Without rigorous governance and architectural decoupling, organizations aren’t modernizing; they’re just crashing probabilistic AI demos into legacy problems. Extracting actual business value from AI requires deliberate, structured orchestration (navigation) rather than blind ever-escaping momentum.
The target audience. SME regularly deploying software products. Simple is Feasible Think about it. Everything revolves around a “Product”. Business/Industry/Investors, all actors think in terms of Products. Not Software, Architectural or some other artifacts. After Business decided they know WHY do the need it, product owners and business analyst are iterating to define WHAT business wants. Just then it is feasible to deploy the consistent plan to the Technology people, to decide HOW will it be done. The better information they have the less time they will spend iterating to “understand the thing”. Better means detailed, articulated, with requirements managed and clarified. No ambiguities. ...
LLM Enterprise Concept All is revolving around security No organization internal system can “reach out” across the safe boundary LLM has to be organization owned and completely hosted inside its safe perimeters Safe Perimeter has only one gate Single point of entry and exit Organization owned LLM Same attributes as any other infrastructural part on the “inside” (RDBMS, AD, ESB) Same features and capabilities as the “front tier” LLMs Also trained on the Enterprise Private Data Aleph Alpha: The Right Model Aleph Alpha, founded in Heidelberg in 2019, built Luminous — a full LLMOwn architecture, training, and own inference. Same category as OpenAI and Anthropic: model creators. ...
DBJ Taxonomy defined the language for GPS coordinates in the infospace. Content nobody can locate is content nobody finds. Taxonomy defines the locations on the map the business holds firmly in its hand. Taxonomy is the language used for programming infospace orienteering instruments The .taxonomy file connects the abstract taxonomy to actual content. It declares a taxonomy location using the DBJ Core Taxonomy vocabulary. Not only for code — repositories of documents, images, specifications, any kind of content. ...
IMPORTANT Durable execution is a crash insurance for a long-running software. It is not a business process, and adopting it does not mean your organization “has a workflow.” What it actually solves A program holds its state in memory, and memory does not survive the program. When a process dies halfway through a job, everything it knew is gone: which step it reached, which steps already completed, whether the payment went out once or twice. Regardless of the job. ...
IMPORTANT When someone says “we have a workflow for that,” they mean one of (at least) three things. Ask which. The answer tells you whether you are looking at a business decision, a description of one, or a piece of plumbing. One word, three jobs Start with something older than software. A workflow was a paper routing slip. A form moves desk to desk: approve, stamp, forward to accounting. Each desk does one step. The slip records where it is and what has already happened to it. If a clerk quits mid-task, someone finds the slip in the in-tray and picks it up, because the state is written on it. ...
C++ DBJ Error Concept — Revisited Back in 2019 I wrote C++ DBJ Error Concept, at last, proposing VALSTAT — Value & Status — as an answer to a gap ISO C++ has never closed: there is no standard C++ concept for “how did this call actually go.” Seven years on, the standard still doesn’t have one. The idea might be worth restating. (Certainly std::expected seems not to be widely adopted. My own assertion.) ...
Someone described DBJ Taxonomy this way: “a taxonomy that maps to Zachman-style layers (Strategic/Conceptual → Logical → Physical → Implementations).” Sounds credible. Sadly, it isn’t true. That image is the simplified four-layer version quoted in the claim. It’s not what Zachman actually defined — his framework is a 5×6 matrix (Scope/Business/System/Technology/Component crossed with What/How/Where/Who/When/Why), not a single top-to-bottom stack. The linear “Strategic → Logical → Physical → Implementations” progression is a loose paraphrase, which is also why the mapping claim doesn’t hold up. ...
The other day I stumbled upon good article (again) on the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) site: BPT vs Agile https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/why-companies-get-agile-right-wrong My summary so far BCG’s finding: only about half of companies claiming high agile maturity actually achieved transformation goals with real business impact — while in the same time 47% adopt the practices but get none of the benefit. Naturally those accused of “operating under the illusion of agility”, will be (very) weary of adopting “yet another ideology” on top of or instead of agile. ...