J. on Architecture

Architects have a natural affection for complexity. We love to play with it, order it and make models out of it. This is quite logical of course, since that is the core of our work. What we must realise though is that this complexity is not part of what we should deliver. The product of an architect is the insight on which others can base their decisions. But to provide that insight the architect needs to hide the complexity and show only those parts that are needed for the decision making.

This is not to say that the architect can dispense with the complexity. Far from it. It’s the job of an architect to maintain both the complex reality and simplified presentation in a coherent way, adding both an extra level of complexity and giving the guarantee that decisions based on the simplified presentation have the same effect on the complex reality.

In the physical world the process of a customer transaction can be flexible because there is direct interaction between customer and an employee of your company. In the information exchange between the two people one can ask for additional information or ask for clarification. Because of the interaction the process can take up any amount of time, until both parties have asked for and acquired the information they need from the other to complete the transaction.

In the digital world (i.e. on a website) this process is atomic and rigid, because there is no interaction. The customer has to provide all the information in the predefined format of the customer (web) application and has to do so in one go. Of course the information exchange can be broken down into logical steps, but the transaction as a whole has to be done in one take. If the customer doesn’t provide all the information; no transaction. If the customer has questions; no transaction.

So how can you unify these two dynamics in a multi channel environment? This is a question that is especially relevant for government organizations that are bound by law to provide their services over multiple channels. The answer is services.

If you brake the process down into logical steps and form separate services for each of these steps, you can use these in the predefined way that the customer application is designed, or you can let the employee use them at their own discretion in a flexible employee application. That is the essence of service oriented architecture.

An architect is essentially an advisor on matters of design. In this role of advisor you always have to ask yourself one basic question: Does it make sense?

This pertains not only to the architecture you are designing, but also to the object being created. Let me give you an example. You can design an amazing skyscraper with a sound foundation and a smart layout, but if the client wants to build it in a little village instead of a large city, you have to ask if the need for the skyscraper itself makes any sense.

Of course this is a simple example, but the point is clear. It’s better to question the ideas of your client, than to make a good architecture that is useless. In the end your client will thank you for it, because it always leads to better value for money.

…and does the customer want to be known? These are two very important questions you have got to ask yourself, when considering CRM. First make sure that you are really going to use the information that you request from you customers, because obtaining and maintaining the data is non-trivial.

Is their name really important? If you want to address them in your marketing campaign it is, but for cross-selling it is not. Address information is relevant for delivery, but usually not for personalization. Information is only relevant in certain aspects of CRM, but certainly not all of them. So you have to decide on how you want to interact with your customer and get the necessary information accordingly.

This brings us to obtaining the data. People are generally reluctant to provide personal information, so don’t bother them unless you have to. One way you can do this is by analyzing behavior on your website. This can be done automatically and provides a wealth of information. Another way is to offer after-sales services, in return for some contact details. That way they get real value for their information currency. Never ask for personal information up front, or for no reason. People value their privacy.

So only take what you need from you custeromer and use really it. That will keep your customers happy and your systems light.

In civil architecture it is custom to analyse the works of others. By studying actual buildings, architects can see for themselves what works and what doesn’t. Especially with the blueprints in hand, walking through the building can be a great learning experience.

So why don’t we do the same with IT architecture? Lately we tend to focus more and more on the process, with IT Governance being a hot topic at the moment. But I think we should also look at the result and evaluate it. Does the proposed architecture work as expected? Are there new patterns that can be identified? How can we use the best practices?

Only through reflection can you become better.