In relation to the Transformation of Enterprises, there are
many Frameworks (Pragmatic EA is tracking over 900) that have been
produced to help Enterprises deal with Enterprise Transformation in a more
effective and efficient manner. These things are of various types;
“frameworks”, ontologies, methodologies, Notations, Architectures, Theories,
Models etc, etc, etc. We use the word Framework to refer to them all.
Each of these Frameworks has been designed and engineered to
operate with a specific domain or context, for example; strategic planning,
project management, enterprise architecture, software design and development,
service management, change management, etc, etc etc. We could categorise these
Frameworks in different ways:
Domain - Some Frameworks exist
to help with Strategising or Roadmapping, while others exist to help with the
design of IT systems, or a particular discipline such as Project Management.
Coverage - Some Frameworks deal
only with Structural elements of Transformation (Categories, Ontologies, meta-models)
like Zachman or BMM while others deal more with Procedural elements of
Transformation (Methods, Practices, Processes) like eTOM. Others encompass both
Depth - Some Frameworks provide
only high level concepts and guidance, others contain vast amounts of detail
and very prescriptive.
Geography - Some Frameworks exist
to serve a particular country or region like The Bank of England Framework,
while others are geography independent like BMM.
Industry - Some Frameworks are
Industry specific like eTOM, while others are industry agnostic like BMM.
¨ Maturity - How mature the framework is - (can be
partly related to its age although that can also be inversely proportional!)
Like many things, these Frameworks have grown and evolved
organically and expanded their scope and areas of interest as they themselves
have matured. This usually happens when the framework creators realise that the
problems being experienced within their domain, are being caused by immaturity
in another domain (usually upstream) and therefore grow and seep into that
domain to “fix” those problems. ITIL is a prime example of this.
How successful frameworks have been in morphing themselves
into areas they were never designed to operate in is largely subjective, and
opinion tends to be driven by allegiances and crusades. In addition all of
these Frameworks have been designed and built in isolation - to optimise
specific parts rather than the whole.
So, the problem is not the lack of frameworks. The problem
is the abundance of frameworks. Because of this, there are overlaps, gaps,
inconsistencies and clashes. In short, total confusion. So the framework
providers, whose primary aim is to provide clarity in their domain, have
created confusion in the wider domain.
Consequently people have adopted these frameworks in a
similarly haphazard fashion, optimising specific parts but never considering
the whole. Perhaps starting in one area and then finding themselves being
subtly pulled into other areas. They have been optimising the parts at the
expense of the whole.