Enterprise Architecture Matters

Adrian Grigoriu

DOTS, the enterprise structure in POET-PEAF EA method, which is GODS

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes
In POET-PEAF..., a proprietary Enterprise Architecture method, Kevin Smith has published DOTS, a standard enterprise structure here.

The DOTS concept is practically the same, with the exception of two letters in the abbreviation, with the GODS enterprise structuring paradigm I proposed beginning ten years or so, ago. 

GODS stands for  Governance - Operations - Development    -  Support    while 
DOTS  stands for  Direction      - Operations - Transformation -  Support
with practically the same meaning for terms. Please compare, see for yourself.

GODS is currently licensed under Creative Commons, under "can use and modify" but give credit. See http://www.enterprise-architecture-matters.co.uk/ But no credit was given and no reference was made to GODS.

GODS was first published by Trafford in 2006 in the first edition of "An Enterprise Architecture Development Framework" paper book at

" A Comparison of Common Business Modeling Approaches to GODS..." 
The GODS concept was also posted and discussed in a few LinkedIn threads, now archived, from the October and November, 2010 timeframe, in the Enterprise Architecture Network group.
Please do google with "grigoriu gods" for many more blogs and references.

Moreover Kevin's site is licensing this POET... framework and indeed DOTS for commercial purposes.  It is hard for me to understand how this happened.
But who knows what else I may discover  since I have never thought to check before, that is, until I discovered on LinkedIn Pulse the post, now disappeared,  "EA - far too important to be left to IT" that effectively described GODS under the name of DOTS.  

Kevin do remove the DOTS structure from POET... framework  and other materials until proper credit is given under Creative Commons.

By the way, I remember a company I used to work for where colleagues told me beforehand that anything of value I show in a meeting, I would get to see soon after in someone else's presentation. It was true. The company failed soon after. 
But this is what impedes progress in this  EA field of ours or in any discipline for that matter.  
But what does the enterprise  and business professional community has to say about this?

7 Comments

| Leave a comment

I have never even read your GODS before today, so how could I possibly
steal it.
...
If anyone wishes to see the Pulse Blog I wrote and to comment there,
the link is
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ea-far-too-important-left-kevin-intj-smi
th

The similarities between the two are undeniable, beginning with the denomination as "enterprise structure", the naming and order of abbreviation, number of entities and their definitions.

Still, GODS precedes by long your work. It was widely published and discussed since 2006 in various forms and in the same EA community where we have been both active for so long.
Hence, it is hard to believe that you have not seen the concept, as you say, or have not been influenced by it at some point in time.
So, you, inadvertently or not, do infringe on my IP. This is a fact.

Yet, because it is licensed under Creative Commons anyone can use and modify the concept but with credit.
Do that and I will remove this post altogether.
After all, we are in the same boat, you, having your own EA method, wouldn't like your IP posted elsewhere without credit, coincidence or not.

Your Linkedin Pulse entry is visible no more from where I stand. Hence the need to copy your material.

And I just removed your material from my post.

Kevin, since I cannot find your article in LinkedIn, or when it appears I cannot comment, here are the Facts:

a) there is an undeniable sameness between GODS and DOTS
- both are about "enterprise structure"
- number of entities in the concepts is 4
- abbreviation as type of naming
- ordering and number of letters in the abbreviation GODS vs DOTS; Operations and Support are in the same place in the abbreviation by a remarkable coincidence
- and the entities definition if we go into further detail

b) the difference consists in mainly two letters in the abbreviation:
-"D" from "Direction" replacing "G" for Governance
- and T for "Transformation" instead of Development
but the meanings of the terms above are very similar between the two concepts

c) GODS was posted and published numerous times in the EA community, and LinkedIn, in the last ten years and as such it is hard to believe that that the concept was not visible to you or anyone in the EA community.

d) Since GODS was produced published and licensed under Creative Commons many ten years ago GODS preceds DOTS in terms of IP, happenstance or not.

Do explain that.
GODS ia part of my framework too a long time now.


Post this in its entirety or do not post it at all…

To deal with what you offer as “proof” that DOTS = GODS and that I stole it from you…

@Adrian: “- both are about enterprise structure”

Yes they are - as is Zachman, TOGAF, Archimate, etc.
Since they existed before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from them.

@Adrian: “- number of entities in the concepts is 4”

Yes they both have four letters in their name - as does hundreds of other things with 4 letters in their name.
Since they existed before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from them.

@Adrian: “- abbreviation as type of naming”

Yes they are both acronyms - as are millions of other acronyms.
Since they existed before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from them.

@Adrian: “- ordering and number of letters in the abbreviation GODS vs DOTS; Operations and Support are in the same place in the abbreviation by a remarkable coincidence”

Yes DOTS is in the order it is because DTSO, DSOT, DTOS, ODTS, OTSD, OSDT, OTDS, TDOS, TOSD, TSDO, TODS, SDTO, STOD, SODT OR STDO Don’t make a word - as do hundreds of other acronyms.
Since they existed before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from them.

@Adrian: “- and the entities definition if we go into further detail…”

I had to go searching your website to find what your definitions are (not the actions of someone who had stolen them) and what I found was extremely sparse.
You define GODS at (http://www.enterprise-architecture-matters.co.uk/ea-links/business-a) as…
- Governance (e.g. Board, CEO office...)
- Operations (e.g. Sourcing, Production, Sales)
- Development (R&D, Product Development)
- Support (e.g. HR, IT...)
And offer some application of them (which aids understanding a little) at http://www.enterprise-architecture-matters.co.uk/gods-business-architecture/GODS%20One%20PAge%20Business%20Architecture%20v3.gif

Firstly your “definitions” are almost too vague to be definitions to read much into what you actually mean. However, giving you as much benefit of the doubt as possible, let’s compare the definitions of GODS vs DOTS…

Governance vs Direction
====================
This is a pretty good match - a distinct group in most Enterprises consisting of the Board, CEO office, etc.
This is a very well understood thing going back probably hundreds of years
Since the idea existed long before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from whoever originally thought of that.

Operations vs Operations
=====================
On the face of it, this is a pretty good match - a distinct group in most Enterprises consisting of people who “do the work of the Enterprise”.
This is a very well understood thing going back probably hundreds of years
Since the idea existed long before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from whoever originally thought of Operations.
However, you do not IT Operations in your Operations whereas I do.
In addition you have many things in Support that I put under Operations (“HR, Payroll, Training, Finance, Procurement, Document Management, Assets Management, Loan/Bank Mng Payments, Legal & Regulatory”)
This means your “Operations” and my “Operations” are totally different.

Development vs Transformation
==========================
You include R&D and Product Development. I do not. You are not clear as to what you mean by R&D but product development I put firmly in Operations.
One of the things that DOTS does - that GODS totally fails to do - is to identify Transformation (not just IT transformation) as a strategically important separate domain in its own right that requires someone at Board level to be accountable for. This alone makes your accusations null and void.
This means your “Development” and my “Transformation” are totally different.

Support vs Support
================
You have a random mixture of things under Support - “HR, Payroll, Training, Procurement, Document Management, Assets Management, Loan/Bank Mng Payments, Legal & Regulatory” - which DOTS puts in Operations.
You include IT Operations - DOTS doesn’t - DOTS does puts IT Operations in (you’ve guessed it…) Operations.
Support in DOTS also includes all other support - Buildings, Finance, HR support etc. (1st and 2nd line) - GODS doesn’t.
This means your “Support” and my “Support” are totally different.

@Adrian: “b) the difference consists in mainly two letters in the abbreviation: -"D" from "Direction" replacing "G" for Governance - and T for "Transformation" instead of Development but the meanings of the terms above are very similar between the two concepts”

Yes they are similar - in some respects - but totally different in many others - as illustrated above.
DOTS is as similar to GODS, in the same way that GODS is similar to Mintzberg.
Since Mintzberg existed long before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from Mintzberg.

In addition tour GODS is based on Porters Value Chain…

https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=4427837&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=ZJKA&locale=en_US&trk=tyah2&trkInfo=tarId%3A1421253533881%2Ctas%3Aadrian%20grig%2Cidx%3A1-1-1

I could accuse you of stealing it and changing the names to GODS.

@Adrian: “c) GODS was posted and published numerous times in the EA community, and LinkedIn, in the last ten years and as such it is hard to believe that that the concept was not visible to you or anyone in the EA community.”

Since the concept of categorising an Enterprise into well defined areas (even though your areas are ill-defined) existed well before you defined GODS, that proves (using your logic) that you stole GODS from anyone using the concept of categorising an Enterprise into well defined areas.

@Adrian: “d) Since GODS was produced published and licensed under Creative Commons many ten years ago GODS precedes DOTS in terms of IP, happenstance or not.”

It is irrelevant that you licensed it since I didn’t use it and since DOTS is not based on GODS.

Summary
========

You have taken some similarities between GODS and DOTS and instead of thinking and analysing (as I have done above) you have written a knee jerk reaction article making extremely serious allegations.

Knee jerk reactions are fine, but when you combine them with making serious allegations and calling into question the personal ethics and integrity of someone it becomes libel (one type of defamation).

I expect a full apology from you in due course.

It is evident for anyone looking at the two that GODS and DOTS are similar in concept and name, much too similar, almost same, no matter the explanations.

But you ask everyone to believe, and me to apologise for not believing, that DOTS came by chance ten years later in the same EA community while all this time GODS was posted and published too many times to mention.
In the end, it all comes down to your honest statement against facts.

In any case, since GODS was published and licensed, you are in fact in breach of its terms and you are aware of it now.
The explanation that you did not know about it does not stand in such a case.
Besides, you also license your framework commercially.

But, to cut this short, because GODS is for public "use and modify with credit", you might state on your post, if you have not already done so, that you were unaware that GODS existed. That as an interpretation of the licensing agreement.

If you continue to make demands though we have a problem then.
By the way, you accused me of stealing a few times now.

There is not much for me to say after that.


@Adrian: “It is evident for anyone looking at the two that GODS and DOTS are similar in concept and name, much too similar, almost same, no matter the explanations.”

Yes they are similar.

Similar > the same.

Your are similar to a monkey. (98% of your DNA).

GODS is similar to Porter.

Anyone who creates a high level categorisation of the parts of an Enterprise is likely to end with similar things to anyone else that creates a high level categorisation of the parts of an Enterprise.

This does not mean that they stole their work.

@Adrian: “But you ask everyone to believe, and me to apologise for not believing, that DOTS came by chance ten years later in the same EA community while all this time GODS was posted and published too many times to mention.”

I don’t care what you believe.

I care when you post lies to the internet.

You cannot publish serious allegations like this without some serious evidence to support it. Your feelings are not serious evidence.

I am not sure if you actually understood (or care to understand) anything in my previous post but I have taken a great deal of time to explain the fundamental differences.

@Adrian: “In the end, it all comes down to your honest statement against facts.”

You seem to think that you are the only arbiter as to what the facts are.

The fact is, DOTS is not based on GODS.

@Adrian: “In any case, since GODS was published and licensed, you are in fact in breach of its terms and you are aware of it now.”

I am not in breach of anything because I don’t use GODS and nothing I have created is based on GODS.

@Adrian: “Besides, you also license your framework commercially.”

So what?
What bearing does it have on anything?

@Adrian: “But, to cut this short, because GODS is for public "use and modify with credit", you might state on your post, if you have not already done so, that you were unaware that GODS existed. That as an interpretation of the licensing agreement.”

I am not going to state anything about GODS, because I don’t use GODS and nothing I have created is based on GODS.

These are the facts.

@Adrian: “If you continue to make demands though we have a problem then.”

My demands are that you stop libelling me.
If you do not stop libelling me, we will have a problem.

@Adrian :”By the way, you accused me of stealing a few times now.”

I am not sure if you actually understood (or care to understand) anything in my previous post.

I am not accusing you of stealing, you are accusing you of stealing.
I am applying your definition of stealing and applying it to what you say to show you how ludicrous your thought process is.

Leave a comment

Adrian Grigoriu blogs about everything relating to enterprise and business architecture, SOA, frameworks, design, planning, execution, organization and related issues.

Adrian Grigoriu

Adrian is an executive consultant in enterprise architecture, former head of enterprise architecture at Ofcom, the spectrum and broadcasting U.K. regulatory agency and chief architect at TM Forum, an organization providing a reference integrated business architecture framework, best practices and standards for the telecommunications and digital media industries. He also was a high technology, enterprise architecture and strategy senior manager at Accenture and Vodafone, and a principal consultant and lead architect at Qantas, Logica, Lucent Bell Labs and Nokia. He is the author of two books on enterprise architecture development available on Kindle and published articles with BPTrends, the Microsoft Architecture Journal and the EI magazine. Shortlisted by Computer Weekly for the IT Industry blogger of the year 2011.

Recently Commented On

Monthly Archives

Blogs

ADVERTISEMENT