current state vs future state

Post Reply
mjtapp
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Aug 2009, 09:57

Hi,

I was wondering if there are any general recommendations on the best way to model current state (as-is architecture) vs future state (target architecture)?

One obvious way is to create two models, each reflecting the respective state, I was curious if this would be the recommended approach or if there is another way of approaching this.
sarah.smith
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Hi,

The way to capture different states, e.g future, current etc, is as you suggest.

Basically, you create a model, or architecture, that reflects the nature of the elements in a particular state. This could be current state, future state and any interim stages required to move from one to the other. Avoid using terms like "current state" or "future state" in the names of the elements that you are going to associate with the architecture states, as these elements could appear (quite validly) in both current and future state models. You should name them based on what they do, for example you could have manual sales process and automated sales process. We would then associate each of the models, or architectures, with an architecture state. So in this examples we would associate manual sales process with current state and automated sales process with future state. We would then create a strategic plan to manage the transition, where we would model the various states with start and end dates.

Although we have a 'place holder' class in the meta model for Architecture States in the EA Support->Strategy Management area, the detail is not currently available to make this usable. However, we have a prototype that covers modelling different architecture states and how these states relate to each other (e.g. to define a strategic roadmap). Unfortunately, when we launched this wasn't quite ready and didn’t make it into the baseline release.

Now this has been requested, however, we will raise it as an ECP (Essential Community Process) to ensure that our design covers everything that is needed by the community and then we will release it as an enhancement.

As we are already some way down the line with this we should be able to raise this with a prototype available for comment by the end of the week, and have the extension available for use fairly soon after.

One area that we will need views on is the reporting angle, as we have not as yet defined any reports for how this information should be presented in the Viewer. It is likely that a number of different views will be required.

Keep your eye out for the ECP, but in the meantime it would be good to know if the process outlined above sounds like what you need.

Sarah
mjtapp
Posts: 19
Joined: 19 Aug 2009, 09:57

Thanks Sarah,

Yes, what you've described makes sense, and as you say I think the challenge will be on the reporting side.

I'll definitely look forward to seeing how this area develops as I think the relationship between current state, future state and a project (or projects) that will deliver the future state is an important one and visualising and communicating this information can be a challenge in a complex environment.

Michael
User avatar
jonathan.carter
Posts: 1087
Joined: 04 Feb 2009, 15:44

Just to let you know that I have started the ECP for this - ECP-4 Strategy Management

Apologies for the delay in getting this going but we should have a sample repository available shortly for this ECP to explore what we have defined and see how that meets the requirements.

Jonathan
Essential Project Team
Post Reply