Peter Olow Knowit TM peter.olow@knowit.se On the Integration of System Anatomy, System Architecture and Project Management Peter Olow Knowit TM peter.olow@knowit.se Lars Taxén Linköping University lars.taxen@telia.com

If failure teaches more than success … then the IT profession must be developing an army of brilliant project managers (Nelson, 2007)

Project management research should not consist of merely creating new frameworks and proffering new theoretical models of project management. It should also target the ways in which this new knowledge can clarify and enrich the professional practice of actors involved in project conduct (Lalonde et al., 2010)

Handling Complexity - the Cynefin topology SW more and more Complex domain

The telecom network Complex projects Our practical experiences

Integration Driven Development An example of IDD Dependencies between capabilities Many projects over the years Architectural aspects downplayed

Research question “How can the system architecture view be included in Integration Driven Development, and what effects can be expected from integrating the planning, anatomy and architectural views?”

Project conceptualization

Planning view Focus on the delivery of the system on time and within budget

Anatomy view Anatomy view Focus on system functionality

Architecture view Architecture view Focus on non-functional requirements and other constraints

The integrated view

Show how the different views can be seen

Contributions Planning view Anatomy view Architecture view Focus on the delivery of the system on time and within budget Anatomy view Focus on system functionality Architecture view Focus on non-functional requirements and other constraints

An exemplar project Latent capabilities that every healthy human is endowed with at birth

The Activity Domain An exemplar project - objectivation - contextualization - stabilization - spatialization - temporalization - transition Coordinative universals - Activity Modalities Focus on a target, motivated by a need Frame a context of relevance Adhere to norms Orient oneself in space Conceive of actions leading to the goal Change context Latent capabilities that every healthy human is endowed with at birth

Activity Domain Theory Practice origin (Ericsson) Innate predispositions for coordinating actions Refined over many years Rigor – relevance Particular – general No time to talk about this … read about it in our paper Particular – general (Smyth & Morris, 2007) General explanatory patterns marginalizes the particular Particular focus aggravates the emergence of common patterns

The Activity Domain Theory Integrated view basis for detailed planning in the other views

Coherence Weakness of each view are counterbalanced An accessible shared view Multi-view arena prevents unjustified detailing

Planning and estimation Balancing feature, component delivery, and capability Multi-disciplinary starting point for estimations Project risks can be identified in all views feature delivery component development resource planning

Just do it!