Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Enterprise Architecture: Robert McIllree vs Chris Petrilli
For the first time, I am an outsider looking into a debate between two individuals in the blogosphere on their perceptions of enterprise architecture...
Mr Petrilli starts to attack James Robertson by referring to him as a servile self-seeker. In the past he has also commented with passion on several of my postings. He is now going after Robert McIlree for his views on EA. Of course, within his posting he does some chest-pounding about how he designed interoperable PKI systems for governments before most folks even heard of PKI. I wonder if we were to look at his past work, would we think it was of high quality?
On some level, Petrilli and I have some commonality. We are both insightful and inciteful within the same blog posting. The funny thing though is that no matter what others think, I don't intentionally blog to torque folks off. Some of my questions are written in a way that allows for folks to think I have other motives but the questions themselves are meant to provide and uncover additional insight and to start a dialog.
It would make me incredibly happy to see Petrilli answer the questions I originally posed to James Robertson if he were an Enterprise Architect. Scenarios helps us understand one's perspective. I did try to ask the questions in a way that wouldn't give away my own recommendation but of course folks will still think whatever they want in this regard. I do hope that they will take a shot at them.
The funny thing though about the dialog between Petrilli and McIlree is that both of their perspectives on EA are for the most part tainted. McIlree is a consultant who doesn't have to live with his decisions in the long term. He can propose motherhood and apple pie to any IT executive that is willing to listen yet we all know that the real world is different than happy path architectures allow for. Likewise, Petrilli from what I can gather has actually never practiced enterprise architecture nor even with an open mind ever read a book on the subject. I guess that intuition is on the money most of the time but EA is a discipline based on fact-based reasoning not speculation.
I hope that a meaningful dialog on EA can emerge from all of the participates and not degrade into personal attacks. Maybe I am hopeful, maybe I believe that Petrilli and McIlree are capable of open dialog. Maybe not, only time will tell...
| | View blog reactionsMr Petrilli starts to attack James Robertson by referring to him as a servile self-seeker. In the past he has also commented with passion on several of my postings. He is now going after Robert McIlree for his views on EA. Of course, within his posting he does some chest-pounding about how he designed interoperable PKI systems for governments before most folks even heard of PKI. I wonder if we were to look at his past work, would we think it was of high quality?
On some level, Petrilli and I have some commonality. We are both insightful and inciteful within the same blog posting. The funny thing though is that no matter what others think, I don't intentionally blog to torque folks off. Some of my questions are written in a way that allows for folks to think I have other motives but the questions themselves are meant to provide and uncover additional insight and to start a dialog.
It would make me incredibly happy to see Petrilli answer the questions I originally posed to James Robertson if he were an Enterprise Architect. Scenarios helps us understand one's perspective. I did try to ask the questions in a way that wouldn't give away my own recommendation but of course folks will still think whatever they want in this regard. I do hope that they will take a shot at them.
The funny thing though about the dialog between Petrilli and McIlree is that both of their perspectives on EA are for the most part tainted. McIlree is a consultant who doesn't have to live with his decisions in the long term. He can propose motherhood and apple pie to any IT executive that is willing to listen yet we all know that the real world is different than happy path architectures allow for. Likewise, Petrilli from what I can gather has actually never practiced enterprise architecture nor even with an open mind ever read a book on the subject. I guess that intuition is on the money most of the time but EA is a discipline based on fact-based reasoning not speculation.
I hope that a meaningful dialog on EA can emerge from all of the participates and not degrade into personal attacks. Maybe I am hopeful, maybe I believe that Petrilli and McIlree are capable of open dialog. Maybe not, only time will tell...
