2010-02-10

Linkedin: This is what is killing Enterprise Architecture…

<discussion ref="http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=1523&discussionID=13538757&goback=.anh_1523" />

If I look at an enterprise as a complex, dynamic and self-evolving socio-technical system of systems then I can say that “the set of descriptive representations that are required in order to create” an enterprise is necessary, but not sufficient.

I consider the following list of “missing” parts of EA
  1. In addition to explicit “descriptive representations” is it necessary to have explicit “prescriptions” how to improve and evolve a particular enterprise – some kind of a set of architectural principles. Rationale – high level of changes, many people are involved.
  2. Relationships between enterprise artefacts have to be explicitly expressed. For example, a process is a complex relationship between data, documents, roles, rules, services, processes, KPIs, etc. Rationale – systems thinking.
  3. All descriptions have to be actionable – the same description should be used to a) coordinate the daily work, b) take a management decision, c) implement a new improvement. Rationale – support cost for a few duplicating descriptions (first thing to kill in case of lack of resources).
  4. EA is about the whole enterprise, so everyone in the enterprise is a stakeholder of EA and everyone in the enterprise is the customer for an enterprise architect. So, if many our customers are “killers” of our work then may be something wrong with us? Rationale – a lesson from developing socio-technical systems: “how you do something is sometimes more important than what you do”.
  5. Understanding that a system for a person is a module for another. Rationale – nested/recursive/fractal character of enterprises.
  6. And all those parts should be aligned to work together for a particular enterprise.


Please feel free to extend this list.

Thanks,
AS
Post a Comment