Enterprise Architecture with a difference
"Enterprise architecture is to information as building architecture is to space."
- Roger Evernden
On these pages you will find new and original Enterprise Architecture techniques.
Enterprise Architecture is the art and science of designing information-based structures. It describes the theory, principles, guidelines, standards, conventions and factors for managing information-based structures within an enterprise.
Enterprise Architecture creates abstractions of an enterprise in the form of drawings, charts, plans, documents, models, designs, blueprints and templates. Collectively these are known as architectural artefacts. Artefacts are used to manage, understand and manage the inherent complexity in an enterprise by creating a holistic picture or map of its principal structural components and their relationship to one another.
Enterprise architecture is a broad discipline that embraces a large number of sub-architectures, such as data architecture, security architecture, network architecture and process architecture. It is a meta-discipline, that embraces ideas from many other disciplines.
The focus of Enterprise Architecture is on how to make an organization more effective. Enterprise architecture techniques are used to leverage information-intense programs and initiatives.
the Knowledge Scape - from muddles to models
Background
Some organisations continue to analyse their business from an industrial perspective that ignores any contribution from "information" or "knowledge". And many of the organisations that embrace the information age still have a muddled view of what can be achieved through better knowledge and information management.
From experience I have developed a simple, structured approach covering the four key areas that together determine how well knowledge and information are used within an organisation. My approach recognises that most applied knowledge in an organisation is personal knowledge, that the use of information plays a vital role in making the most of personal knowledge, and that the right working environment must exist. Only when these three bases are covered is it possible to create and sustain a significant business advantage.
How can this help you?
Some knowledge management programs only provide short-term benefits. Other initiatives fade when the initial enthusiasm wanes, or when the key supporters leave the company. Many organisations experience local success with little impact across the whole enterprise.
My structured, holistic approach achieves long-term sustainable benefits by making sure that changes are made at a fundamental level. I have prepared detailed checklists, templates and blueprints based on experience and practice, and these are easily adopted and quickly applied. In particular, the Knowledge Scape was designed to bridge the gap that often exists between knowledge management and IT programs.
The Knowledge Scape model became popular following its publication in the Confederation of British Industry's book on Knowledge Management in 1996. It is easy to adopt and use, and its success is due to its very rapid analysis of the current situation and the comprehensive options for strategic change that it generates (a Knowledge Scape study is completed in just five days).
top of this page ...more about Knowledge Scape ...
the Information FrameWork (IFW)
Background
Most large organisations use a tool which is variously called an enterprise architecture, business architecture or information architecture. Of these, a large proportion are based on a pre-defined framework, such as the Zachman Framework - which is also known as Information Systems Architecture (ISA) or the Zachman Enterprise Architecture. Although very popular, this framework, and other similar approaches, is outdated, and its use imposes severe restrictions on an organisation.
In the 1980s I identified three major faults with architectures such as the Zachman framework. (1) Because it was only designed to build computer systems it didn't take into account the business and organisational context in which computers were used. (2) It assumed that each computer system was built from scratch, so it didn't take into account reuse of components. (3) The framework consisted of little more than a concept and a diagram - it didn't have enough substance to make it really useful.
How can this help you?
Architectures in the 1980s did an excellent job at popularising the concepts of a large-scale design framework for managing complex issues across the whole of an enterprise. But many of these architectures have not evolved to meet changing needs and situations. While they work well for developing old-fashioned, stand-alone computer systems, they are inadequate for contemporary needs.
Through an exclusivity agreement between IBM and myself, the Information FrameWork (IFW) itself is only available from IBM. However, I have continued to advance the innovations that I introduced with IFW, and these are available directly from me.
My approach is unique in providing an architectural framework that is tailored to your exact needs - making it a perfect match for your organisation's requirements. My approach balances three inter-connected strands of (1) management and direction of the organisation, (2) running the operations of the business, and (3) supporting both with information technologies. My approach makes optimum use of time and resources by providing a sophisticated and detailed starter-kit that are quickly adopted by your organisation. Finally my approach continues to grow in power and value as your organisation adds its own experiences and learning to the templates and blueprints that I provide.
top of this page ...more about the Information FrameWork (IFW) ...
the three generations of Enterprise Architecture
Background
Many practitioners of information architecture preach that their approach is the only valid one. In fact, many information architects don't even acknowledge that there are other ways of doing things. As a result, the discipline is divided into a number of camps - each narrowly ignoring the others!
Throughout my life I have sought out the best tools and techniques for the job - regardless of where they came from. I have also argued against the narrow-mindedness that wastes so much time on turf wars instead of recognising the contribution and brilliance of the many. This is how the Evernden Eight evolved - by studying features that were common to all information management methodologies. Some of the differences can be explained by the various commercial interests that are involved in architecture - such as IT vendors, the big consultancies, or conference organisers.
To gain a clearer understanding of the differences, I took a historical perspective - and came up with the highly relevant insight - that, broadly speaking, there were three generations of information architecture. The first period covered the 1970s and 1980s - a period dominated by standalone, mainframe systems. There was a noticeable change in the late 1980s and 1990s to include the concept of reusability and modular systems. And in the later 1990s came the growing ascendancy of personal computers and the Internet.
How can this help you?
Recognising three broad styles of architecture made it easy to understand why each generation had such distinct supporters, techniques, deliverables, and limitations. It showed, for example, that the first generation is great for its intended standalone systems, but doesn't handle reuse very well. Each generation introduced valuable new skills - the second generation brought in the concept of pre-defined elements that could be used in a great many situations. My research helped to explain why first generation proponents continue to dominate discussions - mainly entrenched vested interests and the fact that it has been around for longer than the more recent generations. Similarly the popularity of Internet related architectures is largely due to the accessibility of the techniques to a larger audience.
Most importantly, it showed that there were limitations with each generation, but that each had much to contribute to the discipline. Serious practitioners are now taking the best ideas and techniques from all three generations to create an exciting new fourth generation.
How does this help you? Try applying these maxims: Beware the limitations of each methodology, as well as its benefits. Beware practitioners who only know of one generation. Beware those who say that information architecture is a recent development. Beware those who tout information architecture as an IT discipline.
top of this page ...more about the three generations of Information Architecture in the article Third Generation Information Architecture, published in Communications of the ACM in 2003 ...
| © 1995-2007. Roger Evernden, All rights reserved. | ||||
 |
Home | Contact us | About
Copyright | Privacy | Disclaimer |
|
||