By Any Other Name...
By OTN ArchBeat on Jul 12, 2011
In his post, EA Fundamentalism, on The Open Group's blog, Stuart Boardman offers this observation:
[I]n the EA blogosphere at the moment (e.g. the EA group on LinkedIn) every discussion seems to deteriorate into debate about what the proper definition of EA is (guess how many different "right answers" there are) or which of TOGAF or Zachman or <insert your favourite framework here> is the (only) correct framework or why all of them are totally wrong, or worse still, what the correct interpretation of the minutiae of some aspect of framework X might be.
Healthy, constructive debate is... well, healthy and constructive. But a whole lot of people are hard at work at something that resembles enterprise architecture and other related stuff, and more than a few appear to be actually accomplishing something. So while I'm fascinated by the debate around EA, would getting everyone to agree on a final definition really make all that much difference? If the work performed without a final, universally accepted definition of EA moves the enteprise toward its goals, who cares what you call it? Who cares what titles the people performing that work operate under, so long as the work delivers business value?
Read Boardman's post. It's good stuff.