Business Architecture

The role and rise of the business-anarchist

by

You may have noticed some new role-titles turning up in the enterprise space. Chief Disruption Officer, for example. Or Chief Transformation Officer. A fair few variants on that theme. But what you probably won’t see – not as yet, anyway…

Making a knowledge-base for whole-enterprise EA more accessible

by

I have a problem. One that might be relevant for you too, if you work in enterprise-architecture or related disciplines. Here’s the situation: I have here this weblog on enterprise architecture and suchlike, built up out of almost a decade of…

Ensuring Successful Enterprise Architecture by Following Kotter’s Eight Stage Journey

by

By Stuart Macgregor, CEO, Real IRM Solutions and The Open Group South Africa These industry insights look at John Kotter’s eight stages of change management, and explore his timeless blueprint for effective change leadership. These change management principles can gel … Continue reading →

Dump the BDAT-stack!

by

For a viable enterprise-architecture [EA], now and into the future, we need frameworks, methods and tools that can support the EA discipline’s needs. Yet there’s one element common to most of the current mainstream EA-frameworks and notations – such as…

Architecture as boxes, lines and glue

by

What do architects do? And why? At this point we’d usually reach out for some apposite metaphor… And yes, by far the most common metaphor is ‘boxes and lines’, or ‘boxes and arrows’. If we take the most stereotyped, ‘boxy’ view…

Architecting the balance between usefulness and profit

by

One of the constant challenges for enterprise-architecture – probably all forms of architecture, in fact – is explaining the value of what we do. For example, like a good conference-organiser or event-host, often the better we do our work, the…

The Demoralised Man

by

Right now there’s an interesting (to me, anyway!) discussion going on within the Enterprise Architecture Network community on LinkedIn, on the role of ethics in EA, and its relationship with EA as a profession. I’ve added a few quick comments…

Don’t Sacrifice Your Business Architecture

by
Business architecture is core for an organisation’s Enterprise Architecture. Both the leading Enterprise Architecture frameworks, TOGAF and Zachman advocate Business Architecture to become a fundamental corner stone of Enterprise Architecture. Business architecture is about not just about business process modelling and business capability definition on a project to project basis. I think it is also about defining the Target Operating Model of the organisation. I have personally experienced the power of applying pragmatic business architecture to model current (as-is) and target (to-be) business operating models.
However Business Architecture is not easy to deliver on. An organisation needs skilled and experienced practitioner architects to engage stakeholders, establish relationships to understand and model the business capabilities, business processes workflows etc. Business architects should ideally also need reasonable domain knowledge of the respective business to make a meaningful contribution in the design of such model. Otherwise that individual runs the risk of becoming simply (an expensive) documentation resource.
These days often the funding for Enterprise Architecture is limited and high priority projects and programs are often competing for best resources and funding. In these situations often the Business Architecture resources are sacrificed to make way for technical architects (e.g. infra, integration). In such scenarios an organisation runs the risk of doing Enterprise Architecture without Business Architecture. This probably results in this organisation doing IT Architecture rather than Enterprise Architecture. See below graphic. 
It will probably still deliver value by bringing structure, discipline, visibility and planning to the critical IT project delivery. However these efforts risk falling short of becoming something much more meaningful and sustainable investment for business and not just IT.

I strongly feel that organisations should not sacrifice Business Architect. When resource and funding is limited, instead such organisations should find clever alternative ways to resource them. Some of the options which have worked for me in the past are;
  • Get your most important projects to fund it and then expand that to Enterprise level
  • Use your experienced application or data architect to play the role of Business Architect in the interim
  • Leverage your strategic partners / suppliers to perform this role
  • Leverage your customers / internal business stakeholders to play this role directly and indirectly. I came across an excellent real life use case of this recently. More on this in next post.

Don’t Sacrifice Your Business Architecture

by
Business architecture is core for an organisation’s Enterprise Architecture. Both the leading Enterprise Architecture frameworks, TOGAF and Zachman advocate Business Architecture to become a fundamental corner stone of Enterprise Architecture. Business architecture is about not just about business process modelling and business capability definition on a project to project basis. I think it is also about defining the Target Operating Model of the organisation. I have personally experienced the power of applying pragmatic business architecture to model current (as-is) and target (to-be) business operating models.
However Business Architecture is not easy to deliver on. An organisation needs skilled and experienced practitioner architects to engage stakeholders, establish relationships to understand and model the business capabilities, business processes workflows etc. Business architects should ideally also need reasonable domain knowledge of the respective business to make a meaningful contribution in the design of such model. Otherwise that individual runs the risk of becoming simply (an expensive) documentation resource.
These days often the funding for Enterprise Architecture is limited and high priority projects and programs are often competing for best resources and funding. In these situations often the Business Architecture resources are sacrificed to make way for technical architects (e.g. infra, integration). In such scenarios an organisation runs the risk of doing Enterprise Architecture without Business Architecture. This probably results in this organisation doing IT Architecture rather than Enterprise Architecture. See below graphic. 
It will probably still deliver value by bringing structure, discipline, visibility and planning to the critical IT project delivery. However these efforts risk falling short of becoming something much more meaningful and sustainable investment for business and not just IT.

I strongly feel that organisations should not sacrifice Business Architect. When resource and funding is limited, instead such organisations should find clever alternative ways to resource them. Some of the options which have worked for me in the past are;
  • Get your most important projects to fund it and then expand that to Enterprise level
  • Use your experienced application or data architect to play the role of Business Architect in the interim
  • Leverage your strategic partners / suppliers to perform this role
  • Leverage your customers / internal business stakeholders to play this role directly and indirectly. I came across an excellent real life use case of this recently. More on this in next post.

Missing the point

by

It looked fair enough at first, this otherwise innocuous-seeming comment on a recent post of mine, over on LinkedIn: Without information management capabilities how does the organization interact within itself and the broader shared-enterprise. For example the interaction between an…