Talk:Enterprise architect

Sites allowed and not allowed

Ronz:

Please explain why you are leaving sites like the open group, and shared insights on this page, and do not allow others.

None of this is making sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockezachman (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 February 2008

Conflict of interest discussion

Going on at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise_architecture --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sparx Enterprise Architect disambiguation

Sparx Enterprise Architect is not a commercial link. It is part of a standard Template:Otheruses4 disambiguation to help those who went to Enterprise architect by mistake while looking for Sparx Enterprise Architect. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sparx Enterprise Architect is being considered for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparx Enterprise Architect --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession

Hi, We have a new section to add and need some help. Below is a brief description about the new section we wish to add. Can you give us some guideance so this will take hold the first time around . . . please remember this is advocacy organization like AMA.

CAEAP is an advocacy organization for the professionalism of Enterprise Architecture. The goals of the organization are to a) ensure that consistent certification standards are maintained, b) that there is a recognizable common public perception of enterprise architecture, c) common ethical standards are applied to enterprise architects, d) universities and standards organizations have a common working point to extend the field, and e) there is a common path to becoming and maturing as an enterprise architect.

In this way CAEAP is a unique advocate for the profession of enterprise architecture. CAEAP provides the roadmap leading the Enterprise Architecture profession to presenting a common face to the public, maintaining strong ethics, delivering consistent certification, and guiding the maturity of enterprise architecture. CAEAP is a benefit to all enterprise architecture organizations, enterprise architects, and the public.

Please Advise. director@caeap.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklane0913 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing "collaboration" section

It is difficult to imagine how an article that describes a job title would benefit by listing other job titles that they may collaborate with. There is no standard taxonomy of job titles! In addition, the role of an enterprise architect varies widely between organizations. Therefore, even if there were standard titles and standard roles across industry, the EA role would not necessarily interact with ANY of the listed titles in some particular instance. It is hard to see how this section adds clarity. The final paragraph of the section describes a condition of success for the practice of Enterprise Architecture, and is therefore more appropriate for inclusion in the article on Enterprise Architecture, not here.

Nickmalik (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architect

I recently restored a paragraph describing how the title "architect" is protected by law in all U.S. states and most international jurisdictions. The use of the title is restricted by statute to those who are licensed to practice architecture, i.e. the design and construction of buildings. Indeed, it is illegal for "enterprise architects" to refer to themselves as architects unless they are licensed to practice architecture; the title cannot be used by anyone, in any way, even with the "enterprise" modifier, unless that person is a licensed architect. This is precisely the equivalent of using the title "lawyer" when one is not licensed to practice law. The statements in this paragraph are relevant to the article, factual, and backed up by citations. July 3, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD24:CF80:21C:B3FF:FEB9:F5D3 (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's not directly about the topic of the article, it would probably be best as a footnote, maybe with a single sentence added introducing the topic somehow. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and changing it to a footnote here and in the other articles where it was reintroduced. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"most international jurisdictions" Howso? --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors: Please ignore any discussions, now and in the future, that attempt to describe a "restriction" on the use of the term "architect" as it applies outside the building construction industry. As American Institute of Architects makes clear, the term "architect" is ONLY limited with respect to professionals who offer services related to the building construction industry. See Use of the term Architect Nickmalik (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom - Architects Act 1997 - Restriction of title exemptions only for 'Naval Architects', 'Landscape Architects', 'Golf Course Architects', no exemptions for IT professionals, see http://arb.org.uk/Content/Index/OTkxfmM= . Would seem unwise to presume an AIA precedent applies worldwide.2.25.244.25 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]