What is a good tool to use for a small organizations EA?

George,

Wouldn't you be part of the government procurement process? And if so, I would certainly take advantage of it or have a look at their portfolio. I wouldn't recommend one of the big Architecture-Tool vendors for your school per se. Alternatively, there are some open source tools available, and I have heard some good reports. As I myself haven't used any of those architecture tools, I will let others recommend from their experience.

You could start with Open Office or the many equivalent Open Source or Cloud offerings. Dia could be used for modelling. I actually like Dia. It has templates or shapes for mapping processes (EPC), systems (LST), infrastructure (CDP, racks), and even for energy. I would suggest that, if we use any of these products, we look to contribute back in some way.

I would look to use the web (inter or intra) for publishing, rather than pushing out stacks of static documents.

Kind regards,
Joseph

On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, GeorgeP wrote:

> I am leading a program to establish an EA and governance process for a
> moderate sized local govt agency. We are beginning to look at tools
> and have limited budget. Any ideas as to the best tools for
> inventorying and linking applications and infrastructure elements and
> business processes?

Metaphysical Architecture

For once, I am truly lost for words, dear Sir!
:-j

PS: I hope you are suggesting that I am a nice person.

PPS: I've changed the subject to create a new thread, so as not to distract from the OP and his thread.

On Mar 30, 7:43 pm, Adrian Miley wrote:

> Joseph,

> I've a feeling that you do exist but it might only be in the
> metaphysical sense as I've not witnessed a physical manifestation
> yet.

> However, if you don't have phyiscal manifestation then hopefully you
> can take comfort in the fact that your existential existence is on a
> par with most of the interesting things in the multi-verse. Even
> concepts can be nice people to.

> I on the other hand definitely do exist - I've created an entire sub-
> reality for myself just to support my manifestation. Unfortunately the
> knowledge transfer mechanism necessary to communicate the proof of
> that doesn't yet exist outside my sub-reality so hopefuilly you'll
> take my word for it :-)

> Adrian

> On 30 Mar, 09:26, Joseph George southern.co.uk> wrote:
> > Wow... this metaphysical stuff is really deep and interesting!! IMHO,
> > definitely deserves its own thread...
> > :-j

> > PS: Do I exist? What does your sensory perception indicate? Do you??

> > On Mar 30, 8:47 am, Adrian Miley wrote:

> > > Geoff,

> > > “Knowledge cannot be shared as it is highly contextual based.”

> > > All Knowledge is (a type of) Information and all Information is (a
> > > type of) Data with the additional characteristics essentially being
> > > Context and Purpose. So given that Data can be transferred then both
> > > Knowledge and Information can also be transferred providing that the
> > > Context and Purpose can be suitable captured and transferred.

> > > So you correctly point out (and contradicting your own original
> > > assertion) the issue is not that Knowledge can’t be transferred but
> > > that it can only be transferred as accurately as the chosen knowledge
> > > transference mechanism allows. Unfortunately for this we appear to be
> > > using a token-based language which are notoriously imprecise because
> > > the meaning of each token is not unambiguous and has different meaning
> > > to different people (as Bertrand Russell said “It’s possible to be
> > > both clear and precise but not at the same time!”)

> > > In mathematics, on the other hand, accurate and complete knowledge
> > > transference takes place regularly but that’s mainly because the
> > > language of mathematics is well-defined and unambiguous so
> > > consequently not open to local interpretation by the recipient of the
> > > knowledge.

> > > You yourself allude to a potential solution to the problem and once we
> > > develop Telepathy for the masses then knowledge transfer will be both
> > > complete and accurate. (Though I do hope that happens after I’m dead
> > > because if anyone poked around the chaos-realm I call “my mind” they’d
> > > probably question my sanity.)

> > > Hence, to conclude, it’s not impossible to transfer knowledge just
> > > very difficult and if you’d made that assertion then I’d agree with
> > > you but to say it CANNOT be done is inaccurate because a potential
> > > solution is conceivable.

> > > That last point also challenges your assertion that systems do not
> > > exist. To quote Paul Adams (Cambridge University, 1920’s) “Physical
> > > manifestation is not a requirement for existence” that is, the act of
> > > thinking about something brings it into existence therefore something
> > > called a “system” exists simply because. Philosophy, both physical or
> > > metaphysical, is full of existential concepts that have unproven
> > > physical manifestation but proven behaviour.

> > > Both systems and the ability to transfer knowledge are conceivable so
> > > therefore are both possible.

> > > Just my opinion…

> > > On 29 Mar, 16:24, "Geoff" wrote:

> > > > HI Kevin

> > > > See the work of polyani. Knowledge cannot be shared as it is highly
> > > > contextual based. In KM one also has to differentiate between know what and
> > > > know how's

> > > > At the same recognized that people know more than they can tell. I can give
> > > > you some information, i.e point you in the direction of Polyani and also
> > > > point you in direction of mode 1 and mode 2 knowledge but I cannot transfer
> > > > my experiential learning into some ones head. In other knowledge cannot be
> > > > transferred, information yes. I get information from books but not
> > > > knowledge.

> > > > I can also list the basic principles behind systems theory. As for doing the
> > > > knowledge a la a London cabbie tyhgis is highly contextural and read ing his
> > > > book does not tell me what he knows. If knowledge can be held in an IT
> > > > system then why have only 2 may be 3 companies built a KM system?

> > > > Thoughts

> > > > Geoff

> > > > PS

> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kevin (PragmaticEA.com) Smith
> > > > Sent: 28 March 2010 21:27
> > > > Subject: Re: Using EA to dis-integrate an enterprise architecture?

> > > > @Doug: "I will think about how to position a separate thread around
> > > > cybernetics and
> > > > systems theory."

> > > > Cool. I'm always looking to expand my horizons.

> > > > And a discussion about it in this group would be a great way for yours
> > > > (and others) knowledge to be shared with those that currently do not
> > > > have the knowledge, such that in one sense the knowledge will be
> > > > transferred from one place (aka you and others) to another place (aka
> > > > me and others) in a way that could probably be defined as knowledge
> > > > transfer ;-)

> > > > @Doug: "On the point you raise about talking to clients of EA about
> > > > such things, I generally don't."

> > > > Yep - I was kind of getting that feeling. It's more an internal anchor
> > > > and sextant I guess.

> > > > @Geoff: "Please explain how knowledge can be shared? Data and
> > > > Information yes but not knowledge, absolutely NO. See the work of
> > > > Polyani. Knowledge is not found in Books on or the net and cannot be
> > > > transferred."

> > > > Please see my response above. That should give you a small example of
> > > > how knowledge can be shared. Of course, I am but a simple man and am
> > > > using the definition of the word "knowledge" as described in the
> > > > dictionary (Websters in this instance) and how it has been used
> > > > throughout my life which may not be what you understand to be the
> > > > definition of "knowledge", and if so please let me know your
> > > > definition so we can have a meaningful dialogue otherwise we are
> > > > talking apples and pears.

> > > > By the way, I am sure you are aware of the act of "Doing the
> > > > Knowledge".I would be interested in observing a conversation between
> > > > you and a London Cabby. (The best in the world).

> > > > Geoff, I can see by your comments and your previous groups that you
> > > > regard yourself as a bit of an anarchist. Interestingly so do I. I
> > > > have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and have
> > > > taken arms against a sea of troubles and all my sins will be
> > > > remembered.

> > > > Brain the size of a planet and they ask me to pick up a piece of
> > > > paper..

How would you justify accessibility as an EA/compliance requirement.

Pawel,

As Stuart mentioned previously, the UK has very well-defined accessibility legislations. This is what the UK government legislates for disabled people:
http://direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/

The DDA (Disability Discrimination Act 2005) can be found here:
http://opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050013_en_1

The DRC (Disability Rights Commission Act 1999) can be found here:
http://opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990017_en_1

The DWP (Department for Work & Pensions) recommends the WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative).
http://dwp.gov.uk/employer/disability-discrimination-act/what-can-i-do/
http://w3.org/WAI/

Perhaps more pertinent to you might be the RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) and their guidance:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/webaccessibility/usefullinks/Pages/useful_links.aspx

> I know that accessibility is not the center point of
> requirements, but it can be benefitial. The problem is that you need to
> justify it and it does require quite an effort for people are not familiar
> with the issue. I am not the fan of flaming them how bad they are and how
> they send all the people with some kind of special needs to the recycle bin.
> I wanted to hear some voices on how to get accessibility on board without
> making extreme effort.

I don't think you should have this problem, unless you are asking for a separate budget for developing accessibility solutions which you might be wanting to (sell and/or) implement independantly.

The implications are legal compliance and regulatory requirement across horizontals, which is not an option or a subject for debate. I don't think any of the directors would veto these.

As you can see, there is a lot of help, guidance and support for what you are looking for in the UK. This can carry the teeth you are looking for too. I'm afraid I can't comment on other countries, and there are others far more qualified in their own respective countries and domains.

Best regards,
Joseph

On Mar 11, 7:56 pm, "Pawel Urbanski" wrote:

> Hi Stuart
> Thanks for your reply. I know that accessibility is not the center point of
> requirements, but it can be benefitial. The problem is that you need to
> justify it and it does require quite an effort for people are not familiar
> with the issue. I am not the fan of flaming them how bad they are and how
> they send all the people with some kind of special needs to the recycle bin.
> I wanted to hear some voices on how to get accessibility on board without
> making extreme effort.
> I stated it from the regulatory/compliance point of view because it is easy
> to give Section 508 or W3C's WCAG recommendation as an example. The American
> government frequently puts Section 508 as a compliance requirement - at
> least it is how it looks like to my knowledge collected from some friends
> working in the software industry in the USA.
> I really enjoyed your comments - especially showing some different angle in
> the placement of accessibility as an UI issue or business issue.

> Thanks a lot,
> Pawel

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Scott"
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: How would you justify accessibility as an EA/compliance
> requirement.

> >> Those of you who live and work in the United States or Canada may be more
> >> familiar with the terms than people from Asia or Europe.

> > Note that in the UK the whole issue is made simple due to disability
> > discrimination legislation that mandates reasonable efforts to provide
> > accessibility.

> > However, as suggested by other responders, this is merely a subset of
> > the larger suite of requirements around regulatory and compliance
> > needs, and the non-functional demands on any given system (which may
> > include non-IT components).

> > My approach as an EA is generally to treat non-functional requirements
> > such as accessibility, resilience and DR as givens - such requirements
> > don't act as differentiators on any guidance my team provides because
> > we wouldn't put forward an approach that doesn't meet the basic set of
> > requirements.

> > Recommending a single corporate web presence with CMS based microsites
> > on sub-domains incorporating the various transactional web services
> > provided to our customers is a clear and straightforward
> > recommendation with direct customer, marketing, business, cost and IT
> > implications; that it also has to support accessibility requirements
> > doesn't factor in the recommendation.

> > To me, compliance with regulatory needs is owned by the Compliance
> > team; information security by the Infosec team; infrastructure
> > non-functionals by IT. Where accessibility isn't a regulatory
> > requirement then it's a business requirement, and should be owned by
> > the marketing or customer service teams. At most organisations a
> > straightforward business case will be possible highlighting the cost
> > savings provided by direct customer self-service as opposed to hiring
> > additional contact centre staff.

> > For internal employee accessibility I think that's a legal requirement
> > in the US too? It's a more complicated discussion, but not one we need
> > to have in the UK (due to the regulatory requirements).

> > cheers,
> > ~Stuart

TOGAF 9 Certified Level 2 Practitioner

Name: Joseph George
Date: 24-Mar-2010
Exam: TOGAF 8 - 9 Advanced Bridge via IBT
Result: Pass
Score (%): 90

Status: Certified
CID: 24170

Response: Hack Work

Hack Work, Ian Marchant blog post dt 08/03/2010

Another thing from the Harvard Business Review. The challenge is how do we, as a large company, respond when our IT resources at home or even on our mobile phones are more powerful and flexible than the large corporate systems can be. It seems from the article that our problem is a common one - to quote, "the tools we use in life have leapfrogged over the ones we use at work. Business's lingering love of bureaucracy, process and legacy technology has fallen completely out of sync with what people need to do their best".

The articles solution is to 'hack work' - i.e. rule bending for the good of all. We all do this anyway so why not make it a virtue - "the illusion of corporate control is being shattered in the name of increased personal productivity". We can all think of examples where we have to do things 'outside the system' just to get things done. I know I do and I'm sure there are lots of good examples throughout SSE.

Feedback in response to Ian's Blog

Post Title - Hack Work
Date Posted - 08/03/2010
Name: Joseph George
Department: IT Architecture
Location: Havant
Comments:

Ian,

Thanks for highlighting the challenges we face today. I haven't seen this HBR article you quote, but would very much like to read in entirety.

Some years ago corporate systems had much more oomph than anyone could afford personally. And this discussion wouldn't have happened. The scenario has dramatically changed now.

Our current systems force us to work within constraints set for enforcing mediocre resources to output mediocre quality. It is a sorry state when we find ourselves in a situation where the corporate systems restrict us, rather than enable us to increase personal productivity. And you are quite right that SSE is not in this unique situation, and also that Corporate IT is a product of the business' lingering love of bureaucracy and process. Too much of which makes everything legacy very quickly in this age of incredible business changes happening within extremely short time-scales. I think we should loosen the chains a bit, rather than tightening the noose further. I also refer to your previous blog post. Google and its various products (including mail, calendar, collaboration, etc.), Zoho apps (goes one step further in enabling business productivity), Salesforce and many other cloud products are available everywhere except inside our corporate systems. These products are much cheaper and far more efficient than the legacy technology employed by the business.

You mention "IT resources", where I suspect you refer to physical hardware rather than to value-added services. And I concur that hardware is largely redundant, as any hardware lock-ins are a business risk, which makes physical hardware a white elephant in terms of Capex, Opex, and Security.

Thanks once again for your highly illuminating blog posts, which allow people to widen their thinking horizons. There seems to be some legitimacy to "thinking outside the box", when aided (prompted, supported) by the Chief Exec.

Kind regards,
Joseph

From: Ian Marchant
To: Joseph George
Date: 12/03/2010 16:30
Subject: Re: Hack Work
Sent by: Eilidh Marshall

Joseph,

Thanks for the feedback. Getting the balance right between robustness and routine and the need for agility is a key issue.

Regards,
Ian