Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:31 PM
John McGovern and Robert Mcilree have fired off the latest salvo in one of EA's biggest and most maddening debates. In short the debate is about whether Enterprise Architecture is a process or practice?
Maddening? Why! Because common sense has the answer and I'm surprised at the heavy weights in EA not realising that.
Toyota is often hailed as the example of how processes have got the company to be a world leader in automobile manufacture. RBS and ODP diagrams that document processes and the processes of making sure they are updated and adhered to. Also Foundation of Execution is all about automating processes.
As you can see there is a pattern to these examples, infact with every example where process as seemingly won the day and that is that each process is created, updated and used by practice. It is a practice, by definition, to follow processes.
So are John and Robert arguing over nothing? No, this is just another example of the Hermeneutics v Formalism debate that is played at everywhere, everyday. The truth is that one can't live with out the other, they are both extreme's and all of life sits in-between.
However here is the warning shot. Balancing Hermeneutics and Formalism is important for modern business. Hermaneutics is where you will get innovation from, Formalism will insure that the innovation becomes process and is acted or made and repeated. To much Hermaneutics will mean less automation and less structure. To much Formalism will create an environment that will not promote innovation.
Good business, just like life, is about continued improvement so during the cycle it would be wise to realise when you need Hermeneutics or Formalism. The best companies may not have realised that yet but are unwittingly doing this all the same. As EA's we need to understand what is the best tool to implement or create or update a strategy, Hermeneutics or Formalism? Examine it on a case by case basis taking into account the current goals and values of your organisation.