Claming an enterprise roadmap valid for many decades for one of the key element of the entire society is a very bold statement. Despite the obvious progress made in the technology, organization structure, collaboration, there are very few innovations throughout the history when comes to the enterprise fundamentals. One of the most important concepts for the productivity increase, the assembly line invented by Henry Ford, took almost a century to reach the highly sophisticated, completely automated microprocessor manufacturing lines. In other fields, like the microprocessor architecture, billions of transistors were only added on the same basic structure that existed decades ago. Even programming languages have evolved very little from their first design. Most of the elements from the first programming language, FORTRAN, can be found in any of the latest logic structures. Even the Internet, with its extraordinary ramp-up usage, has changed relatively very little from the initial architecture.

  Nevertheless, a faster pace made the need to integrate change, operations, and technology one of the one of the biggest challenge that emerged in this new millennium. A solution for this challenge will shape in a fundamental way the future of the enterprise for decades to come. Beyond the highly automated assembly lines, the only long term solution to a long-term increased productivity is if key processes, like the new product development, can become highly automated as well. Its success is dependent on a creating enterprise Information Architecture that will integrate the decision-making,  change management, and operations in a unique framework. The only way to deal with a complexity so high when designing such an enterprise infrastructure, is if an engineering approach is taken, one that has a top-down analysis, and a bottom-up implementation.

Flexible Microprocessor-Centric Architecture

Flexible DSE-Centric Enterprise Architecture

There is a clear parallel between the two architectures. There is a major difference between them. While the PC architecture takes changes in a discrete way, in an enterprise pausing and starting operations is a very costly process. To be able to truly take advantage of flexibility, the enterprise should be able to not only to implement changes without stopping the operations, but to implement multiple changes at the same time. The end result is a highly efficient and continuously-adaptive enterprise

  It is well proven that success is one of the key factors of success. As Craig Barrett from Intel observed recently, the main reason why the PC platform was so successful was because it was flexible. Using the same hardware and operating system, countless applications can be developed, deployed, and run. When comes to the enterprise, the same path can be take. By introducing flexibility at the foundation of the enterprise, the same infrastructure is capable to support the way changes are introduced and run the operations. Nevertheless, there is a major difference between the PC and the enterprise. Software applications can be deployed only by stopping the previous ones that are performing the same function, resulting in a change management that is discrete in its nature. In the enterprise, stopping and restarting operations is extremely costly in time and effort. The only one that is truly effective is if the change management is performed while operations are continuing to run.   

  The flexibility is always determined by the decision-making process, especially the internal one. While the customer decision-making process, a process used by all customers to decide if they need to buy a certain product or service, is very difficult to integrate, it can be simplified by approximating with a model of its operations. The same model, together with the operations one , and with the business model, are the main driver for how the operations are run, and how new products and services are developed.

  The DSE-centric infrastructure may encompass thousands of standard modules, all of them integrated according to the laws of information for systems architecture. Writing software to implement these modules, together with their deployment in all the existing enterprises may take many decades. Nevertheless, the benefit could be tremendous. Flat organizations, in which information and products are flowing with maximum of efficiency, will be capable to mass produce individualized products, at a cost far lower than today's market. Once this phase is completed, the same standardized architecture can be extended to a dynamically stable customer-centric environment. In this case, a customer's decision will not only be the solely driver for the entire value chain, but the resulting products will be able to collaborate while in use to optimize their operations based on existing needs. An industry that may fit perfectly this model is the preventive healthcare, one of the most efficient way to provide medical services. An environment in which customized, complex medical devices are continuously manufactured at a low cost, their collaboration automated with high level summary information provided continuously to existing hospitals, can represent the ultimate in health care. If implemented on a wide scale in the next century, may lead to name it the "Healthcare Century." Nevertheless, as in a microprocessor, billions and billions of transistors can be added on the same basic structure, thousands and thousands of new information processing modules can be added on the same basic infrastructure.

  Obviously, the new approach requires that engineering schools and the MBA programs to teach a different perspective on the enterprise change management, and on management in general. Current MBA programs are using the case-study approach, a methodology more closer to the chess players training than a business manager that has to deal with many unknown previously situations. They have to learn more about information flows, business modeling, process integration, and business change. Engineers need also to learn the same skills. In the end ideally both will have a major impact by contributing equally to the overall effort.

  Another important aspect for such an infrastructure is the patenting process. If successful, such an infrastructure may require the contribution of many businesses, and many consultants. By patenting key concepts, it will hinder its development and adoption, for the benefits of few. Our belief is that software should not be patented. In fact, if the DSE will prove to be successful, we are planning to have an online catalog with contributions of open ideas. They may constitute prior art for patenting attempts when comes to practical applications inspired by the DSE. The model for this approach is the Internet. If Tim Berners-Lee would have patented the browser architecture, it is unlikely that the Internet would have become so successful.

If you have any challenging project and you think that it may benefit from the use of the DSE please let us know. The framework and the methodology can be improved from these experiences.

We expect that in the next few weeks to add more content and details regarding the collaboration. Nevertheless, they will be heavily influenced by your praises and criticism, your questions and suggestions. We accept sponsorship. Anyway, please be patient with our answers, as our resources are very limited. Our focus on the next few weeks is to finish the book, and release it to the editor.

More details about the framework are also covered at xclsoft.com, the Web site dedicated to our business, as our way to capitalize on the opportunities brought forward by the DSE.

We also understand that at first the entire concept is very confusing, and looks extremely complex. The enterprise is extremely complex, and as a first attempt to unify all the elements, it is a lot to digest.

Thank you for visiting us!