Enterprise Architecture: definitions

“Enterprise architecture is the organizing logic for business processes and IT infrastructure reflecting the integration and standardization requirements of the company’s operating model” (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006).

“Enterprise Architecture = Strategy + Business + Technology” (Bernard, 2012).

“Enterprise Architecture is a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a holistic approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise Architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes” (The Federation Of Enterprise Professional Organizations, 2011).

“There are now business architects, security architects, application architects, data architects, information architects, integration architects, enterprise architects, infrastructure architects, domain architects, IT architects, solution architects, integration architects, the list seems endless” (Wierda, Mastering ArchiMate, 2014).

Many definitions about Enterprise Architecture have been written through the time of its existence; at the same time, various methodologies and frameworks have arisen; among them, TOGAF, Zachman, Gartner, MODAF, DYA, DoDAF, FEAF, etc. but in many cases Enterprise Architecture as a discipline, has failed to deliver the intended results (Wierda, Chess and the art of Enterprise Architecture, 2015).

Enterprise Architecture is about managing complexity, preventing IT chaos, aligning business and IT strategy and making sure the business profits from the IT enabled opportunities. According to Michael Porter (The Federation Of Enterprise Professional Organizations, 2011), more than 80% of organizations have problems executing their business strategy, the problem is not the strategy but an ineffective execution. EA provides the means for correcting that.

Successful companies have what (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006) calls Foundation for Execution. To create an effective foundation for execution, the same authors recommend that companies must master these three key disciplines:

  • Operating Model: the adequate level of business process integration and standardization for delivering products to customers.
  • Enterprise architecture: logic behind the organization of business processes and IT infrastructure to reflect and achieve the integration and standardization requirements of the company’s operating model.
  • IT engagement model: governance mechanisms to ensure that local and companywide objectives are achieved by business and IT projects.

Enterprise Architecture is very important and useful, helping organizations to gain foundation for execution and competitive advantages. If it fails is not because the discipline failed, but because the ones applying it failed (Gartner, 2009).

 

References

Bernard, S. A. (2012). An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture. Author House.

Gartner. (2009, September 2). Newsroom. Retrieved from Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1159617

Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. S. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

The Federation Of Enterprise Professional Organizations. (2011). A Common Perspective on Enterprise Architecture. Retrieved from FEAPO: http://feapo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Common-Perspectives-on-Enterprise-Architecture-v15.pdf

Wierda, G. (2014). Mastering ArchiMate. R&A .

Wierda, G. (2015). Chess and the art of Enterprise Architecture. R & A.

This entry was posted in Main. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Enterprise Architecture: definitions

  1. Mike Lee's avatar Mike Lee says:

    Hi Jorge,

    Good post about enterprise architecture. Some of the things you touch upon here are near and dear to the organization that I work for currently. Federation is a huge problem causing all kids of rifts within Enterprise Architecture and executing strategy. That being said, I am pretty interested in what the Michael Porter article has to say about it all.

    I also feel that there is a place for architecture, however not always as a practice per-se. I have run into several small to medium sized businesses toying with the idea of standing up a practice, however usually they confuse EA with application or Data architecture. This often speaks to the need or lack-there-of.

    Thanks,

    Mike

    Like

  2. Larry Murray's avatar Larry Murray says:

    Jorge,

    Your blog touches on a lot of worries that I sometimes have about EA. I truly believe that it can help an organization, but sometimes it feels that some of the challenges an organization faces are a lot bigger than just creating an EA team.

    If you were hired as an EA for a corporation that thought you’d solve their problem if inefficient strategy deployment, what would be your first move?

    -Larry

    Like

    • Jorge Rodriguez's avatar Jorge Rodriguez says:

      Hi Larry:
      Thank you for your comments.
      Responding to your question. I think that my first move to start an EA practice is to gather the “right” people in the “right” position.
      Jorge

      Like

  3. Nathan Whitaker's avatar Nathan Whitaker says:

    Jorge,

    You bring up some really important points in your blog post. The main problem with EA is not the framework, nor the architecture itself, but the process of implementing it or applying it. With the fast rate of technological evolution and the expanse of global communication, EA seems to still be deciphering its parameters and scope. With that being said, I have spoken with many IT leaders that all think EA is something different. There doesn’t seem to be a very strong consensus among the EA community on exactly what is included or excluded from the scope of Enterprise Architecture. Great post.

    -Nate

    Like

Leave a reply to Larry Murray Cancel reply