Justification for the investment required to make the
changes necessary to utilise The Architecture Paradigm™ cannot be based on
numbers or normal simple cost/benefit justification. Any attempt to do so will
end in disaster. Any potential benefits tend to be hard to understand, quantify
and express (especially in terms of impact on the bottom line) and the
realisation of the benefits after the Transformation of Transformation tend to
be slow and cannot be as immediately felt. This is because the benefits of
improving Transformation only materialise after subsequent projects (which
Transform other things like Operations), execute within that improved
“You Can’t ‘Cost-Justify’ Architecture”
- John A. Zachman.
Justification MUST therefore be based on understanding when
it’s applicable and when it’s not. Just as there are times when use is
critically important, there are also times when it is of no use whatsoever. The
trick is to understand where you are on that continuum and more importantly
where you are likely to be in the short, medium and long term.
How applicable and beneficial it is, is a function of the
Structural Complexity and Transformational Volatility of the “thing” in
question which come together to form Transformational Complexity. Therefore the
applicability of utilising The Architecture Paradigm™ rises as a function of
rising Structural Complexity Transformational Volatility aka Transformational
Complexity. If Transformational Complexity is low then use of The Architecture
Paradigm™ is of little use but as Transformational Complexity rises, use of The
Architecture Paradigm™ becomes mandatory.