#entarch In my previous post, What is Enterprise Architecture (not again)? I identified five interlinked perspectives on the nature of Enterprise Architecture. There is a different class of critique that applies to each perspective.
| EA as instrument |
Questions of effectiveness – does it work? Efficiency, reliability, etc. Does the instrument have requisite variety? |
| EA as discourse |
Questions of relevance and coherence – does it make sense? |
| EA as community |
Questions of politics and affiliation and development – is there a collective character and intelligence, how does this coalition of supposedly like-minded people create and re-create itself? |
| EA as knowledge |
Questions of validity (epistemology) – to what extent are these knowledge claims grounded in practical experience? |
| EA as trade or service |
Questions of economic and ethical viability – who creates value for whom, who demands what from whom, governance. |
I think there are problems for EA from all five perspectives. While these problems are undoubtedly interconnected, they are logically distinct.
This set of problems produces a number of observable consequences.
- Crisis of confidence – EA practitioners not being sure of their value to the enterprise
- Credibility – People outside EA not having a clear understanding of the value of EA
- Failure of leadership – lots of self-appointed experts trying to impress their followers with grandiose abstractions, complicated schemas and random theories
- Existential angst – lots of pointless and empty discussions
