Foreword
Simply stated; it is time!
In other words, we are at a point where both business and Information Technology (IT) communities must establish practices designed to embrace the various ecosystems upon which their enterprises depend.
A pragmatic place to start is with architecture; specifically, IT architecture aimed at the ecosystems level — at the hyper-enterprise level, as it were, and with an ambition to augment informal practice already in place in and around Enterprise Architecture. This comes from domains like Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), Information Retrieval (IR), Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), and Blockchain, and covers ideas not yet consolidated or formalized — as is the case with Enterprise and/or Systems Architecture.
So, let us start with a caveat. Ecosystems Architecture, as presented here, is an additive discipline to that of Enterprise Architecture, meaning that Ecosystems Architecture is not intended to replace or compete with that discipline. On the contrary, the work of an Enterprise Architect is seen as a necessary pathway, or even a prerequisite, toward becoming an Ecosystem Architect, by drawing upon skills already mastered.
The business side of the enterprise has eternally relied on the broader support of its surrounding ecosystems. To that end, ecosystems and ecosystems thinking are nothing new. What is new, however, is the recognition that IT architecture can play an instrumental role in how ecosystems and the enterprise interact. Hundreds of universities around the world already offer courses containing an ecosystems element. For instance, majors can be obtained in Supply Chain Management, Logistics, and so on. Yet, while optimization is often covered in these programs, the role of IT architecture in that optimization is not. IT architects, therefore, have invariably played a passive role when organizations think in terms of the world around them.
That needs to change.
Why? Simply because today’s enterprises swim in the sea that is the global digital ether, and without the support of the dynamic electronic connections around them, they would drown. As a case in point, the supply chain crisis brought about by COVID mortally wounded many organizations who were blasé about their extended digital dependence. It thereby quashed any fallacy of ecosystems being extraneous to mission-critical business concerns. So, if “being digitally extended” is considered to be important, then Ecosystems Architecture and the role of Ecosystems Architects must also be seen as imperative. In saying that, and as an aside, it is important to note that although global data exchange protocols, like TCP/IP, EDI X.400, and NIEM, have been successfully used for years, and although they may indeed be part of any Ecosystems Architect’s kitbag, Ecosystems Architecture should not be considered synonymous for any or all of them. Its scope is far greater, with a broad affinity to Enterprise Architecture — while being distinctively different.
All of this means that Ecosystem Architects must sit alongside their business counterparts as their organizations build out in their surrounding ecosystems. This, of course, requires an eye to the technologies involved, and the support of unbiased, systematized, and standardized practice.
As an example of bias, naïve organizations often make the mistake of believing that they live at the epicenter of their customer and supplier networks. This is rarely, if ever, the case as Ecosystems Architecture is keen to point out. Not only does centrality skew an organization’s worldview, but it can serve to restrict its opportunities. This is important because, as the grander context of business scales and becomes more complex, retaining objectivity will become ever more important. Aspiring to create a discipline that can transcend the reach of personal and organizational viewpoints was, therefore, the primary motivation behind the push for Ecosystems Architecture as a distinct and discrete discipline.
Neal Fishman
Distinguished Engineer, IBM