Although, the classic EA documents enterprise assets (or artefacts), there is still a lack of explicit knowledge about how the “enterprise genotype” (a full nomenclature of enterprise artefacts) defines the “enterprise phenotype” (a set of observable characteristics such as performance).
Agree with previous posts that proper use of BPM is the way to structure such explicit knowledge. I recommend to consider enterprise BPM systems (a portfolio of business processes of the enterprise, as well as the practices and tools for governing the design, execution and evolution of this portfolio as a system - see http://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.com/2009/04/should-we-consider-third-forgotten-bpm.html ) and to architect them with the following principles:
- All artefacts (events, processes, services, rules, roles, data, documents, activities, KPIs, etc.) must be evolved to become digital, external, virtual and components of clouds.
- All artefacts must be versionable throughout their lifecycle.
- All relationships between these artefacts are modelled explicitly (e.g. a business process is a complex relationship between many other artefacts).
- All models are made to be executable (this is the essence of the BPM discipline – what you model is what you execute).
Considering that EA does a great job in describing the “enterprise genotype” and there are many techniques to evaluate the “enterprise phenotype”, then the BPM with its executable models of relationships between artefacts can form the bridge (an enterprise executable model) between the “enterprise genotype” and the “enterprise phenotype”.