"How would you compare your Enterprise Architecture implementation (i.e., instance) with your competitor's Enterprise Architecture?" This question was asked by Rubina from my previous post. Since I found it of general interest I post it in the main blog.
To start with, without a common understanding (definition, scope, framework ...) there can hardly be an EA, the same EA, in the first place. Hence, you can hardly compare them since no EA effort delivers the same structure or artifacts or even to the same goal.
Moreover, if some say that EA is a business model or that it is an operating model or that EA exists for strategy implementation alone... how can you compare then the "EAs" which realise these very different concepts?
You cannot compare apples with oranges. Business, operating models and strategy represent different EA use cases and different views of the same enterprise but they are no the EA itself.
Had most EAs employed a common framework (that assumes same definition, scope...) exhibiting the layers (business, technology, people...), the generic structure of an enterprise and most most common functions (capabilities) and processes... the evaluation and comparison of EAs would have been possible.
An EA, based on this framework, would indeed support the analysis and implementation of the enterprise strategy and operating and business model.
Until then, the EA is the result of a never ending commercial battle between the framework or methods suppliers, doubled by a contest between egos who refuse to bother with each others' points of view, and nihilists who doubt everything using their own... .
EA progress stalled as such long ago.