We use cookies and other similar technologies (Cookies) to enhance your experience and to provide you with relevant content and ads. By using our website, you are agreeing to the use of Cookies. You can change your settings at any time. Cookie Policy.

Enterprise Architecture Matters

Adrian Grigoriu

Architectural Views must be representative of Business Architecture and EA framework

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes
An EA architect does not have to provide business views. This is the business of business professionals. The architect should supply though the EA framework, the component repository, guidelines... for all stakeholders to use in producing their own views so that they fit back in the whole.

Views are unlimited in number. After all, every Enterprise stakeholder has its own View. So what we need is not a list of perspectives but an EA framework (like FFLV see my site) that allows for a View to be added at any time without breaking the integrity of the EA.

Views are any aspects of the Enterprise of concern to a stakeholder, representations of which can be linked to EA as long as they comply with the enterprise structure and EA framework.
Views are not designed in isolation. They must be consistent, linked and navigable across the the EA.
The problem I perceived is that the Views we have in the Enterprise today are not integrated; they keep re-defining, re-naming, re-interpreting, duplicating and reinventing the enterprise components and their relationships. They are not useful to other parties either. That is why Views must be designed taking into account the business architecture components and EA framework.

Indeed, a full BA would add many views at relevant detail but useful to the business professional though rather than the business architect. Still, a top level BA stays in one page, no views.
The generic BA (see previous posts) would become the template for the one page BA, your Views in effect, and the documentation of the current and the target BAs.

The generic business architecture was built with technology systems mapping in mind. In the generic business architecture (http://www.enterprise-architecture-matters.co.uk/gods-business-architecture) mapping of your IT systems is pretty straightforward (Portal, Campaign, User Authorization systems, Shop equipment...). 

Business customers would also be pleased since they can recognize their key business flows and systems. 
Business and IT can talk about it now without division.

Organization improvement can easily map their functional organization to it. 

Even the business academia can talk about Value Chains which are extended by the GODS architecture model. 
And top management would recognize their own Governance functions, eventually.

 

Leave a comment

Adrian Grigoriu blogs about everything relating to enterprise and business architecture, SOA, frameworks, design, planning, execution, organization and related issues.

Adrian Grigoriu

Adrian is an executive consultant in enterprise architecture, former head of enterprise architecture at Ofcom, the spectrum and broadcasting U.K. regulatory agency and chief architect at TM Forum, an organization providing a reference integrated business architecture framework, best practices and standards for the telecommunications and digital media industries. He also was a high technology, enterprise architecture and strategy senior manager at Accenture and Vodafone, and a principal consultant and lead architect at Qantas, Logica, Lucent Bell Labs and Nokia. He is the author of two books on enterprise architecture development available on Kindle and published articles with BPTrends, the Microsoft Architecture Journal and the EI magazine. Shortlisted by Computer Weekly for the IT Industry blogger of the year 2011.

Recently Commented On

Monthly Archives

Blogs

ADVERTISEMENT