About PantologEA

This work on Enterprise Architecture…

Was motivated by

the perception that EA is largely misunderstood, and thus, to the persistent detriment of enterprise performance and competitiveness, undervalued and under-exploited, this perception being informed by the particular observations that:

  • EA is typically considered to be an esoteric and difficult practice that delivers insufficient value
  • EA is only considered appropriate for enterprises of particular scale, with particularly complex IT
  • EA is erroneously thought of as an optional capability which may exist independently of business analysis, strategic planning, execution management, etc.
  • EA initiatives fail more often than they succeed

Despite which, diligent and enthusiastic EA practitioners have nonetheless delivered very significant benefits for the senior managers and executives of enterprises who had the vision to see that, by providing and exploiting integrated enterprise information, EA is the lever that converts knowledge to power.

Seeks to stimulate discussion

on all aspects of EA theory and practice and to offer new perspectives on EA intended to advance the practice of EA by:

  • Increasing understanding of what EA is
  • Explaining why EA is absolutely necessary to the function of the enterprise (to the extent of being unavoidable)
  • Exploring how EA has worked in the past and how it should work in future
  • Developing and clarifying fundamental concepts of EA so that the information generated by EA activities is more valuable to the enterprise by making it more accessible, intelligible, useful and actionable by everyone

Is predicated on

the following theses, which will be developed and justified in forthcoming articles:

  • EA is intrinsic to the operation of any enterprise: all enterprises already do EA, they merely differ in whether or not they are aware of doing it and how well they do it
  • Enterprises that consciously practise EA have benefitted from doing so – but at greater cost and for less benefit than should have been the case
  • The historical approach to EA is overcomplicated and lacks both conceptual rigour and clarity, as evidenced by major meta-models such as DoDAF, MODAF, TOGAF, etc.
  • Current EA practice, particularly in terms of processes and tools, is maladapted to the scale and rapidity of change in modern enterprises – the very things it should address effectively
  • Those who practise EA consciously and conscientiously enjoy significant competitive advantages over those who do not by virtue of being more assured and truly agile in the execution of strategy and more responsive to change in their internal and external environments

Will, progressively

  • Deliver precise, unambiguous definitions of key concepts such as Capability, System, Role, Management, Governance, Requirement etc. to facilitate the development of flexible but unambiguous architecture descriptions, reliable analyses
  • Identify the relationships between EA and: business analysis – particularly requirements analysis; quality – both assurance and control;

It will also comment on news relating to EA theory, practice and tools from other practitioners and tool vendors.

Pin It on Pinterest