I was at a meeting yesterday where someone asked the big question - what do you mean by Enterprise Architecture?
I think there are always two clarifications that need to be made here:
If I am working with a client, my definition of Enterprise Architecture is less important than what they think it means. Rule 1: start with the clients definition of Enterprise Architecture. It may be the same as my definition (or not). I may learn something from their definition, and they might learn something from mine.
The “enterprise” bit says something about scope; the “architecture” bit is more to do with the philosophy of how you approach complex issues related to the use information and IT in an organizational context. Rule 2: focus on the importance of using an architectural approach. Don’t get hung up or bogged down with definitions. When people work together they get to know and appreciate differences of opinion. And guess what - we learn from each other, and our definitions adapt and become stronger, more meaningful and more useful.
I’m reminded of a great post from James McGovern. He said he thought of a good architect “as someone who really understands the systems they oversee - not just the classes and the collaborations but the real ’soul’ of the system. … Real architects are not those who go forth and evangelize methodologies or management by magazine, but are stewards of the enterprise. The key thing to understand about architects is that they also seek to belong to a group of highly skilled talented individuals in which they can prosper. The ideal architecture team is led by the senior most architect (in terms of competencies, not years of service) and other architects brought together from across many different business lines…”
I like the idea that “real” architects, and therefore “real” enterprise architecture, has collaborative soul. Soul is so hard to define - it is a passion, a sense, an intuition, a feeling.
Roger Evernden