The idea for this post came from a previous post on this
blog regarding enterprise architecture and religious organizations.
Definitions or Definitional Taxonomies
There are three definitions that are needed to understand
this post; the definition of Architecture, process using the OODA Loop, and the
Hierarchy of Knowledge. These are somewhat
personnel definitions and you may interpolate them into your model universe.
Architecture
Architecture—A functional design of a product, system, or service
incorporating all the “must-do” and “must-meet” requirements for that product,
system, or service.
OODA
Loop
All processes supporting the mission,
strategies, or infrastructure of any organization fall into the OODA model of
Col. John Boyd. The OODA, as discussed
in several previous posts includes four steps: Observe, Orient, Decide, and
Act. I will discuss this shortly (below)
using the example of the prediction of a hurricane.
A
Taxonomy for the Hierarchy of Knowledge
I defined the following taxonomy of knowledge based on much
reading and some thinking. I will demonstrate
what I mean for each definition by using it in the appropriate place in my
example of the hurricane prediction.
Datum—some observation about the Universe at a particular point in four
dimensions
Data—a set consistent datum
Information—patterns abstracted from the data.
Knowledge—identified or abstracted patterns in the
information.
Wisdom—is the understanding of the consequences of the application of
knowledge
Process Architecture and Forecasting Hurricanes
Since the process for predicting or forecasting hurricanes
is most likely to be familiar to anyone watching weather on TV, it is the best
example I can think of to illustrate how the OODA Loop process architecture
works with the taxonomy of knowledge.
Observe
Initially, data is
gathered by observing some aspect of the current state of the Universe. This includes data about the results of their
previous actions. In point of fact,
Datum—some observation about the Universe at a particular point in four
dimensions
Data—a set consistent datum
Obviously observations
of current temperature, pressure, humidity, and so on, are basic to making weather
forecasts, like the prediction of a hurricane.
And each observation requires latitude, longitude, height above sea
level, and the exact time to be useful. So one datum, or data point would
include, temperature, latitude, longitude, height, and time.
When the
temperature is measured at many latitudes and longitudes concurrently, it
produces a set of temperature data. If
other weather measurement, like pressure and humidity, are taken at the same
locations at the same time, then you have several data sets with which to make
a forecast (or a composite weather data set for a particular time). Because this is a recurrent measurement
process, the weather folk continue to build a successively larger composite
weather data set. But large data sets
don’t make a forecast of a hurricane.
Orient
The Orient step in
the process is inserting the new data into an individual’s model of how the
world (Universe) works (descriptive) or should work (prescriptive). These models are sometimes called
paradigms. Rules from Governance enable
and support the Orient step, by structuring the data within the individual’s or
organization’s model. Sometimes these
model or paradigms stick around far after they have demonstrated to be
defective, wrong, or in conflict with most data and other information. An example would be the model of the Universe
of the Flat Earth society.
Information—patterns abstracted from the data. This is the start of orienting the
observations, the data and information.
Pattern analysis, based on the current model converts data into
information is derived from the organization’s model of its environment or
Universe. For hurricane forecasting this
would mean looking for centers of low pressure within the data. It would also include identifying areas with
high water temperatures in the temperature data, areas of high humidity, and so
on. This and other abstractions from the
data provide the information on which to base a forecast. But it is still not the prediction of a
hurricane.
Knowledge—identified, combined, or abstracted patterns
in the information. Using the same
paradigm, environmental model, or model Universe, people analyze and abstract
patterns within the information. This is
their knowledge within the paradigm. In
weather forecasting the weather personnel uses the current paradigms (or
information structures) to combine and abstract the knowledge that a hurricane
is developing.
When they can’t fit
information into their model, they often discard as aberrant, an outlier, or as
an anomaly. When enough information
doesn’t conveniently fit into their model the adherents have a crisis. In science, at least, this is the point of a
paradigm shift. And this is what has
happened to weather forecasting models over the past one hundred and fifty
years. The result is that the
forecasting has gotten much better, though people still complain when a storm
moves off its track by fifty miles and causes unforecast wind, rain, and snow
events.
Decide
Once the
organization or individual has the knowledge, he or she uses input their knowledge
within their models of the Universe to make decisions.
Wisdom—is the understanding of the consequences of the application of
knowledge.
This is the hard
part of the OODA Loop because it’s difficult to understand both the
consequences and the unintended consequences of a decision. If your paradigm, environment, or Universe
model is good, or relatively complete, then you’re more likely to make a good
decision. More frequently than not
people make decisions that are “Short term smart and long term dumb.”
Part of the reason
is that they are working with a poor, incomplete or just plain wrong paradigm
(view of the world or universe). This is
where the Risk/Reward balance comes in.
When choosing a path forward, what are the risks and rewards with each
path? [Sidebar: A risk is an unknown and it is wise to
understand that “you don’t know what you don’t know”.] For weather forecasters it’s whether or not to
issue a forecast for a hurricane. To ameliorate
the risk that the are wrong, weather forecasters have invented a two part type
of forecast, a hurricane watch and a hurricane warning. [Sidebar: It’s split more by giving a tropical storm
watch and warning.]
The reason for this
warning hierarchy is that the weather forecasters and services are wise enough
to know the public’s reaction to warnings that don’t pan out and lack of
warnings that do; they understand the risks.
So when they give a hurricane warning, they are fairly sure that the
area they have given the warning for will be the area affected by the hurricane.
Act
Once the decision
is made people act on those decisions by planning a mission, strategies, and so
on within their paradigm.
For governments and
utilities in the U.S. this means putting preplanned hurricane preparations into
effect. For people this generally means
boarding up the house, stocking up on food, water, and other essentials or
packing and leaving. And for the drunk
beach comber this means grabbing the beers out of the frig, and either heading to
the hills or back to the beach to watch the show.
Programmed and Unprogrammed Processes
In the 1980s I wrote a number of articles on process
types. After doing much research and
much observation, I came to the obvious conclusion that there are two types of
processes, Programmed, and those that I will call Unprogrammed and which includes
design, discovery, and creative processes. [Sidebar:
These three sub-types differ in that design processes start from a set of
implicit or explicit customer requirements, discovery processes start from
inconsistencies in data or in thinking and modeling the data, and creative
really have no clear foundation and tend to be intuitive, chaotic, and apparently
random.]
Programmed Processes
Programmed processes are a set of repeatable activities
leading to a nearly certain outcome.
Almost all processes are of this type.
The classic example is automobile manufacturing and assembly. Since they are repeatable how does the
process architecture model apply?
The short answer is to keep them repeatable and to increase
their cost efficiency (that is making them less expensive in terms of time and
money to create the same outcome).
Keeping Programmed Processes Rolling
To keep your truck or car operating requires maintenance. How much and when is an OODA Loop process. For example, you really should check your
tires, both for wear and pressure regularly; otherwise the process of driving
can become far too exciting. So you are
in the “observe” step.
As the tires wear out or lose pressure too often, the data
set becomes information triggering the “orient” step in the process. At this point a driver starts to gather data
on which tires are wearing fastest and where on the tire they are wearing. This last point may indicate that tire
rotation is all that’s needed.
Based on this data our driver models the information (using
the computer between his or her ears) to determine how much longer it’s safe to
drive on the tires. Based on results of
that model, the driver will “decide” to buy tires, rotate tires, or wait a
little longer. [Sidebar:
Actually, many drivers will go through the buy/wait decision based on
additional data, the cost of new tires, and their budget.] The driver will then “act” on the
decision, either get new tires or wait (which is really an action).
The point here is that like everything else in our Universe,
over time, everything breaks down; so repeatable processes require an OODA Loop
process to maintain them.
More Cost Efficient
However, the OODA Loop process architecture elucidated here
is important for programmed processes for another reason. For repeatable processes the key OODA process
is always how to make the faster, cheaper, or making a higher quality product
at the same or lower price, and producing it in the same or less time.
This is famously what Adam Smith described in his pin
example in the first chapter of “The Wealth of Nations”. By creating an assembly
line process that he called “the division of labour”, he demonstrated that the
same number of workers produce hundreds of more pins. He went on to describe that each worker might
now invent (or innovate, that is, refine or enhance) tools for that worker’s
job. [Sidebar: Henry Ford went on to prove this in
spades or should I say Model-T’s.]
[Sidebar: To me the worker’s inventing or
innovating tools to help them in their job is quite interesting and often
missed. Tools are process or
productivity multipliers. In the
military they are called force multipliers; you always want your enemy to bring
a knife to your gunfight, because a rifle multiplies your force. Likewise, the tooling in manufacturing can
increase the quality of the product, the uniformity of what is produced, while
reducing the cost and time to produce…fairly obvious.]
Both the “division of labour” and the creation of tooling require
the use of the Architectural OODA Loop, which means that increasing the cost
efficiency of manufacturing uses the OODA Loop with the knowledge taxonomy.
Unprogrammed Process
Unprogrammed processes have stochastic (creative and
unplanned activities within them). There
are really three sub-types of unprogrammed processes, design, discovery, and creative.
The key differences between the design, discovery, and creative processes are
the whether the process has customer requirements driven and what the
requirements are.
Design
The design process has customer requirements. [Sidebar: As I’m
using it, the design process also includes custom development, implementation,
and manufacturing.] It uses a
semi-planned process, that is, program or project planning creates a plan to
meet the objectives, but with latitude for alternative activities because there
is significant risk. The actual design
activities within the programmed process are stochastic, from a program
management perspective. That is, the
creative element of these activities makes less predictable, and therefore with
programmatic risk with respect to cost and schedule. Therefore, program management must use (some
form or) the OODA architecture to manage the program or project.
The stochastic activities are themselves OODA Loop
processes. The designers have to
identify (observe) detailed data of the functions they are attempting to create
(the “must do” requirements), while working to the specifications (the”must
meet” requirements) for the product, system, or service. The designers then have to “orient” these
(creating a functional design or architecture for the function), “decide” which
of several alternate proposed designs is “the best”. Finally, they “act” on the
decision.
Discovery
The requirements for research, risk reduction, and root
cause analysis are generally unclear and may be close to non-existent. One of my favorite research examples, because
it’s well known, and because it so clearly proves the point is the Wright
Brothers researching and developing the aircraft. In 1898 the brothers started their research
efforts. Starting with data and
information then publicly available they built a series of kites. With each
kite, they collected additional data and new types of data. They then used this to reorient their
thinking and their potential design for the next kite. They found so many problems with the existing
data that they created the wind tunnel to create their own data sets on which
to base their next set of designs. By
the end of 1902 they had created a glider capable of controllable manned flight
and by 1903 they created the powered glider known as the Wright Flyer. It took them at least two more cycles of the
OODA Loop to develop a commercially useful aircraft.
Risk reduction also uses the OODA Loop. A risk is an unknown. It requires some type of research to convert
the unknown into a known. There are four
alternative. First, the project/research
team must decide whether or not to simply “accept” the risk. Many times
the team orients the observed risk in a risk/reward model and accepts the
risk. However, another to orient is to
determine if there is knowledge or knowledgeable people to convert the unknown
into a known. So “transferring” the risk is one way to reduce the risk. A second method is to “avoid” the
risk. This means redesigning the
product, system, or service, or changing the method for achieving the goal or
target. The final way is to “mitigate”
the risk. This is nothing short of or
more than creating a research project (see above) to convert the unknown into a
Known.
Likewise, root cause analysis is a research effort. However, the target of this analysis is to identify
why some function or component is not working the way it is supposed to
work. Again, its observing the problem
or issue, that is gathering data, orienting it through modeling the functions
based on the data, deciding what the cause is or causes are for the problem and
how to “fix” the problem, and then acting on the decision. Sound a whole lot like the OODA Loop.
Creative
Creative processes like theory building (both through
extrapolation and interpolation), and those of the “fine arts” that come from
emotions also use the Architecture of Process defined in this post. For some theories and all fine arts, “the
requirements” come from emotion, based on an intuitive belief structure
[Sidebar: a religious structure, see my post on architecture of religion]. This intuitive structure provides “the data,
information, and knowledge” on which the creativity builds.
However, for scientific theories, at least, they are
sometimes based on inconsistencies in the results of the current paradigm. The theorist attempts to define a new
structure that will account for these aberrant data.
Why make a Deal about the Obvious?
To many it might seem that I’m making a big deal about what
is obvious. If it is the case, why hasn’t
it been inculcated into enterprise architecture and used in the construction
and refinement of processes and tooling to support the charter, mission,
objective, strategies and tactics of all organizations? Using formal architectural models like the
architecture for process, presented in this post, will enable the enterprise
architects to “orient” their data and information more clearly making
Enterprise Architecture that much more valuable.