Lifecycle Based Enterprise Architecture Practice

This morning I came to the conclusion that the typical approach towards Enterprise Architecture consulting taxonomy was inefficient. I am not saying the Zachman Framework/Ontology that I've used most of my career is wrong. What I've found is that how it is typically implemented, as is TOGAF, DoDAF, etc. is slideways. The methods called out to produce artifacts and the artifacts are useful, however, the praxis of selecting and employing these has traditionally been focused on sub-disciplines rather than enterprise outcomes. Often times leaving the coordination and integration of this artifacts to chance. 

 Several years ago the insight came to me after a discussion with Mr. Zachman, that the columns and rows in the framework were dimensions and that the cells were actually views if we continued the architect metaphor. Further research in several other disciplines have had me investigating how one could visualize a multi-dimensional object such as an enterprise. That research continues. During an Enterprise Design and Transformation presentation last year at COFES I presented an enhanced version of an Enterprise Lifecycle Model. Aside from the addition of a more stages, the core concept to be gained was that the challenges, methods, and configuration of methods needed at each stage were unique to that stage. This appears to have merit given the success of Startup Methodologies, Agile Methods, and Traditional Optimization methods unique to an enterprise’s lifecycle stage. 

 With that insight this morning I’ve started to restructure the enterprise design and transformation book (formally titled: Structure in Threes) in two parts. The first part covering an enterprise’s lifecycle, listing challenges, methods, and method configurations. The second part covering the how to of methods partitioned in the traditional taxonomy. This seems to align well with DMR’s John Thorpe premise “Begin with the End in Mind” or rather “Start with the goal and work Backward”.