Are good Enterprise Architects made or born? Integrated Health Information Systems’ Principal Architect Peter Tan thinks there are more considerations than a stroke of luck involved. At the recent Architecture Community of Practice Forum held at NUS-ISS, he shares his personal experience on assembly of a dream team.
Peter Tan considers himself an accidental enterprise architect. He stumbled into the world of Enterprise Architecture (EA) in 2004, when he joined the Health Ministry to develop an infocomm-enabled system that would allow medical records to be shared across public healthcare institutions.
At that time, the healthcare system in Singapore was undergoing some significant changes. The vision to create a model for holistic and integrated patient care would eventually result in six healthcare clusters, each anchored by a different regional hospital working alongside an array of primary, intermediate and ancillary care-givers.
For the masterminds behind the IT backbone, the reality was not so clear-cut. Patients straddled across the six clusters, and across different sectors of healthcare services. While a centralised repository had to be created to enable information sharing, a spectrum of peripheral systems had to be integrated, and workflow variations remain. “As you can see, I’ve managed to make a career out of these ‘fun’ challenges,” Peter said with a cheeky grin.
According to Peter, it’s never entirely clear when an IT professional becomes an enterprise architect. “Typically, an enterprise architect grows out of the need to deal with complex projects across different boundaries, be they technological, business domain or organisational. However, it is possible to spot the rare breeds with EA potential by the way they traverse the different goals, bridge the critical gaps and deliver results. It’s as easy as ABCDEFG,” he added.
Architects without Boundaries,
Connecting the Dots with Everyone,
Fostering Growth.
Too hot, too cold or just right?
Indeed, there is no silver bullet to the EA conundrum, but Peter has observed a number of common threads, considerations and trade-offs faced by companies and business owners, when they are asked to put together an EA team:
- Generalist vs. Specialist Recruits
It can be frustrating when “experts” are unable to span the boundaries or appreciate the business and operational priorities. A generalist, on the other hand, could be challenged by domain experts and require more time to assimilate and deliver enterprise IT results.
- Technical vs. Soft Skills
While it is risky for folks without sufficient technical depth to over-simplify technical requirements and constraints with “marketecture”, it is just as tricky when technical folks cannot communicate or win over the users who are ultimately responsible for successful implementation.
- EA Practitioners vs. Industry Professionals
A strong EA team is able to combine industry experience with a working knowledge of the nuances and complexities that comes with executing EA strategies. The confluence of different strengths would encourage a well-rounded approach to problem solving.
- Rotation vs. Recruitment
While staff rotations are typically constrained by resource availability, a new recruit with fresh perspectives needs the time to develop and strengthen informal networks, and we often don’t have time on our side.
- Centralised vs. Decentralised Teams
A central pool of enterprise architects is vulnerable to the Ivory Tower syndrome, while decentralised teams run the risk of misalignment or lack of consistency in practice.
- Insource vs. Outsource
Outsourcing the EA function could overcome resource constraints, but external services providers could be disadvantaged by the lack of context and continuity.
Ultimately, the art of EA requires capable leadership with a clear focus on solving problems. It also takes trusting relationships, pragmatic implementation strategies and the willingness to evolve.
The 3Cs of successful enterprise architects
To become a good enterprise architect and a trusted EA advisor to management, one should possess:
- Curiosity to investigate why certain things are done in a certain way and to analyse options
- Conviction to hold the line on an agreed architecture position in spite of other pressures such as urgency, costs and politics, and a desire to satisfy stakeholders
- Collaborative in validating an architectural point-of-view with other stakeholders, and to influence planning and implementation to realise the EA blueprint
When asked about the sort of training that he would prescribe to aspiring enterprise architects, Peter felt it would have to depend on their individual backgrounds. “If someone’s been purely involved in software development or IT infrastructure operations, then I would recommend that he identify his competency development opportunities in other aspects of IT, for example, through a combination of formal training and work assignments.
“The Open Group Architecture Framework, or TOGAF®, is an essential foundation for all aspiring EAs, so that they can have a broad appreciation of the various architectural aspects, as well as a starter set of tools that can be applied to solve different architecture problems,” Peter said. He admitted that he still refers to his textbooks to find matrices and checklists that he had not fully appreciated until confronted with a relevant, real-life problem.
Having supported and led EA teams for more than a decade, Peter was also quick to emphasise the importance of mastering soft skills, which could range from having good situational awareness and the capacity to empathise, to possessing effective communication skills and the ability to collaborate, negotiate and resolve issues. “I’d definitely recommend an honest assessment of the soft skills, and would advise all aspiring enterprise architects to grow in these areas,” Peter suggested.
NUS-ISS offers a range of professional courses in IT Planning and Enterprise Architecture, that equip candidates to link a company’s IT blueprint to its business mission, strategy and processes. For more information, please click here.
The Architecture Community of Practice (ACoP) is made up of passionate professionals specialising in enterprise, business, information, application, technology and solution architectures. ACoP was formed with the objective of promoting the advancement of the architecture practice through sharing, learning and support in the vibrant network of practitioners.
We are on LinkedIn! Click here to find out more about our ACoP LinkedIn community.
Peter Tan, Principal Architect, Integrated Health Information Systems, has 20 years of experience in IT in the public and private sector in roles ranging from Education, Internet, B2B e-Commerce, e-Government, and now Healthcare. He currently works in the National Architecture Office, an integrated virtual team across MOH Holdings and Integrated Health Information Systems, which manages IT systems across the public healthcare sector.
Prior to this, he was with the Ministry of Health, where he was Assistant Director, responsible for national e-health strategy and implementation. Peter was with the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore before that, and had served in the pioneering core team that established the first government Service-Wide Technical Architecture in 2002. During his days in MOH Holdings, he continued to support IDA’s Chief Architect as Deputy Practice Lead.
Peter has been an Adjunct Lecturer with NUS-ISS since 2010. To link up with Peter, please email peter.tan@alumni.brown.edu.