I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I belong to a number of enterprise architecture-related forums and discussion groups. Sometimes, however, I wonder if it’s worth the trouble. After a while, the babble coming from these groups begins to repeat itself, devolving into argument after argument on what enterprise architecture really is.

In our Licensed ZapThink Architect (LZA) course, we love to point out that the collective term for architect is an argument. As in a flock of seagulls, a pride of lions, or an argument of architects. Put enough architects together in a room, and sure enough, an argument ensues. Furthermore, architects love nothing more than to argue about the definitions of terms—since after all, definitions are simply a matter of convention. Bring up the question as to what “enterprise architecture” means, well, you might as well go home. No more work will be done today!

It doesn’t help matters that many techies have co-opted the term enterprise architecture to mean some kind of technology-centric architecture or other. Look up enterprise architect on a job board and chances are, four out of five positions that call themselves “enterprise architect” are entirely technology-focused. In spite of this confusion, if there’s one thing enterprise architects can agree on, it’s that enterprise architecture is not about technology. Sure, every enterprise these days has plenty of technology, but there’s more to the enterprise than its IT systems.

Unfortunately, there’s little else enterprise architects agree on. Some of them point to ontologies like the Zachman Framework, in the belief that if we could only define our terms well enough, we’d have an architecture. Others point to methodologies like TOGAF’s Architecture Development Method (ADM), figuring that if we follow the general best practice advice in the ADM, then at least we can call ourselves enterprise architects.

Hence, an argument of architects. If you’re an architect, you probably already disagree with something I’ve written. See? What did I tell you?

The problem is, neither Zachman nor TOGAF—or any other approach on the market, for that matter—is truly enterprise architecture. Why? Because nobody is doing enterprise architecture.

The truth of this bold statement is quite obvious when you think about it. Where does enterprise architecture take place today? In enterprises, of course. That is, existing enterprises. And you don’t architect things that already exist. Architecture comes before you build something!

Can you imagine hiring an architect after building a bridge or a building? I can hear that conversation now: “we built this bridge organically over time, and it has serious issues. So please architect it for us now.” Sorry, too late!

Most forms of technical architecture don’t fall into this trap. A solution architect architects a solution before that solution is implemented. A Java architect or a .NET architect does their work before the coders do theirs. You don’t build and then design, you design and then build. Even if you take an Agile, iterative approach, none of your iterations have build before design in them.

Enterprise architecture, on the other hand, always begins with an existing enterprise. And after working with hundreds of existing enterprises around the world, both private and public sector, I can attest to the fact that every single one of them is completely screwed up. You may think that your company or government organization has a monopoly on internal politics, empire building, irrational decision making, and incompetence, but I can assure you, you’re not alone.

Enter the enterprise architect. The role of today’s enterprise architect is essentially to take the current enterprise and fix it. OK, maybe not the whole thing, but to make some kind of improvement to it. Go from today’s sorry state to some future nirvana state where things are better somehow.

If you’re able to improve your enterprise, that’s wonderful. You’re providing real value to your organization. But you’re not doing architecture. Architecture isn’t about fixing things, it’s about establishing a best practice approach to designing things.

OK, so if nobody is doing enterprise architecture, then who actually architects enterprises, and what are they actually doing?

The answer: nobody. Enterprises aren’t architected at all. They are grown.

Every entrepreneur gets this fundamental point. When entrepreneurs first sit down to hammer out the business plan for a new venture, they would never dare to have the hubris to architect an organization large enough to be considered an enterprise. There are far too many unknowns. Instead, they establish a framework for growth. Plant the seeds. Water them. Do some weeding and fertilizing now and then. With a bit of luck, you’ll have a nice, healthy, growing enterprise on your hands a few years down the road. But chances are, it won’t look much like that original plan.

Does that mean there are no best practices for growing and nurturing a startup through all the twists and turns as it reaches the heights of enterprise-hood? Absolutely not. But most people don’t consider such best practices to fall into the category of architecture.

If you’ve been following ZapThink, you can probably guess what the difference is. “Traditional” enterprise architecture—that is, take your massively screwed organization and establish a best practice approach for improving it—follows a traditional systems approach: here’s the desired final state, so take certain actions to achieve that final state.

Growing a business, however, implies that there is no specific final state, just as there is no final state for a growing organism. An acorn knows it’s supposed to turn into an oak tree, but there’s no specific plan for the oak tree it will become. Rather, the DNA in the acorn provide the basic parameters for growth, and the rest is left up to emergence.

Such emergence is the defining characteristic of complex systems: systems with emergent properties of the system as a whole that aren’t properties of any part of the system. Just as growth of living organisms requires emergence, so too does the growth of organizations.

Perhaps it makes sense to call the establishment of best practices for emergence architecture. After all, if we can architect traditional systems, why can’t we architect complex ones? As a matter of fact, we do just that in our LZA course. If we have any hope of figuring out how to actually architect enterprises, after all, we’ll need to take a complex systems approach to enterprise architecture. It remains to be seen, however, if it’s possible to architect enterprises that way. Have an opinion on the matter? Let the arguments begin!

Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitalsextant/4835111700/

74 comments for “Why Nobody is Doing Enterprise Architecture”
John Evdemon Avatar

Excellent observations. The argument over what is and isn't EA has long been a distraction to getting any actual work done. Bravo.

Posted by John Evdemon | April 5, 2011
Bard Papegaaij Avatar

You are making some excellent points about complex systems and 'growing' vs. 'archtitecting' the enterprise. I would argue, however, that no human system is either all complex or all 'simple': it's always a mixture of both. Which means, in my experience, that there a bits you do architect, and bits you shouldn't. The art lies in knowing what to structure and design, and what to leave open for emergence and growth.

Posted by Bard Papegaaij | April 5, 2011
Stefan Studer Avatar

Thanks very much for this article! Regarding complex systems (like human beings) and the structure of them: Do you happen to know the Viable System Model by Stafford Beer. It proposes an invariant structure for all complex systems. Not an easy one, but a brilliant one!

Posted by Stefan Studer | April 6, 2011
Bala Avatar

My Goodness!. Here we go. One more jargon to learn - Complex Systems. Pls let us not complicate!.

Well, am not going to argue what EA is and what it is not. One can find enough discussions in linkedin forums. :-)

Trust me, Business or even Senior IT leadership doesn't really care what we call it - be it systems thinking or complex systems or emergent systems, etc. What really matters is - What is the value EA can solve?. If EA cannot help solving any hard-pressing business issues, its useless!. Period!. How much ever beautiful theory lies behind those concepts.

Why nobody is doing EA?

1. EA has its roots in technical / engineering practice. And its being sold to Management community. Management community or MBAs dont study EA and its usefulness in their curriculum or in the industry by word of mouth. So, the entry barrier is huge for selling EA to top management.

2. As I mentioned in one of your previous blog posts, let's start using EA as a 'process' for guiding the strategy execution. Any enterprise in the world will use some process or the other in executing their strategic plans. Instead, if they use EA as the process, how would it be different?. Can they achieve more benefits?. Am not trivializing, its like using a SWOT framework for analysing a company's strengths and weaknesses. If we can't position as a process, trust me, we can't take it any further in the enterprise.

Posted by Bala | April 6, 2011
John Polgreen Avatar

Overall a great analysis. However, most enterprise architects would hold that city planning is a much better metaphor for enterprise architecture than the design of a single building. One characteristic of city planning is that it's always a redesign of something already existing.

Regarding TOGAF, I see TOGAF 8 having the problem you mention in that it seems to view a very comprehensive target state for the overall enterprise. In TOGAF 9 there is a capability-driven approach, which divides the total architecture into segments and further into capabilities. I feel this lends itself to a much more organic look at the overall enterprise.

Posted by John Polgreen | April 6, 2011
JandB Avatar

Sorry, but I totally disagree with your article!

The reason a system, even a complex one, already exists is no reason not to apply architecture to its growth path. And after all, I do think we can agree that an enterprise can be seen as a complex system.

Let me explain this by telling about my own experience. Somewhere around 1995, I started working on an SMSC (Short Message Service Center). The first assignment was to test its functionalities to get to known the system. Along the path of developer, I grew into the function where I was one of the three architects of the SMSC.

At that time, the SMSC was already a fairly complex system with a rich set of functions. However, with the growth of the market, the demands of our customers also grew. They wanted new functionality to be added to the system. One of the main responsibilities of the architects was to ensure that a new function would be designed in such a way it fitted in with the already existing fuctions and at the same time would be flexible enough to enable future developments.

I agree that, although complex, an SMSC is not as complex as an entire enterprise might be. On the other hand, I strongly believe that there are definitely certain architecture principles which can help an enterprise grow.

And, as stated in an earlier comment, it is the skill of a good Enterprise Architect which can make a difference...

Posted by JandB | April 6, 2011
Jean-Francois Declercq Avatar

I disagree with you.
First if you transform an old house and you want to break walls you'd better talk to an architect.

Second, I design everyday AS-IS and TO-BE architectures. Even if those are ICT architectures, they are a piece of the entreprise architecture because hopefully our new developements will positively impact the entreprise business model and processes.

Third, an Entreprise Architect doesn't exist because one doesn't want that someone has a complete business overview that would make power games much more complex to play.

Ict and hr departments are obliged to have some view of the current entreprise architecture because they need to deliver services everywhere. Hr knows the organigram, ict knows most of locatiobs

Finally, an entreprise architect is difficult to find because he or she should be in state of understanding most of the critical business processes which is a lot for one man.

But it's not because it's hard to find that it doesn't exist.

I'm starting a businesss now and I'm an architect, so I hope I can play the role of Entreprise Architect of myvown business as long as possible. Call me in 2020 and I can showcase that Entreprise Architecture exists.

Posted by Jean-Francois Declercq | April 6, 2011
Jean-Francois Declercq Avatar

Correct email for follow up....

Posted by Jean-Francois Declercq | April 6, 2011
Tom Graves Avatar

"An argument of architects" - nice. :-)

I'll throw another log on the fire and suggest that we don't 'architect' the enterprise: our job is to understand the nature or 'architecture' of the enterprise that our organisation works within, and then design as required around that architecture.

We don't don't design that architecture: it already exists. It always does. But we can adapt to fit in well (or not, of course) with how it works, what its drivers are, and so on.

Hence it's kind of the opposite way round to what you suggest. Yes, the enterprise has been 'architected', in a sense - but that wasn't the work of an enterprise-architect. Instead, we work for organisations to help them find the best ways to work with that architecture.

The point here is that 'organisation' and enterprise' are radically different. The organisation determines the 'How' of the work; the enterprise defines the 'Why'. An organisation is usually some form of legal structure, bounded by rules, roles and responsibilities; an enterprise is much more about feelings, bounded by vision, values and commitments. There are a few contexts in which the two sets of boundaries can coincide, but in most EA contexts the enterprise in scope is about three steps larger than the organisation - i.e. organisation plus supply-web plus market plus social-context.

Once we properly grasp that difference between organisation and enterprise, a lot of enterprise-architecture suddenly starts to make sense. Until then, as you suggest, it often doesn't. :-)

Posted by Tom Graves | April 6, 2011
Lee Humphries Avatar

Thank you for tackling this subject.
I'm increasingly frustrated with those who talk of Enterprise Architecture, or any other kind of Architecture, and yet the meaning they give to the term 'Architecture' is just so completely removed from its origins as to lead to profound confusion in the 'Enterprise'.
However, there is one area where I'd disagree with your article as some others have commented above. Just as an architect may be consulting when planning major renovations to a building, then in the same manner an enterprise can be 'architected' to correct flaws or make changes.

Posted by Lee Humphries | April 6, 2011
Stephen Brown Avatar

Jason Bloomberg’s article “Why Nobody is Doing Enterprise Architecture” is a “the emperor has no clothes” glimpse of truth. His reference to complex systems thinking is spot on. Perhaps it would help us to think of enterprises as “holons”.

As Ervin Laszlo points out in his book “Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought”, the term “holon” was coined by Arthur Koestler and its etymology comes from the Greek word holos, which mean “whole” with the ending “on” which implies a particle or part (think of “neuron” or “proton”).

As the story goes, the concept of holons came from a parable about two watchmakers.

There once were two watchmakers, named Hora and Tempus, who made very fine watches. The phones in their workshops rang frequently; new customers were constantly calling them. However, Hora prospered while Tempus became poorer and poorer. In the end, Tempus lost his shop. What was the reason behind this?

The watches consisted of about 1000 parts each. The watches that Tempus made were designed such that, when he had to put down a partly assembled watch (for instance, to answer the phone), it immediately fell into pieces and had to be reassembled from the basic elements.

Hora had designed his watches so that he could put together subassemblies of about ten components each. Ten of these subassemblies could be put together to make a larger sub- assembly. Finally, ten of the larger subassemblies constituted the whole watch. Each subassembly could be put down without falling apart.

As Laszlo states, Koestler made two observations:

The first observation, coming from the parable of the two watchmakers, was “that complex systems will evolve from simple systems much more rapidly if there are stable intermediate forms than if there are not; the resulting complex systems in the former case will be hierarchic.”

The second observation, made “while analyzing hierarchies and stable intermediate forms in living organisms and social organization, is that, although it is easy to identify sub-wholes or parts, wholes' and 'parts' in an absolute sense do not exist anywhere. This made Koestler propose the word holon to describe the hybrid nature of sub-wholes/parts in real-life systems; holons simultaneously are self-contained wholes to their subordinated parts, and dependent parts when seen from the inverse direction. “

Holons (think SOA here) are “ autonomous, self-reliant units, which have a degree of independence and handle contingencies without asking higher authorities for instructions. Simultaneously, holons are subject to control from (multiple) higher authorities. The first property ensures that holons are stable forms, which survive disturbances. The latter property signifies that they are intermediate forms, which provide the proper functionality for the bigger whole.”

Perhaps our analogy frame of reference should shift from “architect” to “holonist” – one who is able to understand, design and implement the macro level interactions of complex components required of an enterprise’s business strategy (the higher authority as it were), the intermediate level interactions/interplay of a component (technology, process, people, material, etc.) and the micro level interactions of a component’s elements . Anyone for “Service Oriented Holonogy?”

Posted by Stephen Brown | April 6, 2011
Eduardo Fandangle Avatar

It depends on how you look at "Enterprise Architecture" and the "Enterprise Architect".

A start-up business does not just go and buy stuff to do something random. A business case is more often than not conceived to secure funding and justification is required to demonstrate the viability of a proposed organisation's ability to perform the business function and to support that function.

Part of these considerations includes "architecting" the greenfields environment. This is "Enterprise Architecture", i.e. realising business objectives through technology. Whether the job title of the person making these decisions is "Enterprise Architect" or not is irrelevant, the "role" of Enterprie Architect is still being peformed.

Enterprise Architecture, like Construction Architecture, or any other architecture is based on prior learnings from the related industry, regardless of what your opinion is around its definition. Things may seem to grow organically, but what you find is that people just aren't formally recognising the roles.

If a builder makes a decision to change a structure and just goes ahead and builds it, then they're Architecting, Engineering and Building all at the same time. If the structure collapses, it's the person who filled the role that takes responsibility. Builders beware ... talk to an Architect, or Engineer :-).

Posted by Eduardo Fandangle | April 6, 2011
giorgio.barbetta@unicreditgroup.eu Avatar

In some misure I agree with your article.

My five cents.
From Jason's point of view seems almost impossible to have a stable end-state in order to pinpoint our works.
For sure, Business is always moving but I think we have to at least have a complete vision about the web of relations between the parts shaped the Business. This means we'll be able to look at the whole so we can keep it in balance.
That doesn't mean plaster our Business on our "architecture works" but it means ensuring a business long life avoiding unforgivable choices.

As far as I can see, there isnt' a magic enterprise software able to do that. It needs of skillful Architect's minds.
Is it that Enterprise Architecture? I don't know, it's not up to me. I belive that it's time to care of Architecture ilities!

Posted by giorgio.barbetta@unicreditgroup.eu | April 7, 2011
lucas osse Avatar

I think this discussion is spot-on. What's the added value of EA in organizations, and what's the reponsibility of the EA?

From my experiences and from observing the dwellings of EA's in organizations, my current view on this is as follows:
- Changes in large organizations have the characteristics of so-called wicked problems (Rittel and Weber, 1973). Stated popularly, many entities, influencing each other back and forth. The only sensible approach found so far to deal with these types of problems is creating a multi-disciplinary common view of the 'battlefield' and,
- using this view to collaborately identify the steps to make the change (e.g. by identifying any risks involved and finding ways to avoid these risks)

I believe EA could be, and sometimes is the discipline that is responsible for creating the common view mentioned above and for identifying the steps to make the change. For that he/she has a set of tools, techniques and (social) skills available.

Looking forward to any comments on this, as the application of EA in organizations is a wicked problem in itself ;-).

Posted by lucas osse | April 7, 2011
Bala Avatar

Agree with Lucas!.

Let's answer what is the value of EA in organizations.

If EA is positioned as panacea for all change management initiatives, let us face the fact that most of the issues in change management are organizational/political or social. It is hardly technical or architectural. But clearly, there is a need for orchestrating and navigating that change process successfully. And thats where EA has a place. It could help in creating a common view across various kinds of stakeholders. After all, creating views is a basic skill of an architect!

Posted by Bala | April 7, 2011
Lars Marius Garshol Avatar

I think the basic point here is right, but I disagree that nobody is architecting their enterprises before they build them.

There's been a whole range of companies started over the last decade where the main advantage is precisely that the enterprise was architected properly from the beginning.

I'm thinking of low-fair airlines and the new lightweight consumer banks. These compete so successfully precisely because they *were* architected.

This, I suppose, just proves your point.

Posted by Lars Marius Garshol | April 7, 2011
Uriel Avatar

Good points. However, I would argue that if an designing from “nothing” as mentioned in the article, only qualifies one as being an architect, then using that logic, those that design buildings and bridges cannot be considered architects either, simply because there are already existing buildings and bridges that indirectly or even directly influence the designs when an architect is “designing” a building or bridge. For example, there are basic requirements that go into building a structure. The architect is required to know those basic requirements (A foundation, roofing, plumbing, HVAC, structural integrity, etc), which are almost always pre-existing. So in short, the article’s argument that an architect designs a building from “nothing”, is not entirely true, as an enterprise architect, like a building architect, creates based on pre-existing standards, ideas, designs, and processes. The same logic can be applied to an engineering and design team that builds a car. The basic design of a car (wheels, a power source, etc) is standard, and has not changed for over a hundred years. The appearance, and technology has changed/evolved, but the basic concept of an automobile has not really changed. And even over a hundred years ago, the basic design of a car can be traced to the even older carriage, to the point where early automobiles were called “horseless carriages”. Just like a building, car, bridge, or an enterprise architecture, no one truly designs these things from “nothing”. A decent enterprise architecture should not only be a decent improvement of current processes and functions, but it should be forward thinking enough to influence or at least facilitate future developments, functions, and processes. This goes beyond being simply a facilitator of already existing standards and processes.

Just my $0.02.

Posted by Uriel | April 7, 2011
Uriel Avatar

Actually, I listen mainly to the subject matter experts and engineers with often abstract guidance from higher management. These SME's and engineers often drive the architectures, not management. So it is not in my best interest to ignore the "builders" Most of my job IS listening, not influencing. So, that is a false statement that architects only communicate with management and not the "real builders". Maybe at your company... As for "creating", so you are telling me that an architect who designed a building "created" the building using no precedence? Find me a single building designed in the 20th century and beyond that was not built using already pre-existing standards and processes. Good luck with that.

My earlier point is correct, very few people really "create" anything anymore from nothing, including building architects and most engineers.

Posted by Uriel | April 7, 2011
Jacques Brisson Avatar

Thats why enterprise architects should be called (and behave so) enterprise urbanists seeing the enterprise as a city...

Posted by Jacques Brisson | April 8, 2011
Rick Tobias Avatar

Some of us have decided to stop wasting our energy trying to describe what enterprise architecture is and how it would benefit an organization if the organization adopted it. That smacks of asking for permission to do our jobs. Instead, we actively demonstrate it through direct application. Enterprise Architecture is very easy to understand when you see it in action.

So for disagreement's sake, I will simply observe that those who argue are not doing Enterprise Architecture. Those who are doing it are quiet because they're pretty busy applying it.

Posted by Rick Tobias | April 8, 2011
Jerome Capirossi Avatar


Great paper, with great words : complex, emergence, organisms...

I was attending a conference on System architectures, not IT ones. Some similar words were used.

It is logical when somebody told you : it is that way.

But I was wondering, when nobody told you it is : how to detect around us emergence, complexity, organisms ?

I would even like to know who around us is truly able to detect ergodicity among long repeated periods ? The same happens between cybernetic and organisms paradigm.

Today problems and requirements have become so big with a lot of links to manage, that they need people with special competences to set an order which will allow specialists to build a solution.

These people are architects whatever considerations, theory or whatelse. And system makers in industry or in services know that they need them.

Best regards


Posted by Jerome Capirossi | April 13, 2011
Chris Lockhart Avatar

Love it! Don't agree with it all but who cares. I don't agree with all of anything.

Willing to argue anytime about architecture.

Posted by Chris Lockhart | April 21, 2011
Kim Maes Avatar

In my opinion, the best quote of this article is ""Enter the enterprise architect. The role of today’s enterprise architect is essentially to take the current enterprise and fix it."

As a management school, we provide programs on Enterprise IT Architect and every participant agress that the market needs more of these profiles. Yet, they are very hard to find!

Perhaps organisations could start thinking in the long term and shape their own architects. There are several advantages of such an approach. For instance, internal employees already know how the organisation operates. They can reflect the course content to their every day work life and business processes. Second, we provide a 2 year (part-time) management program on this topic because it takes al lot of time before one can become a great architect. A so-called T-shape profile understand to broader context of the organisation such as business strategies, strategic alignment, business processes, IT governance and so on, as well as specific and deepening knowledge on enterprise architecture, business process architecture and software architecture. As a researcher I am writing a PhD on IT value management. Strategic and discretionary IT enabled investments will only deliver business value if they are executed by business and IT.

And if one cannot find any framework that focuses on enterprise architecture, I would like to invite you to take a look at DEMO (http://www.demo.nl/). This is a framework build to investigate and orchestrate an enterprise together with its business processes. Interesting presentation and publication are forehand on their website.

If you're interested in the 2 year Executive Master of Enterprise IT Architecture, please visit www.antwerpmanagementschool.be/MITarchitecture

Best of luck with EA in the future!

Kim Maes

Posted by Kim Maes | April 28, 2011
Ondrej Galik Avatar

Too bad I didn't read this post when it came out. As an architect - naturally - I must disagree here and there (I don't have to, it's just that you don't think I am not one;) I have posted similar thoughts some time ago as well discussing why I thing there's no architecture in EA (http://ondrejgalik.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/there-aint-no-architecture-in-ea/) and also questioning the famous notion of target architecture (http://ondrejgalik.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/target-architecture-is-a-myth/), you might be on the same page there. I used a slightly different analogy of raising up children.


Posted by Ondrej Galik | June 9, 2011
Robert Avatar

ea is a toolbox which you bring to resolve issues. use what you must, be glad for that speciality tool you don't use much of because for this project it just happened to come in handy. get the job done and move on to the next job (project, program, business, organization, segment, et al.).

Posted by Robert | August 24, 2011
Bala Avatar

In my view, this is the only reason...


Posted by Bala | February 21, 2012
Ric Phillips Avatar

I read it - and I can certainly sympathise. Especially with the collective noun and the endless chest beating over definitions. It's genuinely appalling. (To my mind too many people in the game don't know how to think, or write, or model, or communicate - they know tech - but they don't take the design skill seriously enough to actually go off and learn them.) I am starting to develop a physical aversion to all the roll-your-own frameworks that keep popping up in the blogosphere like mushrooms after a heavy rain.

But the central premise is incorrect - and an argument from analogy. Not good. Analogies are for illustration and explanation - they don't establish anything.

But ironically, as an argument, it's the wrong analogy. And the analogy actually provides a better counter-'argument' to your thesis.

Architects do actually get involved with buildings after they are built. Whenever a large or structurally complex building needs to be remodelled and repurposed they call in an architect.

So that part of the analogy actually supports EA - The enterprise architect (should) understand the structures of the enterprise and be able to design and plan smooth transformations. And all that A2 scale analysis they do - if done right - and I will concede that is too rare - provides the 'structural-engineering' parameters of the organisation within which all restructuring must work.

One EA I met - who certainly was doing EA - was employed by a billion dollar mining and resource company solely to plan the rationalisation of technology and business processes every time they acquired another company. Which occurred several times a year. He had a decent sized team and there was no doubt at all he was providing a necessary skill set within the business, saving them large amounts of money and probably averting quite a few dangerous accidents.

EA provides a crucial skill set for large scale change. That it becomes less relevant as projects become smaller (true), and is not practiced correctly in many places (also true) dose not establish its lack of worth. It is a bit like observing a drunk driver attempting to get to work in a bulldozer (it has happened) and arguing that drivers and indeed bulldozers are a waste of time and money.

That a tool or theory is miss-applied, or poorly applied does not imply the tool or theory has no application, or is unfit. It does prove there are actually idiots using it. Hardly a surprising revelation.

The solutions architecture approach you advocate, has in this state led to over a billion dollars in failed IT projects in the last three years. The auditors finding in a nutshell - nothing translated governance into implementation.

I think it highly unlikely that all the professional technology experts and project managers working on those projects were idiots. More likely their perfectly valid management and design approaches couldn't scale from a twenty million dollar single company approach to four hundred million dollar, three million plus end-user, multi-organisational IT projects. That one four hundred million dollar project came in years late and at around 1.2 billion dollars.

Yeah - lets give that to a solutions architect.

Posted by Ric Phillips | March 1, 2012
Hans Bot Avatar

Ancient debate. Enterprise architects don't function like they would as part of a typical architect discipline, rather as part of a planning discipline - a city planner. However true this might be, the reality is the enterprise planning discipline has become known as enterprise architecture after information planning became flawed. We can live with that, can't we? After all, it's just a label.

Posted by Hans Bot | March 3, 2012
Google Avatar


Always a large fan of linking to bloggers that I adore but don’t get quite a bit of link adore from.

Posted by Google | January 27, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]Here is an excellent Blog You may Locate Fascinating that we Encourage You[...]

Posted by coffee beans | January 28, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]please go to the web-sites we stick to, including this one, because it represents our picks in the web[...]

Posted by coffee beans | January 29, 2016
OKJ tanfolyamok Avatar

OKJ tanfolyamok

[...]although sites we backlink to beneath are considerably not associated to ours, we feel they're really worth a go via, so possess a look[...]

Posted by OKJ tanfolyamok | January 29, 2016
Lawyer-tips Avatar


[...]please visit the websites we adhere to, which includes this one, because it represents our picks from the web[...]

Posted by Lawyer-tips | January 29, 2016
website backlinks Avatar

website backlinks

[...]below you’ll uncover the link to some internet sites that we think you'll want to visit[...]

Posted by website backlinks | January 29, 2016
Opciones Binarias Avatar

Opciones Binarias

[...]check below, are some totally unrelated web sites to ours, on the other hand, they may be most trustworthy sources that we use[...]

Posted by Opciones Binarias | January 30, 2016
make money online Avatar

make money online

[...]Here are a few of the internet sites we advise for our visitors[...]

Posted by make money online | January 30, 2016
pdr training class Avatar

pdr training class

[...]we like to honor quite a few other world wide web internet sites on the net, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Underneath are some webpages really worth checking out[...]

Posted by pdr training class | January 31, 2016
paintless dent removal course Avatar

paintless dent removal course

[...]very handful of internet websites that take place to be comprehensive beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly effectively really worth checking out[...]

Posted by paintless dent removal course | February 2, 2016
kona coffee Avatar

kona coffee

[...]we like to honor quite a few other internet web-sites on the net, even though they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Beneath are some webpages really worth checking out[...]

Posted by kona coffee | February 3, 2016
royal kona coffee Avatar

royal kona coffee

[...]Here is a superb Weblog You might Discover Fascinating that we Encourage You[...]

Posted by royal kona coffee | February 3, 2016
ground coffee Avatar

ground coffee

[...]Here is a superb Blog You may Locate Fascinating that we Encourage You[...]

Posted by ground coffee | February 3, 2016
course in pdr Avatar

course in pdr

[...]here are some hyperlinks to web sites that we link to for the reason that we consider they are worth visiting[...]

Posted by course in pdr | February 3, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]Here is a good Blog You may Come across Exciting that we Encourage You[...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 3, 2016
gourmet hawaiian coffee Avatar

gourmet hawaiian coffee

[...]always a huge fan of linking to bloggers that I adore but do not get lots of link love from[...]

Posted by gourmet hawaiian coffee | February 3, 2016
business class isp Avatar

business class isp

[...]The details mentioned within the write-up are some of the most effective available [...]

Posted by business class isp | February 4, 2016
kona coffee Avatar

kona coffee

[...]the time to read or go to the subject material or internet sites we have linked to below the[...]

Posted by kona coffee | February 4, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]Every the moment inside a when we select blogs that we read. Listed beneath would be the most up-to-date internet sites that we pick [...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 4, 2016
led light aquarium Avatar

led light aquarium

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]

Posted by led light aquarium | February 4, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]Sites of interest we've a link to[...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 5, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]please take a look at the web pages we comply with, such as this one, because it represents our picks from the web[...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 5, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]one of our guests not long ago suggested the following website[...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 5, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]we came across a cool web site that you just could possibly take pleasure in. Take a search when you want[...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 5, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 5, 2016
coffee beans Avatar

coffee beans

[...]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a handful of unrelated data, nonetheless actually really worth taking a appear, whoa did one particular understand about Mid East has got much more problerms also [...]

Posted by coffee beans | February 6, 2016
magenta color codes Avatar

magenta color codes

[...]we came across a cool web-site that you could take pleasure in. Take a search in the event you want[...]

Posted by magenta color codes | February 7, 2016
Blogging Avatar


[...]although websites we backlink to beneath are considerably not related to ours, we really feel they're essentially really worth a go by means of, so possess a look[...]

Posted by Blogging | February 7, 2016