The Complete Pragmatic Family of Frameworks











◄◄◄ Previous Page         

.  

          Next Page ►►►

The Framework Misinterpretation barrier to getting an Enterprise to mature its Transformation capability using POET and PEAF, is that people misinterpret Pragmatic’s Frameworks in two totally opposing ways. Both of which cannot be correct.

People in Camp 1 say something like,

“It’s all a bit high level and conceptual to be adopted. It doesn’t actually tell me what to do, and therefore, is of little practical use.”

They view Pragmatic’s Frameworks as being as simplistic as a basic diagram on Aerodynamics is to a pilot.

People in Camp 2 say something like,

 “It’s far too detailed and large to be adopted, will take too long to learn, will require massive change and therefore, is of little practical use.”

They view Pragmatic’s Frameworks as being as complicated and complex as a full Flight manual is to a trainee pilot.

Plainly something is not right, as something cannot be too high level and conceptual and be too detailed and large at the same time. One of those camps must be wrong!

In fact, the truth is, they are both wrong.

But why do they think they are right? When someone who has not spent enough time understanding something, wishes to stop spending time understanding something, an easy get-out-of-jail-free card is to reject it, and an easy way to do that is to say that it’s either too simple to be of any use, or its too complicated to be of any use. These people are not bad people. They are just “Slaves to Psychology™”

So, when people reject Pragmatic’s Frameworks, it is more to do with their understanding, which is a function of the time they have available, and the appetite they have for understanding them.

The reality is that Pragmatic’s Frameworks sit in a Pragmatic area between the two. They are more detailed than the simplistic views of Camp 1 and they are less detailed than the complex views of Camp 2.

To understand that Pragmatic’s Frameworks do not fit into Camp 1 or Camp2 we can refer back to the comparison of Zachman and TOGAF with POET and PEAF.

¨      Zachman is an example of a Framework that exists in Camp 1, because it is essentially just a grid and that’s it.

¨      TOGAF is an example of a Framework that exists in Camp 2, because it is horrendously complicated, inconsistent and detailed.

It is precisely because of this, that POET and PEAF were written - to bridge that chasm.

Pragmatic’s Frameworks, are in the Pragmatic Camp, were we provide more information and guidance than Camp 1 believes, and less detail and complexity than Camp 2 believes.

Perhaps people categorise Pragmatic’s Frameworks in these two camps because these two camps are the only camps they have ever known, and so they lump Pragmatic’s Frameworks into the same camp as the Frameworks that they already know aka Zachman and TOGAF. Frameworks that have frustrated them in the past, for either being too high level or too complicated.

 

Questions to ponder...

Do you think Pragmatic’s Frameworks are a bit high level and conceptual to be adopted and therefore of little practical use?”

Do you think Pragmatic’s Frameworks are far too detailed and large to be adopted and therefore of little practical use?”

What time have you spent understanding them?

What is your appetite to understand more?

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►









 

© 2008-2019 Pragmatic EA Ltd