Aggregated enterprise architecture wisdom
The Open Group’s Healthcare Forum recently published (free, but registration required) their version 0.1 ‘snapshot’ for HERA, their proposed ‘Healthcare Enterprise Reference Architecture’. What follows is a quick(ish) review, together with some practical recommendations. I’ll try to be nice –…
continuing from
IT4IT in no time at all
The value stream “Requirement to Deploy” hardly sounds like a Build operation. Perhaps it should be named “From Requirement to Deployment”, because it is not really a requirement but an end-to-e…
00
We clashed. Often. With gusto. Gleefully. Joyfully. Even horribly, at times. But boy, was it worth it! This week I was much saddened to hear, via Andrew Josey and the Open Group blog, of the passing of two of their…
continuing from
Open Group’s User Group’s debate on architecture reuse closed to a draw. Yet, that helps no one.
Open Group’s debate on architecture reuse
A generic model would act as a Class, on which template any
Open Group’s User Group’s debate on architecture reuse closed to a draw. Yet, that helps no one. Perhaps, the issue should have been adjudicated once for all in the TOGAF standard rather than in a users debate.
In fact, TOGAF’s Architecture Contin…
There’s a new version of the Archimate enterprise-architecture notation now out: version 3.0, launched at the IRM-EAC Enterprise Architecture conference in London last week. With many thanks to Andrew Josey, Marc Lankhorst, Gerben Wierda and others, I’ve been working my…
You might perhaps describe this piece as “praising with faint damns” – but oh, it’s so nice to be able to say something nice for once about The Open Group! Okay, yeah, maybe a bit unkind to start this that…
TOGAF should “Say What It Does” while “Do What It Says”.
continuing.
The Open Group Takes a New Step with “the first meeting of a TOGAF User Group…
And it would be good perhaps if
3. the TOGAF User Group assesses first what TOGAF delivers, whether it delivers as expected, what parts of TOGAF a…
The idea of looking into other Enterprise Architecture frameworks is right but it would hardly materialise in a TOGAF User Group
Enterprise Architects, like any other professionals, should employ the same meanings for the same terms. In fact, a common vocabulary is imperative for any mature discipline, except, perhaps, for enterprise architecture today.
Or else, our discuss…