The EA team alone cannot develop and maintain the whole EA without participation of stakeholders with respect to their own parts,
Hence, the EA group has to create a governance framework that would be employed in the consistent design of EA artifacts, solution architectures and in the decision making process,
Governance is essential if properly constructed. Once created, it has to be conformed with.
Still, problems appear when "projects shall obey the decisions by the EA group alone.
Still, problems appear when "projects shall obey the decisions by the EA group alone.
The governance, by definition, should act through principles, control checkpoints in the project phases, good definition of who makes what decisions, roadmaps, strategies... all widely agreed beforehand rather than appearing like instant diktats from a body like EA which should only act by exception, unlike today.
In the case of IT, which maybe your case, the EA might play the role of the governing body but be balanced by the presence of solutions architects, IT management...
One has to make sure that governance has input and meets the approval of all concerned parts. Governance should be approved by a more encompassing and different body from EA where project architects and many other stakeholders may have a say.
Then, projects and activities should all submit to the governaning rules and body, which body may not necessarily be the EA group but may have participation from.
There may be exceptions for some works. Governance may be constantly reviewed and updated, if necessary.
Governance reduces chaos. Governance avoids friction. Governance enforces consistency and predictable results.
Leave a comment