• English
  • Nederlands
HOME
SEARCH
CONTACT
NEWSLETTER
 
 
 
CONTENT
About us
Call for contribution
Contributions
The CIO talks
Proceedings
Blogs
Master thesis
Forum
Wiki
Events calendar
Links
Login/Register
advertisements
Zoek je een baan?
Zoek je hulp?
Zoek je een opleiding?
Zoek je een boek?
Zoek je een tool?












 
 
BLOGS
Enterprise Architecture roadblocks
Adrian   
Monday, 08 September 2008

In the previous post, I mentioned as EA inhibitors, the Enterprise cultural inertia, the tactical thinking dominating the Enterprise developments as opposed to the strategic approach, the Silo organization inhibiting cross domain efforts and not least the divide between business and IT that prevents the EA business and IT architectures coming together.

But what about the lack of a reference Enterprise Architecture? After all how does a generic Enterprise operate? What are the typical components, activities and stakeholders?   Before analysing and describing a technology architecture we need to understand how the business works. Is there a standard, reference business framework or business architecture for that? Hardly.

Porter illustrated in the 80s the concept of Value Chains describing the main type of activities in an Enterprise. Further work done in SCOR (Supply Chain Management Reference model),  VRM (Value Reference Model) are attempting to describe generic process frameworks. While they are good for various purposes like benchmarking key processes they have not been adopted in the main EA stream so far. Probably because they are in such a different domain of work and knowledge.

The most advanced business framework can be seen though in the telecommunications industry where NGOSS/eTOM propose an entire Telecommunications Operations Map and data architecture which indeed it is the basis of a telecom EA.

The EA practitioners effort is further hampered by the fact that the body of knowledge is rather immature, thin on the ground. Surely Zachman, a "thinking" method, TOGAF mostly a process, DODAF too specialised and different and the too thin FEA reference models help but they leave too many degrees of liberty in terms of scope, structure, look and feel, links, navigability, content etc.

More, both EA and SOA are over hyped at this point in time. They are not able to deliver the touted benefits in the current form and state of art. Hence business people are often disappointed by the existing results and sceptic about further embarking in the EA effort.

Adrian

 

 






Comments (1)
RSS comments
Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 09-09-2008 19:32
 
 
A roadblock, first of all, is a block. That’s obvious! Road-block strongly suggests a relation between road and block: it’s a special kind of block: it’s a roadblock!  
And, as far as I understand Adrian… the road refers EA’s developmental way to go. And it’s the blocks on it that prevent EA to do so. 
 
Now think of that road (EA) as a (big) block itself. Just suppose EA itself to be a roadblock that prevents developmental activities with respect to another road. Now carefully look at the serious attempts made by the people on that road. They persistently try to remove the EA block from it. Wow! Why would they do that? What would be wrong with EA? 
 
As long as we keep looking to the blocks on the EA road… we won’t be able to really see what’s happening to EA itself and why. 
 
An Enterprise Architecture, first of all, is (an) architecture. That’s obvious! It’s a special kind of architecture: it’s enterprise architecture! Enterprise? Why enterprise? Informationally speaking an enterprise has no primacy whatsoever – today. And that’s because of the Very Deep Permeation of advanced digital technology today. That radically changed – and still is changing – our world, our information society of which all our enterprises are part of. No exception. So, why would the enterprise be an appropriate level for information-architecture – today? 
 
What about information itself? What do we really know about it? How exactly is information provided with meaning? How does meaning of information change? What are the dynamics of meaning? Do we know the ‘drivers’ for meaning?  
Why is it that we focus on information exchange instead of the exchange of meaning? Humans – today – are interested in meaning, not in information! 
 
As long as we are not able to see (some of) – today’s – fundamental questions, we are not able to see why EA faces what is HAS to face. No matter how much energy we put in it.

 

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.




Share / deel
Del.icio.us!Google!Technorati!Yahoo!
 

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.
feed image
ISSN: 1877-2994