Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
This is Part III of my collection of enterprise architecture definitions. Parts I and II can be viewed here and here. It’s interesting, at least to me, to get a sense for all the different definitions of enterprise architecture out…
This is Part III of my collection of enterprise architecture definitions. Parts I and II can be viewed here and here. It’s interesting, at least to me, to get a sense for all the different definitions of enterprise architecture out…
I’m putting together my presentations for TechEd New Zealand, one of which is titled “Business Architecture for Non Architects.” In that presentation, I need to provide a good, SHORT, definition of business architecture. S…
Way back in April, I announced the first of two podcasts with the Canadian Information Processing Society. I just realized this weekend that I had not announced the availability of the second of those podcasts. Error corrected.
The second podcast, once again hosted by the inimitable Stephen Ibaraki, focuses much more on the growth and progress of the Enterprise Architecture profession itself. Specifically this podcast reflects upon:
For full details, and a link to the podcast, visit the Canadian IT Manager’s Connection, a TechNet site.
Service Oriented Architecture has been around for more than a decade and has steadily matured over the years with increasing levels of adoption. Cloud computing, a paradigm that is founded upon the fundamental service oriented principles, has fueled SO…
Back when Alexander Osterwalder was first working on the book “Business Model Generation,” I reached out to him to see if I could discuss the data elements he had chartered for his “Business Model Canvas.” After all, from …
Enterprise Service Bus and Espresso One of the few really-good boutique coffee-roasters and espresso specialists in Auckland labels its beans “esb”, for “ethically-sourced beans”. It’s something of a stretch, but espresso is important and beneficial in fundamental, foundational ways not dissimilar to the importance and benefits an Enterprise Service Bus can bring to integrated organisations. […]
I just recently had a conversation with a talented enterprise architect who had brought together the EA framework elements from numerous different sources in order to address the needs of his business. Included in that list was the Enterprise Bus…
Haven’t been to New Zealand yet, but I will be there soon… From September 4 through 7 in Auckland, for TechEd New Zealand. I will be presenting two topics (Business architecture for non architects, and Aligning IT with capabilities).
Now, normally you wouldn’t see Enterprise Architecture topics on a TechEd calendar. However, in the NZ market, there just isn’t the demand for multiple Microsoft conferences every year. As a result, all the conference demand is bundled up into TechEd. Due to the efforts of Terry Chapman and the hard working architects in Microsoft New Zealand, the TechEd conference there has developed quite a reputation for hosting an advanced architecture track.
I’m fortunate to be attending and presenting. If you live or work in the region, I’d love to see you at TechEd New Zealand. If you would like to see more information about the sessions at TechEd NZ, click here.
If Churchill had been an Enterprise Architect then maybe the speech below had been a reality… The problems raged on. The Architect told the leaders, “I have, myself, full confidence that if we all do our duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall […]
The profession of Enterprise Architecture is beginning to emerge from its early stages of development. The number of people professing the title of Enterprise Architect has grown from a relative few in the 1990s to thousands today. On LinkedIn, a popular social networking site for professionals, the “Enterprise Architecture Network” discussion group boasts over 79,000 members.
There is a great deal of demand for Enterprise Architecture services. Large consulting firms like Accenture, Deloitte, PWC, and Wipro, large software vendors like Microsoft and IBM, large hardware vendors like Fujitsu and Hewlett Packard, and outsourcing firms like Computer Sciences Corporation, have all developed service offerings that revolve around providing Enterprise Architecture as a service to their clients.
While the field has grown, the proliferation of voices, methods, frameworks, and generally inconsistent advice in the field of EA has also grown. The number of “EA Frameworks” has grown to include a wide array of overlapping bodies of work. Included in this list are GERAM, TOGAF, FEAF, MODAF, DODAF, PEAF, E2AF, Zachman, and many others. Jaap Schekkerman has released three editions of his 250+ page book “How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks” which attempts to compare only 15 of them!
Unfortunately this proliferation has created a problem that is common among emerging professions: a lack of maturity. As Geoffrey A. Moore pointed out in his landmark book, “Crossing the Chasm,” the market for a high-tech product will self-segment into Early Adopters (accounting for less than 20% of the market) and the more pragmatic customers in the Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards categories. Viewing Enterprise Architecture as a new high-tech product provides useful insight into why EA has failed to “cross the chasm” from early adoption to the pragmatic majority.
In order for Enterprise Architecture to cross the chasm, there has to be an intentional strategy to gain a foothold in one target market that is part of the Early Majority, and then to use the success of Enterprise Architecture in that space to build the credibility needed for other segments to adopt.
Unfortunately, while EA has been successful in some target markets in the Early Majority (like Telecom and Federal), the lack of consistency in the approach, terminology, and even value proposition of EA across industries poses an obstacle for increasing EA adoption. In other words, the success of EA in one or two areas is failing to help EA gain a foothold among other industries. Could it be because they don’t use the same words to describe success?
Unable to depend on a broader “EA movement,” each EA team is waging a lonely struggle for relevance and ongoing support within their own enterprise. To remain relevant, EA teams have often focused on “low hanging fruit,” immediately valuable initiatives that generate results quickly but often fail to address long-standing challenges. The mantra of modern Enterprise Architecture has become “provide immediate value immediately,” a position that relegates long-term thinking and investment to another day. Ironically, it is this long-term thinking and investment that EA is supposed to provide.
It should come as no surprise that a profession that is designed to provide value in the long term is struggling with demonstrating short-term results. Many EA programs fail as a result of this struggle. In a widely publicized study commissioned by EA tools vendor IDS Sheer, Jonathan Broer, then an undergraduate researcher from Rotterdam University, conducted a study of 191 organizations. The startling results of his survey suggest that up to 66% of all EA-sponsored efforts have failed to produce the expected results. Of the root causes cited: the lack of business awareness of Enterprise Architecture, lack of executive and stakeholder support, and the inability to provide a rapid return on investment.
There have been a few studies designed to examine the reason for the lack of EA to deliver rapid value. There have been no studies developed to examine the reason that EA success in some sectors have failed to translate to others.
In summary, EA stands at a crossroads. The profession of Enterprise Architecture is plagued by multiple problems.