| |
| |
| Erik Proper
|
Thursday, 21 May 2009 |
|
The way I have learned to understand Zen, is that it is about concentration and focus. By means of meditation, Zen teaches us to focus on the things you really want to focus on, meanwhile allowing us to obtain insight into our inner drives as well as our imprinted reflexes. Whenever we, as average beings, are put under stress, our imprinted reflexes tend take over, taking us away from the things that really matter to us. Instead, we start worrying about how good we are in our jobs, whether our boss likes us, threats to our status in society, et cetera.
 Be the first to write a comment
|
|
more
|
|
|
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 |
|
Since architecture is a relative new field, much debate goes on about the methods and techniques to be used within the field. Since one of the key competencies of an architects is to be able think conceptually, it is only natural for architects to engage in lengthy discussions about their tools, techniques, approaches and methods. A recent example of such a discussion can be found on the Via Nova Architectura website, where a rather opinionative posting on TOGAF 9 resulted in an involved discussion with 38 elaborate responses.
Comments (5) |
|
more
|
|
|
Monday, 26 January 2009 |
|
Recently, Springer initiated a new series on enterprise engineering. The increased complexity of
enterprises as well as the ecologies in which they operate, the
introduction of more regulations and compliance requirements, all
require enterprises to be more explicit about their organisational
design and performance. I take the position that enterprises
should turn to the use of models to make the design, as well as the
performance, of organisations explicit. It also enables the conscious
trade-off of different design alternatives in terms of analysis of
models representing the different alternatives. I therefore would like
to argue that enterprise engineering should be regarded as a
model-intensive activity.
Be the first to write a comment |
|
more
|
|
|
Thursday, 17 January 2008 |
|
This week I will not yet continue my Web 2.0 series, but rather respond to a comment on my last post.
Be the first to write a comment |
|
more
|
|
|
Wednesday, 09 January 2008 |
|
This blog entry is cross-blogged between the VNA website and my own blog site. I like to keep my blog entries, as well as my comments to other people’s blogs, accessible through my personal blog site. The result is that people will be entering comments on different locations. Even more, since Plaxo also includes these blogs in my pulse stream, people can even respond to my blogs in plaxo, and I have noticed that these comments do not automatically show up on the original blog sites. Of course one might argue that "cross blogging" should not be done, but at the same time I think it is a defendable stance that I should be able to publish my blog (and their comments) through multiple channels.
This actually triggered me into realising that the Web 2.0 needs information architects. Of course, when an enterprise considers utilizing Web 2.0 technologies an enterprise architect should be involved in deciding-on/designing the best way of doing this. However, I also think the technology itself needs more architecting, or at least some good old conceptual thinking. Comments (1) |
|
more
|
|
|
Thursday, 13 December 2007 |
|
When looking at the different types of interpretations of what enterprise architecture is, I believe there are three main perspectives on what architecture is about: a regulation-oriented perspective, a design-oriented perspective and a patterns-oriented perspective. In my opinion, talking about architecture only makes sense when acknowledging the complementary role of each of these perspectives rather than limiting the definition of architecture to merely one of these perspectives. Comments (5) |
|
more
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|