Architecting estonia

28
Architecting Estonia: A System Architecture Perspective on Digital Government Andres Kütt Information System Authority, architect 21.10.2015

Transcript of Architecting estonia

Page 1: Architecting estonia

Architecting Estonia:A System Architecture Perspective on Digital Government

Andres KüttInformation System Authority, architect

21.10.2015

Page 2: Architecting estonia

Agenda today

1. Motivation

2. Some thoughts on system architecture

3. Architecture of a country

4. Application of the model in Estonian case

Page 3: Architecting estonia

How to architect a country?

And not mess up doing it

Page 4: Architecting estonia

The challenge

• There are many architects in public sector but few (if any) with asimilar scope

• No literature to go back to• Enterprise architecture does not help much

• Although Estonia is comparable to a large enterprise• Regardless of what they say, EA is usually focused on informationsystems, rather than the enterprise per se

• Value generation in public sector is much different• No real way to tie in legal structures important in public setting

Page 5: Architecting estonia

That one can’t influence something does notmean one does not need to understand it

While I can’t change Estonian constitution or organisational structure, I need tounderstand it so the things I can change fit

Page 6: Architecting estonia

Some thoughts on systemarchitecture

Page 7: Architecting estonia

System architecture context

Systems thinking

System dynamics

Gave rise toCybernetics

Tackles similar problems to

System Architecture

Provides foundations for

Dynamic Project Management

Provides foundations for

Provides foundations for

System safetyProvides

foundations for

Page 8: Architecting estonia

Systems thinking is thinking about aquestion, circumstance, or problem

explicitly as a system

System is a set of interrelated entities whose functionality is greater than thesum of the individual entities. Crawley et al 2015.

Page 9: Architecting estonia

Architecture is an abstract depiction of theentities of a system and the relationships

between those entities

A man-made system can also be seen as a set of decisions

Page 10: Architecting estonia

Main aspects of a system

• Function is what the system does

• Form is what the system is

• Concept is how to think of the system

• Concept maps a set of functions to acorresponding set of form elements Function

Form

Concept

Page 11: Architecting estonia

Form drives cost, function drives value.The difference determinesmaximum possible profit

You can’t make more than this, but you can certainly make less. In publicsector, we are interested in ratio - bang per buck - rather than difference

Page 12: Architecting estonia

The concept is the part that makes the silverbullet so elusive

Brooks 1995. Form and function we have robust mechanisms to deal with,but not concept

Page 13: Architecting estonia

Form, concept and function are a logicalentity. Change in one drives change in other

Change the culture sufficiently and the office layout changes

Page 14: Architecting estonia

Architecture of a country

Page 15: Architecting estonia

What if we applied systems thinkingto a country?

“Let’s think of Estonia as a system and see what happens“

Page 16: Architecting estonia

Concept of a country

How to think about a country?

• Many equally feasible approaches• “It is a way to organise us living together“• “It is a hostile entity that is not to be trusted“• “It is a conduct of Gods will“

• The domain of legal and philosophical thinkers

• Embodied, to an extent, in constitution

• Thus very hard (if at all possible) to influence

• Has a massive influence on acceptable ways the functions of astate can be executed

Page 17: Architecting estonia

Function of a country

What does a country do anyway?

• Function of a system is emergent by definition• Remember the “…greater than the sum of its parts“ thing• Not all emergence can be predicted• Not all emergence is desirable

• Function is fundamentally driven by whoever has the highest powerin the current setting

• The people, in Estonian case• Partly captured in legislation

• There are many ways to think of the function• Business process analysis, use case analysis etc.

Page 18: Architecting estonia

Form of a country

What is a country?

• Three main categories of form• Peopleware

• How are the people embodying the country organised?• Administrative setup, business processes• Organisational entities and their roles

• Software• The obvious bureaucracy automation• But also e-mail servers, sensor networks etc.

• Hardware• The physical artefacts supporting the first two• Cold rooms, cables and servers• But also physical office buildings and their layout

Page 19: Architecting estonia

Architectural model of a country

Constitution

Functions

Peopleware

Software

Infrastructure

Page 20: Architecting estonia

The model explained

• Simply the elements seen previously stacked in order of abstraction• Each layer can be seen as a system in itself

• Apply the same principles recursively• The model can be seen as a stack of different architectures• Methods for structuring each layer differ, of course

Main idea: A holistic model of a country allowing to explore complexrelationships spanning disciplines

Page 21: Architecting estonia

Application of the model

Page 22: Architecting estonia

The data embassies

• Digital continuity is important for a digital-heavy country• Estonia is too small to physically host two server rooms providingadequate risk mitigation

• Recommended distance is about 250 km• Which, while geographically possible, is not sensible in Estonia

• What if we hosted some services abroad?• Rent server rooms from friendly countries• Or use Estonian embassies

• Both running the services and maintaining contingency backupscan be considered

This is a problem of the “Hardware“ layer

Page 23: Architecting estonia

Applying the model

• Software: Is the software built to survive loss of access to otherservices?

• Peopleware: How can responsibility for data be executed acrossborders and physical distance?

• Functions: Does the function make sense in isolation (peopleregistry without document registry)?

• Constitution: To what extent can a country exist in exile?

Page 24: Architecting estonia

Conclusion

Page 25: Architecting estonia

Common EA frameworks are lacking

Usually, the “concept“ part is especially difficult to reflect.All models are wrong, some models are useful

Page 26: Architecting estonia

Using systems thinking, a more useful modelcan be derived

There are probably other models but this one is abstract enough to cover a lotof ground

Page 27: Architecting estonia

The model is useful in dissecting a problemlooking trivial in common EA context

A lot of cloud-oriented problems are very similar in nature. Cloud, as a technicalconstruct, has profound implications for organisations.

Page 28: Architecting estonia

Thank you!Andres Kü[email protected]