of tayloristic industry
Age of global markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets, little competition
Local markets, high customi-zation
Outperformers exercise market pressure over conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”. Remember the bathtub curve?
This adds an additional twist …
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Complicated
(Business functions)
Complex
(business processes)
Highly complex
(Business nervous system)
Software crisis
Software engineering
PC
LAN
Internet Business Support
of IT
Selective
Holistic
Complicated
Complex “Moore’s law”
Mobile IoT
… but we still base most of our decisions on that
We are here …
Business is very different today …
… than it was back then
Business
Market
IT today is a …
… Nervous System
… Medium … Product
… Differentiator
Disruptive Technologies
Business Support Systems
Continuous Conversation Digitization
What we learned so far … • Markets changed a lot
• From wide & sluggish (industrial) • To narrow & dynamic (post-industrial)
• Different organizations required to meet market needs and demands • Tayloristic (industrial, centralized) • Beta (post-industrial, partially decentralized) • Complex adaptive (post-industrial, decentralized)
• IT itself changed a lot • From supporter of selective business functions • To business nervous system and differentiator
Conway’s law: Organizations which design systems [...] are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations
Conway’s law reversed: You won’t be able to successfully establish an efficient organization structure that is not supported by your system design (architecture)
Monolith
Example: Multiple teams working on a monolith usually end up in tightly coupled teams with excessive communication overhead
Industrial Post-Industrial
What kind of architecture suits the different paradigms and organizational approaches best?
Tayloristic organization
Architectural Drivers
• Core driver: Cost-efficiency
• Centralized control • Centralized change process • Minimize cost/feature • Change response times of
minor relevance
Implies
Application Properties
• Big Applications (“Economies of scale”) • Large change projects • Big, infrequent releases • Long change response times • Rigid, inflexible architecture • High degree of configurability
• Optimized for output/$
Leads to
Cybernetic organization
Architectural Drivers
• Core driver: Cycle times
• Decentralized control • Decentralized change
process • Minimize cycle time/feature • Change response times are
essential
Implies
Application Properties
• Small, resilient Applications • Change flow instead of projects • Continuous releases • Very short change response times • Flexible, decoupled architecture • Configurability of minor relevance
• Optimized for outcome/$
Leads to
Industrial Post-Industrial
Monolith
Layered Architecture
Process Engine
Rule Engine
ESB Microservice REST
Event driven
Message driven
Complex Adaptive
Architecture
Actors
Central Database
Cloud
Orchestration Choreography
RPC/RFC
Industrial Post-Industrial
Monolith
Layered Architecture
Process Engine
Rule Engine
ESB Microservice REST
Event driven
Message driven
Complex Adaptive
Architecture
Actors
Central Database
Cloud
Orchestration Choreography
RPC/RFC
Industrial Post-Industrial
Monolith
Layered Architecture
Process Engine
Rule Engine
ESB Microservice REST
Event driven
Message driven
Complex Adaptive
Architecture
Actors
Central Database
Cloud
Orchestration Choreography
RPC/RFC
Industrial Post-Industrial
Monolith
Layered Architecture
Process Engine
Rule Engine
ESB Microservice REST
Event driven
Message driven
Complex Adaptive
Architecture
Actors
Central Database
Cloud
Orchestration Choreography
RPC/RFC
Industrial Post-Industrial
Monolith
Layered Architecture
Process Engine
Rule Engine
ESB Microservice REST
Event driven
Message driven
Complex Adaptive
Architecture
Actors
Central Database
Cloud
Orchestration Choreography
RPC/RFC
Industrial Post-Industrial
Monolith
Layered Architecture
Process Engine
Rule Engine
ESB Microservice REST
Event driven
Message driven
Complex Adaptive
Architecture
Actors
Central Database
Cloud
Orchestration Choreography
RPC/RFC
Wrap-up
• We arrived in the post-industrial age
• The organizations need to adapt
• The role of IT also changed massively
Ø We need to re-think IT!
• Conway’s law affects architecture
Ø Align architecture and organization
Ø Don’t mix solutions for different needs
@ufried Uwe Friedrichsen | [email protected] | http://slideshare.net/ufried | http://ufried.tumblr.com