<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Enterprise Architecture Frameworks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jefferyhaynes.net/2009/08/24/enterprise-architecture-frameworks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jefferyhaynes.net/2009/08/24/enterprise-architecture-frameworks/</link>
	<description>Living with one foot in Tech, and one in the Real World.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:17:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: CoherencyArchitect</title>
		<link>http://jefferyhaynes.net/2009/08/24/enterprise-architecture-frameworks/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CoherencyArchitect]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theartoftechonline.wordpress.com/?p=95#comment-157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi!

Well I would assume that the reason for why the individual enterprises chooses different frameworks are to achieve a better performance and result from that particular framework. E.g., TOGAF has been known for being rather technically focused even though the hardest part of Enterprise Architecture is to change the behavior of the individuals in the enterprise. DOD Architecture framework is made by the armed forces. You can of course argue that the armed forces are designed as all other major corporation (enterprise); however they don&#039;t have the same need for earning money or the same limitations of resources as a private enterprise has.
The Gartner framework is described as a IT-governance framework compared definitions as Bernard (Scott A. Bernard) defines in his book &quot;An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture&quot;.
The Oracle Framework seems to be too technically biased.

&quot;Because the framework documents tend to come from a C-level executive, or from a team of people reporting to a C-level executive, they tend to both take into account the business strategy of the organization and contain the weight of the office&quot;

That is an interesting assumption. Would an organization that wants to adapt Enterprise Architecture hand over power or artifacts from the C-level group or would it go through passionate individuals who support the implementation of Enterprise Architecture? In many cases I would argue the later.

Likewise does a document really outlines the strategy of the organization? Or is it the embodiment of the strategy in the persons who develops it?

&quot;These Frameworks are in essence the technical business plan for the organization.&quot;

I believe I might have a different definition what a business plan is. The Enterprise Architecture program should first all document the &quot;AS IS&quot; situation and then create a plan for what projects should be initiated to enable the  &quot;TO BE&quot; architecture.

&quot;So when a team is deciding between an MS platform, or one from IBM they must use these documents as a guiding force in choosing which platforms to go with.&quot;

In most mature frameworks the Enterprise Architecture group should define principles of which the individual decision making should align it self with. The artifacts or what call EA Framework Documents should be used to create holistic enterprise wide view.

Best regards,
Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>Well I would assume that the reason for why the individual enterprises chooses different frameworks are to achieve a better performance and result from that particular framework. E.g., TOGAF has been known for being rather technically focused even though the hardest part of Enterprise Architecture is to change the behavior of the individuals in the enterprise. DOD Architecture framework is made by the armed forces. You can of course argue that the armed forces are designed as all other major corporation (enterprise); however they don&#8217;t have the same need for earning money or the same limitations of resources as a private enterprise has.<br />
The Gartner framework is described as a IT-governance framework compared definitions as Bernard (Scott A. Bernard) defines in his book &#8220;An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture&#8221;.<br />
The Oracle Framework seems to be too technically biased.</p>
<p>&#8220;Because the framework documents tend to come from a C-level executive, or from a team of people reporting to a C-level executive, they tend to both take into account the business strategy of the organization and contain the weight of the office&#8221;</p>
<p>That is an interesting assumption. Would an organization that wants to adapt Enterprise Architecture hand over power or artifacts from the C-level group or would it go through passionate individuals who support the implementation of Enterprise Architecture? In many cases I would argue the later.</p>
<p>Likewise does a document really outlines the strategy of the organization? Or is it the embodiment of the strategy in the persons who develops it?</p>
<p>&#8220;These Frameworks are in essence the technical business plan for the organization.&#8221;</p>
<p>I believe I might have a different definition what a business plan is. The Enterprise Architecture program should first all document the &#8220;AS IS&#8221; situation and then create a plan for what projects should be initiated to enable the  &#8220;TO BE&#8221; architecture.</p>
<p>&#8220;So when a team is deciding between an MS platform, or one from IBM they must use these documents as a guiding force in choosing which platforms to go with.&#8221;</p>
<p>In most mature frameworks the Enterprise Architecture group should define principles of which the individual decision making should align it self with. The artifacts or what call EA Framework Documents should be used to create holistic enterprise wide view.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

