Maintaining mapping from current to future state

[Kurt Fenstermacher]

I'd like to describe both current and future state architectures (business processes/logical models/tech architectures and so on) in EA and then build links between the current and future state versions so that I can say, Application 1 (Current state) will be split into Application 2 (future state) and various operations provided by Services 1 & 2 (in the future state). Then, I'd like to be able to generate automated "in transition" views where I can say, "with Application 2 (future state) and Services 1 (future state) built, I can eliminate Application 1 (current state), but I need to implement the following operations on Service 2 to be ready.

[YogaMatt]

Hello Kurt

Let's recap: we want to be able to model different architecture states and manage the steps we need to take to get from one to another?

Nearly a decade on ... how did you get on with this? Did you find a workable solution? Did the problem go away? Did you give up? I'd be keen to learn of your journey. What would you say in relation to:

• The extent to which the Gap Analysis matrix helps? I've found it useful, but is only part of the puzzle.
• I really like what the BEASI plug-in achieves - it is a very graphical way to depict deltas between current and future. Does anyone have any independent success stories about how it scales to a complex model?
  
• The Time-aware Modelling new in EA 13 is interesting: does anyone have any success stories from using that? My issue with it lies in the fact it muddles the two states as one model. In practice, with a complex transformation, maintaining separate models but being able to track the deltas between them is really important. Why? A number of reasons:
  
  
  • It can take many months to build a target architecture;
  • Meanwhile you need to keep your current architecture, well, current. It is going to change and you have to reflect this as the baseline model is the document you refer to for maintenance (right?);
  • To explore different transition options, with a complex architecture, how do you a rolled-up view of the many gaps (deltas) between them, and then go on to select the best, when the two states are muddled as one?;
  • One option in transformation is to have a period of parallel running: i.e. you keep your current IT estate supporting AS-IS processes, whilst you run up the new estate and support TO-BE processes;

I'm coming to the view that there is no one size fits all approach in this space. For simple scenario, a simple Gap Matrix helps enough. For richer scenarios, the graphical power of BEASI gives real insight and helps with stakeholder engagement. When it comes to a large scale transformation of a complex architectural landscape, I think you need a system to automatically track all the deltas between several different architecture states:

• baseline
• chosen target

AND, if you're doing a thorough job:

• candidate target(s) (you don't conceive of just one before deciding to spend 10s of £M, do you?)
• candidate transition state(s) (so you can think through the journey you'll take your organisation on)
• actual transition states

This is needed because it helps a large architecture team working with a plethora of stakeholders to come to optimal options (OK, I mean risk reduced options), but also because you'll want MI on how you're doing to ensure your transformation is keeping on track.

Thoughts anyone?

YogaMatt

[Glassboy]

Kurt was Last Active: 2009-07-09.  If there is something you want to discuss, start your own thread with your own question in it rather than creating zombies.

[qwerty]

BTW.: This as-is/to-be has been discussed here more than once (I know that searching for it is a PITA especially with those stop words; however, give it a try). Basically, you will find that there's no silver bullet for it. As in Dusk til Dawn try holy water and crossed shotguns.

q.