Defeat Darwinian Enterprise Model that is Adaptive, rather strive to achieve Generative Model that is transformative creating rich diversity from minimal sets.
Connect – Strategy – Architecture / Operations – Implementation
The Chasm between FEAF & FASM
Following Questions arises between FEAF and FSAM :-
Does the above questions make Federal Enterprise Architecture a boon or bane?
First of all “Segment” definition seems to be seriously flawed and riddled with “empirical dilemma” because of which it renders itself not anything architectural. It has confusing classification scheme that seems to follow no construct nor order. Schemes like this when applied to investment profiles, they seem more like apparition than anything real meaningful numbers on the Federal IT Dashboard.
Also, it seems that there is unconscious fascism, underpinning the modality of bringing together people (architect ?? ) to define ‘The Federal Segment Architecture Methodology’ (Architecture??). Many times in such scheme of thing certain locational existence gives people “power” not necessarily genuine “purpose”. This provides authority to a certain group of people, who have no real cause nor motivation ‘Serving the Citizens’ in all humility.
The term fascismo is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means “bundle” or group, and from the Latin word fasces; a fasces was a bundle of sticks used symbolically for the power through unity. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates; they were carried by his Lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.
Furthermore, the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break. This is a familiar theme throughout different forms of fascism; for example the Falange symbol is a bunch of arrows joined together by a yoke.