In October 2009, I posted what appeared to
be a very simple challenge on “The Enterprise Architecture Network” LinkedIn
discussion Group - Describe the purpose of EA. The discussion received more
than 1,400 replies.
Many people have asked this question
numerous times before (and will undoubtedly continue to ask it). Each time the
question is asked the result is pages and pages of unstructured text:
statements, debates, arguments, counter arguments, bun fights, fallings out,
makings up, tiffs, love-ins and wars. Occasionally even peace breaks out!
That’s all well and good but it never seemed to solve anything or move things
forward in any way.
So, I asked for only 160 character messages
because I wanted to be able to take what people said, analyse them, so as to arrive at a hopefully agreeable definition that
included everyone’s views that people could then agree with.
The analysis was carried out during March
2010. Having not been able to find any linguistic analysis tools or anyone else
to perform a more detailed analysis, it was (unfortunately for some) left to my
brain to do the analysis. Whilst this “manual” analysis was very time consuming
it was, I believe, worthwhile.
The downside, of course, is that this
analysis can be largely subjective and therefore many people may disagree with
my analysis. If so, I do not take this disagreement as an indication of
failure, but more of an indication of valued discussion. The raw information is
provided as part of the PEAF Toolkit and therefore people can perform any
analysis on it that they wish to.
Ultimately, while anyone can disagree with
the results, the only person that can disagree with the structuring of the
definitions (which the results are based on) is the person who wrote the