Edward Glantz's List: EA_Strategy

• System complexity
• Poor business alignment
• Today's bottom line: even more cost, even less value
• Zachman Framework
• taxonomy
• process
• Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF)
• proscriptive methodology
• Federal Enterprise Architecture
• practice
• Gartner Methodology
• unmanageably complex
• hindering the organization'
• out-of-date
• culture of distrust
• organization's commitment to making changes
• The first thing we need t
• framework i
• A structure for supporting or enclosing something else, especially a skeletal support used as the basis for something being constructed; An external work platform; a scaffold; A fundamental structure, as for a written work; A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality. [11]
• taxonomy
• The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships; The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics; Division into ordered groups or categories [
• what, how, where, who, when, and why of the project.
• six descriptive foci (data, function, network, people, time, and motivation
• five ways in which the Zachman grid
• stakeholder's perspective has been considered
• Improve the MAM-EA artifacts
• business requirements can be traced down to some technical implementation
• Zachman does not give us a step-by-step process for creating a new architecture. Zachman doesn't even give us much help in deciding if the future architecture we are creating is the best architecture possible. For that matter, Zachman doesn't even give us an approach to show a need for a future architecture. For these and other issues, we are going to need to look at other methodologies
• Business architecture
• Application
• Technical
• TOGAF overall as an architectural process
• Zachman tells you how to categorize your artifacts. TOGAF gives you a process for creating them.
• Enterprise Continuum.
• Technical Reference Model (TRM)
• Standards Information Base (SIB
• In my view, both the TRM and the SIB are flawed for the same reason: They are biased toward application portability, at the expense of application interoperability and application autonomy. I consider this an outdated view of technical architectures.
• The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)
• TOGAF allows phases to be done incompletely, skipped, combined, reordered, or reshaped
• available only since 2006
• five reference models
• process for creating
• transitional process for migrating
• cataloging assets
• measuring the success
• major line-of-business functionality
• enterprise is built of segments
• core mission-area segment
• business-services segment
• enterprise service
• enterprise service.
• business-service segments have a scope that encompasses only a single political organization. Enterprise services have a scope that encompasses the entire enterprise.
• Components Reference Model (CRM)
• Technical Reference Model (TRM)
• Data Reference Model (DRM)
• Performance Reference Model (PRM)
• FEA Success Measurement
• needs to transform not only processes, but people.
• Gartner
• Gartner practice

•   

   Architecture is a verb, not a noun.
• ongoing process of creating, maintaining, and, especially, leveraging an enterprise architecture that gives an enterprise architecture its vitality
• bringing together three constituents: business owners, information specialists, the technology implementers
• Enterprise architecture, in the Gartner view, is about strategy, not about engineering.
• keeping these early discussions focused on business strategy.
• Comparison
• Taxonomy completeness
• Process completeness
• Reference-model guidanc
• Practice guidance
• Maturity model
• Business focus
• Governance guidance
• Partitioning guidance
• Prescriptive catalog
• Vendor neutrality
• Information availabilit
• Time to value
• Criteria and ratings for each methodology

77 more annotations...

• Compliance: How BearingPoint Lost Its Way
• BearingPoint wanted to expand its footprint in Europe," says IDC analyst
• BearingPoint had no information-technology infrastructure to manage its business and track its myriad client accounts
• "BearingPoint came into being as a multibillion-dollar corporation going a thousand miles an hour, but it had no I.T. infrastructure in place," says Carlos Recalde, KPMG's former executive director of technology for the Americas region.
• BearingPoint had acquired more than three dozen independent consulting companies, each with its own disparate system and its own way of doing things. Consequently, there was little uniformity or consistency with the contracts that the new acquisitions produced. As a result, McGeary said in 2004 at a JP Morgan investment conference: "We have 9,000 [contracts] and they have different flavors and are in different countries."

3 more annotations...