This link [http://is.gd/g55wp] is a very interesting read about the scope and nature of enterprise architecture that helps to clarify a very widely misunderstood (because it is still embryonic) discipline.
It was written by the Open Group’s Len Fehsken and is called “Re-thinking Architecture.”
Highlights for me were:
“This discipline is young enough that the idea that we already have all the right answers is presumptuous at best.”
“The conventional wisdom is rapidly becoming that Enterprise Architecture is more than Enterprise IT Architecture. There’s a lotmore to an enterprise than its IT; IT budgets represent about 2% of revenues.”
“The common thread to all of these subdomains within “our kind of”architecture is that they ultimately address the concerns of human enterprise”
The word “Disambiguating”. Is that really a (necessary) word?
“Why Do We Do Architecture? The real, primary reason: Alignment -to ensure that something is what it’s supposed to be, and does what it’s supposed to do.”
“Agile/extreme programming do requirements solicitation and responsive design incrementally. This might uncharitably be characterized as “trial and error”.” lol
Slide 33 “Risky Extrapolations”
EA (noun) as “Those properties of a thing and its environment that are necessary and sufficient for it to be fit for purpose for its mission.”
“It is not meaningful to prioritize the elements of an architecture. An architectural element is either necessary and sufficient (“essential”), or it is not.” ponderous
Slide 58 “Architecture vs. Design”
EA’s value proposition as “Continuous alignment of an enterprise’s assets and capabilities with its mission and strategy.”
“Alignment is a dynamic, not static, condition. Continuous alignment requires change, and hence agility, but change and agility are means, not ends.”
Slide 64 “A non-IT-Centric Architecture of Enterprise Architecture”
PS – the latin on p 31 means solid, useful, beautiful.
See also Tom Graves’ thinking on the presentation [http://is.gd/g5by9]