|
In short, I would say no. EA = planning
and context, Agile/SDLC = design and implementation.
EA is all about setting a strategic
context for projects and the day-to-day change to happen within.
EA may show that a new service and
supporting set of applications are required.
EA (principles) may also say that as
much as possible should be reused, if not bought, if not then built.
However, EA does not say anything about
how that service/application should be built. At the lower levels of governance
(down in the policies, standards and guidelines) there may well be definitions
around using Agile (or not as the organisations views are). This is the
responsibility of Solution and Technical Architects.
The funding gateway chart shown in
Governance - Process (PDF) illustrates the
funding gateways for projects that are executing within the EA context.
It is important for EA to have setup
these funding gateways to make management aware that forcing projects to define
exactly how much money they need for a project before even solution options have
been determined must stop.
Although the diagram shows a
predominately waterfall approach, its not this that is important, you could do
use any SDLC you want. What is important is to have an organised set of funding
gateways whereby any uncertainty about costs is recognised and managed
appropriately.
Back
to Top
Sitting the Exam without doing the
course is certainly possible. We do not stipulate that individuals must do the
course in order to sit the exam.
One thing we would point of though is
that PEAF and the PEAF course is much more than just going through a set of
training materials.
We try to instil a Pragmatic ethos and
culture in people practicing PEAF that they can then pass on to others in
end-user organisations and government bodies. Discussion and understanding are
the keys not just “getting through the material”. In the same way that EA is a
cultural shift for an organisation, so PEAF is also a cultural shift for the
individual.
Our Pragmatic view of life also pervades
our training in that we believe that if the course has not prepared someone
enough to sit and pass the Certification exam, we look on that as more of a
failing in the teaching than in the individual. For that reason, re-sitting the
exam is at a largely reduced rate.
If an individual still wishes to take
the exam without training, since we cannot control how much or how long they
have been studying PEAF, any re-takes would be at the original rate.
Back
to Top
The work proprietary has very negative
connotations. These connotations tend to be from an IT perspective and related
to technology in that something which is non-proprietary or “open” is much
better than something which is proprietary or “closed”.
For something to be open there must be
some council or group which is responsible for its evolution and protection. The
reason this does not currently exist is more one of timing than a conscious
decision.
At the moment PEAF would be considered
to be proprietary in that it is completely under the control of Pragmatic EA.
However, we have always listened to and continue to act upon comments made
regarding changes and improvements. In addition proprietary intimates that you
cannot change something. For those that have become Certified, the full source
of PEAF is available for them to change as they require.
In the future, it is intended that a
council of members would contribute discuss and evolve the framework, under a
set of guiding principles one of which would be to make sure that PEAF stays
true to its fundamental raison d’etre of being small, concise, pragmatic and
free of bloat and sound bites.
This council of members will need time
to come into existence, but this will happen as the framework grows in
popularity.
It is expected that the council will be
composed of End-User Organisations, Government Agencies, Consultancies, Training
Providers, Tool Vendors and Individuals. In fact anyone interested in its
advancement will be able to have a voice.
As Pragmatic EA and its Founder has
always stated, we are always open to any suggestions and comments, favouring
negative ones over positive ones, because it is the negative comments that will
continue to evolve it.
Back
to Top
The quick answer is, it depends what the EA is doing….
For example, populating an Enterprise Architecture model and QA'ing the data that gets put in it is definitely not a job for an external Enterprise Architect. The people who own the data are the best people to do that and they are people already in the organisation. An external or indeed internal Enterprise Architect or any other single individual could do it but don’t expect it to be very fast or very accurate as they will have to keep constantly referring back to the people in the organisation that do have the knowledge.
In terms of maintaining that data - you don't need a bottleneck of one person allowed to change things either. Those changes should be in the hands of the people who own the information.
In terms of analysing the information and contributing to business strategy and IT strategy, yes, an Enterprise Architect can definitely help there, and maybe some business knowledge is useful, but the problem is not doing that analysis and work. Once you can see the enterprise it is actually pretty easy to decide how it needs to change for the better.
The major problem is getting Enterprise Architecture ingrained in the organisation to start with. Once everything it ticking over nicely, the organisation can dispense with the Enterprise Architect’s extremely highly paid services and he/she can then move on to the next “challenge”
Putting this another way, I see type types of “Enterprise Architect’s”
Type 1 - The Enterprise Architect that “brings” EA to an organisation and gets them set up and working correctly. This person could then return on a periodic basis to assess how well or not the organisation is progressing with it’s EA initiative. I call this person an Enterprise Architect.
Type 2 - The Enterprise Architect that works as the strategic planning team, utilising the information in the Enterprise Architecture model and being completely involved in the business and its workings. I call this person a Business Architect.
The long answer is
therefore : -
In respect of the Type 1 above – Nothing.
In respect of the Type 2 above – Everything.
Back
to Top
|
