Subject: MS Azure Services: Is there an overarching architectural vision?

From: Michael Herman (Parallelspace)
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 7:58 AM
To: Mark Russinovich; Scott Guthrie
Subject: MS Azure Services: Is there an overarching architectural vision?

Hi Mark and Scott,

I’m pretty sure that you and I have never met – although I’ve been building apps on the Windows platform since 1986 (version 0.989 of the SDK) and I worked for MSFT from 1996-2001 – mostly on the SharePoint team.

My question is: Is there an overarching architectural vision for the (complete) MS Azure platform? There doesn’t appear to be and I’ll give you an example in a second.

It appears like we’re back in 1996 when Billg/Microsoft finally “got the Internet” and every product group began a completely different, disconnected, uncoordinated effort to add “Internet” to their own little piece of software (e.g. HTML publishing mostly; support for some Internet protocols; etc.) Every day something new was being “released to the web (RTW)” and the Microsoft platform was a mess.

What I saw with Microsoft and the Internet in 1996 is happening all over again with the Microsoft Azure strategy: a disconnected and uncoordinated and not well documented strategy and implementation. Azure [as a strategic platform] is a mess.

My example: MS Azure services, MS IoT Suite, MS Cortana Suite, Azure Logic Apps.

The whole MS approach to Azure Event Hubs is extraordinary (good): Lightweight, inexpensive, brain-dead easy to use, largely unrestricted in terms of how Event Hubs can be used and the use cases they can support.

If I have some event data in an Event Hub, the very next thing I want to do is perform some post-processing of the event data – ideally staying with a streaming, hyper-scalable architecture. I [also] want to create an easily composable pipeline of activities that each perform some sort of processing of each event as the events progress through the pipeline. I want the pipeline activities to be easy to design and implement (e.g. kind of like PowerShell cmdlets but it doesn’t have to that specific implementation pattern but with a similar simple pattern that is easy to build upon).

But which MS Azure services have native support for consuming event data stored in an Azure Event Hub? …almost none

…except for Azure Stream Analytics. But what about Azure Data Factory? What about Azure Logic Apps? Are there other Azure Services I should be considering? …without having to build and manage [several] custom Azure WebJobs and use all sorts of intermediate Azure storage just to connect the applicable Azure services together?

Of the 3 options I listed, you chose the one, Azure Stream Analytics, that has [the] most baroque programming model (some SQL derivation). None of the latter two have any native support for event data stored in an Event Hub and they are a lot easier to use than Stream Analytics SQL scripts.

Where is the Azure documentation that is targeted at Architects?

The MS IoT Suite team has started a good MS IoT Reference Architecture document: http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/4/D/A4DAD253-BC21-41D3-B9D9-87D2AE6F0719/Microsoft_Azure_IoT_Reference_Architecture.pdf

Where is the consistent set of similar documents for the other collections of MS Azure services? Where is the overarching MS Azure architecture document?

Given a starting point and a goal (and some intermediate subgoals), where is the “Google Map” of all of the possible connections and routings across all of the MS Azure services?

MS Azure-Google Map

Can you help?

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NASA Apollo 11 Flight Plan – July 1, 1969

#notetoselfonly

Click here: NASA Apollo 11 Flight Plan – July 1, 1969

Michael Herman (Toronto)

1 Comment

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, General, Space Flight

What’s the difference between improving the design and operation of an aircraft engine vs. an enterprise?

Answer: Nothing

Continuous Transformation 2

Continuous Transformation 1.png

Continuous Transformation is a key principle of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Model (PEAM); part of the practice of Total Enterprise Architecture Management (TEAM).

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation

mwherman@parallelspace.net

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture Reference Models, Business Value, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM), The Open Group

Parallelspace Mentoring and Remediation Services for Microsoft Azure IoT Suite

Parallelspace Mentoring and Remediation Services for Microsoft Azure IoT Suite is a coaching and consulting service targeted at Microsoft customers and partners who are evaluating or implementing solutions based on the Microsoft Internet of Things (IoT) Suite on top of the Microsoft Azure platform.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

For more details, contact:

Michael Herman
Principal Architect
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net
(416) 524-7702

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Parallelspace TEAM™ Total Enterprise Architecture Management

Parallelspace TEAM™ (Total Enterprise Architecture Management) is an automated enterprise solution for creating and maintaining enterprise architecture models of large, medium and small organizations. Parallelspace TEAM supports the Parallelspace Continuous Transformation framework to enable the direct connection between your enterprise reference models and line-of-business systems and processes. Parallelspace TEAM is a cloud-based solution the leverages Microsoft Azure for event management, communications, storage, analysis, visualization and reporting.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

For more details, contact:

Michael Herman
Principal Architect
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net
(416) 524-7702

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Parallelspace PowerPoint Template for ArchiMate 2.1

[Scroll down to see an experimental version of the PowerPoint template for modeling Conceptual, Logical and Physical architectures using ArchiMate symbols.]

Standard PowerPoint Template

Click here to open or download a copy of my Parallelspace PowerPoint Template for ArchiMate 2.1 version 1.1 (file version 1-0-12).  For Microsoft Office, there are Visio templates for ArchiMate but I’m not aware of there being any PowerPoint templates. See below for an example.

Please post your feedback in the comments …good or otherwise.  Please let me know what you think and, more importantly, how are these helping you and what you would like to see next?

Enjoy.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Here’s a simple PPT use case/example:

Parallelspace ArchiMate Concepts 1-0-12-Example

Experimental PowerPoint Template (Conceptual, Logical and Physical Architecture Modeling)

Click here to open or download a copy of an experimental version of my Parallelspace PowerPoint Template for ArchiMate 2.1 version 2.0 (file version 1-0-14) containing experimental conceptual, logical and physical renderings of the ArchiMate Business Architecture, Application Architecture and Physical Architecture concepts.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group

[Enterprise Architecture, Big Data, CRM, ERP, …] Tools and Methods Don’t Generate Business Value

[Updated: April 23, 2017]

Enterprise architecture and other tools and methods don’t generate business value – plain and simple; at least, not direct business value. This applies to many categories of enterprise software including but not limited to:

  • business intelligence
  • big data
  • enterprise analytics
  • CRM
  • ERP, etc.

It’s true. You don’t have to think about. You disagree? …or otherwise, want proof? Read on…

Read on…

At best, these tools and methods can enable or aid in the creation of increased business value.  This is actually pretty simple (in hindsight).

Real business value is only realized when an organization’s operational strategies, systems, assets, and processes experience measurable, positive Transformative Change – whether enabled by the use of a particular tool or method; or not.

Here’s the diagram… (click on any of these figures to enlarge them)

Parallelspace-Business Value from Transformative Change1

Figure 1. Enterprise Architecture Management

Here is some additional information on the ModelMate Continuous Transformation Framework as well as where and how business value is created.

Parallelspace-Business Value from Transformative Change2.png

Figure 2a. Continuous Transformation Framework

Parallelspace-Business Value from Transformative Change3.png

Figure 2b. Continuous Transformation Framework

Parallelspace-Business Value from Transformative Change4

Figure 2c. Continuous Transformation Framework

Here’s a more recent elaboration on the Continuous Transformation Framework described above.

progressive-ea-model-1-0-9-peam3-ea-chasm-auto-dots

Figure 3. Continuous Transformation Framework (updated)

The articles below go further to identify and define the gap that exists between the enterprise architecture reference model for the organization and the organization’s operational systems, assets and processes as the Enterprise Architecture Chasm. (Similarly, there is a gap between the strategy and reality is called the Strategy Chasm).

Related Articles

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
mwherman@parallelspace.net

6 Comments

Filed under Business Value, Enterprise Architecture

Is there an Industry or Microsoft definition for Hyperscalability?

Is anyone aware of an industry or Microsoft definition for Hyperscalability? …for example, from an Internet of Things (IoT) perspective?

How about something like this?

Hyper Scalability 1-0-1.png

Best regards,

Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

2 Comments

Filed under Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, Hyperscale, Microsoft Azure, Space Flight

How We Think About How We Work

Copyright (c) 2016-2025 Michael Herman (Alberta, Canada) – Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

How do we think about how we work? We rely on a few simple processes. Here is a list:

  • Progressive Improvement & Learning Process (PILP)
  • Continuous Transformation Process (CTP)
  • Deliverable Review: Initiate, Create, Review, Validate & Approve Process (ICRVA Process – “I crave a” Process)
  • Purpose: ADKAR: Awareness, Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom

Many thanks go to Alison Williams for helping me to clarify the Continuous Transformation Process (CTP).

Progressive Improvement through Continuous Transformation (and Learning)

Progressive Improvement thru Continuous Transformation 1-0-1

Progressive Improvement & Learning Process (PILP)

Progressive Improvement A 1-0-1

Progressive Improvement B 1-0-1

Continuous Transformation Process (CTP)

Parallelspace Continuous Transformation 2-0-1

Deliverable Review

Initiate, Create, Review, Validate & Approve (ICRVA) Process (“I crave a” Process)

Parallelspace ICRVA v12-0-2

Parallelspace ICRVA v12-0-2 Complete

The roles in the ICRVA process are based on the RACI matrix of responsibilities.

Content Purpose

– when writing a whitepaper or creating a new presentation. What is the aim of your deliverable?

  1. Awareness (An Overview of what is being described (Information))
  2. Knowledge (The “What” of what is being described)
  3. Understanding (The “How” of what is being described)
  4. Expertise (Deep, reliably demonstrated ability to understand, perform, and make sound judgments in a specific domain based on knowledge, skill, and experience)
  5. Wisdom (Broader judgment that applies experience, reflection, and values to choose what should be done, not just what can be done)

By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches. A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might, for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory. Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the gate he does not open his mouth. (Proverbs 24:3-7)

Intended Audience Statement (Example)

The intended audience for this tutorial about Structured Credentials is a broad range of professionals interested in furthering the application of Verifiable Credentials technology for use in software apps, agents, and services. The primary audience includes software architects, application developers, and user experience (UX) specialists; as well as people involved in a broad range of standards efforts related to decentralized identity, verifiable credentials, and secure storage.

Michael Herman’s Hierarchies

  • ADKAR: Awareness – Knowledge – Understanding – Expertise – Wisdom
  • Dream – Desire – Want – Need
  • Sensing – Learning – Training – Experiencing
  • Keywords – (Controlled) Vocabulary – Glossary – Dictionary – Taxonomy – Ontology
Michaels Hierarchies

Product Management: 3 Prioritization Levels

  1. Need to have
  2. Nice to have
  3. *Neat* to have

Scalability Levels

hyper-scalability-1-0-1

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

5 Comments

Filed under Architecture Reference Models, continuous transformation, Crossing the EA Charm, Definitions, How do we think, Parallelspace TDM, Process, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM)