> 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.
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 once
> you have an organization that is 'all in' on change and improvement,
> it is a correct statement. Each individual, having the vision and
> working towards it is helping to realize Enterprise Architecture. The
> difference is that this is the 'practice', or rather the effects of
> the practice, of Enterprise Architecture by the person (or people),
> the Enterprise Architect(s).
> So, after all of that... what do we do to clear up this confusion and
> fully define EA as well as define and differentiate E(IT)A and
> subsequent architects? These titles are not going away any time soon.
> On Jul 13, 5:11 pm, Rheinlander Kirk
> > You bring up a key point - IT is an enabler. In the APQC process model, IT is rightly an enabling support process activity - box 7.
> > EA deals with boxes 1-5, the core delivery of the product or service that is the revenue generation of the company. Yes, EA touches on all the other enabling processes, and IT is a very important one, but it is certainly not at the core of enterprise architecture.
> > The only time an enterprise architect is an IT architect, is when the core product or service the company produces is IT.
> > Unless you believe that the people that envisioned, designed, enabled, and practiced EA successfully for 25+ years know less about EA than you do??
> > So again, what are we counting??
> > On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:38 PM, maher dahdour wrote:
> > > How many times did we hear EA -as a role/not practice- in a non-IT organizations? Let me put it this way, where do we find an alignment of everything (People, Process.etc) in the enterprise with the strategy that has no automation and modernization (Goals) -technically using some sort of IT as an enabler-?
> > > Let us not associate discussion with reality.
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Derek Vandivere
> > > Well, we've got a couple hundred in the large consultancy I work for
> > > (the one that no longer employs Tiger Woods...).
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:45 PM, José Casimiro
> > >
> > > > Hi Gerald,
> > > > I think there must be at least 1000 enterprise architects. (world wide)
> > > > I consider an enterprise architect someone that tries to connect business
> > > > and computer processes and is a big expert in both. I guess that shouldn't
> > > > exist many more, because companies that have the "dimension" to have them,
> > > > probably do not feel the need to have them.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > JC
> > > > On 13 July 2010 11:04, Gerald
> > > >> I'd like to get a feel for how many EA's there are in the world.
> > > >> Feel free to define an "Enterprise Architect" any way you wish (just
> > > >> state what that assumption is, and please let's not get into arguments
> > > >> about what definition is right/wrong, for this exercise it doesn't
> > > >> matter).
> > > >> Obviously just looking for guestimates (unless you know of some
> > > >> research or stat's that have been collected) and interested on how you
> > > >> went about estimating this.
> > > >> Cheers, Gerald
No comments:
Post a Comment