Talk:Business architecture

quotes not attributed

The first statement in this article is enclosed in quotes, yet no reference to the source is given. I am not certain that the definition provided is considered a standard or even common understanding of the term 'business architecture' so I'd love to know where it came from. --Nickmalik (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I and many others have a problem with this definition. My group at the OMG (the Business Architecture Working Group) is about to publish our formal definition of Business Architecture (we have a draft one online now but it has issues as well). At that point I have committed to our group that I would update the definition here and provide a citation to the BAWG site. We are also planning on developing an overview of what Business Architecture is which I would like to contribute once it is complete. My concern with much of the existing material here is that it is still very IT-centric which is contrary to the stake in the ground that our organization and member practitioner organizations are trying to establish.

nmc (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition updated to correspond to OMG BAWG definition and citation provided.

nmc (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is TOGAF in here?

There is an entire topic on EA frameworks. The section on TOGAF can be largely removed or moved to that page. There are no claims that TOGAF specifically adds to the understanding of business architecture. A smaller paragraph that indicates that business architecture is a recognized part of architectural frameworks, including Zachman and TOGAF, would be sufficient. Otherwise, this section is off topic. --Nickmalik (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As there appears to be no objection, I will radically reduce the section on business architecture that references TOGAF. --Nickmalik (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As a point of information.... The Open Group is working on the next major update of TOGAF (version 9) which should make some major strides in positioning it as more than a technology-centric approach. The OMG and The Open Group have had initial discussions to coordinate their respective efforts in the Business Architecture space. I would love to have someone from the TOGAF community take ownership of the TOGAF section to make it relevant to their efforts in this area. I hope to do the same for the OMG's efforts.

nmc (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring

The restructuring of the article improves it. Kudos to N McWhorter (assuming this is Neil McWhorter, a well known enterprise architect). Question: does SOMF belong in this list?--Nickmalik (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the restructuring seems to be acceptable and yes... you have the right NMcWhorter. I personally don't think SOMF belongs here either but I wasn't ready to perform that kind of surgery yet.

nmc (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to. --Nickmalik (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should FEA be included

Given the fact that the Federal Enterprise Architecture framework covers the metrics and services aspects of business architecture (but doesn't cover business process), it could be debated that FEA is, at least partially, a Business Architecture framework. Should the FEA be mentioned in the section on Frameworks, alongside eTOM/NGOSS?--Nickmalik (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think FEA should be included although it is important to discuss that FEA is a bit of an odd animal for two major reasons. First, because FEA focuses on the government sector which behaves a bit different than either commercial or not-for-profit organizations do. second, FEA is primarily focused on being an enabler for technology implementations which is one use of Business Architecture but is not the core motivation. nmc (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction and Definition

The view that Business Architecture is a part of Enterprise Architecture is only one view of the world. This viewpoint has been actively attacked as foreign to the core constituency of Business Architecture whose practitioners seem to predominately take the view that EA is an IT-centric terminology that has nebulous meaning in the marketplace. Because of this it isn't appropriate to assert this viewpoint in the introduction. nmc (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing how the main "Enterprise Architecture" page handles this I think we should consider following more closely its approach of discussing that there are multiple meanings and then citing the OMG BAWG meaning as a formal definition in the same way that the EA section cites the MIT CISR definition. nmc (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Core to the business architecture definition is the concept of business capabilities and how these map to the business vision and strategic goals. This focuses the conversation on the business level rather than IT implementation. Hopefully someone can come up with a definition with this focus in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.85.100 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions to remove the MoreCitations tag

The second and third sections of the article have no citations to any published works. While I believe that the content is correct, and quite well put together, to meet the standards of wikipedia requires citations from published works. In each section, each statement of fact needs to be based on a notable set of material.

I'll be happy to remove the tags if we can bring up the citations. --Nickmalik (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Business Architecture and Business Strategy Discussion

This section opens up with 'Business Architecture is directly based on business strategy' this statement is not true. Business architecture shows the impact of strategic decisions as well as the impacts of decisions that were not based on a strategic directions. This section also seems to imply that strategy is part of the business architecture, which many would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsuddreth (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The link to a "Business Capability Architecture" is from a completely unreliable source. Posting on an open wiki of OMG BAWG does not create validity. If OMG or another respected industry source were to adopt that model then it would be worthy of being noted Otherwise serves no purpose other than to advertise for a business architecture society98.215.93.163 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the reference in brackets, "(figure 1: Strategy embedding)" towards the end of the first paragraph in this section ? It appears to be a reference to a figure which isn't there... Eliot Flack-Hill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing to remove the Business Strategy section. It is full of statements that are not referenced anywhere. While I agree with most of them, and potentially could find some references in BIZBOK or elsewhere, this section makes the overall article UNBALANCED. Nickmalik provided short description of the views of the organization in the preceding paragraph. In my opinion they are sufficient for this page. The choice is to either provide elaborate description for all of the views here or remove the Business Strategy section. I will remove it unless I hear strong opposition combined with authoritative references. Voywiki (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the section would be better explained and references, and there seem to be interesting sources ([1]), for example Winter and Fischer (2006). It would be nice to have some references to academic works, which seem to miss right now. -- Mdd (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The concern is not that the section is bad. It is unsourced but we can find sources. The concern is that it is unbalanced. We are explaining one of the multiple viewpoints of BA, but we are NOT explaining any of the other viewpoints. On that basis, unless we are willing to expand the article dramatically, we should cut this section out. Nickmalik (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The section is no longer unreferences. This section originates from the first version of this article, see (here), which was written by Gerrit Versteeg and was based on his article: G Versteeg & H. Bouwman. "Business Architecture: A new paradigm to relate business strategy to ICT." Information Systems Frontiers 8 (2006) pp. 91-102. Now I restored the initial text and added the one reference. -- Mdd (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nickmalik. As to the argument, that the section is unbalanced. It appears to be a referenced opinion of two authors, earlier published in a 2006 article published in a Springer magazine. The article is cited 96 times, which makes it a quote notable according to Wikipedia standards.

Now we have had this discussion before, that the whole idea of of Wikipedia is, to build articles build on data from reliable sources. The Versteeg & Bouwman is such a source. For example the Michael Poulin, Architects Know What Managers Don't: Business Architecture for Dynamic Market source, which has been put prominent in the overview section is not. And the same story with the Business Architecture Guild, A Guide to the Business Architecture Body of Knowledge™source.

I like to repeat, that it would be nice to have some references to academic works, which (still) seem to miss right now. -- Mdd (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mdd, what are your thoughts on our concern about "unbalanced" article. It seems that unless we significantly elaborate on all five views, we are unfairly highlighting this aspect of Business Architecture Voywiki (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the unbalance in the current article start in the overview section by mentioning the Object Management Group and Business Architecture Guild as the two notable (or the least the only worth mentioning) authorities in the field. The section further doesn't explain where the term originates from, and that there is an active discussion over a decade in academia and practice. The article doesn't mention the most notable or cited articles and or authors in the field. When it come to presenting the different views on an organization, also only one view is presented. Then the Versteeg & Bouwman quotes are only partly on topic and partly more general... Then the listing of approaches is a listing which can be found in half a dozen other articles. Every section is in a way unbalanced. Should we removed them all? -- Mdd (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mdd "...The article doesn't mention the most notable or cited articles and or authors in the field..." Please, feel free to include them. Voywiki (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mdd -- We may be talking about different things. Which makes it possible to both agree and disagree.

Agree - every section has room for improvement. While I don't think that it is wrong to cite two authors and not others, as there will always be a finite number of citations, I agree that two perspectives may not be sufficient if there is a notable perspective from another author that is useful and interesting for an encyclopedia article.

Disagree - looking at the article as a whole, we introduce the possibility that business architecture has five views, and then we explain only one view, ignoring the other four.

My suggestion, going forward, is that we add four more sections to the Business Architecture article to achieve the balance we are looking for. The four additional sections will cover the other four views of an enterprise. They are BUSINESS CAPABILITIES, VALUE STREAM, BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE, and ORGANIZATIONAL. We will need citable sources for each one. Realize that the Value Stream section will need to be carefully balanced with the article on Business Process Management. Similarly the Business Knowledge section will need to be carefully balanced with the Wikipedia article on knowledge management, as well the Organizational view will need to refer to Organizational charts.

Would be willing to assist in inserting these four missing sections? Nickmalik (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Undone edits by User:Johankok

I have undone the last five edits by User:Johankok, because.

1. His edits were unreferenced
2. It seemed like original research
3. It added a source to a publication by a J Kok, which I can't find on Google
   1. Kok, J (2008). "Business Architecture: A business venture start up view".

His edits deleted a just Wikified article, with several links. It seems to me he only rephrased the intro, using his own works, with the result that it doesn't link to any other wikipedia article any more. That is not my idea of progress.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

NIH IT Model

I have undone the NIH IT Model edits , because.

1. It says even in the title that it is an IT model. This is business architecture and not enterprise or IT architecture. Using an IT model to show relationships in this space is completely incorrect.
2. Using a model by NIH as a source on this site is also not valid. It is a perspective by an organization that is NOT considered an authoritative source on business architecture.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.72 (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaning, but this doesn't mean you can immediately removed the image. Removal of content is only allowed if some concensus is reached about it in a discussion on the talk page.

Now both arguments don't make much sense to me.

1. The model is clearly an enterprise architectural framework.
2. Wikipedia almost never get illustrated by recent, what you call "authoritative source", because all that work is copyrighted. It is completely natural to illustrated an article here, to illustrated an article with work from a US governement agency. That happens all the time.

But maybe more important. There is something definitly wrong with this article. After the first version have been rewritten 100+ times it hasn't really improved. This article still doesn't explain, that the term "Business architecture" has (at least) two meaning:

1. an alternative term for enterprise architecture
2. a part of the enterprise architecture.

The first image illustrates the second meaning of the term. Maybe we should rethink the content of this article, and rewrite the whole article about this second meaning. But maybe not.

Anyway I started collecting some more illustrations on Business architecture, see here. We could consider moving the first image into the article, and add an other image on top. One way or an other, the problem with this article is must bigger, then just the first image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said here Marcel. Somewhere along the 100+ versions, we have completely losty the definition of business architecture. To follow up on a statement of your's, you point out that you just can't remove images, you just can't add them as well. I read no discussion about adding the image before it was added. One of the objects of groups such as OMG's Business Architecture working group (BAWG), the Business Architecture Community and Business Architecture Institute is to try to create clarity between Business Architecture and Enterprise Architecture and show that Business Architecture is not something originated by IT or an IT framework, but the relationship Business Architecture has. Gsuddreth (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I already proposed to add an other first image, and move this image into the article (and add a chapter explaining the second meaning of business architecture).

But the bottumline is that the current NIH IT Model is an EA Model illustrating "Business architecture as part of the enterprise architecture". There are similar image, for example [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] to name a few.

When it is so clear the image illustrates the subject, there have to be given very solid arguments to remove this image anyway. It is of course not a matter that I can't. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For the two defintions you mention, in the first Business Architecture is not being used as an alternate term/definition for EA. It is being used as a something that is distinctly different from enterprise architecture, but has a strong relationship. I do agree that the second definition/perspective exists as well. There is an excellent discussion on this topic here [7]

I see you used an image Tom Graves posted on his blog site. The following blog entry accompanies the picture: "By contrast, the image above is from their ‘Snapshot on Business Architecture‘ white-paper, which shows they’ve at last realised that ‘business engineering’ (for which read ‘human-based processes’) need to be addressed separately yet in parallel with the IT-based processes. From my view, this is still a long way from complete - it needs the machine-based dimension as well, and a lot more clarity than just dumping everything below architecture into ‘Physical World’. But the fact that this does cover a broader scope than just IT is an important step"

I fully support restructuring the article to include to account for the various perspectives that currently exist in the industry as well as the various framework pictures that exist, until a more definitive definition and framework emerges. Gsuddreth (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. There is a difference between those terms, as there is between business and enterprise. Could you name the group at linkedin the discussion was in, then I can take a look. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if the first comment here was yours, but I would like to know which sources classify as "authoritative source on business architecture".

The group is Business Architecture Community. There are many discussions on the topic of business architecture in this group. Gsuddreth (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Partly this is an issue around there being no single diagram that can adequately cover this, primarily because there are several frameworks that cover this. I would agree that you cannot adequately define business architecture, without referencing other aspects of an enterprise's scheme of organisation - i.e. with strategy (incl. goals & objectives) at the top - then business architecture - then architectures relating a number of other disciplines that roll out from the business architecture and that enable the business architecture. This suggests something along a pyramid line (I'll source an image for this). After that, it may be useful to illustrate some of the standard framework constructs, like Zachman, POLDAT, and Business Motivation Model. I would humbly profer the view that the way that the health service views business architecture should not be put in a position where it might appear to be a standard model, even though it is a useful contruct and does summarise the key elements. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1989 NIST Enterprise Architecture Model.

NIST Enterprise Architecture Model

I agree we should find a better first image in combination with with improving the article, and maybe even more important, giving some good definitions. After reading some of the initial discussions on the linkedin Business Architecture Community from half a year ago, I am not so sure anymore Business Architecture is an alternative term for enterprise architecture, to capture the whole. It seems Business Architecture is still beeing described as subset of Enterprise Architecture.

Now I am also not so sure the Zachman Framework of Zachman framework or Business Motivation Model could be an alternative here. I did realize business architecture as subset of enterprise archicture is first defined in the 1989 NIST Enterprise Architecture Model, see image. This is a standard model as well used very often in the 1990s to develop the first US federal enterprise architectural frameworks.

Maybe this image can be an alternative. I does off course needs a better caption to explain. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the basis that this shows business architecture in a framework with everything else, and dates from the 1980's, I would support this being the first schematic shown. By way of explanation:

Business Motivation Model.

• Business Motivation Model is an alternative way of looking at business architecture, from a purely business perspective with no hint of IS whatsoever.
• The Zachman framework (for enterprise architecture) was meant to further highlight that business architecture is part of the enterprise architecture.

Greyskinnedboy (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You ask for a fact? The NIST Enterprise Architecture Model article contains some solid references. These source confirm that: Elizabeth N. Fong and Alan H. Goldfine (1989) Information Management Directions: The Integration Challenge. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 500-167, September 1989. is the originial source. Unfortunatly this source isn't online available.

Now I don't understand your proposal. Do you disagree, the NIST model being shown? And do you want to show an image of the Business Motivation Model or an image of the Zachman framework to be show as first image? Please explain? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I said "on the basis that this ... dates from the 1980's, I would support this being the first schematic shown". You have supported the date, so logic follows that I support using this as the initial diagram. Sorry if that was unclear. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't understand what you meant with the word "this". The first time I wrote it I supposed you meant the image beeing shown. But you have explained. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure either of those do a better job than the NIH model, the BMM probably does a worse job then any of the 3. I recommend that we do not have a picture in the opening defintion section, but a section that shows various models and their possible relationship to business architecture.Gsuddreth (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be an image on top of all articles, because it has a double function of an illustration and a reminder. There more articles about EA and BA etc, the more difficulty for the outsider ( and even me) it becomes to learn about and remember the differences. These first images really help.

These first images are always a compromis, in fact the whole article is a compromis Between what to tell the audience, so that the real specialists don't feel to embarressed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an image, and that the NIST is the schematic easiest to understand that shows business architecture in relation to other architectures. The only downside of it is that it doesn't show all the other components we expect to see in an enterprise architecture today, viz. business, information, application, technology, and security. But the NIST is probably the best to show business architecture in context. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the BMM doing the worst job? So far, the BMM is the only schematic model suggested that shows inside business architecture (i.e. lifts the lid on it, rather than showing it stacked with other architectures). On that basis, it cannot really be compared to NIH, NIST, or Zachman. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. We keep a first image on top. I'm not ready to make a choice right now. I like to consider other options first. For example I found a section of the 1997 DOE Enterprise Architecture,

This image seems to give an inside view into a specific business architecture. What do you think? One other thing keeps bothering me. This discussion started with the remark that the current NIH model doesn't came from an authoritative source on business architecture. I wonder if such an authoritative source even exits? And if there even exits authoritative images of business architecture. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantastiche! It's great, although suffering from scanning and photocopying (by the looks of it). I'd be more than happy to create a derivative of it, and post to Commons as a more up-to-date version of the same image - or as a new image linking back to it (not sure how that all works yet, as I've only posted initial images). Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
  DOE Departemental Enterprise Vision
• 
  DOE Information Architecture Conceptual Model

Did you allready realize this image is part of a larger image, called the "DOE Departemental Enterprise Vision". That image is a visualization of the "DOE Information Architecture Conceptual Model", which it selve is based on the Zachman Framework.

I am starting to realize, that an other interesting thing here is, that we are reconstructing part of the history of the visualization of business architecture. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In the Dutch language it is "fantastisch". "Fantastiche" seem to be italian... my favourite country.

P.S.S. If you want I photoshop/coreldraw the image myself (as I did with teh NIST image), just readding the text in an other colour. This is a simple step, and will give the image some more modern look.

Perhaps we should explore this (the histroy) a little further, then try to incorporate it into the page itself. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marketing and Branding architecture? and CAEAP references

I am editing the page to remove the unattributed reference to marketing and branding architecture. While there is possible a relationship between business architecture and the concept of branding architecture, it would not be recognized as a formal relationship by any business architecture models that I've seen, and no citation is provided to demonstrate that this is not original research. Also, removing references to CAEAP which has not established the level of notability required to meet Wikipedia standards. (I am a member of CAEAP but I do not believe it has met the notability requirements). Nickmalik (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

While editing out the CAEAP reference, I noticed references to two more very young attempts at creating professional associations for business architecture. While both efforts are worthy of encouragement, Wikipedia is not a medium for advertisement. Neither of the associations meet the criteria for notability, and neither of their sites offer content that should be referenced by a Wikipedia reader. (One has a single chapter and boasts 300 members. The other has no chapters and names five members, at least one of which is a member of the Business Architecture Working Group of the OMG.) It is clear that the only notable organizations, at this point, are the public standards bodies that have published standards that apply to business architecture. When one or both of these organizations reach the level of notability required by Wikipedia, they can be added back in. Nickmalik (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

CAEAP is an advocacy organization which does not have membership in the traditional sense. It relies on volunteers. The CAEAP footprint is, like most advocacy groups, much larger than similar sized organizations and includes working with many of the CIO groups in the Federal and State level organizations, a number of prominant universities, with the DOD and Federal Chief Architects council, and the Open Group. At this point CAEAP has not made any public statements relative to business architecture. They have talked with the leadership of the IASA, OMG, BAA and DAMA to understand how the plethora of archtecture groups effect the public. CAEAP is concerned that the schism within the business architects associations has had a detrimental effect on the public perception of enterprise and business architecture. It has confused the public rather than offered any unifying vision. The Wikipedia definition here does not dispel this confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoetsh9 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• To the anonymous responder: I accept the facts that present about the CAEAP. That is interesting, but does that make the CAEAP authoritative? Are their deliverables up to sufficient quality, independence, and notability to be appropriate for a link directly from the business architecture page? I removed a link to a CAEAP document and this section was to establish why I did that. If you feel that the link should be put back, please let me know your thinking. Nickmalik (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

adding of editorial and original content

In the last few days, substantial edits took place. Most were acceptable. However, there were a number of edits that are outside Wikipedia guidelines which I reverted. a) The definition of business architecture is cited from a source. Reverted an edit that changed the definition away from what the source cited it to be. b) the list of views comes from the source listed. Editorial content had been placed in the middle of the list challenging some of the views as "not being part of business architecture." That is interesting, but not from a cited source, and therefore it is original research. Removed c) Removed editorial content in the later section on XML d) removed the citatation of CAEAP (same reason as cited in prior discussion post... not notable).Nickmalik (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Six Views of Business Architecture

The OMG framework described on this page is out of date. As of today's date, the version on the OMG website involves five viewpoints, which it calls views. "The key views of the enterprise within the business architecture are: 1) the Business Strategy view, 2) the Business Capabilities view, 3) the Value Stream view, 4) the Business Knowledge view, and 5) the Organizational view." In my opinion, for what it's worth, the main omission from this framework is the Cybernetic View, which covers feedback loops and governance. I have discussed this at length on my blog. RichardVeryard (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

updated list of views from source

Richard Veryard noted that the list of views may have been out of date and a recent series of changes modified the material away from the referenced source. So I reacquired the source material from the OMG and re-asserted it into the section listing the views of business architecture. Nickmalik (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

removed SOMF

This section refers to modeling framework. This reference would be more appropriate to associate with the software development topic, rather than with business architecture. Voywiki (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Business architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107140443/http://www.businessarchitectsassociation.org/resources/Documents/Business_Architecture-An_Emerging_Profession_Edition_4-28-09.pdf to http://www.businessarchitectsassociation.org/resources/Documents/Business_Architecture-An_Emerging_Profession_Edition_4-28-09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130051908/http://www.soa-consortium.org/EA2010_Business_Architecture.pdf to http://www.soa-consortium.org/EA2010_Business_Architecture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)