Is Enterprise Architecture Completely Broken?
December 29, 2014 Leave a comment
IASA Question Is Enterprise Architecture Completely Broken?
EA –that is credited to John Zachman– originally was “A framework for information systems architecture” a tool for MIS (aka IT) to “design” the components needed to support business objectives. This was an evolution from a former methodology “BSP” Business System Planning –also from IBM– which provide information to MIS directors and Business Executives to plan budgets/investments. Later this budget prioritization was advanced by Parker-Benson in BEAM (refer to Information Economics). EA roles became split into two camps: Budgeting and Design. The problems arise in that both roles forgot that the architecture role was that of facilitator rather than decision-maker and the primary stakeholders don’t have dialogs with these role holders typically. This leaves rise to EAs creating visions and actions to create local optimizations.
Of course it is not too often that EAs are placed in a position that has the exposure and influence necessary to fulfill the role’s perceived charter. Thus often EAs are glamorized programmers or software engineers granted the title after years of hard work in their domain by HR. This gives them the title but not the scope or enterprise orientation.
More impactful to that position of influence; what CEO, COO or other CxO would grant that power to a non-executive. While HR has toyed with titles such as CTO and CIO, the role of Chief Architect for enterprise has yet to be established in any meaningful way and has challengers to that title. Books like “CFO, Architect of the business” are popular fair in the book trade. And why would a COB/CEO/COO create such a role if they feel their role should be that, even if they don’t have the necessary architecture skills -after all they climbed to the top and are thus “entitled” to wear that crown. However, it then gets back to a view of what an architect does/is. Two schools or architecture: Architect as Decision-Maker, Architect as Facilitator/Advisor of Stakeholder’s Vision.
If one looks at chief design roles in other disciplines which have had more time to mature you’ll discover that such roles take years to develop an understanding beyond the mechanics of the discipline and how it fits in context beyond just building something. This the senior role-holder must have a broader background than just Agile Development, DFD modeling, etc. and needs to step out into understanding the enterprise as a living organism. My recommendation is to study the Cybernetic Hierarchy in General Systems Theory to get beyond “Frameworks” and “Clockworks” through Adaptive/Dynamic Systems to Transcendental Systems. These later types of systems capture more than frameworks do. However with increases of information, increased thinking time is required to understand such data; something executives are in short supply of these days.