tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74154302024-03-13T01:33:21.600+00:00Technology UpdateCommentary and analysis on advanced products and platforms, by Richard VeryardRichard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7415430.post-30628863697472579962009-12-09T11:27:00.001+00:002012-12-17T02:01:53.045+00:00IT suppliers face architectural risk@<a href="https://twitter.com/tonyrcollins/status/6491367417">tonyrcollins</a> reports on the implications for large IT contracts of the Centrica v Accenture dispute (<a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/12/09/239636/centrica-v-accenture-implications-for-large-it-contracts.htm">Computer Weekly, 9 December 2009</a>). The dispute concerns a "best-of-breed" replacement billing system for the entire British Gas business, which Centrica ordered from Accenture in 2002.<br />
<br />
<br />
Centrica is invoking a clause in the contract that refers to "fundamental defects", and a lot of the legal activity has been trying to determine what this phrase actually means. Although Accenture argues that the various problems experienced with the system have been unconnected and therefore don't count as fundamental, the High Court has accepted Centrica's interpretation that the cumulative effect of these defects may indeed be regarded as fundamental.<br />
<br />
The article quotes Peter Clough, head of disputes at law firm Osborne Clarke: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"One of the important points to note about this case is that IT suppliers can be liable for claims for fundamental breach arising from the cumulative effect of a series of faults, each of which could look relatively minor in isolation. The majority of systems will of course be inter-linked so that a defect in part of the process could affect another part, snowballing into a more serious issue."<br />
</blockquote><br />
So this is about architecture and risk. From a risk management perspective, a critical responsibility of the architect is to make sure that a lot of small problems don't add up to a big problem.<br />
<br />
And it is also about procurement and risk. If this judgement stands, it appears to shift certain kinds of risk from the customer to the supplier. Obviously one solution to this would be to redraft procurement contracts. But another solution may be that large IT suppliers may be required to engage much more proactively with the broader architectural context for the systems they are building. <br />
<br />
So can we expect all the major IT suppliers to look at architecture and risk from a new perspective?Richard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7415430.post-38070717807756731372009-04-23T11:20:00.006+01:002018-11-09T08:48:39.056+00:00Slow IT<a href="http://www.capgemini.com/ctoblog/2008/11/tech_predictions_2009_slow_it.php">Ron Tolido</a> (Capgemini) predicts that 2009 will be the year of Slow IT.<br />
<br />
This is based on Carl Honoré's argument (In Praise of Slow) that "the important things in life need to be done at the right pace, with careful dedication and a genuine love for foundation and quality".<br />
<br />
And also corresponds to what Albert Borgmann calls a Focal Practice. "Countering technology through a practice is to take account of our susceptibility to technological distraction, and it is also to engage the peculiarly human strength of comprehension, i.e. the power to take in the world in its extent and significance and to respond through an enduring commitment." (Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, p 210)<br />
<br />
Some stakeholders will regard the whole idea of "Slow IT" as provocative or paradoxical. Some people may think IT is already too slow and expensive, so recommending it gets even slower is just crazy. (See <a href="http://demandingchange.blogspot.com/2006/04/bart-simpson-effect.html">The Bart Simpson Effect</a>.)<br />
<br />
But sometimes crazy ideas can work. Some therapists use crazy ideas as so-called "paradoxical interventions" - intended to achieve the exact opposite. So if a couple are shouting at each other, the therapist instructs them to shout even more, and that often shocks them into silence. (There's much more to say about paradoxical interventions, but that's another post on another blog.)<br />
<br />
But Borgmann's analysis gives us an alternative path. Borgmann introduces the concept of Device Paradigm to explain the logic of "technological distraction" and instant gratification (or "hyperactivity"). What is important for Borgmann is not to revoke technological progress and productivity, but to put them in their proper place. We need to consciously separate those aspects of our life (including working life) where we want to take advantage of technological devices from those aspects of our life where we want to engage properly without undue technological distraction.<br />
<br />
In IT (and possibly elsewhere), this kind of conscious separation is the function of architecture.Richard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7415430.post-78841706365657829092007-05-17T09:10:00.001+01:002010-02-15T14:43:50.156+00:00Gordon Brown, Enterprise Architect?Listening to Vernon Bogdanor (professor of politics at Oxford University, and one-time tutor of Tory leader David Cameron) talking about a written constitution on BBC Radio Four yesterday [<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/zwednesday_20070516.shtml">Today Programme May 16th</a>], I was struck by two thoughts.<br /><br />Firstly, the similarity between a written constitution (which Professor Bogdanor described as "an organization chart to tell people where they are and what rights they have") and an enterprise architecture.<br /><br />And secondly, a strong sense that Gordon Brown will be much more sympathetic to this way of viewing the world than either Tony Blair or David Cameron. (Bogdanor has been critical of his former student's grasp of constitutional matters, and suggested he might need to return to Oxford for a refresher course. [<a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1806784,00.html">Guardian, June 27th 2006</a>])<br /><br />In IT terms, Blair and Cameron are both business analysts - focused on addressing short-term piecemeal requirements in a convincing manner. Gordon Brown is an enterprise architect.<br /><br />During Brown's tenure as Prime Minister, the UK might expect to see significant steps towards <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/joinedupgovernment" title="my Squidoo lens on joined-up government">joined-up government</a>, and perhaps even something like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Management_Reform_Act" title="Wikipedia">US Clinger-Cohen Act</a>. I don't think the UK IT industry has ever had such a good opportunity for reform at the highest level.<br /><h5>Further commentary on my other blogs:<br /></h5><ul><li><a href="http://rvsoapbox.blogspot.com/2007/06/just-tidying-up.htm">Just tidying up</a> (SOA)<br /></li><li><a href="http://posiwid.blogspot.com/2007/05/written-constitution.html">The purpose of a written constitution</a> (POSIWID)</li></ul>Richard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.com0