Service Agreement
Agility Architecture make the stage of enterprise knowledge infrastructure for Agile scrum to dance.
Scrum is an iterative, incremental methodology for project management often seen in agile software development.
Although Scrum was intended for management of software development projects, it can be used to run software maintenance teams, or as a general project/program management approach.
^ TOP
Paradigm shift
Agility architecture requires a paradigm shift from the application development culture to the EA culture. A major obstacle in EA is that the community try to understand Enterprise Architecture from the aspect of Application development. The problem is that the first generation EA is evolved from application development concept and it is very difficult to tell the difference of EA and application development from the popular EA model.Most of EA practitioners come from application development culture. It is difficult for them to make transition to think outside of application development. However it is paramount to make the paradigm shift for EA to evolve.
John Zachman have tried very hard in Architecture Artifacts Vs Application Development Artifacts
to distinguish EA and application development.
“ Based on the Framework for Enterprise Architecture, I would suggest that Enterprise Architecture is the set of primitive, descriptive artifacts that constitute the knowledge infrastructure of the Enterprise. …Reuse or interoperabitliy does not happen by accident. It is the result of engineering “ [15].
Agility Architecture is a paradigm shift
Agility Architecture is a paradigm shift from the traditional vertical architecture approach to a horizontal and cross cut architecture considertion.
EA professional are familiar with vertical architecture in a top down approach without explicit recognition of horizontal architecture. The first generation EA is a vertical architecture centric approach, they invest most of the effort to design the target architecture blueprint and looks for the opportunity for reuse as an sidekick. However, It is impossible to achieve the EA goal to overcome the challenge of stovepipe system and adapt change adapt change without recognize the horizontal architecture approach explicitly because horizontal architecture approach is a very different discipline from vertical architecture discipline as Organic EA propose Agility Architecture as an explicit horizontal architecture approach. It overcome the challenge of stovepipe system and enable the agility to adapt change via:
Horizontal architecture
Agility architecture is an horizontal architecture approach to architect in side way.
The horizontal architecture learn the right experience of the others and internally looks for commonality across the enterprise. It is a very different direction from the traditional vertical alignment architecture under top down or bottom up approach. The horizontal architecture is tightly couple with vertical architecture. It analyze the common primitives between the vertical solution architecture.
WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT?
day and night pic
In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10). Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual world view is replaced by another".
Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.
For example, agriculture changed early primitive society. The primitive Indians existed for centuries roaming the earth constantly hunting and gathering for seasonal foods and water. However, by 2000 B.C., Middle America was a landscape of very small villages, each surrounded by patchy fields of corn and other vegetables.
Agents of change helped create a paradigm-shift moving scientific theory from the Plolemaic system (the earth at the center of the universe) to the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe), and moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity and Quantum Physics. Both movements eventually changed the world view. These transformations were gradual as old beliefs were replaced by the new paradigms creating "a new gestalt" (p. 112).
Likewise, the printing press, the making of books and the use of vernacular language inevitable changed the culture of a people and had a direct affect on the scientific revolution. Johann Gutenberg's invention in the 1440's of movable type was an agent of change. Books became readily available, smaller and easier to handle and cheap to purchase. Masses of people acquired direct access to the scriputures. Attitudes began to change as people were relieved from church domination.
Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. Newspaper publishing has been reshaped into Web sites, blogging, and web feeds. The Internet has enabled or accelerated the creation of new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking sites. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant.
In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.
Reference: Kuhn, Thomas, S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962)
^ TOP
What is Agility Architecture?
Agility Architecture to enable agilityAgility Architecture is the effort to architect the enterprise agility. Agility appears to be on the opposite of an planned architecture blueprint approach. by the following definition.
"Agile ... characterized by quickness of mind, resourcefulness, or adaptability in coping with new and varied situations....Applied to mental or intellectual matters, it suggests ready adaptability to change and adjust" - Webster's Third new International Dictionary
However, Agility does not just happen and come out of nowhere. It is the result of engineering. The agility architecture plan and prepare the enterprise agility. keep it simple as
Establish the knowledge infrastructure for agile to dance upon
Agility Architecture is not an agile approach to EA. Or an EA agile scrum. It establish the knowledge infrastructure for agile to dance.
Enterprise primitives
John Zachman said in Architecture Artifacts Vs Application Development Artifacts
“ Based on the Framework for Enterprise Architecture, I would suggest that Enterprise Architecture is the set of primitive, descriptive artifacts that constitute the knowledge infrastructure of the Enterprise. …Reuse or interoperabitliy does not happen by accident. It is the result of engineering “ [15].
Zachman further elaborate the concept of Enterprise Primitives in Primer for Enterprise Engineering and Manufacturing said that:
This would suggest that these are the primitives, that is, they are all different, they vary independently and that this is the minimum set of Perspectives (they all must be present) and further, comprehensive, that is, additional perspectives are not necessary. This is a fixed list. It is not a hierarchy. (The suggestion that this is the minimum set presumes that you care about integrity between the initial intent specified in the Scope and Owner’s perspectives of Row 1, 2 and the end result expressed in Row 6.)
The purpose
It is a method to overcome the redundant effort of silo system and also enable agility.
The Definition
Agility Architecture enable the agility to adapt change in time of need, it is an effort to keep architecture solution simple by encapsulating repeatable complexity. Agility Architecture is achieved by learning experience of the other, the engineering of reuse and consolidation and the political process of standardization and compliance. It is considered as an horizontal architecture effort in compare to alignment architecture which is an vertical architecture effort.
3. THE AGILITY ARCHITECTURE MODEL
The horizontal agility architecture model provide an explicit model to clarify the role of reference model, reference architecture, engineering of reuse, engineering of consolidation, Standardization, Governance and Compliance.
2.4 The agility architecture framework
Organic EA suggest the agility architecture framework to incorporate the scope and the attributes of agility architecture as shown in the following figure. The agility architecture framework suggest that agility architecture applies to business, application, data, infrastructure and security with the following attributes.
. The Enterprise Architecture classification
. Reference model
. Reference architecture
. Reuse
. Consolidation
. Governance
. Compliance
Shift of paradigm
The horizontal architecture learn the right experience of the others and internally looks for commonality across the enterprise. It is a very different direction from the traditional vertical alignment architecture under top down or bottom up approach. The horizontal architecture is tightly couple with vertical architecture. It analyze the common primitives between the vertical solution architecture.
Agility architecture is not just for IT
Agility architecture is the generic approach to minimize redundancy. It is not only about technology agility but also to business process, human resource and security as shown in the Organic EA model. It is the horizontal architecture to cut across the pillars of Enterprise Architecture. Agility architecture is not the engineering of reuse and consolidation but also the politic of standardization and compliance. In the stovepipe culture, architects are independent from standards and compliance and consider than it is a police action. However, Organic Enterprise Architecture consider that standardization and compliance is an investment to enable agility and simplicity.
^ TOP
A process to minize redundant effort for all line of business
Some people have suggest that EA is a process, it is the mean to minimize redundant effort rather than the end for enterprise architecture blueprint.The Agility Architecture is not only the architecture for agile enterprise but also a process to minimize silo system for every line of business. The waste of redundant effort does not only happen in IT but in every line of business such as business management, human resources, medical testing in health care, personal identification in security management.
The agility architecture approach on learning from experiences, reuse, consolidation, interoperability, collaboration and governance can also minimize the redundant effort for every line of business.
^ TOP
Why Cloud Computing?
Cloud computing is a holistic solution with the following technology:1. Software Application as a service (SaaS)
2. Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
3. Data steward
4. Virtulization.
Holistic is defined as "Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts" in the American Heritage dictionary.
The implimentation of technology alone without a holistic consideration do not constitute a cloud solution.
Many organization like to claim themself in cloud computing enviroment because they have used the technology of Internate applicaiton, SOA or virtulization. Giving the holistic concept of cloud, the use of SaaS, SOA and Virtualization technology do not equal to have a cloud computing environment.
The definition of Cloud Computing
Draft NIST Working Definition of Cloud Computing
Authors: Peter Mell and Tim Grance
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Technology Laboratory
Note 1: Cloud computing is still an evolving paradigm. Its definitions, use cases, underlying technologies, issues, risks, and benefits will be refined in a spirited debate by the public and private sectors. These definitions, attributes, and characteristics will evolve and change over time.
Note 2: The cloud computing industry represents a large ecosystem of many models, vendors, and market niches. This definition attempts to encompass all of the various cloud approaches.
Definition of Cloud Computing:
Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.
Essential Characteristics:
On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider.
Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs).
Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, network bandwidth, and virtual machines.
Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.
Measured Service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.
Service Models:
Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based email). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.
Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations.
Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls).
Deployment Models:
Private cloud. The cloud infrastructure is operated solely for an organization. It may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.
Community cloud. The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.
Public cloud. The cloud infrastructure is made available to the general public or a large industry group and is owned by an organization selling cloud services.
Hybrid cloud. The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load-balancing between clouds).
Note: Cloud software takes full advantage of the cloud paradigm by being service oriented with a focus on statelessness, low coupling, modularity, and semantic interoperability.
Below are the changes from draft version 14:
1. Changed "Deliver Models" to "Service Models" to avoid confusion of terminology with the "Deployment Models"
2. Removed location independence from the title of an essential characteristic and moved it within the description
3. Change reference to scaling within rapid elasticity section from "up" and "down" to "in and out"
4. Removed "load balancers" list of example IaaS networking components over which a consumer might exert some control/customization
5. Moved note on cloud software to end of definition
2.0 WHY ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE
Enterprise infrastructure keep EA simple for building consensus to earn architecture buy-in from the stakeholders and enable the agility for business owners support the dynamic of local business process reengineering,
In the people oriented civil community, there are difference between people, it is difficult for them to agree on every thing all the time. However, there is also a common denominator they can all agree upon with. The enterprise infrastructure is a the design of the common foundation and building blocks.
2.1 The value of EA is to enable the agility
The value of enterprise infrastructure is to enable the agility for automation development in time for practical use rather than a central planned architecture in a command and control approach. The stakeholder need the agility to support their locally reengineering business process . The enterprise infrastructure architecture establishes the common resources and building blocks for the business owners to take advantage of technology in time for their need. In a analogy of a restaurant, the chef in the restaurant does not wait for the customers to place order to prepare the ingredients. They have prepared their ingredient based on the food they offered on their manual so that they can serve their hungry customer in time for their need. If a restaurant operate business based on waterfall approach where the chief take the order from hungry customers and go to the market for ingredient , there will be disgruntle customers the restaurant business will come and go.
2.3 It is futile for EA in a command and control approach
It is futile to design a central planned blueprint in a command and control approach to impose enterprise architecture in a militaristic/totalitarian style. EA is all about people and business processes in an enterprise subject to local business reengineering based on geographical location and culture difference. The command and control approach do not serve well in a people community. The experience of central planned economy in socialism country by the social architects has very limited success. To the IT community, EA is a notion of command and control and they would like to pay for EA to go away.
It is futile because the central planed EA approach does not provide values in time for practical use. The traditional EA approach requires significant investment of time and resource to design the entire architecture blueprint. In many EA projects, the enterprise architects simply walk way to design the most efficient architecture for a long time and resurface with a architecture blueprint without stakeholder participation. The business owners can not afford to wait for a long time due to their immediate of automation .. The great promise from architecture is only a promise without practical value. They have no choice but develop the stovepipe systems.
It is futile because the central planned EA approach is lack of architecture buy-in from the stakeholders. After the hard work of design the entire architecture blueprint, the enterprise architects find out that architecture buy-in from the stakeholders is actually more difficult. The central planned EA approach does not provide enough value to earn the architecture buy-in from stakeholders. It overlook the fact that EA is all about people [] and the fact that the central planned architecture does not support the stakeholders need due to that business processes subject local business process reengineering.
EA is all about people, it is the engineering of reuse and sharing among many different business owners. In the people oriented civil community, there are always many difference due to human nature and culture. In the human society, central planed architecture in a command and control approach have very limited success for example : the experiment of Marxism and communism country in a central planned command and control approach have limited success.
Business processes subject to local business reengineering. Enterprise architecture is not an factory automation effort where business process can be optimism under the factory environment in a mechanical process. The central planned architecture approach is based on the assumption of optimized business process design and standardization as if it is in a factory automation environment. It overlook the fact that business processes subject to local business process reengineering in an enterprise based on geographical distribution and culture difference in the human community. For example : The best way for you to come to work is not necessary the best way for me because of different geographical location and culture.
3.0 HOW TO ESTABLISH THE ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE
The enterprise infrastructure approach has raised the question of how to align the infrastructure with business without the overall architecture design? From the aspect of traditional EA approach, based on the waterfall concept without learning the experience from the others, the common foundation and building blocks are derived via pattern recognition from the overall architecture design. In this approach, EA effort has to design the overall architecture as the mean to achieve the goal of resolving the challenge of stove pipe system. It requires significant investment of time and resource to design the entire architecture that the EA community has confused the mean to the end and EA is better know as the enterprise architecture blueprint.
In the LEA approach, the enterprise infrastructure is established by learning the experience from the others in the same lines of business. It is a pattern adoption effort instead of pattern recognition effort. There is nothing new under the sun, it is very unlikely that you are the first one to face new challenge. Instead of reinventing wheel, it is more practical to align the enterprise infrastructure with business by learning from the solution patterns under the same line of business.
5.0 In synch with SOA
This article suggest that EA to establish enterprise infrastructure which enable the simplicity and agility in the evolution of information age. From the following analysis, EA to provide enterprise infrastructure It enable EA sustain and become an emerging paradigm instead of share the same “Come and Go” fate as the other business improvement initiation did. The recommendation is suggested based on the following analysis which evaluate three major EA direction with the sustaining factors as shown in the following table where the definition of EA to provide infrastructure has satisfied most of the sustaining factors. The result of this analysis indicates that EA to provide enterprise infrastructure serve the best interest for EA to sustain and become an emerging discipline.
The suggestion of EA to provide the enterprise infrastructure is further validated by the current industrial movement of Services Oriented Architecture (SOA). EAC San Diego 2006 Pre-conference Seminar, Larry R. DeBoever & George S. Paras suggest the EA drien delivery of SOA []. In the 2007 EAC in UK, Paul Allen of Everware-CBDI suggest that SOA and EA as complementary sides of the same coin []. The Light Enterprise Architecture has suggested the Enterprise Service Architecture. Annie Shum of BEA on her unpublished paper "Connecting the Dots" states that
"...Perhaps one of the most instructive metaphors for SOA is the process of city planning. As I wrote in my SOA & City Planning paper, city planning is not concerned with the design and construction of individual buildings. Rather, it is concerned with the multi-aspect relationship of individual buildings to one another, to the areas of the city/community where they are constructed, and to access to common infrastructure services such as electricity, water, and sewage. In other words, city planning is not about building architecture; it’s about meta-architecture for designing communities of buildings by focusing on common infrastructure, governance and cohesion. Filtered through a meta-framework prism, the similarity between city planning and SOA is remarkable. Whereas city planning is the meta-architectural framework for building communities, SOA is the meta-architectural framework for collaborative computing” []
Those who have spear head to the implementation of SOA have encounter the challenge of to determine what application services and their priorities serve the best interest to the enterprise. Enterprise Architecture which see the whole, identify the common infrastructure and the plan the transition priority is the answer . Enterprise Architecture and SOA is analogy to the traditional city planning and civil engineering. It is all about people.
1.1 The definition of Enterprise Infrastructure Architecture
The definition of enterprise infrastructure from the definition of IT infrastructure by Simon Liu , the Director of Office of Computer and Communication systems in the National Library of Medicine, a pioneer of Enterprise Architecture who published many EA papers on the IEEE [5] .
“IT infrastructure as a set of IT resources and organizational capability that employees share across the organization. Infrastructure provides on which to develop business application and support business processes … IT infrastructure provides standardized services offering and leverage a uniform delivery mechanism across application. Although users might select from many options, customization of infrastructure services is minimal or non-existent. . Rather than develop customized services and solutions that map to the requirement of individual applications, an infrastructure service provider seeks to provide a standard service to multiple application
2.0 WHY ENTERPRISE INFRASTRUCTURE
Enterprise infrastructure keep EA simple for building consensus to earn architecture buy-in from the stakeholders and enable the agility for business owners support the dynamic of local business process reengineering,
In the people oriented civil community, there are difference between people, it is difficult for them to agree on every thing all the time. However, there is also a common denominator they can all agree upon with. The enterprise infrastructure is a the design of the common foundation and building blocks.
2.1 The value of EA is to enable the agility
The value of enterprise infrastructure is to enable the agility for automation development in time for practical use rather than a central planned architecture in a command and control approach. The stakeholder need the agility to support their locally reengineering business process . The enterprise infrastructure architecture establishes the common resources and building blocks for the business owners to take advantage of technology in time for their need. In a analogy of a restaurant, the chef in the restaurant does not wait for the customers to place order to prepare the ingredients. They have prepared their ingredient based on the food they offered on their manual so that they can serve their hungry customer in time for their need. If a restaurant operate business based on waterfall approach where the chief take the order from hungry customers and go to the market for ingredient , there will be disgruntle customers the restaurant business will come and go.
The enterprise infrastructure approach is modeled after the traditional urban planning which have historically resolve the challenge of architecture buy-in in the people community. Ira Morrow from the Gartner group suggest a new approach to Enterprise Architecture : “City Plan” [12] in 1996. Roy Schulte from Gartner group also stated that Enterprise Architecture is the IT ‘City Planning’[16] in 2002,
2.2 Enterprise architecture is more urban planning than building architecture.
Many EA experts have used the analogy of the traditional building architecture to explain what is EA and the popular notion of EA is to design the enterprise as if it is a large scale application system design project. Architecture buy-in from multiple stakeholder is not of their concern because it is funded by the same owner in a command and control approach. As a result, the risk of traditional EA has been the architecture buy-in from stakeholder due to modeling EA after the building architecture.
Enterprise architecture is more a urban planning than a building architecture. It is the engineering of reuse and sharing to provide the infrastructure rather than a large scale application development. Reuse and sharing by definition only occurs among different organization. The incentive of reuse and sharing is based on the interest of different parties. It is all about people and architecture buy-in from different stakeholder is a critical success factor.
In urban planning, architecture buy-in is established through the political process of consensus to establish the zoning regulation and building codes. The urban planners and civil engineers design the city infrastructure rather than design every building for the city. The urban planners communicate with the citizens with architecture drawings and public hearings. To overcome the challenge of architecture governance, it is more appropriate to say that EA is analogy to urban planning and application development is analogy to home building.
2.3 It is futile for EA in a command and control approach
It is futile to design a central planned blueprint in a command and control approach to impose enterprise architecture in a militaristic/totalitarian style. EA is all about people and business processes in an enterprise subject to local business reengineering based on geographical location and culture difference. The command and control approach do not serve well in a people community. The experience of central planned economy in socialism country by the social architects has very limited success. To the IT community, EA is a notion of command and control and they would like to pay for EA to go away.
It is futile because the central planed EA approach does not provide values in time for practical use. The traditional EA approach requires significant investment of time and resource to design the entire architecture blueprint. In many EA projects, the enterprise architects simply walk way to design the most efficient architecture for a long time and resurface with a architecture blueprint without stakeholder participation. The business owners can not afford to wait for a long time due to their immediate of automation .. The great promise from architecture is only a promise without practical value. They have no choice but develop the stovepipe systems.
It is futile because the central planned EA approach is lack of architecture buy-in from the stakeholders. After the hard work of design the entire architecture blueprint, the enterprise architects find out that architecture buy-in from the stakeholders is actually more difficult. The central planned EA approach does not provide enough value to earn the architecture buy-in from stakeholders. It overlook the fact that EA is all about people [] and the fact that the central planned architecture does not support the stakeholders need due to that business processes subject local business process reengineering.
EA is all about people, it is the engineering of reuse and sharing among many different business owners. In the people oriented civil community, there are always many difference due to human nature and culture. In the human society, central planed architecture in a command and control approach have very limited success for example : the experiment of Marxism and communism country in a central planned command and control approach have limited success.
Business processes subject to local business reengineering. Enterprise architecture is not an factory automation effort where business process can be optimism under the factory environment in a mechanical process. The central planned architecture approach is based on the assumption of optimized business process design and standardization as if it is in a factory automation environment. It overlook the fact that business processes subject to local business process reengineering in an enterprise based on geographical distribution and culture difference in the human community. For example : The best way for you to come to work is not necessary the best way for me because of different geographical location and culture.
^ TOP