- Whether the effort involved in doing EA modelling was justified and whether putting this same effort into other initiatives would yield a better return
- Whether 'analysis paralysis' would set in: lots of modelling, but with little useful progress as a result. This has been my expereience elsewhere
- Whether the business case actually stacks up (same as the first point I guess)
- What the overlap is with the EA model and the ITIL vision of the all-emcompassing CMDB
- Whether it is really realistic to do EA on 'a little bit' of the business. Surely you need the overall, holistic architecture to be put in place before you start developing 'bits' of an architecture for individual systems or processes.
Monday, 7 February 2011
A non believer?
I guess I gave the impression at the EA workshop of possibly being a 'non believer' with my 'healthy scepticism and enquiring attitude' to EA. My concerns at the time were around......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Last bullet caught my eye - we have often debated the 'little EA' vs 'big EA' question. The answer seems to be in (and forgive yet another metaphor) a 'table and legs' approach - ie you take a simple enterprise-wide view (table) to understand the main elements and connections of the business, then look at a narrower, project area within it (leg), but considering all the EA layers (remember) from strategy down to infrastructure. That way you get valuable work done with EA, avoid trying to 'boil the ocean; while keeping sight of an emerging view of the enterprise as a whole. Thed 'table view' is what Ross and Weill call the 'Core Diagram'.
ReplyDelete