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
In the realm of EA, all sorts of Cohorts will be the ‘animals’ of the past. Yes, animals for they will be the ones not to have evolved into a pluralistic framework defeating archetype typical in them. These will be the ones who when in reins will be the anti-thesis. Just another reflective existence of the system. When they cohort, they will form yet another standard, which when applied in age demanding mass customization will again fail. For they have learnt to hear only what they have learnt to speak. This being their comfort zone, together they will form cohorts. And, will be on a road to the past. The world is fast becoming flat and cannot deny but be inclusive in its framework. Where, individualization yet not individualistic will be the paramount demanding trait from one and from all.
Have you been between Business and IT, or have you been between groups within IT. Have you tried ‘governance’. Have you argued why or why not RUP, Like-wise with Agile. Why Zachman Framework, why not TOGAF. List is end-less. All these questions seem more like a cultural issue than a technical one. These questi0ns gets played out in organizations, like it happens in the Battle at Kruger. 🙂 Its the law of ‘nature’ not ‘nurture’.
Is EA Framework adequate to accomodate SOA Framework?
The Business Architecture cross section, within the EA Framework is the area where the ‘form’ for the overall EA is more-or less decided. After the form for business process is laid out, rest of the activities is to align the IT resources to the businesses driven by the architectural considerations. The EA Framework typically provides areas for defining and describing the ‘problem’ (context, conceptual) domain and then the ‘solution’ (logical, physical) domain. For most thought process, EA Framework works mostly as a representation or as a reference. The architecture works unseen and is the underpinning that drives the thoughts from its inception in the problem domain to its completion in the solution domain. All-most all the design and description work occurs independently of the Framework. The architecture work-products gets organized by the Framework. The Frameworks thus far have played the role for providing a mechanism for defining the classification scheme that it both ordered and layered. This makes separation of concerns visible. Although, delayed binding and loose coupling have been touted, they are not evidently realized in the framework. Most Framework, follow a scheme of hierarchy. With the advent of SOA style, need for process centric framework is desired. The existing frameworks are either functional-centric or information-centric and these will completely breakdown, when dealing with process-centric system. Hierarchy in itself is functional in its organization, such as those found in the ‘confederation’ system. Studying the structures of the biological organisms which has evolved from being uni-cell into multi-cellular organisms. it is evident that Gene Ontology is defined as a process centric (biological processes) scheme, with the lower compositions (molecular components) being retained as functional centric scheme. All-most all the business modeling methods, approaches and techniques are either functional centric, meaning they follow ‘decomposition’ or are information centric as found in the information value chain models. These approaches do not lend very well for any SOA style renderings. Of all the methods in the market, one that could come closest to process centric scheme is ‘Riva’ that evolved by Martin Ould ( http://www.the-old-school.demon.co.uk/vc/riva.htm ). However, these lack the clear delineation of the problem and the solution domain. Nevertheless, has scope for improvement and alterations to accommodate the upper layers of the framework that work in the strategy areas.