The no-plan ‘Plan’ for whole-enterprise architecture – a summary

That description of ‘the plan that is no plan’, about the direction that I’m moving into after moving out of mainstream ‘enterprise’-architecture, kind of ended up a bit longer than intended. (No surprise there, unfortunately… :-| ) Oh well.

In effect, though, it’s also a kind of ‘manifesto’ for whole-enterprise architecture – about what needs to be added to the current so-called ‘EA’ in order to make usable and useful at a whole-enterprise scope. Whatever type of enterprise that might be.

So here’s a quick summary of all the posts in this ‘no-plan Plan that is also a sort-of manifesto’:

Note that there’s a whole lot more that isn’t covered in that ‘manifesto’: about detail-layer stuff, about IT-architecture, mainstream business-architecture, security-architecture, process-architecture, and so on, and so on – lots and lots of lots of it.

The reason why those aren’t in that ‘manifesto’ is simply that there are already many other people working there – most of whom are a lot more competent than I am at that kind of work. There’s no need to extend the architecture in that direction, because it’s already being done, and for the most part done very well indeed – no doubt about that. The only point that is relevant here is that because we’re talking about a much broader scope, we need to ensure that that broader scope does properly incorporate and link to and with all the existing types of architecture-work – and make sure that the latter don’t split off into their own separate domains, much as per the ongoing disaster-area of the ‘IT/business-divide’.

Anyway, that’s the overall ‘plan that is no Plan’: now, back to work to put it all into practice. :-)

So, over to you: comments/suggestions, anyone?

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Complexity / Structure, Enterprise architecture, Futures, Society
2 comments on “The no-plan ‘Plan’ for whole-enterprise architecture – a summary
  1. Peter Bakker says:

    Hi Tom,

    I have a hard time keeping up with your posts :-)

    I only wanted to say that I feel that the biggest challenge for the new breed of Enterprise Architects is to help an enterprise/organization to get into the Flow: “the mental state of operation in which people in an activity are fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity” (thanks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) )

    Therefor my humble opinion is that you should focus on the “people in architecture” part and let the rest follow…

    • Tom G says:

      Hi Peter – apologies for the, uh, overload – the main reason for this particular flood of items was that I wanted to keep them all together as a set. (Will aim not to do quite so much of an overload again, but I can’t promise… :-) )

      Very good point about that transitory condition or mode of ‘Flow’, and the need to provide contexts that support that mode within the enterprise. And yes, obviously, I do very strongly agree about the importance of the ‘people’-dimensions in the architecture. That said, it’s still really to also keep the attention returning back to structure and process and everything else. Remember that earlier point about “there is no centre to the architecture: everywhere and nowhere is ‘the centre’, all at the same time”: it’s just as dangerous to make the people-dimensions ‘the prime centre’ of the architecture as it is with anything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Books by Tom Graves
Ebooks by Tom Graves
Categories
Archives