Thursday, March 05, 2009
Is Enterprise Architecture forever doomed to mediocrity...
In a reactive environment, it is nearly impossible to create value for using architecture. Architecture in a typical company is always doomed to fail. Of course, we can put a spin on everything and publish our success when reality says that we will never achieve more than mediocrity if measured through the lens of perception.
Has anyone else noticed that sometimes you never get anywhere by saying that this will make the product/project/etc better? Nobody gives a frig. Maybe we are mediocre because we haven't yet figured out how to attach it as a rider to a business requirement? Architecture is not easily measurable or quantifiable in numbers. You can not really attach a dollar figure to architecture benefits.
One should always ask both sides of the debate. One question is how to manage a defacto architecture while another is to ask did we ever have an architecture in the first place? We don't seem to have a consensus as to what the word "Architecture" means. Maybe that's because it was a word invented to fit an organizational structure.
- Archi: To rule
- Tectum: Roof
Actually, the word comes from Greek archi-==chief- + tektwn==craftsman, i.e., chief-craftsman. So let's agree that if we rule the roof's, our heads are somewhere in the clouds. Likewise, how can you consider yourself a craftsman if the vast majority of people within IT don't even understand the basics regarding crafting IT ecosystems?
Interestingly enough, about a century or two centuries ago, architects were the inventors of buildings, they put their names on them. Nowadays, most architects don't even want to be associated with things they have created...
Links to this post: