What is Enterprise Architecture? Well, that is not a simple question to answer.
Are you new school or old school?
Are you a traditional textbook architect or a new-age strategic change agent?
If I were to choose one answer, I like how Steve Andriole recently explored the definition of Enterprise Architecture in his Forbes article:
“If I have this right, EA (at least everyone agrees on the acronym) is derived from business strategy and focuses on “current and future (business) objectives,” or “desired business vision and outcomes.”
But he also references definitions from Gartner and TechTarget, which do not help to dispel the confusion around these two words.
Perhaps we architects have gotten so clever with our writing prose that we, unfortunately, have confused the masses more than ever before.
Enterprise Architecture shouldn’t be so confusing.
I believe we need to look deeper. Firstly, let’s explore the following questions:
- Does a business strategy exist?
- Is it well communicated, understood and being executed at their organisation?
- Do they do strategic planning regularly, and if so, do they do it well?
- Are business planning and organisational design embedded in the company like financial planning is?
Without an embedded business planning practice that utilises tried and tested strategic planning tools and architecture techniques. Enterprise Architecture becomes yet another complex and misunderstood capability that struggles to enable the very thing it needs to thrive. Because as discussed above, ‘EA is derived from business strategy.’
Final Thoughts
We need to strip away the Enterprise Architecture stigma. In essence, it is yet another industry framework that provides tools, techniques, and reference models to help anyone understand their business better and to make strategic decisions.
This discipline can be learned and taught. You can memorise the entire TOGAF, Zachman, and or Archimate frameworks. But it comes down to how these tools derive value and how successfully the Enterprise Architecture practice is embedded. Ultimately, can the organisational culture make room for yet another discipline? Hopefully, the answer is yes, because EA, done right, gives Executive clarity and an executable plan to provide a strategic direction and strong leadership to their teams.
Employees need to know the direction to head, move together, and understand their customers so they can evolve before it’s too late.
In conclusion
Enterprise Architecture as a discipline has an enormous bag of tricks and is valuable when used at the right time and just enough. It guides and leads transformational change. If you need further context, you can read about the more valuable and practical tools in my bag of tricks post.
But first and foremost, the organisation needs to:
- Know its aspirations. It has the right behaviours and culture to get us where it wants to be.
- Know the frameworks, tools, and techniques that best serve them and can be used to reach its strategic goals.
- Join financial cycles with a planning philosophy where we articulate a vision and know how to affect the changes in a regular cadence.
Enterprise Architecture doesn’t have to be so confusing or complicated.
It is just a means to an end.
What do you think Enterprise Architecture is? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please comment below.
Software architecture was described by Ralph Johnson as “the important stuff (whatever that is).” So to with Enterprise Architecture, it’s the stuff that is important (strategic!) to the business and their success.
The danger can be that EAs apply an equal level of analysis/definition/focus on all areas of the business, and remembering the above rule can help focus the efforts of any EA team.
This is so true, James! Balance and alignment with strategy are so important. By following this rule, Enterprise Architects set themselves up for success, not failure.