An interesting blog entitled “Enterprise architecture frameworks are dead, long live real-life practice !” was posted. The blog discusses how EA frameworks are maybe not all that useful in practice.
I personally find that EA frameworks don't address one key dimension which makes then very hard to use in practice : the human dimension. Yes frameworks such as TOGAF are like recipes which can guide somebody on how to identify EA opportunities and how to manage the overall design. However, they don't speak to what will actually stick in the organization. Moreover, they don't say how to communicate and receive engagement from members of the organization in order for them to endorse EA visions and participate actively in EA initiatives/activities. In short, EA frameworks don't take into account the cultural aspect of organizations when guiding EA.
I think this is the stuff that you learn from experience (or training) which is the missing "magic ingredient" that makes EA frameworks incomplete and useless if used as is...
For me, the following examples illustrate what happens when the human dimension is not taken into account:
- EA visions and orientations are defined but their communication and endorsement are a never ending on-going struggle;
- Technological EA (integration, software, networking) visions/orientations which include technology choices, usage patterns etc. are made but years later people are still questioning them, little money is spent on training and very few have developed the necessary skills to apply them (IT side) or want to pay for them (Business side);
- Quality management is incorporated into the data management vision of the enterprise but again very few people are engage in the on-going process of sustaining quality management and people are sacrificing global operations optimization for local optimization because;
- Agile models are adopted for project delivery but project members don't function as a team (only as a group working of the same task), they only want to execute tasks directly related to their specialty, business users are not part of the team(they are only SMEs and/or supports). etc.
Underlying these examples are human issues such as cultural/vision compatibility, change management and learning management. These key issues are rarely (if not) spoken to in EA frameworks but are so important for the implementation of EA visions and initiatives. In short, EA frameworks don't include the aspect of organizational development which addresses culture management, change management, organizational learning, etc. which makes them mostly useless.
An analogy with cooking would be : you can own the best cooking recipe book, be an amazing cook and be truly creative but if you can't realize that your specialty is vegetarian cooking and that your cooking for meat lovers.. Well good luck.... You better realize that your vision does not fit the culture, you better be capable of fostering organizational learning in order to help people realize that vegetarianism will better align them with their environment and guarantee their survival, and you better be able to help the transition (change management).... if not, your cooking will never be appreciated not matter how good it is and how well it follows long-standing and short-standing best practices.
I personally believe that the key experience that most people refer to is learning about this human dimension of EA. I think that it is called organizational development and that by naming it when can start the process of helping people learn about through other mediums then just ad-hoc experience (trial and error).
BTW: I'm not a vegetarian :o)
Posts
