Architecture Institute - results of comments and opinions

Hey Folks, thanks for all the comments and inputs into my blog from two days ago. To recap that blog, I suggested that there appears to be a need for a central Architecture Institute that allows for a central repository of Architecture Whitepapers, templates, and approaches, for a method for Architects to communicate in an organized manner, to provide training and growth for all levels of Architect (regardless of amount of experience and which domain or level), and allow for a method to ensure that Architects meet a certain level of capability. For a more indepth read on what I was suggesting, go to https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/time-architecture-institute-neil-rerup?trk=prof-post 

I have also been reading the comments in Phillip Zito's blog "Why hasn't anyone made a step by step EA book" with great interest. Alot of the commentary apply directly to this discussion so I will include them in this summary.

What I wanted to do with this writing is to compile the comments and thoughts and to suggest the next steps (if there were any to be taken). So, to summarize what was said (and my apologize if I 'bastardize' the comments), here's the high points:

Agree / Disagree

I posted the blog into a number of groups and received comments in them. The results are roughly as follows:

• 276 views after 2 days
• 28 comments by roughly 18 individuals
• 16 individuals Agree with the idea of having an Architecture Institute
• 2 individuals Disagree with the idea of having an Architecture Institute
• The article had 20 likes (this will be an overlap with the comments).

So I would suggest that the vast majority of people would like to see an Architecture Institute.

The following sections provide some context on the thinking. I will be keeping these comments in mind (both positive and negative) moving forward in order to ensure that the Architecture Institute meets the needs of Architects everywhere.

Existing Entities

A few individuals did point out that there were existing entities in their comments. While looking at these comments, remember that they can be used to  ensure that the Architecture Institute is set up correctly. One comment that applies to all the existing Frameworks that I want to point out is:

"I agree that some of the 900+ EA framework practitioners will have a hard time with this and probably for good reason. I recently read a good article written by Sudhir Desai called "To co-create or not - that is no longer a question" and I commented accordingly"

TOGAF

The following comments talk about the pros and cons about The Open Group and TOGAF:

• The Open Group has OpenCA which is an experience based certification similar to what you are looking for
• When I look at TOGAF, its a very well defined framework but its wide open for changes . So a common repository of information with guide lines would be very helpful.
• TOGAF is the most widely used EA framework and there are almost 50,000 people certified in TOGAF worldwide. You cannot ignore the TOGAF view. But there are a ton of people misusing TOGAF, just like anything else so you always have to take it with a grain of salt
• TOGAF is a classic example of a context-specific framework. If your needs happen to match exactly to what it expects, it's actually very good. The context it's designed for is big-IT infrastructures in big IT-based transaction-oriented organisations in banking, insurance, finance and tax. And the further that your EA needs diverge from those assumptions, the less useful it becomes. To be blunt, TOGAF is designed for a context that very few of us operate within now. And whilst they do tell you that you need to adapt the framework, they don't actually get round to telling you how.

AEA

The following comments talked about the pros and cons of AEA:

• Despite the considerable efforts of the indefatigable Len Fehskens, who edits JEA, the AEA is still essentially an offshoot of the Open Group, and still largely wedded to the TOGAF view of enterprise-architecture. In other words, more of a hindrance than a help for the future development of EA
• The only issue is that it is still relatively small, largely because it is very much volunteer/member driven and is not affiliated with any particular vendor, SI or framework

Other Organizations

The following comments talk about other organizations other than The Open Group and AEA:

• you should create a EA Org around the secure enterprise. I've got many, many examples where folks asked for a secure model that they could deliver across their enterprise and quite frankly ISO 27000/NIST 800/ Cobit 5 just don't cut it.
• Yes there is TOGAF. Yes there is the IEEE 1471 and IEEE 1016. They are all way too high level to be executable though in my opinion

Resources

The Blogs reviewed also brought out the following resources that is good to remember, emulate, and leverage as much as possible. I have tried to embed the URLs to the resources for those that want to look into them:

• "Chess and the Art of Enterprise Architecture" is an iBook that has been available for short period of time.
• "Mastering ArchiMate"
• "Enterprise Architecture Scorecard" by IFEAD
• Department of Commerce Architecture Capability Maturity Model
• MIT's Maturity Model

• the blogpost https://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2014/12/yet-another-definition-of-enterprise.html  provides a set of metrics to qualify enterprise architects.
• Pragmatic EA Framework (PEAF)
• the adoption of Alfabet (SAG) is one guaranteed way learn how EAM should be implemented and guarantees clear and easy financial benefit's to the organization
• "Agility vs. Maturity"
• "Enterprise Architecture Desk Reference", last published in 2004 (2nd edition) by the Meta Group
• "SWOT Analysis Importance"

General Comments

And, finally, here are the general comments that talked about the Architecture Institute, both good and bad. Again, the point is to keep these in mind moving forward:

• We must add experience, talent and "people competence" to the over-engineered and theoretical frameworks.
• There needs to some sort of "next step" in the evolution of IT architecture
• On condition that it uses a practical lab approach ( scenario based), but sure it's time.
• We (whoever that is!) are still struggling with our identity, scope and zillions of titles with overlapping responsibilities. If we can't figure that out, how can we sell it to the CxOs?!
• If you come from a whole-organisation perspective, there are at least another half-dozen - Brands, Product, Service, Financials, Facilities, Organisation and more. If you extend the view to whole-enterprise, you'll need to add yet more architectures - Culture, Market, Communications and so on.
• Boundaries and partitions are very much a matter of choice - which in turn reflect the nature of the respective organization
• At the very least we can build out a reading list/ resource list for those new to EA, so they don't suffer through the long nights I did in the beginning
• It is challenging to digest an enterprise's current maturity level, quickly profile it against similar past enterprises and then create a to-be architecture and associated work packages. Unlike internal roles where I will be with the enterprise for 3-5 years to see the realization of the To-Be architectures, in this external consulting role I don't get to complete the feedback loop of how well the architectures ended up executing
• There's an urgent need for good entry-level stuff. Nigel Green (of VPEC-T fame) was commenting a while back that whilst the 800-page doorstop can be useful, what's really needed is the 80-page practical summary, the 8-page quickstart guide and 0.8 page exec-overview.
• The theoretical knowledge is important but working everyday to run it is also important. In my experience, there must be a balance between theory and best practical.
• Building EA cannot be done learning through video or audio books. It should be built using the experience of the people in the organization based on the organization vision and strategy.
• I don't believe EA can be applied using books or models. There has to be sufficient experience within the technology and business environments to do that.
• I think one of the part-answers to your question is that practical information requires context, examples, etc - and for those involved in consulting EA, that entails sharing confidential client information, and it also requires some sharing of practice which the sharing EA may regard as their differentiation in the market. This can be overcome - but it requires the development of a trusting community of practitioners across different market places - where engagement and sharing is not seen to impact on maintaining an income
• One interesting point in the previous conversation about learning all the time is very important. Its more because the EA requirements of every organization are different. Hence we need to understand the situation and accordingly apply the solution. Here knowledge of others practioners in the field and their experiences will help in solving faster.
• We need judgement and thought process to solve such things. The more we do it the better we become.
• I think that a missing book about EA should provide a lot of practical and, very important, repeatable, techniques (or methods or procedures) for all the typical activities in EA. How to establish a technology watch function, Introduce SOA, describe a business process, etc. Like a cook-book. Thus any EA group may try various "recipes" and provide some feedback on them.
• Nobody has learned modeling business by reading a book with step-by-step instructions. This can be misleading. The sequence depends on the individual and the object of modeling. What is good for one individual and one organization, may not be appropriate in a different circumstances.
• Aspiring EAs come from different starting points, so their learning and development needs are different, and their entry points are different.
• In principle, Tom is right, just granularity of steps need to be clarified. In Business Process Management (BPM) which is “meta-framework” for each of many of enterprises’ process frameworks, I noticed that the vast majority of unique business processes can be constructed from a limited set of business-centric patterns ( which is the 5th law of BPM – see https://improving-bpm-systems.blogspot.ch/2015/07/laws-of-bpm-business-process-management.html  ).
• Certainly, EA must evolve from its current alchemy state to more scientific approach and become an “applied science”. A cook-book with repeatable and practical methods (techniques, patterns, etc.) to define EA artefacts and to establish explicit & machine-executable relationships between them could be the first deliverable.
• By its very name "Cyber Architecture" is a limiting and limited IT only view of enterprise architecture. Why would Business Architects want to be part of "Cyber Architecture"?
• I do not believe it is being "IT-centric" to classify architecture into three domains (Technical, Information, & Business). In fact, I think this is the cleanest domain split possible.

Next Steps

Okay, now that I have a feel for whether people would be interested in an Architecture Institute and what they would like it to do, it's time for next steps.

Next on the agenda are a series of steps;

• I'm going to arrange for a Conference Call that allows all that are interested in participating in the creation of the Architecture Institute begin a conversation to move things forward.
• A Board of Advisors is needed to oversee the creation of the Institute - in order for the Institute to be viewed as legitimate, it needs some credibility in terms of who is supporting it. I will reach out to VP level and Director levels that I have contacts with to see if they would like to sit on this Board of Advisors. This group would meet once a month for 1 hour and provide guidance for moving this forward. 
• I will set up a legal entity that will be accountable for the activities of the Architecture Institute (centrally) and talk to my lawyers about how to set this up for a central / local relationship.
• A Governance structure needs to be set up. If you are interested in participating in the Governance structure, please let me know and I will set up a conference call.
• I would like to know from who of you would be interested in setting up local chapters. If you are interested, please let me know and I will reach out to you to talk further. The point is that there needs to be a local conversation going on with a central organization providing a set of standards and capabilities for Architects world wide.
• A website will have to be set up with access controls for members to access repository of information, whitepapers, templates, processes, bulletin board, etc. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see in the Members Only access area and I will arrange to have that implemented.

There will need to be a number of other conversations that will have to occur such as:

• definitions of Architect and Architect levels
• requirements for each level (Theoretical, Practical, Experience). I would like to see the practical aspect represented by Whitepapers that are submitted, vetted, and then released (upon acceptance) to the group at large (eg. SANS Reading Room).
• Certification - What is the process for certification?
•  Training Sessions - There will be people that don't want to certify but do want training. There needs to be training sessions created but to an appropriate framework. What is that framework? Who would like to create those training sessions?
• others.

Those conversations will take place after the first steps. But if you have thoughts on those areas (or any others - refer to the following Strawman that I also included in the original blog), please feel free to speak up or connect with me so you can send me personal emails (email: [email protected]).

Thanks and we'll talk further on this.