Book 'Everyday Enterprise Architecture' is now complete

And another book off to press: Everyday Enterprise Architecture: sensemaking, strategy, structures and solutions. The master-files went off to Lightning Source on Friday, but I didn’t have time to update the Tetradian Books website until this morning.

Everyday Enterprise-Architecture

(Note for various folks at TOGAF Rome: the working-title of this book was Enterprise-architecture in real-time, so that’s what you’ll see in the notes for the conference, and in the sample PDF file if you took a copy. Just before release to press I realised that the ‘real-time’ term was potentially confusing, hence switched over to the ‘everyday’ term to emphasise that the text goes through the process day-by-day as well as step-by-step.)

Main theme of this book is the actual details of what we do in enterprise-architecture work, particularly the thinking-processes, the review and reflection, and the practicalities of dealing with clients and other stakeholders in live real-time real-world practice. I’ve structured the book around a realistic ten-day architecture-project, based on real assignments over the past few years.

The sample-version PDF is at:

At the moment the link on that page points to the full e-book, not the sample version. I’ll replace it with the sample when I deliver the commercial master-copy to the retailers, but the full version will probably be up there for the next week or so –  grab the full version while you can! 🙂

The complete e-book is now available with the others in the series, in the private ‘Review’ section at:

Physical copies should be available via Amazon, Borders and other online retailers – and your local friendly independent bookstore – from about May 8.

Comments and reviews would be much appreciated!

Update (3 May 2010): As can be seen in the ‘comments’ section to this post, Dave Snowden, the originator of the Cynefin framework, has made a number of objections, necessitating an urgent re-edit. Production for the book has been postponed until an updated master-file can be created, which should be ready later today. Will add a further update on that here, anyway.

Update (also 3 May 2010): Checking through the text, it looks like there will need to be approximately 40 changes to the text, and 26 diagrams to redraw. Most of the text-changes will be trivial, fortunately, so that shouldn’t take long, but redoing all those drawings will definitely take a while – I’d hoped to get it all done today, but it may overrun into tomorrow. My apologies on that, and also apologies for the problem anyway. More later.

7 Comments on “Book 'Everyday Enterprise Architecture' is now complete

  1. I don’t want to open old wounds, but your use of “Cynefin” for a fundamentally different construct continues to concern me. If you were not self publishing then I would be tempted to write to your publisher to express concern. Lack of references, lack of acknowledgement that your use of the model and its language are disputed by its creator can all leave a misleading impression with reader. Your use of Cynefin as a name is extensive throughout the book and your reworking of a construct using similar language is central to the theme. By implication your are attempting to use the reputation of Cynefin as an endorsement for your own model.

    As I have said before intellectual integrity would normally take a different route. You would start by showing the Cynefin model with a reference, then create your own construct (named or otherwise) and then identify how you have changed the language. You are using chaos to handle situations which the Cynefin model describes as complex, and complex for complicated (and that is only the start).

    There can be no legitimate objection to taking someone else’s model as the inspiration or starting point for your own, subject to acknowledgement of the original source. There is every objection to using an established name for something “other”. I’ve more or less given up on commenting on your blog, but now you are creating a blog the issue is potentially more serious and I think you should consider a relatively simple change or at least a clear statement that your use of the language of the Cynefin framework does not conform with the Cynefin model itself and is disputed by its originator.

  2. Dave – Very strongly agreed: I do not wish to re-open old wounds.

    To resolve your specific concerns above: I don’t know how far you’ve read into the book, but in the later section that expands on context-space mapping (‘More on context-space mapping’) I explain in some considerable care the distinction between the Cynefin original and the way I’ve adapted the model; I’ve also taken care to credit the original, and to advise strongly that the term ‘Cynefin-like’, ‘Cynefin-type’ or an equivalent should be used rather than ‘Cynefin’.

    When I first introduce the map I was also careful to state that it ‘draws on’ Cynefin, not that it ‘is’ Cynefin’, and I’ve repeated similar statements right the way through the book. I believe I’ve also explicitly stated that these usages may not be approved by Cynefin’s creator: I certainly did so in the blog, but I’ll have to check whether the exact same text ended up in the book – it may have been edited out precisely because I _didn’t_ want to cause any further confusion, or for your name to be associated with my work in any way that might suggest you approve of it, because I’m very aware that you don’t. (However, the fact that you do not approve of it does _not_ make it ‘wrong’.)

    As I have also stated elsewhere, but intentionally did _not_ state in the book, my original source-work on these mappings predates Cynefin by some 10-15 years (in my book ‘Inventing Reality’, first published in 1986). It happens to coincide very closely with Cynefin, though I will admit that the terminology I used there (Mystic, Scientist, Technologist/Magician and Artist) is a lot less accessible to a business-audience than their effective more-generic equivalents in Cynefin (Simple, Complicated, Complex and Chaotic respectively). Much the same mapping can also be seen in Ken Wilber’s work (though I thoroughly dislike what he’s done with it), or for that matter in Jung’s, or way back to the Greek philosophers who gave us Earth, Air, Water and Fire. The one part of Cynefin that genuinely is unique is the one which far too many people forget, namely the central region of Disorder; to be honest, I have not seen anyone other than you or I making explicit use of it, and the way I’ve used it here is specifically in terms of context-space mapping, in ways which I’ve not seen in your work. (I have been very careful _not_ to read any of your more recent work, or even to review your old work, in order to avoid precisely these potential concerns over purported plagiarism and the like.)

    We are doing different work for different audiences in different contexts, with different aims and different concerns. As I have said many times, I do not claim to be using Cynefin _as such_. The basic four/five-domain drawing and categorisation is a useful base-frame, just as Zachman (for example) or PDCA or OODA or Five Elements/Group Dynamics or ISO-9000 is a useful base-frame. The whole point of this type of work is not the base-map but the meanings and interpretations that can be derived from overlays of other cross-maps. None of it claims to ‘be’ Cynefin, other than the one explicitly-stated example which is credited directly as ‘official’ Cynefin.

    Much of this work is new, and to my knowledge has no equivalents in Cynefin. For example, the recursive layering of using the same terminology for boundary-types is entirely new (and credited to enterprise-architect Sally Bean, who provided the inspiration); likewise the mapping to an arced axis; likewise the notion of cross-layering of problem-space versus solution-space; likewise the notion (or analogy) of ‘collapsing the wave-function’ between ‘solution’ and ‘problem’; and so on; and so on.

    I believe I _am_ entitled to use generic terminology in ways which are different to yours. Bluntly, I happen to believe that _you_ are significantly mistaken in _your_ usage of much of that generic terminology: but I am not so rude as to say so in a book.

    Like you, I do not wish to re-open old wounds. Please let’s leave it at that?

  3. Dave – I would also say that there’s usually a great deal of pleasure in releasing a new book to one’s professional colleagues. Unfortunately, in this case, you’ve successfully managed to destroy most of that pleasure, and turn a happy event into an extremely unpleasant one. Well done. Congratulations. Now would you please _go away_, and _not_ waste any more of my time or yours on this?

    I will not enter into any more correspondence with you on this. Thank you.

  4. Sorry Tom, but I am afraid I read your material carefully and I can’t agree with your excuses above. I carefully worded my comment to suggest a way forward that would allow you to develop an interesting model and set of ideas without creating confusion. You mention “Cynefin” as a word throughout the book. You should mention it once, say that you have used it as a base and then move on. If you think I have misused the base terms then you should say so, there is nothing rude about that. It would add validity to your creating a new model and an interesting discourse might emerge.

    Many people have used the Simple-Complicated-Complex (and sometimes Chaotic) labels. As you say disorder is unique to Cynefin. In my writing I make my use of those labels clear (in terms of constraint relationships between system and agent) which allows people to understand the differences. I never use the name of someone else’s model. You give the game away by the way when you talk about “official cynefin” and “Cynefin like”. Also in the fact that your model is more or less identical to the Cynefin drawing, even though there is no need for simple to abut chaotic as you use an arc in your writing. A simple redrawing would make your offering more distinct and avoid confusion.

    As you say, most of your work is original to you, and not derivative of Cynefin – all the more reason to create your model with its own name. I have politely asked you to demonstrate the normal professional integrity common in academic circles and have suggested a way in which you could do that. You have persistently refused to do that,

    If you were working through a reputable publisher I would write to them to formally complain. As its your own label I doubt this would be effective and I will leave your future action in this respect to your conscience, although I will probably make my concerns public. I am sorry you were upset, but you should realise that your continued failure to follow profession practice is of equal concern to me.

    Finally – I think this is really a great pity. I like the ideas in your book and I think it has a lot of value. That value however is damaged and reduced by your absconding with a name and model that is not yours and which you have changed beyond recognition in other than form and language.

  5. Dave – The book-content had been sent to press, but I have now halted production of the book until I can create a new master-file, which should be later today.

    The following changes will be made:
    – all references to ‘Cynefin’ will be removed (except as described below), and replaced with the term ‘star’ (for example, any existing references in diagrams will be changed from ‘Cynefin-frame’ to ‘star-frame’.
    – when the star-frame is first introduced, a cross-reference to Cynefin will be added, summarising the star’s derivation from the Cynefin base-frame, and making it explicit a) that you are the originator of Cynefin, b) that these usages are not part of Cynefin and do not have your approval, and c) that the cross-reference to Cynefin relates solely to the base-frame diagram, not to the body of knowledge and practice that is Cynefin-proper
    – the reference to the standard Cynefin model in the ‘More about context-space mapping’ chapter will be retained as-is, together with its explicit explanation that Cynefin is an entirely separate body of knowledge and practice (the reference to ‘Cynefin-like’ etc will be edited to link it to the ‘star-frame’ theme), because I do believe that it is important to acknowledge your work, and make it better-known to the enterprise-architecture community

    I will attempt to find an alternate way to draw the base-frame, but unfortunately it _is_ the best way to illustrate that particular set of concepts in two-dimensional form. (As far as I’m concerned, the star-frame actually the closest-available two-dimensional equivalent of the tetradian structure, which is the form that actually applies in most cases. We do agree, I think, on the importance of the ‘none-of-the-above’ proto-domain which you label ‘Disorder’, and which in the tetradian, for example, is the common origin-point for all of the tetradial axes.)

    I hope that this will be sufficient to satisfy your objections above, and that we can then move on from this space.

  6. That is all I have ever asked for Tom and (b) is not necessary under those circumstances. Your work is then an interesting development, I can reference it and comment on it without any Cynefin confusion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *