all bits considered data to information to knowledge


What Enterprise Architecture and HR have in common

The goal of Enterprise Architecture is to build coherent enterprises, not better IT systems. The IT is simple flavor du jour, a tool that enables and facilitates the process. Yet a one single component of the enterprise architecture is consistently overlooked - the people.

The standard EA framework will talk about Business Architecture, Information Architecture, Application Architecture and Technology Architecture - but never about People Architecture! yet people are the most crucial component that needs to be addressed through hiring filters, policies and procedures, training and education of the employees and contractors.... In short - it had just occurred to me that every EA initiative should be coordinated with HR in order for Enterprise Architecture initiative to be successful.


Enterprise Architecture als Das Glasperlenspiel

The opus magnum by Hermann Hesse - Das Glasperlenspiel - comes to mind after three days of Oracle Enterprise Architecture training… All too present is the danger of disappearing into extremely complex but ultimately manageable world of technological abstractions while shunning crass and messy world of business.

The primary goal of Enterprise Architecture is to build coherent enterprises, not better IT systems.

- Pallab Saha


Enterprise Architecture ≠ IT Architecture

By Pallab Saha from the National University of Singapore, an expert in Government Enterprise Architecture

Six Reasons Why EA Should NOT be Assigned to the IT Department

6. EA ≠ IT Architecture

5. True EA leads to redistribution of authority, which is beyond CIO jurisdiction.

4. EA value proposition (i.e. standardization vs. innovation) is solely business realizable.

3. The primary goal of EA is to build coherent enterprises, not better IT systems.

2. Synthesis takes precedence over analysis.

1. EA failure is an organization failure, not an IT failure.

These points were taken verbatim from Pallab Saha's illuminating post on LinkedIN group - The Enterprise Architecture Network.


Putting “E” in ESB

Forrester's survey data shows that service-oriented architecture (SOA) still has strong penetration and high satisfaction rates. Even though today's headlines focus more on cloud computing, mobile applications, and social networking, enterprise interest in SOA-related products remains significant. However, among the four major SOA specialty products, enterprise interest has shifted away from enterprise service bus (ESB) products.

Here's a shocker - Enterprise Architecture is hard.

I believe the following are the reasons behind "interest in ESB shift" among the enterprises.

ESB is the heart of SOA, and not many enterprises are willing to undergo "heart surgery" without compelling reasons to do so. For better of for worse, ESB is a "big bang" concept - unless the entire IT eco-system is re-arranged around this fundamental concept there will be no sizable benefits to realize; given a chance, enterprise always will opt for incremental change.

ESB takes concept of software re-use to its logical conclusion, and requires shift in thinking on how software is designed, constructed and integrated. The re-use promise of object oriented paradigm got a lot of attention but ultimately failed to deliver, mostly for reasons that had nothing to do with software engineering.

ESB is hard. No matter how many "SOA for dummies" books are published, the actual implementation is either technologically challenging or expensive, or both. Explaining its benefits to CFO is like explaining theory behind acetaminophen's physiological effects to a five-years old with high fever, except that you do not report to a five-years old.

So, what's the prognosis? The idea of ESB is here to stay; the concept of universal communication channel, its orchestration capabilities, its promise of services reuse make perfect business sense. The actual packaging will have to change ... not unlike bubble-gum flavoring in bitter medicine one has to swallow for his own good.