Licensure for IT Architects

Some excellent discussions but in the wrong thread! I agree with Adrian below, and assert that Architecture can only enable a Business Owner to make key decisions, and avoid potentially expensive costs in the long run. No EA or anyone else is going to replace the CEO or the MD and take away the BoD roles or ownership. If they did, they would become the CEO. There are stories of proxy CEOs or dummies sitting on the top chair with no power or knowledge to make decisions.

Coming back to the topic of this thread... Licensing can only be imposed on a legal basis for certain professions. A doctor can't practice medicine without a license. There are advantages to certification, but only a full university degree (not some two weeks course) probably grounds a student in hard academics. Not all doctors t work in the same field and/or have the same expertise. They have a basic qualification which makes them a licensed doctor, but they gain their expertise with training/certification. My GP could not perform brain surgery, and one who could would not do a heart op. You can see the diversity of architects within our group here too...

Anyone causing a business to lose money is not a public disaster! The company just winds down. Hence, a CEO/CIO not requiring a license to practice. The same applies to an Architect too! A business owner makes a decision, if it makes financial sense to him. If he chooses to employ a CEO without an (ivy league) MBA, it should be entirely his prerogative and he alone takes the risk.

Best regards,
Joseph

On 3 Oct, 21:00, Adrian Miley wrote:

> Brian,

> On 2 Oct, 17:58, "briankseitz" wrote:

> > EA if it is to be truly EA, EA needs to see, speak, and
> > integrate these discipline frameworks and architectures into a great whole.
> > [The value of the car to the owner is not the parts, it’s the utility the
> > whole provides when assembled and operating]

> I agree that the value of the business to its shareholders is the sum
> of the parts and I don't think anyone is on any doubt that all the
> parts have to work in unison in order to maximise the benefit of the
> business activities to the shareholders.

> But, to use your analoguy, when it comes to maintaining the car I
> don't think many people would argue that a specialist is normally
> better than a generalist - employing someone who specialises in
> bodywork to rebuild the engine when the cambelt goes will be expense
> and it's anyones guess what quality of work you will get.

> I'd make the same assertion about maintaining the business and it is
> for this reason that the Finance Director is normally a Finance
> Professional - he might know enough about Sales or Human Resources to
> recognise that they are important parts of the overall business but
> also they he isn't expert enough to take on those functions himself.
> (Knowing the limitations of ones own ability and knowledge is an
> important aspect of social politics.)

> > I'm about to start a new position. After discussing with the CEO the role
> > the "informal internal title" tentatively will be Chief Business Architect.
> > ... The role and responsibilities
> > will cover developing processes, management systems, client relationships,
> > employee development, value accounting systems, and information technology
> > to support all of the prior.
> > ....
> > Am I the boss --no
> > Am I the expert in each discipline or function --no
> > Will I be running the company --no that's what the CEO and management staff
> > do
> > Will I set the vision for the company --no again, the CEO, BoD, and
> > Executives do that

> Now this is probably closer to my idea of Enterprise Architecture as
> the function that stitches it all together but doesn't claim expertise
> for anything other than developing processes that enable other areas
> of expertise to carry out their activities. (Or at least that's how I
> understand your description.)

> This is a hell of a lot more palatable than the others who are
> claiming much more wideranging responsibility for the
> business itself and the task much more closely aligned with what IT
> used to label an Analyst / Designer who specified and designed things
> but didn't get involved in mere implementation detail.

> I'm one of those unusual people in IT in that I have no interest in
> computers or software and put them in the same category as hammers and
> screwdrivers - I always try to select the appropriate tool after I've
> decided what I'm going to build - so this description of Enterprise
> Architect chimes well with me.

> Just my opinion...

> Adrian