Tom Graves writes about whole-of-enterprise architecture, where the enterprise is far greater than any single organisation or even individual markets. Similarly, whole-of-enterprise architecture concerns go far beyond the technology domain.
When working at the scope of individual systems, I have realised that we can benefit from taking a similarly whole perspective: I suggest thinking in terms of whole-of-system architecture can be useful and, in my work, necessary. Software systems certainly play an important role in my work, but people play vastly more important roles. As do relationships between people, groups of people and various forms of organisations. Furthermore, we need to talk about processes and data. The list goes on an on.
Even when thinking only about the technology aspects of such whole-of-system architectures, we usually have to consider runtime (or deployment) architecture concerns, development-time concerns (form, function and structure of code) as well as the tools and processes for helping us to build, deploy and manage the technology components of the system.
Thinking about this further, we might consider a system in this broad sense to be a fractal element of a larger enterprise, and therefore, perhaps, a small enterprise in itself. Consequently, whole-of-enterprise architecture insights may well apply. If so, whole-of-system architecture can then be understood as a specific type of whole-of-enterprise architecture (i.e. one tied to the system scope).
Having gotten the above out of my system, I can now start to sort it out. Would you care to help?
A few days ago, Laura Colvine said this on Twitter:
David takes on Goliath – Cups: A Coffee Startup Taking on Starbucks
The link pointed to an interesting and well-written article by Alison Griswold titled “Cups: A Coffee Startup Taking on Starbucks“.
In brief (and much less well-written than the original), the story is approximately this: Cups, an Israeli startup, offers bulk subscriptions (5, 10 or 20 cups) and monthly all-you-can-drink monthly subscriptions to customers of participating independent coffee shops. It uses mobile app technology to facilitate coffee shop discovery and location, subscription management and payment. Cups pays the coffee shops per cup, albeit at a highly discounted price, but assumes the risk associated to high consumption by monthly subscribers.
I like this idea very much: I like how technology is used to facilitate an idea that mostly plays out in the “real” world. I like how this idea seeks to level the playing field for small independent agents in a highly contested place. I like how the independent agents’ individual strengths and characteristics are preserved in this scheme. I like how this sustains and maybe even enhances diversity in this difficult environment.
(I have no problem with Starbucks or large corporations. This is not a rant against them. But I also value diversity very much.)
I wonder whether, no, I’d bet that similar approaches could work in other contexts. What type of business will be next?
Note: I understand that Cups can be understood as a shared platform and the independent coffee shops as pods in the sense that Dave Gray wrote about in The Connected Company. Cups and the independent coffee shops are participating in a shared enterprise as described by Tom Graves in Mapping the Enterprise (and his other books and his blog).