User talk:Nickmalik

Thank You!

Thank you for your comments re speedy deletion of School-Based Family Counseling which was the page I wrote. The "essay-like" section that several editors complained of was a quote from myself! I didn't realize at the time that the quote was also in print elsewhere - so I agree with slakr re deletion. However, I can easily fix this. I noted in your posting that you and others have worked at a revision. What would you recommend as a next step. I have a copy of the article as it stood at the point of deletion. I did contact slakr re what I needed to do to make another attempt but didn't get a reply. Do I need some formal approval to proceed? Again thank you for your comments.Gerrardb (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC) B. Gerrard[reply]

User:Gerrardb I would suggest that you go to your Sandbox and recreate the page at the last point before it was deleted. Then invite the editors who had worked on it during the deletion debate to come and work on it to create an altogether original article that cites solid sources. The writing that you had originally placed on the page was fine for a scholarly article, but too complex and technical for an encyclopedia anyway. Once we have a completely distinct article, with nothing more than a sentence in common with your published work, we can resubmit the page for creation. Since the page was recently deleted, we will likely have to go through an AfC process (again) which, as you know, can take quite a bit of time. Nickmalik (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zachman framework

Hello Nickmalik. Thanks for your work on Zachman framework. It is impressive to see you persuading Ronz to remove the notability tag. I also mentioned your edits over at the COIN discussion. We have been having some trouble in that area and it is good to see some experts making headway and working cooperatively with regular editors. There is the usual paradox that those who are knowledgable in an area may be sometimes regarded as having a conflict of interest, but we do need their expertise. Your own user page makes your connection to the industry perfectly clear, so there is no possible complaint there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Architecture article

Hi Nickmalik. It has been some time since I edited the "Enterprise Architecture" article. I make no claims as to the accuracy of my edits to the article, except that I have done and will continue to try to do my best in this regard. I assume you will do the same when you make your changes. All the best and good luck. modify 19:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

The big problem I have with this article - at the moment - is that it starts out with a falsity. An Enterprise Architecture is _not_ a description of anything. The Enterprise Architecture is that thing described by the models or description an Enterprise Architecture team produces. A painting of a pipe is not a pipe. An organisation chart is not an organisation. A description of an Enterprise Architecture is not an Enterprise Architecture - albeit we use the words loosely in this fashion. See the cartoon at the start of Chapter 12 of Mintzberg's "strategy Safari".

Happy to discuss.

Regards, Ian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian,

I don't have your login name, so I cannot respond on your talk page. I responded, instead, on the talk page for the Enterprise Architecture article. (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enterprise_architecture#The_existence_of_the_Enterprise_Architecture_as_distinct_from_the_description_of_it )

You are correct in one respect: a business does not need an EA to have a structure. I would posit, and I did in that post, that the structure of a business is NOT an enterprise architecture, because it does not involve direct intent. When I was a kid, I built a clubhouse in my back yard with materials that a friend of mine and I rounded up from our parent's garages. It had walls and a roof and a floor. It had a structure, but not an architecture.

Anyway, let's discuss this on the Enterprise Architecture talk page.

Thanks for your contribution and your insight. Nickmalik (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

According to IEEE 1471-2000, an 'Environment' influences a 'System' which has an 'Architecture' that is described by an 'Architectural Description' which consists of 'Views' and aggregates 'Models'.

I see no reason to not make the distinction made in IEEE 1471 - a standard that is foundational for our practice. [Forgive the double-negative, but I consider you smart enough to cope with it.] Far too many architects conflate the 'architecture' with the 'architecture description'. The former has real operational, immediate consequences for an enterprise, the latter is always partial and incomplete. To confuse conceptual model with reality is a basic error - although all too common - that has no place in an encyclopedia (that sets out to say what EA - or an EA - actually is).

Happy if you go on to say that most practitioners rarely make the distinction. Although I've seen this distinction made in a number of places - not the least in a TOGAF training course.

One definition of "structure" is "the relationship or organization of the component parts of a work ...". Remind you of anything? "Structure" is practically synonymous with "Architecture" unless you take the view that an architecture is a conceptual model - and only that - of a structure. Which, of course, is begging the question.

Regards, Ian.

Hello Ian,

You clearly are an architect, and your point is well made. I would add one caution, however. IEEE-1471 does specify that an architectural description is distinct from an architecture. However, it does not say that an architecture is always present. Clearly, if you are going to describe an architecture (with an architectural description), then you are stating that an architecture is present. So the context of IEEE-1471 assumes the presence of an architecture, but there is no rationale for believing that an architecture is, in fact, always present.

In addition, while there is a distinction between the concept of "architecture" and "architectural description," there is no reason to believe that those two concepts must have those words. The fact that the author of that standard chose to use the word "architecture" to refer to the concept that he did is a happy accident. He could just as easily used the word "architecture" to refer to the description, and another term altogether to refer to underlying distinct structure.

One thing that I have discovered, when developing conceptual architecture among a wide array of stakeholders, is that a concept is frequently immutable, while the term that refers to it is quite fluid. Often the best that you can do is to find a "consensus term" that everyone agrees to, even if no one is happy about it, just to stop any arguments.

Part of my job is to speak on behalf of Microsoft Enterprise Architecture with customers of our platforms and tools. As you may suspect, that means that I spend a great deal of time speaking to other architects. It's fun, and I consider the interaction to one of the best perks in my job. One observation: the industry term "Enterprise Architecture" is not ever used to refer to the underlying structure of an organization. It is universally used to refer either to the business function or the architectural description of the structure.

Therefore, while IEEE-1471 uses the term in one manner, the practitioners do not. The 'standard' has not had the influence that we would all like to believe that it has. It is useful, but not influential. The information architect in me tells me to use the term that people are using. We can certainly use a different term to refer to the underlying structure of an organization, but I'm afraid that I do not agree to use the term "Enterprise Architecture" in that manner. It simply makes as much sense, to me, as trying to redefine the color of the night sky as "white."

Regards, - Nick

--Nickmalik (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zachman

Hi Nick,

Could you take a look at this discussion and give your opinion. Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on Notability of EA definitions

Nick,

Had this discussion with someone else - what is the criteria for being "notable" - when discussing an IT topic, if a community of 50,000 IT Executive(http://www.cioindex.com/members) is not notable then what is?

I am also disappointed that Wikipedia under the guise of "notability" is promoting outfits like Gartner and their viewpoint only. If this were the way of the world then we would all still think that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth because Galileo and Copernicus would not be notable enough for Wikipedia editors of the time.

With due respect, the issue in definitions is not notability but the quality of the definition - what specific issues do you have with the definition; Gartner's or CIOIndexes?

Please elaborate on your criteria for "notable" so we all understand.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.26.180 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I do not know who I am speaking with. From now on, I would appreciate it if you would create an account on Wikipedia and log in prior to making any changes. I would also appreciate it if you would sign your submissions on a talk page (including this one) by inserting four tilde marks in a row. That way, I know the name and identity of the person I am speaking with. It is simple courtesy.

Secondly, the definition cites a definition on the CIOIndex site. That article was not peer reviewed. It was not edited by a notable editor. It was not reviewed by an editorial board. It does not represent the opinion of anyone other than the author. That site is effectively a blog. The definition easily fits within the definition of "Original Research." This is precisely the same reason that the definitions of EA from the EACOE, FEAC Institute, Architecting-The-Enterprise and Avancier were not included either. The author of that article appears to have a vested interest in the definition. (The CIOIndex site sell courses for $495 per student in Enterprise Architecture from the same author).

Unnamed editor: Your opinions are quite possibly well founded in practice. You may be an accomplished practitioner of EA. Perhaps you believe that your expertise alone is sufficient. Here's some food for thought. I am an expert as well, yet MY DEFINITION IS NOT ON THAT PAGE EITHER. Why? Because even though I can make a case for being notable in Enterprise Architecture, the locations where I have published a definition are no more notable than the glorified blog site called CIOIndex. I have no more right than you to appear.

You ask about the merits of the definition. It doesn't matter if it is the most accurate and best constructed definition on Earth. It cannot appear in Wikipedia unless and until it meets the Wikipedia policy on No Original Research, which the cited definition does not meet. For more information, visit Wikipedia:No_original_research.

I did not create the policy. The founders and board of the Wikimedia foundation did. Do not argue with me as though I have the right to waive it. I do not. The addition cannot stand unless and until the source is published in a well respected impartial publication.

As far as "outfits like Gartner" I have no desire to promote a private company. However, they are an impartial company in that they do not earn revenues on the notability of their definition of Enterprise Architecture, yet they risk a great deal of credibility if that definition is found lacking. That said, I have every intention of replacing that definition now that a better source has finally been published (a white paper from the Federation of EA Professional Organizations, endorsed by 17 different membership organizations from around the world). You can stop cursing the lack of consensus now... consensus has been reached. (see [link] )

As for Galileo and Copernicus being notable, they certainly were. Galileo had a number of books published (rather painstakingly). He was NOT self published like your article is. The book in which he discussed the motion of the planets was the result of years of effort and collaboration with other notable scientists of the time. He literally risked his life to publish it and was imprisoned for doing so. Copernicus also had writings published by impartial editors (who risked death simply to publish it) and his work was similarly peer reviewed.

As you have reinstated your errant definition, I will delete it again. This is the last time. If you reinstate it again, I will declare an edit war, request a lock on the page, and begin mediation... a process that I have great confidence in. For more information see Wikipedia:Mediation.

Unsigned author, I ask you, for the last time, to cease and desist in your attempts to insert your unsigned, personal, unverifiable, unpublished opinion into Wikipedia.

Nickmalik (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC) REVISED 18 Nov to remove any implication that the author of the definition on CIOIndex is the unsigned author.[reply]

You don't let facts get in the way of a bad edit, now do you?

A definition on CIO Index is selling architecture courses - is there a link to any courses on the page? - and a definition on Gartner is done for altruistic reasons?

Definitions on CIO Index have to be peer reviewed - but Gartner definitions do not because they are by definition peer reviewed? Or do you have any evidence of any peer review being done for the Gartner definition? Do you have any evidence of anyone other than the anonymous author of that definition ever having looked at it within the firm leave alone approving it? Perhaps, your work at Microsoft is reviewed by all the employees to maintain the reputation of Microsoft?

But we stand here in awe NOW that you will look at it - check it for grammar and punctuation perhaps?

CIO Index is a "glorified blog" - thankfully, there is glory in there somewhere - and Gartner is? More importantly, you are? (you could create something but choose not to :-))

The edit is back on, Nick. Do what every glorified paper pushing nobody in your position is compelled to do - convene a meeting of other paper pushing nobodies and use this opportunity to show the world that you count. So, I am going to provide you an opportunity to amount to something - at least this once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.26.180 (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick,

Does Gartner do reports where Microsoft products are discussed/mentioned/rated? Does that help sell Microsoft products/services? What is a guy from Microsoft doing shilling for Gartner on Wikipedia?

Please provide a clear - and grammatically correct - explanation for why you made the assumptions about the definition provided by Gartner or provide citations/sources for accepting that definition given the criteria you have laid out. Peer reviewed definition of shilling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.26.180 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unsigned Author, I was the first to undo your contribution at the Enterprise Architecture article last week, and I can explain some more about your initial questions:

About notability: Wikipedia has guideline on this, see Wikipedia:Notability, and you can find more at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
The most reliable sources in the field of EA are books and scientific articles of notable authors, published by third party sources.
At the moment the source cioindex.com on Wikipedia websites is considered non-notable, while gartner.com is used in about 400 articles, see here. By many Gardner is just considered a reliable sources.

As to Sourabh Hajela as author, he doesn't seem to have made any contribution in books [1] or scientific articles [2]. Now both made me consider your contribution as non-notable. -- Mdd (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Marcel.

To the unsigned author: I request again that you create an account on Wikipedia, and that you log in, prior to posting updates to any page, including talk pages (like this one). I prefer to speak to you personally. It is a sign of courtesy and respect.

As for Gartner, their notability is established. I refer to MDD (Marcel's) excellent post. And, yes, they heavily review those definitions through a team of expert analysts and editors. I have worked with that team and can personally testify to the quality of their output. I can hardly be a shill for them, given that I have no financial or quid-pro-quo relationship with Gartner.

As for Microsoft, the things I post on my Microsoft blog site are not peer-reviewed and are not admissible in Wikipedia, but the article I submitted to the Microsoft Architecture Journal or the Architecture and Governance Magazine would be because those sources are impartial, notable peer-reviewed sources.

With utmost respect and humility, Nick Nickmalik (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC) REVISED Nickmalik (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Erl

In the edit summary of your latest edit in the article, you stated "Added primary tag. If secondary and tertiary sources cannot be found, I will nominate for deletion" [3]. When it comes to establishing notability on Wikipedia, one of the first things you can do is look how much secondary sources possibly exist. For example checking Google Scholar will tell you:

Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design (2005), cited 2854
Soa: principles of service design (2008), cited 940
Service-oriented architecture: a field guide to integrating XML and web services (2004), cited 743
SOA design patterns, (2008), cited 309
Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design (2005), cited 176

There are possibly over 5000 secondary sources, referring to his work. Now the thing about nominating articles for deletion, if you do, you might probably even get the article deleted for the simple reason, that there are hardly any users constantly involved in writing about these fields on Wikipedia, and of these people hardly anybody participates in deletion debates. Do you really want to go down that road? -- Mdd (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I didn't nominate for deletion, but I did add the tag because the article is clearly lacking in that way. I will refrain from making the comment about "nominating" on the edit summary in the future. The article does need to be improved though. Agreed? Nickmalik (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as an additional note, references to his work are useful, but they don't provide sources for the information on the page. There are few-to-zero sources for the actual contents of the page. He may be notable, but the information is not verifiable. Nickmalik (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Frank

Hi Nick, I wonder what made you make this edit summary? According to Google Scholar his five most cited works are:

Frank, Ulrich. "Multi-perspective enterprise modeling (memo) conceptual framework and modeling languages." System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 2002.
Frank, Ulrich. Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research. No. 7. ICB-research report, 2006.
Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., ... & Sinz, E. J. (2011). Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 7-10.
Frank, Ulrich. "Conceptual modelling as the core of the information systems discipline-perspectives and epistemological challenges." AMCIS 1999 Proceedings (1999): 240.
Frank, Ulrich. "Evaluation of reference models." Reference modeling for business systems analysis (2007): 118-140.

They are cited resp. 209, 141, 130, 122 and 97 times (in total about 700 times), which makes him one of the more cited scientists in the field. -- Mdd (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the edit? I removed a link on his name to a page that doesn't exist. I did not remove him. If someone wants to create a page, they can create a link and add the page. Leaving a dead link is pretty pointless, especially when the link has been there for a long time. If you think he's notable, add a page. Nickmalik (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, There is already a German Wikiquote article, see de:Ulrich Frank (Wirtschaftsinformatiker), which I (once) planned to translate here (as a start). Now I am aware that you only removed (what is called) a red link. There is an official policy about these links, see Wikipedia:Wikilinks#Red_links, and Wikipedia:Red link. That policy states "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." and I think this is the case with Ulrich Frank. -- Mdd (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put back the red link, but realize that the last link was there for five years. The concept of will be created soon is not being respected if the link has been red for that long. Nickmalik (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about those five years, and I support your recent effort to "coordinating updates to pages dealing with Enterprise Architecture." In this context, I might be interesting to also focus on detecting more (contemporary) scientists involved in the field? Mdd (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be honored if you would join our efforts. Our little team does an international conference call every other Friday. We are currently reviewing a list of pages for references and quality and after that, we'll be making a collaborative effort to focus on a few pages at a time to improve them. In that context, when we select a page to focus on, we will be hunting for contemporary references related to that subject. While the Enterprise Modeling article is very well sourced, I suspect that many of the other pages are going to need a good bit of help.

Let me know if you'd like to join our little group and I'll extend an invitation via e-mail with some details. Nickmalik (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you can contact me on that, but I do work on the other side of the ocean. Anyway I will be happy to assist you here online. For sample you could consider moving your effort into Wikipedia:WikiProject name-space, similar to for example the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative. For a start you just move your User:Nickmalik/sandbox page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Enterprise Architecture Initiative, and you are on your way.

One reason to do so is that you open up for others (like me) to support your initiative. Another reason is, that it is more clear to the Wiki community: There are a bunch of people always checking all edits made on Wikipedia, and edits by other user in the sandbox of other users are always suspicious, and have to be checked. -- Mdd (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your subtle way of saying that you'd be slow to join unless I move the effort to a Wikiproject? I read the policies about Wikiprojects and there is some overhead involved. I was avoiding that for a group of people that is a literal handful. However, if you would be willing to help out with the overhead, I'll ask the team if they have any objections to moving the coordination page to an official Wiki Project.

I've not seen any policy that says that I cannot use my sandbox page for this kind of thing. If you know of one, please let me know. Nickmalik (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I am happy to help out with the overhead. I initiated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems (in 2007), that Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative and even suggested a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cybernetics, see here, and that is done. Now I am prepared to assist where I can, and if I participate I indeed find it important that it is identifiable as WikiProject cooperation.

Now there are two options for you: You can also start with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Enterprise Architecture, or start with an initiative which you can call Wikipedia:WikiProject Enterprise Architecture Initiative, which later on can still be moved to a "real wikiproject." What's in a name?

As to working in the so called "Wikipedia:WikiProject" name-space. This has the advantage, that you can create more sub pages, a separate archive; and also have a clear Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page, where other people can address the project. -- Mdd (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask the team. I expect they will be happy with it, but let's wait a few days for their responses. It's the weekend and many of them only gave me work e-mail addresses. That said, would my first step simply be to create a page (by clicking on one of the red links you provided, and just copy in the contents of my current coordination page? Nickmalik (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, don't start a new page, just move the existing page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Enterprise Architecture or Wikipedia:WikiProject Enterprise Architecture Initiative. (by using the move-function of the Wiki editor (in top of the page under "more" options)). Then the article history will stays intact.... because with those edits you actually already started the WikiProject cooperation. -- Mdd (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mdd Would you be willing to join a future conference call to present the case for creating a WikiProject? I'm not sure I can do a good job of describing any actual advantage over the way we are currently working. Nickmalik (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, I'd be honored to assist. Just send me the details by email. -- Mdd (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

business strategy mapping deletion.

Well, you are basically right. Do you, however, realize that this used to be an article of its own and my work was simply to merge this bit of management hype into the current article? I just thought you would be interested to know. -- Kku 10:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

user:Kku -- No, I was not aware of the merge. If the material has a source, go ahead and add it in and add sources. Nickmalik (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not that I was aware of any. let alone relevant ones. -- Kku 14:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Kku -- well, if it doesn't have any sources, then it's good riddance. This is not a normal way to do a page deletion, but weak material doesn't get stronger by adding it to another page. I personally think Wikipedia has many thousands of pages that are so weak that they should be deleted, if for no other reason than to force authors to step up and do their homework. I've no fear that, if there really is something "there" that the material will re-appear somewhere else. Nickmalik (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]