Talk:Enterprise architecture

Definitions of Enterprise

I am of two minds here. Business enterprise was formally defined I 1904 by Thorstein Veblen in his work Business Enterprise. Although it takes a chapter to do so Veblen viewed the enterprise as a way of talking about companies that operated with the same efficiency as machines with continual reinvestment (capital planning). Alfred Chandler in 1990 verified that modern enterprise was a superior form of doing business than old enterprises (which was left undefined). Chandler defined the modern enterprise by a focus on administration (which he felt was the reason for professional management) and the economies of scale and scope. Although Coase starting with his Nobel Prize winning work in 1937 proved that there was a gap between this efficient running of a business and the actual running of the firm that is not predicted in any model of corporations and companies. He is often thought to be the inheritor to Veblen in the sense that this alternative theory is part of institutional economics, which well-known Nobel Prize winning economists like Herbert Simon, Williamson and Coase contributed heavily to. In 2007 Douglas North, another Nobel Prize winner, confirmed this discrepancy, formally called transaction theory, using the US GDP coming up with a 45% or $7.5 trillion difference.

The first thought is that this doesn't really discount the definition used here. My other thought is that the current definition can theoretically extend the scope of enterprise architecture beyond the skills and capabilities that any one person could provide no matter how well educated. Professionally there is also the concern that to take accountability for such a large space can potentially open up professionals to future liability that they cannot protect themselves against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilearchitecting (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the definition does "extend the scope of enterprise architecture beyond the skills and capabilities that any one person" could possess. Just like any other professional/academic discipline - knowing everything about every little aspect of the discipline is not a practical proposition for any single person - however many years they have been actively studying the subject. This emphasises that the discipline is a "team sport" - a practice that needs to be undertaken in the context of an enterprise by a collection of suitably knowledgeable persons - not an individual, but a small team at the apex of organisational systems for managing change.

The expectation that any single person could either know it all, or could take on sole responsibility (accountability) is misguided. The analogy with building architecture is valid here - you do not expect a building architect to know all the details of electrical wiring, data-comms, plumbing, air-conditioning, light etc. - you expect them to know enough to take them into account when designing the building and to ve professional enough to consult the experts when necessary.

Tying the definition to the thinking in economics (and management) is a good idea - but it should not be limited to the thinking of Ronald Coase. It should be tied into thinking about the nature of the "firm" - and the ecosystem of firms in industries and markets - but generalised to include public sector and third-sector organisations/enterprises - including alliances and conglomerates. The thinking of Edith Penrose and Ricardo spring to mind. Ian Glossop (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitions of Architecture

I would delete the reference to ISO 42010. It's description is only related to software architecture documentation. Bass and Clements, formally of SEI, in their Book Software Architecture in Practice provide a specific reason for this citing 42010. Taylor and Medvidovic, in their work Software Architecture, Theory and Practice have a whole chapter comparing software architecture with the concept of architecture from Vitruvuis. It is clear from that discussion that there is much more than listed by ISO 42010 and they also reference 42010 as an interesting alternative definition. If the leaders in software architecture see problems with this definition I don't see enterprise architecture using this definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilearchitecting (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

--I don't think this reference is used to provide a definition for enterprise architecture. It is only used to clarify the term Architecture itself and to provide the generic definition for the term Architecture Description. I don't think those definitions are incompatible with how they apply to enterprise architecture. I would agree with you if we were trying to use 42010 as a definition for Enterprise Archtiecture, but I don't think this is the case here. Voywiki (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

EA & Architecture / protection of title

Surprised to see no mention of the fact that the title "architect" is regulated in many juristictions around the world (i.e. restricted to accredited designers of buildings) , and that using the title "enterprise architect" is e.g. a technical breach of the UK Architects Act 1997. "solutions architect" has the same problem. 213.205.230.58 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the UK Architects Act, Section 20, subsection (2) specifically allows the term architect in three named cases that are unrelated to building trades. The UK courts have upheld this to mean that the term can be used outside of the building trades with no restrictions as long as there is no confusion in the mind of the public. Nickmalik (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Brewing edit war dealing with non-notable source

One unnamed editor has repeatedly added a definition of EA from a non-notable source: a blog site called "CIOIndex". The site does not meet any standards for notability, and the source of the definition on that site is from an unsigned article with no date and no reference to its sources. It is pure opinion. If that editor would like to return this definition to the EA page, they need to discuss it here. I will request a lock on this page if this silliness continues.

In addition, however, the very well respected EA expert Graham Berrisford has added an unsourced opinion that EA applies only to technology and not social systems change, an opinion that is directly contradicted with well respected and notable sources. The elements of his comment that are salient (that EA includes technology elements) is already included in the other definitions and in the summary to the definition section (last sentence). While I have great respect for Mr. Berrisford and would love to have a discussion with him on the topic, I cannot in good conscience leave that small addition in the article.

Also, for some reason, the EARF definition returned. I have deleted it again. The organization is defunct and not sufficiently notable to maintain the definition (see previous section on the talk page). Nickmalik (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC) REVISED Nickmalik (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A portion of this discussion is taking place on my personal talk page. For reference, see User_talk:Nickmalik#on_Notability_of_EA_definitions Nickmalik (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The ip has been blocked. It's not a reliable source, and has been spammed here prior to this latest ip, which is a likely sockpuppet of the previous editors and ips that added it. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz for your adequate response in this matter. The ip-address was blocked for 1 day, and is advised to comment here on the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph and emerging industry consensus

An analysis paper has been published by the Federation of EA Professional organizations, which brings together a description of Enterprise Architecture from existing practices and describes the field in layman's terms. While it takes the format of a magazine article in a neutral impartial publication (Architecture and Governance Magazine), this paper is unique in that it was vetted and ratified by 17 international organizations whose members include a wide array of Enterprise Architecture practitioners world wide. As that description is the first cross-group consensus describing EA, I submit that it is no longer valid to state that the term is disputed. The term "Enterprise Architecture" has many meanings depending on the perspective that you take (that remains true, and is, in fact, common of thousands of terms in the English language), there is less dispute in the practice of Enterprise Architecture than there is in the practices of law, medicine, or many of the sciences.

Given this new fact, I have copied (and directly cited) this description as a replacement for the prior disputed term opening sentence for this article. Please discuss if you disagree. Nickmalik (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi first of all if you directly cited a source you should always use quotation marks, which are just added. Second, using one single quote for the whole lead of a Wikipedia article is just not a good idea. The lead should not only define the field but also summarize, what is in the article. Especially the lead of an article should remain open for new input. This is the reason why practically all Wikipedia articles start with an own developed description. That particular phrase can be used to construct a new lead, or improve the existing lead, but not replace it. -- Mdd (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedia articles start with an own description (anymore). I just noticed the current Wikipedia article on Research also starts with a quote. This quote was (partly) added there 1.5 years ago (see here), corrected with quotation-marks 6 months ago (see here) and corrected last week (see here). -- Mdd (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

New Section on academic treatment of EA

I've added a section on Education, not as a form of advocacy, but as a mechanism for describing the emergence of new degrees in Enterprise Architecture. The section is organized by "type of program" instead of a chronological treatment (which I believe would add very little value to the discussion). If you feel that the section should be organized in a different manner, please let me know. The previous "list" format was deleted by an editor as a Link Farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 07:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The section on academic programs was deleted by Ronz as a linkfarm in the form of prose. This is unfortunate, as there are numerous other pages in Wikipedia that list an array of universities that offers information about a field, including the pages on Science fiction studies, performance studies, Masters of Business Administration (from a historical perspective), Jewish studies (which compares different programs at various universities), women's studies, ethnomusicology, and public policy. Each of these pages takes a slightly different approach to providing this information. However, in each case, the reader is learning about a field that is so narrow that very few universities have programs in that field. Therefore, providing information about the various programs in a comparative format is useful.

If the concern is that the links are all reference links, and not internal Wikipedia links, that is easily fixed. If that is the suggested remedy, please let me know. Nickmalik (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The suggested content itself follows. (This provides a place to make the changes needed so that this material may actually be added to the article.

As a relatively new field, most colleges and universities do not yet offer courses in Enterprise Architecture. As Gartner described in 2012, there is a shortage of well qualified Enterprise Architects, yet only a handful of universities offer full degree programs in Enterprise Architecture. This short list includes Pennsylvania State University in the United States, the University of Antwerp in Belgium, the University of East London in the UK, and both Griffith University and RMIT in Australia. Each of these programs have taken different approaches to their EA curricula, so students interested in a degree in EA should research each program carefully to find a program that matches their goals and aspirations.

Instead of a full degree in Enterprise Architecture, two universities have chosen to offer a master's degrees in Technology with a focus on Enterprise Architecture. Both of these universities have chosen to kick-start their EA curriculum through partnership with a professional training company.

• Kent State University bases their curriculum on the Zachman Framework through the materials created by a training company called EACOE.
• National University (California) bases their curriculum on the US Government's DODAF Framework and Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) through a partnership with the FEAC Institute.

Professionals looking to improve their skills in this new field, without the overhead of taking a full degree, can opt for certificate programs. Nearly every university that offers a degree in EA also offers a certificate program for professionals. In addition to the universities above, some institutions offer certificates only. Notable in this group is a certificate program from California State University that is tailored to US Federal Government Enterprise Architecture practices. Stevens Institute of Technology (USA) and the University of Toronto (Canada) both offer more general certificate programs in Enterprise Architecture.

A small handful of universities are offering individual courses in Enterprise Architecture, including the University of Chicago, the University of Denver, and the University of South Australia. Commercial training companies also offer courses for professionals, usually framed around a single framework or methodology.

The development of common curricula for degrees in Enterprise Architecture is a just beginning. A description of a single course in EA was included in the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and Association for Information Systems (AIS)’s Curriculum for Information Systems as one of the 6 core courses.

In order for a field of study to mature, rigorous academic research must be conducted, peer reviewed, and published. Academic research into Enterprise Architecture is currently being conducted at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research and at Pennsylvania State University's Center for Enterprise Architecture. Articles on Enterprise Architecture can be found in the Journal of Enterprise Architecture, published by the AEA. The most notable Enterprise Architecture research conference in the field is the International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), held annually. Proceedings from the EDOC conference are published by the IEEE.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So where are the independent sources that we need to incorporate anything of this type in any manner whatsoever? --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

every one of the references to a program in the paragraph above is meticulously cited. If you look at the parallel articles mentioned in my discussion above, you will see that referencing primary sources is used repeatedly for this type of material. You have set a standard for this page that is not being followed on other pages in Wikipedia. If you'd like, the suggested text can be rewritten to provide information ABOUT each of the programs (as is done in the article on public policy). Once again, primary sources are used in that article. Alternatively, I could write it to be historical: including the dates when specific programs started (although I am not fond of that because the chronological order of creation of these programs is not particularly interesting information). The Wikipedia article on Master of Business Administration takes that approach. Once again, using primary sources. Realize that a PREFERENCE for secondary sources is not the same as a REQUIREMENT for secondary sources. All of the sources cited are accurate and current in that they are essentially descriptions of legal purchase agreements between the university and the potential student. Nickmalik (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No independent sources then, so not worth mention as far as we know. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

While you are holding this page to a higher standard than dozens of other similar pages, including the ones I referenced above, your quality bar is not unreasonable. I have found a number of Gartner articles that describe the EA programs at both Penn State and RMIT. I'm researching the material behind the citations now to make sure I know what the research reports actually say (the Gartner site only shows the brief). That should provide the same amount of support as the section on EA tools in this article, and a greater level of sourcing than the other pages cited. Nickmalik (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope that all editors can agree that we're here to improve the quality of articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to get into a philosophical discussion, I'd rather just get to the point where the quality of this section is sufficient to keep it from being deleted the moment it is added back to the page. I have no doubt that I can reach that point. The information is correct, useful, and impartial. You've set an uncommonly high bar, but not an unreasonable one. You've also offered very little insight into where the bar is, so you are keeping me guessing. Nickmalik (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"You've set an uncommonly high bar" No. I'm simply following the relevant policies and overwhelming consensus. I don't know why anyone would be wondering what the solution is, as I've repeated it again and again: independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A key problem here becomes clear if you look at the references used:

Most of these references will be outdated next year, or so. I think there is no doubt, that a section about this topic can be include in this article, if it is based on (far) less contemporary sources. -- Mdd (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable enterprise architecture tools section

The section was added here. Any additions need to be verifiable as notable.

I've trimmed it back to the original list plus those with their own articles [1]. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree all items listed should be notable on its own. None of the items now removed seem to have (much) coverage in independent sources, such as books. -- Mdd (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Relying on the most recent Gartner and Forrester Research reports for most of the list seems questionable, but so far we've kept the spam clear. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

All of Gartner and Forester references are no longer accessible and thus contain no verifiable proof. This list needs to be updated or removed. -- Scottlawrencelawson (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

The "headline" quotations given are highly selective and do not give the reason for the criticism e.g. "90% of EA initiatives fail" (... in the companies I was brought in to look at). Have clarified some, toning down the negative sensationalism, and provided links to original article on others. MaryEFreeman (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitions

Removed one of the definitions because it was not referencing the source that seemed authoritative (private profile page). Added one from EABOK, which is more aligned with mainstream understanding of EA and is more authoritative. Having said that, I'm thinking that it may make sense to take the FEAPO definition which is currently used in the opening statement and move it to Definitions too. Voywiki (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

rewrite of relationships to other disciplines

As part of the "relationships to other disciplines" section, the following image has been in the EA article for a number of years. However, it is both dated and ugly. I pulled it out but I'm including it here in case someone feels strongly that they'd like to discuss this image: The following image from the 2006 FEA Practice Guidance of US OMB sheds light on the relationship between enterprise architecture and segment (BPR) or Solution architectures.

In addition, I replaced an unsourced paragraph with a direct reference to a source (that basically said the same thing). Lastly, I integrated in the "relationship to SOA" into a single paragraph rather than as a subsection, adding references to back up the new assertion that we should view EA as an enabler to SOA.Nickmalik (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Update needed

This page is in dire need of an update. Many of the links in the references section are broken or point to irrelevant pages. 210.54.38.12 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enterprise 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.enterprisearchitecture.info/Images/EA%20Survey/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Survey%202005%20IFEAD%20v10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016043354/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.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) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Return to international consensus definition

Last year (June of 2021) an unnamed user changed the top paragraph to refer to an article published in an open access (not peer reviewed) journal. That article states "The aim of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive explanation or a new, updated definition of EA; however, for the better understanding of this paper, Enterprise Architecture is defined as..."

In other words, the definition introduced in that paper, written by a noted independent consultant in Enterprise Architecture, is not more notable or referencable than an international standard ratified by over twenty international membership organizations including the IEEE, IIBA, DAMA, and others.

I have returned the opening paragraph to the international standard (and updated the citation which was stale). I also added two words to the prior definition to improve it's clarity Nickmalik (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it right to call Enterprise Architecture a "business function"? Compared with other business functions - developing products, selling services, managing finances etc. - EA as a function seems distinctly 'odd'. Personally, I'd rather align with the academic literature - e.g. that by Stephan Aier and Robert Winter - and identify it as a management practice or discipline: the use of models constructed according to principles to guide change in an enterprise. This is of course "Enterprise Architecture Management" - as opposed to "Enterprise Architecture" - the latter referring to the "structure and behaviour of the business" (enterprise) rather than how the evolution of that structure and behaviour is managed. But most practitioners when they refer to "Enterprise Architecture" usually mean the management practice and not the model of the business. Ian Glossop (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Long definitional quotes in lead are a bad practice

The international definition according to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations is "a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive 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."

I've seen a lot of this in my extensive travel, and usually it's associated with a lead in a bad state of repair, because quotations have a special immunity to quick and dirty editing.

Plus these definitions usually make drying paint yawn or beg for quick release from the buzzword listicle torture chamber, but maybe that's just me. — MaxEnt 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)