It’s pretty clear that ‘Enterprise Architecture’ and ‘Enterprise Architect’ is considerably more than one role.
As such the practice of EA isn’t very efficient because it is a ‘jack of multiple disciplines and master of none’. Naturally specialisms will occur to make up for inefficiencies and will then continue to adapt and evolve. During this process I can also see a consensus on what these new roles will be called and a broad definition and responsibilities, this will occur as we try to find people to fill these role.
TOGAF has had a pretty good go at this already and I have to say it’s pretty darn good and detailed enough to do something with.
But before I discovered TOGAF I decided to have a crack at it myself and this is what I came up with ...
-
Leader – The Figure-Head, PR Purposes.
-
Planner – Project Management skills
-
Approver – This is the owner and stake-holders, the people that sign-off
-
Technology/Application Stream roles
-
Data Modeller
-
Business Process Architect
The message I want to get across is ... that these roles can have processes underneath them but by their nature I can’t see them being process driven they will depend on a high degree of specialised skills so we are talking about a high degree of practice. This is why I’m coming even more to the conclusion that EA is a set of practices which action individual pre-made process that automate laboriousness and/or reduce error and increase efficiency but on the whole its a bunch of humans making decision.
What do you think?