- agents
- AI
- ambiguity
- architecture
- augmented reality
- books
- bureaucracy
- career
- change
- Christmas
- cloud
- collaboration
- communication
- compliance
- corporate life
- data
- decisions
- delivery
- devops
- disagreement
- end user tools
- ethics
- failure
- fear
- fundamentals
- government
- halloween
- history
- humans
- hype
- identity
- inclusion
- infrastructure
- innovation
- language
- leadership
- learning
- legacy
- management
- measurement
- mental health
- money
- networking
- New Year
- operations
- philosophy
- physics
- platforms
- prediction
- privacy
- process
- procurement
- products
- programming
- quantum
- reliability
- resilience
- risk
- science fiction
- security
- shadow IT
- space
- strategy
- talent
- teaching
- teams
- technical debt
- technology advocacy
- testing
- thinking
- transformation
- TV
- virtues
- vision
- writing
Thinking differently about . . . the persistence of code
This week I learnt that some of the code I wrote thirty years ago is still running in production. I don’t know whether to be pleased or terrified, but I know that it’s not the first time I’ve had that surprise.
Back at the beginning of my career, I wrote part of a system using technologies which barely exist in memory today: Application Master on an ICL mainframe accessing an IDMSX database. Ten years later, I did some more work for the same company, and was surprised when the year 2000 project team (yes, this was around 1999) approached me, asking me whether I knew anything about this code with my name on it. I recognised the code, but had never imagined it would be running ten years in the future.
Chief Architect: Day One
What should you do in your first day as Chief Architect of a large organisation?
I got to ask myself that question four years ago, when I started as Chief Architect for HSBC: it took me a long while to find (some of) the answers. Now that I have left HSBC for a new role, my successor has also had the chance to ask that question.
Here are some of our combined thoughts, in the hope that they will be useful to other people stepping into such a role. As with all offers of architecture advice, they are offered with a combination of confidence (won through learning from many mistakes) and humility (recognising that anyone people taking up the role will already have found some better answers than mine).
When is it reasonable for technology architects to go to unreasonable lengths?
Teller, the silent half of the duo of magicians, Penn and Teller, is not always silent: he’s given interviews and written articles on the theory, practice and psychology of magic.
Any insight into how people perceive and believe can be helpful to technology architects, but I think that one principle shared in this article is of particular use: make the secret a lot more trouble than the trick is worth.
The idea is that every trick has a public side (what the audience sees) and a secret side (how the effect is achieved), and that most people will assume that an apparently simple effect (the magician identifies the right card) is achieved by a similarly simple cause, and, if they cannot figure out that cause, will be mystified and entertained.
Learn sense making and storytelling from the world around you
My wife and I paid a (socially distanced and suitably masked) visit to the Tower of London last week. It was a strange experience to be visiting this site of so many historical events whilst in the middle of our own historical event, and even stranger because it was so quiet: visitor numbers are currently strictly limited.
The quiet gave us an opportunity to spend a little time longer with the exhibits, and to appreciate them in more detail. The one that stayed in my memory was an exhibit in the Bloody Tower which told the story of the princes in the Tower. (If you’re not familiar with this story, then you can learn more on Wikipedia or, if you’re in London, plan a visit when conditions permit.)
This exhibit held my attention because it told the story in two very different ways.
Take a trip in your architect’s time machine
I have claimed in the past that technology architects have superpowers, particularly x-ray vision and, even more importantly, the ability to figure out how things work. But if you are lucky enough to work with a technology architect, you should make the most of another one of their special abilities: time travel.
You have probably already realised that architects can travel to the future. After all, they spend a lot of their time talking about the fantastic advantages that new technology will bring us, and how great our lives will be one we have built their vision. They also spend a lot of their time giving us dire predictions of how things will be if we make the wrong choices in the present. They may even talk about future state architectures (although this is not a phrase I am a fan of - I will explain more in an upcoming article but will just say for now that attempting to define a single fixed ‘state’ for anything which changes as rapidly as technology architecture feels like a mistake).
Make Feedback a Batch Process
How do technology architects know that we are doing a good job? We are often working as the only architect on the team, making decisions which others may not agree with, making sense of complex and ambiguous topics, and trying to set a direction which others can follow. How can we tell that this all adds up to something useful?
One way to find out is to ask for feedback. We do better when people tell us freely why they disagree with us, whether we are successful in making ourselves understood, and whether the paths we lay out lead to the right place.
Philosophy for architects: which habits will you make and which habits will you break?
Many of us will be working in unusual circumstances for extended periods of time. We will be at home rather than in the office. We will see more of our family than our colleagues. When we do see our colleagues, it will be by video rather than in person. (And, of course, if we are fortunate enough to be healthy, housed and in work, we will learn to be grateful for those things that we normally take for granted.)
As we adjust to this new way of life, we will form habits. We will (or will not) find ways to exercise. We will (or will not) find time to talk to people we wouldn’t otherwise see. We will (or will not) let our frustration and impatience with technology leak through into our behaviour. We will (or will not) continuously raid the cupboard for snacks.
Ethics, the philosophy of morals, contains some ideas about habits which might be useful to us as we live through these strange times. To understand these ideas, though, we must begin with some basics.
What is the C that your are trying to P?
Three little letters strike terror into the hearts of architects everywhere: P. O. C.
This seems strange. Surely in the age of digital transformation, innovation, and a willingness to fail fast, conducting proofs of concept is exactly what we should be doing. Why should architects be scared of POCs?
The reason is that, unfortunately, in large enterprises, many POCs are not POCs at all. Whether deliberately or accidentally, they stand little chance of proving a concept: in fact, it’s not even clear which C they are trying to P.
Let’s look at two types of POCs which standing little chance of P’ing a C: POCs in name only (let’s call them POCINOs) and POCs without concepts(let’s call them POCWOCs).
Zang Jing Ge: the way of the architect
The job of IT architect is a strange one.
Many people don’t really know what IT architects do (I’m pretty sure that I have never given a convincing account of my job to my non-technical friends and family).
Even fewer people understand what makes one architect better than another.
But every team knows when they’ve got a good one: problems seem to get solved quicker, decisions seem to get made faster, and the team has someone to turn to when they have questions like ‘How in the world does that work?’ or ‘How on Earth are we going to get it to do that?’
In the HSBC Technology team we believe three things about architects.
First, we believe that, whatever architects do, and whatever makes them great, we need more of them.
Second, we believe that we have figured out at least some of the features of great architects.
And third, we believe that these features can be learned.