Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.
That is good to hear. Sorry if I have misunderstood your words.
A reason may be your picture. It is very close to TOGAF ADM 8 and/or 9. Another reason may be that I do not see anybody outside IT using terms like enterprise architecture or business architecture. Whether it is Zachman's ZIFA, Capgemini/Sogeti's DYA, OpenGroup's (incl. Capgemini, IBM, HP etc.) TOGAF, GAF/xAF/IAF or one of the other "methods and techniques". All is IT-based, defining processes like SDM has in the 70’s/80’s and looking for IT-projects including IT-design and IT-implementation. All coming from the IT-world.
That is why I really like to have the terms IT-enterprise architect or IT-business architect. These people are about introducing IT into organisations. You are proposing to use the term enterprise architecture exclusively for the highest level of architecture: there where the organisation strategy needs to be made concrete. But what is this highest level? Highest level for IT in an organisation is probably the application landscape/architecture, maybe (or not) designed according to SOA principles and its construction based on a reference architecture. But is this what we may call an enterprise or business architecture. I don’t think so. Do you think the fact an organisation wants to run trains or sell food has much to do with the way we organise supporting functionality in applications? The principles behind creating a business are different from the way we will create COPAFIJTH means to support this business. And: this is not a matter of (de)composition. The built-up of a business cannot be decomposed in its supporting application landscape/architecture. So, there is a highest level of architecture for the business next to highest levels of decomposition of, probably, every one of the COPAFIJTH means. Even further: they should not be the same. If they were we will really lack flexibility in business in such a way an organisation probably cannot survive the next 3 to 5 years.
In my opinion the view/architecture of an enterprise (or business) has, in itself, nothing to do with IT, and should not be part of the work of an IT professional. Decomposing the structure of an enterprise/a business does not result in some ideal application landscape/architecture.
What has happened is that top-IT people adopted the title of enterprise and business architect. This is basically wrong, because, as I described above, they do not architect the enterprise/business but the IT in an enterprise/business. At maximum at tactical level, supplying means =( IT )= to enable the organisation to do its work better, faster etc.
Are we still agreeing? I do hope so….
And we have not been talking about information yet…..
Steven van ‘t Veld Steven.van.t.Veld (at) AIM.nl
Via Nova Architectura is not responsible for the content of blogs, but authors and readers are asked to adhere the following guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to check facts, cite sources, present
balanced views, acknowledge and correct errors. Respect copyright, fair use and financial disclosure laws. Please do not disparage organizations, or individuals. Being critical of someone's practice is acceptable, when it is done in a professional manner. Prevent usage of marketing statements. Comments should be relevant to the specific post they are attached to. Spam, flaming, personal attacks, and off-topic comments are not
permitted. Readers are requested to notify
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
of any violations. The editor holds the right to remove any statements that, in the editors opinion, infringe the above guideline(s). The author receives a notification of this action.