More Insights Without More Effort: Polymetric Modelling and Visual Intelligence in Enterprise Architecture

How can enterprise architects extract far more insight from their models without significantly increasing the effort required?

The effort required to collect, validate, analyse, and report on enterprise architecture information is itself one of the biggest obstacles to EA delivering value — and yet most approaches simply accept that effort as a given. This 2013 presentation by Graham McLeod challenges that assumption directly, arguing that the right combination of integrated meta models, inferencing, derived values, and visual techniques can dramatically increase the insight produced by an EA repository without requiring proportionally more effort to maintain it. A particularly compelling section introduces polymetric diagramming — a technique that modifies the visual properties of model symbols (size, colour, shape, border width, position) based on the actual data values of the objects they represent, turning what would otherwise be static structural diagrams into rich, information-dense pictures that exploit the human visual system's innate ability to detect patterns, movement, and anomalies. Worked examples show function models where symbol width reflects delay time, process models where width maps to duration, height to cost, and colour intensity to resource consumption, and application maps clustered and sized by investment or number of non-standard interfaces. The underlying architecture — a separation of logical model types from their visual representations, with polymetric specifications scripted in a flexible DSL — is implemented in Pharo Smalltalk using the Mondrian and Roassal graphics libraries and the EVA Graphical Modeler. For practitioners wrestling with the gap between the volume of data in their EA repositories and the quality of insight they can extract from it, this presentation offers both a compelling vision and a concrete technical path.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod at an Inspired event, September 2013.

A Business and Solution Building Block Approach to EA Project Planning

How can enterprise architects bring clarity to project scope, release planning, and stakeholder communication across complex, interdependent programmes?

These slides accompany the paper: A Business and Solution Building Block Approach to EA Project Planning

When multiple projects are running in parallel — each with its own business analyst, development team, and agile backlog — it becomes surprisingly easy for scope, dependencies, and release content to become invisible to the people who most need to understand them: sponsors, stakeholders, and programme managers. This paper documents exactly that problem at a rapidly expanding South African telecoms company, where two major projects (Quoting and Billing) were underway with little consensus on scope, no agreed release breakdown, and a growing disconnect between business expectations and development plans.

The solution was a structured building block approach, distinguishing Business Building Blocks (BBBs) — capability-level components independent of technology choices — from Solution Building Blocks (SBBs), representing the actual systems, data sources, and infrastructure chosen to implement them. A facilitated workshop produced a BBB diagram showing capabilities, dependencies, and release groupings at a glance; a release matrix then mapped capability and content coverage to delivery timelines. Both were formalised in a meta model and implemented in the EVA Netmodeler repository, enabling traceability from business requirements through to agile backlogs and programme milestones.

The approach was well received across all stakeholder groups — sponsors, strategists, and programme managers reported that they finally had a clear, shared picture of what each project would deliver and when. The paper includes the full meta model, visual examples, and an honest reflection on adoption challenges, making it a practical reference for any EA function working to improve programme visibility and stakeholder alignment.

Originally published as a conference paper by Graham McLeod, Inspired.org / University of Cape Town, circa 2013–2014.

Real Business Architecture: Strategy, Design Thinking, and the Bigger Picture

How does business architecture go beyond conventional scope to become a genuine driver of business transformation?

Most treatments of business architecture focus on functions, processes, and capabilities — important, but incomplete. This 2012 presentation by Graham McLeod, delivered at The Open Group Enterprise Transformation Conference in Cannes, makes the case that the true scope of business architecture is much broader: encompassing innovation and design thinking, customer value and emotion, external context, emerging technology, and the full range of strategic concerns that drive organisational change. Drawing on TOGAF 9, Archimate 2, and the Inspired framework, the presentation maps out an expanded meta model that integrates motivation, functional, process, service, and capability perspectives — and shows how these are not competing views but complementary lenses that can be reconciled. A compelling section examines the transformative forces reshaping business in 2012 — cloud, big data, social media, additive manufacturing, and the rise of design-driven companies — and asks what business architects must do to stay relevant. Case examples from Apple, Volkswagen, and others illustrate how architectural thinking at the right level of abstraction enables the kind of strategic clarity that transforms organisations. The closing argument is unambiguous: business architecture practised at its full scope is a board-level strategic capability, not a documentation exercise.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod at The Open Group Enterprise Transformation Conference, Cannes, France, April 2012.

Engaging Real Business People in Real Business Architecture

Why do business executives avoid enterprise architecture — and how do you get them genuinely engaged?

The complaint is common among IT architects: business executives won't engage with enterprise architecture, leaving the whole effort directionless. But as this 2009 presentation by Graham McLeod argues, the real problem lies with what is typically presented to business people as "business architecture" — a technically framed, detail-heavy, IT-grown discipline that offers little of immediate relevance to the executives who actually own the business. Delivered at The Open Group EA Practitioners Conference in London, the presentation sets out both a diagnosis and a remedy. The diagnosis: most EA has grown upward from IT rather than downward from business strategy, and neither TOGAF nor most frameworks at the time adequately captured the full scope of genuine business architecture — context, markets, products, channels, customers, scenarios, and cross-cutting concerns like cost, risk, quality, and governance. The remedy: a comprehensive business architecture meta model, drawn from Inspired and PROMIS experience across banking, healthcare, assurance, telecommunications, and government, that gives executives models they recognise as their own. A particularly practical section addresses how architects must shift their role — from technical experts presenting conclusions to skilled facilitators asking good questions, holding up a mirror, and ensuring that models and content belong to the business rather than the architecture team. The presentation closes with specific suggestions for how TOGAF should expand its treatment of business architecture.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod at The Open Group EA Practitioners Conference (EAPC), London, UK, April 2009.

Meta Meta Model Extensions for Managing Large-Scale Collaborative EA Modelling

How do you extend enterprise architecture meta models to keep large-scale collaborative modelling manageable?

When enterprise architecture modelling moves beyond a single expert working alone — across teams, organisations, time zones, and languages — the meta model that was perfectly adequate for small-scale work begins to break down. Ownership conflicts, information overload, incompatible versions, and variable data quality all emerge as serious practical obstacles. This 2008 presentation by Graham McLeod, delivered at EMMSAD 2008 (Exploring Modelling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design), addresses these challenges head-on with a set of formal but pragmatic extensions to EA meta models and meta meta models, developed through real-world experience building and operating the EVA collaborative repository. The core constructs introduced include context — a powerful, reusable mechanism that operates at the meta meta level and addresses domain, ownership, authority, timeframe, status, and language in a unified way; relationship typing, which brings precision to how model elements connect; and a model type abstraction that subsumes graphical models, documents, reports, and user interfaces under a single coherent concept. A three-layer object architecture — implemented in Smalltalk — is shown to be essential for the flexibility required, with filters implemented as a specialisation of model type and time, version, and baseline tracking unified through relationships. The resulting conceptual model is notably compact given the range of challenges it addresses, and the presentation is candid about both the expressiveness achieved and the performance challenges encountered in implementation. For practitioners building or evaluating EA repository tooling, this is a rare account of what the meta model level actually needs to look like in production.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod at EMMSAD 2008 (Exploring Modelling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design), Montpellier, France, June 2008.

Breaking the EA Bottleneck: Collaborative and Distributed Enterprise Modelling

How can enterprise architecture move beyond the central "oracle" model to become a truly collaborative, distributed discipline?

The central architect as "oracle" — a single expert who holds all the knowledge and dispenses answers to those willing to make the pilgrimage — is a familiar and dysfunctional pattern in enterprise architecture. It creates bottlenecks, slows delivery, produces models that lack buy-in, and makes it almost impossible to integrate the perspectives of business, process, data, application, and technology teams who each hold a piece of the picture. This 2007 tutorial by Graham McLeod, delivered at the CAiSE conference in Trondheim, tackles this problem head-on with a comprehensive framework for collaborative, distributed enterprise modelling. The tutorial covers the full stack of enablers: shared meta models and naming standards as the foundation for integration; a structured process for identifying participants, educating them, collecting architecture elements, organising hierarchies, and building cross-domain relationships; and tool support that enables distributed teams to capture, relate, model, and share architecture content across geographies and time zones. A particularly useful section distinguishes the roles of framework, meta model, method, and repository tool — clarifying how each contributes to making collaboration work in practice. The benefits are concrete: higher quality inputs, faster results, greater organisational awareness, and significantly higher levels of architectural compliance, precisely because the people who need to act on the architecture helped build it.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod as a tutorial at CAiSE 2007 (19th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering), Trondheim, Norway, 2007.

Linking Strategy, Enterprise Architecture and Programme Management

How do you create a coherent link between business strategy, enterprise architecture, and programme management — and why does it matter?

Organisations routinely struggle to translate strategic intent into delivered change — not because the strategy is wrong, but because the connections between strategy, architecture, and execution are poorly defined or missing entirely. This presentation by Graham McLeod, drawn from 15 years of cross-industry experience, addresses that gap with a structured framework for integrating strategy, enterprise architecture, and programme management into a coherent whole. Central to the approach is the concept of delta models — architecture views that show the net change required between current and future states, providing accurate scope for projects and a clear communication bridge between strategists, architects, and the project office. The presentation covers the full chain: from understanding current reality and setting architectural principles, through scenario development and filtering, to portfolio selection based on benefit ranking, risk scoring, cost estimation, and dependency mapping. A particularly useful section introduces the concept of organisational APIs — published, stable business service interfaces that facilitate rapid reconfiguration, outsourcing, and partnering, and that bring the discipline of software interface design to the boundary between business units. Case studies from telecommunications, a media group, an international bank, and a major assurer illustrate the approach in practice, showing how the integration of strategy, architecture, and programme management produces better-scoped initiatives, more informed investment decisions, and faster, lower-risk delivery.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod at an Inspired event, 2005.

Enhancing Enterprise Architecture Models with Cost, Quality and Risk Dimensions

How can enterprise architecture models be extended to capture cost, quality, and risk — and why does it matter?

Enterprise architecture models do an excellent job of mapping the structural relationships between business, process, application, information, and technology domains — but they have traditionally said little about cost, quality, and risk, the dimensions most relevant to the executives and managers who need to act on them. This 2003 presentation by Graham McLeod, delivered at the University of Cape Town in collaboration with Promis Solutions AG, makes the case that these dimensions are not separate concerns requiring separate tools — they can be woven directly into existing EA models. Drawing on the Inspired EA framework and its EVA repository, the presentation shows how cost centres can be linked to architecture elements and values derived through declarative formulas, how quality metrics can be attached to products, processes, applications, and platforms, and how risk can be incorporated as a further dimension of the model. A particularly useful insight is that most of the cost elements organisations need are already present in their architecture models — they simply need attributes added and a mechanism for accumulation and apportionment. The result is a single integrated view that allows strategic planners, architects, and business managers to evaluate current positions and future scenarios with proper appreciation for the full implications of their decisions.

Originally presented by Graham McLeod at the University of Cape Town, June 2003.