Layers of Architecture

There are tons of architects out there today. It seems when you’ve spent enough time as a developer, you end up becoming an architect.  Architecture is not just the next step in a developers career. There are whole new disciplines and methodologies applicable to architecture. That said here are the common levels of architecture.

Enterprise Architecture (planner)

Enterprise architecture is a high level field that concentrates on how the various domains or subject areas interact. This layer spends even more time focusing on how technology will be utilized in the future, and governing how it is used today. Enterprise architects work to create technology roadmaps and work with the business to plan for the implementation. Enterprise architects create technology projects. It is at this layer where frameworks like TOGAF and taxonomies like Zachman come into play. This layer view the enterprise as a holistic entity.

 

Solution Architecture (designer)

A solution is an answer to a question. The question in this case is typically an IT project. The solution architect’s primary objective is to design a solution that meets the projects requirements and also falls in line with the domain and enterprise architecture guidelines. The solution architect is responsible for coordinating with multiple domain architects to design the most appropriate solution. A solution architect may interact with domain architects in infrastructure, web services, data management, and so on. During the course of the project a solution architect will typically create many work products either for communicating the solution to a governance board, to explain the implantation to a developer and various other uses. These work products are eventually owned by the domain architect as codified knowledge of the system after the project implementation.

 

Domain Architecture (owner)

A domain is an area of focus. Domain architects are primarily focused on maintain a specific area of technology or a specific application. These architects are the owners and gatekeepers for a specific area. The work in this area is primarily concerned with the current state of the system. These architects are charged with managing the knowledge for their area. These architects are also responsible for keeping up to date on future projects related to the domain and guiding the designs to meet the overall objectives of the domain. A successful domain architect will know that a future project will require x functionality. When an active project is debating between two possible implementations, the domain architect will be able to guide solution toward the best of the two solutions that meet the future goals.

 

Application or System Architecture(builder)

The application or system architect is primarily focused on the implementation at hand. This is the most detailed level of architecture. An application architect, for instance, would be concerned with the most appropriate design pattern to use in a certain programming situations. These tend to evolve from the most advance developers and engineers. The primary focus here is to implement the best solution for a specific task. Work products that may be produced during this layer are primarily used to communicate to the developers or implementers. In many co-located environments a lead developer often fills this role and very few work products are actually produced. Instead the team may utilized whiteboards or code stubs to communicate the implementation. For larger more dispersed projects, or for outsourced solutions, the application or system architect has a more demanding role for providing detailed implantation instructions. 

 

Conclusion

The various layers of architecture are not meant to be isolated entities. In most situations one architect will fill multiple roles at various levels. Each layer has a unique focus. Understanding the layers helps clarify responsibilities, activates and deliverables. From a career development standpoint individuals can use the layers as the basis for a personal gap analysis and learning plan.

 

I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments.

 

Best of luck in all your endeavors.

Working with Offshore Teams: Tips from the Trenches

I’ve had the opportunity to work with a variety of offshore teams on various projects. While very challenging these relationships can indeed be valuable. So how do you make the most of these partnerships? Here are a few observations.

Language

The most challenging piece of an offshore partnership is the language differences. While most business people around the world speak English, it will typically be a British version and/or be accompanied by a heavy accent. This all becomes more difficult when trying to communicate on a conference call with a choppy reception and the other end sounding like they’re in an auditorium.

How to deal with it. There is no good answer here. Two approaches seem to help, first have someone onsite to act as a translator. This is typically someone from the same vendor, who has been assigned onsite. Ultimately though you need to become accustom to the language, this only comes with time. Surround yourself with people who speak the language. Don’t be afraid to say you don’t understand. When on the phone be sure you’re able to concentrate on the call with little background noise or distractions. Overtime the accents will become more understandable and the language gaps will be clearer.

Communication

Surprisingly talking does not equal communication. When dealing with any remote team, clear communication is critical. To frequently conference calls are stressful and where in a normal situation you would ask for more information, on a call you may feel it’s too difficult and you’ll just send an email. Conference calls are critical for a project. Don’t let them go to waste. Ask questions be sure that your question was understood correctly. I’ve found it’s difficult to get participation from an offshore team on a conference call. Typically one individual will do all the talking. Work to get more than yes and no answers and more participation from the whole team. Also in these calls try to encourage conversation outside the simple status updates, you might find out important information.

Beyond the conference call its important to follow up with a clear recap of what occurred on the call. This helps make sure everyone on the call is on the same page and all action items are assigned. With any remote team, following the activates between discussions is difficult. Use email frequently. Insist on a formal agenda and meeting minutes. Clarify action items and blocking issues. If a blocking issue does arise take care of it immediately.

Culture

There are significant culture differences that come into play when dealing with international vendors. These culture differences are stem from national/ethnic traits, to corporate/vendor culture. There are traits that surface simply due to the continued relocation of team members.

My experience has been that Indians don’t tend to question authority.  I’m not saying challenge authority, but rather look for clarification and understanding. What seems to happen is that individuals will take a message from a higher-up or client that may not be clear, and instead of working with the source to understand it, they will go to their peers to help understand the message. While this may work in some situations, often times it takes much longer to get the right information. When this works the best is when there are a series of mentors available to the offshore team. A series of experienced individuals various team members can turn to. To help this process, try to keep one vendor and one team as long as possible. Inevitably the vendor will swap out resources on you but hopefully you can hang on to a few key resources that can fill this mentor role. When working one-on-one with an offshore resource be sure you have been understood clearly, ask them to repeat what needs to be done, not simply do you understand.

Working culture. These guys work hard, really really hard. They work nights and weekends, often they work far from their families. Even in India they will travel to different cities to work in  central location for a client. It is so important to realize these guys a working really hard for you. Take time to make that personal connection with them (if they let you). Get to know your offshore team by name. Express your gratitude to them individually for their effort. A note about working habits, since these folks don’t technically work for you, they may not tell you when they’re going on vacation. Ask regularly when upcoming holidays are and what vacations are planned so you don’t end up with a skeleton crew right before a huge deployment. If you have on site resources realize when they take vacation it’s typically for a month so they can get back to India.

Conclusion

Offshore and outsource projects can be highly effective if leaders take the time to consider the variety of challenges the show up in these situations. Communication is always a critical component of any business initiative. In an offshore model communication is more important than ever. Leaders are dealing time zone changes, language differences, and cultural differences. All these challenges can be overcome with increased and clear communication.

Team Conflict Resolution

Importance of conflict resolution strategies

Successful teams (and families) are the amalgamation of many different individuals into a cohesive unit. With this variety of personalities it is critical that team leaders understand how to effectively manage conflicts. While some may argue the best solution is prevention, others believe conflict is inevitable and can be healthy for a team. Regardless of philosophy successful teams will, at some point, be confronted with conflict within the group. “Conflicts are part of individual relationships and organizational development, and no relationship or organization can hope to mature to productivity and be successful without being able to resolve conflicts effectively” (Cottringer, 1997).

Facilitating conflict resolution is a skill all team leaders should understand. Various processes exist to manage these events and all forms the facilitator and team members must agree on the means for resolution. “In order for a team to be successful, it is essential that members know the basics of conflict resolution, delegation, and consensus building” (Convey, 1994). When the team members are unclear on the process or unable to implement an agreed upon resolution process, additional conflicts can arise from the mediation. One of the first steps, when brining a team together, is defining the team charter. It is within this charter that the process for conflict resolution should be noted. Additionally team members should be educated in the basics of the mediation process. With this foundational knowledge the team can effectively work through conflicts as they arise.

Sources of conflict

The sources of conflict can be as varied as the individuals within the team. These sources can range from working style to personalities conflicts. Understanding the various sources of conflict enables the leader to work through the resolution process more effectively. For example, in a large organization nearby, a project team was experiencing a series of conflicts. Analysis of the sources indicated misunderstandings on what the problems were that the team was actually facing. A few individuals stated the team produced poor quality work while others stated the work was not being completed on time. As this team discussed the conflict a second source became evident. The organization and team had conflicting understanding of the goals the team was striving toward. Significant pressure was being placed on quantity while the core team was attempting to work on the quality of the solution. Even where the overall goals were agreed upon, there were additional conflicts regarding the on the strategies and tactics to achieve those goals. What we see on the surface of a conflict is only the tip of the iceberg (McDaniel & Carstarphen, Solving Conflicts – Building Trust!, 2004). Leaders and team members need to dig in and understand the true sources of the conflict in order to devise the appropriate solution. Approaching a conflict with partial information may result in a solution that address only part of the problem or maybe none at all.

The Conflict-Concerns-Goals-Actions (CCGA) Process

Various processes exist that enable the team to gain the required understanding of the conflict. Most successful processes follow a standard flow of conflict identification, understanding the various concerns, clarifying the goals, and identifying possible actions (McDaniel, Conflict to Cooperation, 2005). This flow is called the CCGA process, for Conflict, Concerns, Goals, Actions. “The value of the CCGA process is that it “short circuits” our tendency to simply jump from our personal understanding of the conflict directly into a solution before considering other worthy factors.” (McDaniel & Carstarphen, 2004).

The first stage of this process is agreeing on what the conflict is. This process accomplishes two key elements, first it calls out the fact that there is a conflict within the team and it clarifies what the conflict is. With the team members in agreement on the issue, the group can move on to the second phase, Concerns. In this second stage the facilitator work to uncover the issues and motivations that are driving the conflict from each party. This process requires the team have a level of trust to begin with. In the concerns phase the team members begin to use that trust when discussing their concerns. As the concerns are raised a variety of emotions can flood the discussion. The facilitator and team need to be able to trust each other enough and communicate effectively to work through this process. Once the individual’s concerns are understood, the group can move to clarifying the goals. In the third stage the team answers the question “what are we trying to accomplish”. Clarifying the objectives sets a flag for the team to use as a guide when determining a course of action. With the goals understood the team is now free to move on to discuss possible actions for resolving the conflict. While named CCGA, there is an additional “C” which truly enables the whole process. This process relies heavily on communication. The success of this process comes from the communication abilities of those involved. Being able to trust and communicate through the discussion without attacking or withdrawing is critical to successful resolution. These qualities need to be exhibited by both the facilitator, and team members.

Conclusion

“As a team leader, one must realize the paradox that surrounds conflict. The team needs to embrace conflict as a means of generating and evaluating ideas. While at the same time, it must shy away from it to prevent anger, frustration, or alienation. The biggest challenge for the team leader is figuring out how to balance these two forces” (Brockmann, 1996) Utilizing a standard process for conflict resolution provides the team with a basis for trust in discussing issues. Working through this process enables the team to understand all the elements creating the friction as well. The CCGA process also helps the team work through solutions that address not only the conflict itself but the underlying concerns the team members have. Working with the human side of teams can be difficult, but it can also be rewarding. Following an agreed upon process such as the CCGA enable teams to work through issues ranging from lunch plans to even the most emotionally charge conflicts, through a defined communication process.

References

Brockmann, E. (1996). Removing the paradox of conflict from group decisions. Academy of Management Executive , Vol 10 (Issue 2), p 61-62.

Convey, S. (1994). Performance measurement in cross-functional teams. CMA Magazine , Vol 68(Issue 8), p 13-15.

Cottringer, W. (1997). Conflict Management. Executive Excellence Magazine , Vol 14 (Issue 8), p 6.

McDaniel, G. (2005). Conflict to Cooperation. Austin: 1st World Library.

McDaniel, G., & Carstarphen, M. (2004, Apr). Solving Conflicts – Building Trust! Retrieved Jan 30, 2009, from Texasnonprofits: http://www.txnp.org/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=1482

Townsley, C. A. (2008). Resolving Conflict in Work Teams. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from Team Building Directory: http://www.innovativeteambuilding.co.uk/pages/articles/conflicts.htm

Stages of Team Development

Most materials discuss the four primary distinct phases of team development. These phases include forming, storming, norming and performing (McDonald, 2005). Looking further into the stages it becomes clear that teams progress through these four stages possibly multiple times (Holpp, 1999), before entering a fifth stage which is referred to as adjourning (Scott, 2005).  Analyzing the progress of an actual team  it is clear the team progresses through all of these stages through the course of it’s existence.

The Team

Limited Brands is a large organization with many teams. Over the course of seven years, the Limited Brands‘s Victoria’s Secret eCommerce development team progressed through many iterations of the stages of team development. The team formed in the late 1990’s as a small group of individuals focused on developing a website for the predominantly catalog based organization. This loose team had no strict governance or guidance. In the early 2000’s the site had been established as a leader in internet commerce. The team was in the spotlight within the organization as the business shifted toward digital commerce. New members were added, new skills were learned and the team grew and reformed. Around 2005 the organization began to restructure, separating the traditional clothing side of Limited Brands from the Intimates and Fragrances. Leadership saw a new vision for the ecommerce division. This new vision positioned the Intimates division as a center for not only multi-brand commerce but also as a service for other companies looking to sell online. At this point leadership sought out high end vendors to create a new site architecture and ecommerce platform that would supplant the existing one. The plans for the new site were not widely known. Within the original team however word got around as team members began to consult on the new platform. Slowly members of the original team were moved to the new platform or left the company. The result was a skeleton crew left maintaining the original site.

The stages

This team represents a typical case, common in many organizations where teams are built for a project then dismantled once the project has been completed. The journey these teams progress through is also similar across organizations. Understand the stages and the needs of each stage enables leaders to position their teams for success.

Forming

In the forming stage the team is founded and members tend to share an optimistic view (McDonald, 2005). There is seldom conflict as the group looks to see who fits where. Leaders can facilitate progress through this stage by clarifying the objective of the team, soliciting strengths and weaknesses, identifying roles and defining conflict resolution systems (McDonald, 2005).

The development team at Victoria’s Secret progressed through this phase similar to most organizations. The group came together with a clear focus, create an ecommerce website. The team also waited for roles and responsibilities to be resolved. Over time team member skills began to surface and the team began to organize.

Storming

The storming phase is often one of the most critical phases for a team. It is at this stage that the team begins to understand the true scope of the tasks at hand as well as the nature of the various team members. While this phase is typically credited as one that exhibits personality clashes, and team conflict (McDonald, 2005), more commonly these elements are not readily visible. Frequently the storming phase is hidden in civility and expressed through sarcasm and innuendo (Scott, 2005). Professionals are trained to be polite and civil to each other. It is important to note however that if the team progresses through this phase without resolving differences there may be long lasting liabilities for the team and project (Scott, 2005). This is the phase where the team really learns how to work together. The storming phase results from team members trusting each other enough to say what they honestly feel regardless of the risks (Patnode, 2003). The storming process improves ideas, challenges assumptions and obstacles (Patnode, 2003). While this phase is typically the most uncomfortable it is also the most important and should be encouraged rather than quickly passed over.

The development team experienced many episodes of storming over the project lifecycle. After the initial forming stages as well as after new members joined the team, eventually personalities would reset and voices would be heard. These conflicts were productive and ranged from meeting attendance to application design principles. This team understood the storming phase well.

Norming

Finally in the norming stage, the team begins to work together. Fighting and bickering reduces (Scott, 2005) while communication becomes open and honest (McDonald, 2005). At this point leaders should focus on progress and encouragement. Managers should celebrate progress but continue to foster communication (McDonald, 2005).

Looking at the Victoria’s Secret development team there is evidence of multiple norming stages coupled to each storming phase. Through this phase management did in fact continue to encourage communication and worked to improve the team even more.

Performing

Here in the performing stage, clear stable structures appear and the team is able to work toward a shared goal (Scott, 2005). At this point the team works with a high degree of mutual support and respect (McDonald, 2005). Leaders at this stage may feel a sense of relief and may be tempted to relax, however there are still activities that will promote continued success in the team. Leaders should work to celebrate the teams successes, recognize the achievements an continue to challenge the team (McDonald, 2005). In most long lasting projects and teams, the progress through these phases tends to be more cyclical where teams slip back into previous stages (Holpp, 1999), managers should be mindful in this stage to watch for team regression to a previous stage (McDonald, 2005).

The development at Victoria’s Secret was no different than those in other organizations. The performing stage was clearly recognizable as the team gelled and produced many successes. Leadership was always ready with praise and additional challenges.

Adjourning

Often neglected in texts is the adjourning stage. The adjourning stage is when the team disbands and the project is ended (Scott, 2005). Many projects end and teams disband with little to no intervention by management. Team members are sent to other teams where their accomplishments and hard work may not be recognized. Management needs to take time and care to integrate these displaced members into the organization. These stars can fade if not transplanted with care.

Thus was the case in Limited Brands. The organization had placed the majority of the attention on the new project yet left the existing team with no means. Team members were left to find their own way to new teams in the organization, while others simply left the company. The adjourning stage of the process can be the most risky. Organizations spend lots of time and money training and building individuals talent and knowledge into business critical assets. Poor execution in the adjourning phase can have significant effects on these investments.

Conclusion

While teams and organizations all will differ, there are core aspects that are universal. These phases of team development are critical to the success of all teams. Individuals in leadership or on the front lines can impact a team’s development and performance by taking these stages into account. Planning for and encouraging the various stages of team development will lead to high performing teams and organizations.

References

Holpp, L. (1999). Managing Teams. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McDonald, T. (2005, Nov). Building an Effective Team. Health Care Registration: The Newsletter for Health Care Registration Professionals , Vol. 15 (Issue 2), pp. p3-4.

Patnode, N. H. (2003, Mar/Apr). Can’t Get To Performing Without Storming. Program Manager , Vol. 32 (Issue 2), p. p42.

Scott, J. T. (2005). Chapter 10: Managing Teams and Work Groups. Concise Handbook of Management: A Practitioner’s Approach , p79-84.