Introducing Enterprise Architecture 2.0

Nevertheless, here is my first view: a potential difference lies in the ambition of architecture. Introducing ‘EA 2.0' could emphasise the accent needed to become more entrepreneurial.
How?

Architecture is (just) now 'shaking off' the burden of craftsmenship (with many ambigue and ‘magical' moments) and is moving forward towards a more objective capability, via well documented methods, certification programmes and a 'body of knowledge' to guard and guide the profession. In practice, architecture still mostly is being executed as a means of structuring the system for maximum meeting/enabling of the business requirements.

If this is really true, low quality business requirements result in low quality architecture, and, no business requirements in no architecture? Garbage in = garbage out?

No, not true, given an objective of a company, dynamics in IT and an installed base, the anchor points for architecture are already there, regardless the presence or quality of current requirements. Basically, a good architecture allows the owners of a system to harvest long and short term objectives. This positioning of architecture therefore goes beyond ‘the architecture' per sé, it is about installing and leveraging a capability to cope with change and any requirement.

If this is true, than architecture should abstract from the content of the design in any particular (requirements-) case, but should focus on installing a capability into an organisation, and immediately put it into action to resolve the (design) case at hand.
So, just ‘following' the business requirements with enabling architectures is the minimum contribution that may be expected. From the view of an architect, it will mostly not feel like entrepreneurship, it's getting the guidelines for the system done.

Now, the emphasis on entrepreneurial aspect of architecture (EA 2.0) lies in the attitude towards requirements and momentum of the execution. The more architecture is ahead of, and anticipatingon business change, the more it 'feels like' making a difference when you're an architect.

That results in working on and in architecture which has existance and contribution without the business.......to good to be true?

What if we'd install a ‘learning loop' into practice and improve our architecture performance and fundamental assumptions each time we practice it. And, I do not mean the classical ‘circle' of TOGAF, but I mean the ‘double loop learning' as depicted in reference. Also good reading is Argyris, C. (1977), "Double-loop learning in organizations", Harvard Business Review, pp.115-24.
(diagram source: www.learning-org.com)

So, not just ‘document knowledge and try again' when delivering architecture, but ask oursleves the question whether we ‘do' architecture in such a way that we can create the desired impact and increase the capability. So, not only evaluate ‘the'architecture, but evaluate ‘architecture' as a whole.....and even decide to NOT do it next time ;-)

Is that entrepreneurial enough? Yes, it is EA 2.0 !!
The 2.0 refers to the double loop learning aspect.

Reacties 

Naam
Comment
Controle tekst plaatje