> knowledge workers is necessary. Not just the doing, but
> the thinking, and negotiating as independent agents.
Good point, Martin! Traditionally, the role of EA had been very distributed across the organisation and within the remit of many different roles stretching horizontally and vertically. The EA panacea that we seem to be heading towards is bringing all that within a single role or team of EAs. I don't think that is practical and/or feasible. It is good to have all decision making within a single coherent group. But the realities of a global enterprise are best understood by people owning specific functions closer to ground level.
Key words that I picked up from your posts are - "inspire and fund", "distributing the role", "shared knowledge", "independant agents", "transparency", "tools", "healthy culture", "equip each worker". Very good! Ensuring all these are outside the remit of the EA, but very much driven by the organisational leadership. Any lack of these directly impacts the results of EA, potentially leading to EA failure.
> leadership can inspire and fund rather than command and control.
Yes, that was the old model of leadership - command and control. The new model seems to be very much inspire and support (or fund, as you say). But, we need knowledgable and intelligent leaders who understand the ramifications of their decisions. That is what I currently see some corporate leaders lacking. The ownership and liability of business failure is very much the business owners'. They can not and should not try to pawn off any failure to others lower down the chain, as we see in some global companies. I see this potentially becoming an EA liability.
> EA done properly removes/eradicates many of the
> "problems" associated with a lot of other people view of EA.
> We need a big team of highly paid Enterprise Architects
> - No you don't
> We need a dedicated group of people to keep the "models"
> up to date - No you don't
> We need a big EA project to move us from the as-is to
> the to-be - No you don't
> We need to create a whole new set of processes,
> job titles and departments - No you don't
> We need Enterprise Architects to make strategic decisions
> - No you don't
Kevin, very well put! Organisations are reticient to embrace what they don't understand. EA seems to be something very difficult to grasp, and we don't help in removing this fallacy by making the EA more and more complicated. I think EA (or rather the BA portion of EA) is simply some of the old-fashioned business management consulting techniques integrated vertically with the newer models of "doing" business and supporting virtual operations.
Best regards,
Joseph
_______________
Joseph George
+44 (0)78250 15480
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg
On Jul 20, 5:14 pm, Martin Cleaver
> > If an organisation were working as a well-oiled machine, it would
> > not need an EA. Hence, an EA would be working themselves out of a
> > job. But, the market evolves, the organisation
> > evolves, the people/roles evolve. And so, the EA has a constant stream
> > of inputs necessitating realigning the to-be system (organisation) and
> > working out the impacts.
> Reminds me: Command & Control can only get us so far. CxO positions -
> and by extension, EA positions - typically take a top-down mandate.
> But top-down roles can't see everything, can't interpret and
> prioritize everything and can't orchestrate everyone.
> Distributing the role so that it is shared among the firms knowledge
> workers is necessary. Not just the doing, but the thinking, and
> negotiating as independent agents.
> Transparency and tools are necessary. Transparency to see observe
> what's going on, with a healthy culture that invigourates change and
> leadership from within. Tools to enable transparency and to equip each
> worker with the means to apply rational method to domains the worker
> is unfamiliar with.
> Together these equip workers with the inputs, the understanding, and
> the engagement to make impact.
> Then leadership can inspire and fund rather than command and control.
> In short, I'd be fascinated to see the tool EAs use made available to
> all knowledge workers in an enterprise.
> Best, Martin
> Martin Cleaver MSc MBA
> Sent from my iPhone, so it might be quicker to call me, on +1-416-786-6752
> On 2010-07-19, at 8:49 AM, Joseph George
> > Bill,
> >> An EA is a mini CxO type that is
> >> exists to work themselves out of a job
> > I agree with you on the above. I have been saying that all along.
> > Search this group for the discussion thread ("Architects" of the
> > Enterprise?) among others.
> > The only people I see playing an EA role are the CxOs (to continue the
> > American euphemism) within their remit. Anyone else is just applying
> > the finishing touches or working out the finer details. And that
> > means, an EA becomes a CxO representative involved in aspects lacking
> > in the respective CxO. If an organisation were working as a well-oiled
> > machine, it would not need an EA. Hence, an EA would be working
> > themselves out of a job. But, the market evolves, the organisation
> > evolves, the people/roles evolve. And so, the EA has a constant stream
> > of inputs necessitating realigning the to-be system (organisation) and
> > working out the impacts.
> > I don't think EA is about Frameworks, but they do help in terms of
> > providing a structure and/or methodology.
> >>>>>> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.
> > Much of what is being touted about in this group as to-be EA is imho
> > BA. Atleast that is what I see where Kirk is aiming - pure Business
> > Architecture. I don't think you can disconnect a business (and its
> > Business Architecture) from its operations (or Information
> > Architecture and Technology Architecture).
> >>>>>> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.
> > Back to the OP, I think Gerald would struggle to get any sort of valid
> > statistics to justify any claim. I would even wonder about the
> > purpose. The world is a large place with a lot of organisations. I see
> > many who I think are operating as EAs, who do not have any such title
> > nor would want to be known as EAs. On the other hand, I meet people
> > with EA in their title, whose sponsors themselves do not understand
> > what EA is about.
> > Best regards,
> > Joseph George
> > +44 (0)78250 15480
> >http://uk.linkedin.com/in/josephg
> > On Jul 14, 7:42 pm, Bill
> >> Kirk,
> >> Excellent point and very valid as well. We must understand, however,
> >> that this subject is more than a personal training issues. This is a
> >> global and corporate training issue. Do a Dice, Monster, Indeed, etc.
> >> search for EA and you will get nigh 100% IT Architects that deal with
> >> something 'enterprise' (e.g. has an enterprise commitment,
> >> distribution, or effect). This is the information or mis-information
> >> that has been projected ever since the term 'architect' gained
> >> popularity.
> >> Let me explain my thoughts on an EA: An EA is a mini CxO type that is
> >> exists to work themselves out of a job by recreating, restructuring,
> >> and redefining the business. Many people think of this person as a
> >> 'super' project manager, but, there's much more to it. This person is
> >> part business-person, manager, executive, technologist, HR
> >> representative, project manager, and evangelist. At any given time
> >> there will be aspects of these positions being performed by the EA.
> >> Thus, this is where many see IT involvement of the EA. Organizations
> >> are still defining their technology and its integration with business
> >> and this is why technology finds its way, more often than not, into
> >> the EA portfolio. The EA works themselves out of a job by
> >> integrating
> >> the next phase of the vision and mission into the processes, people,
> >> and structures of the organization. They then move to the next phase
> >> and start over.
> >> The future of technology is full integration into the business of the
> >> organization. This is a transparency of technology that looks a
> >> lot> > > >> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in
> >> the world.
> >> like commoditization. I personally do not believe that it is a
> >> "Nicholas Carr" type of commoditization where technology is like a
> >> light switch and technologists need 'business smarts'. No, I think it
> >> is the other way around. The business will incorporate and utilize
> >> 'technology smarts' and what we know of IT now will be more fully
> >> automated, measurable, and structured for use/re-use (business people
> >> will need technology smarts as well as technologists needing business
> >> smarts).
> >> It is like any trend. Look at mass production. Automobile
> >> manufacturers (even fast food companies) went through similar efforts
> >> to restructure their services to accommodate mass production. Indoor
> >> plumbing, passenger airplanes, and a number of other trends in
> >> efficiency and productivity can be used to understand the EA
> >> movement.
> >> In any event, we are in the midst of a high flux period while
> >> technology grants increased capability to the EA. As such (and during
> >> such) we have a continual training process to perform in the
> >> organizations of the world. Thus, I agree with your previous
> >> statement; in the realization of each phase, everyone in an
> >> organization can be said to be doing enterprise architecture. And
No comments:
Post a Comment