Learning about MS Word

Since the early days of the architecture discipline, we have used common text to express complex architectural descriptions. This has caused no end of trouble because of the general ambiguity of textual descriptions. I have been performing certification interviews inside of IBM and for The Open Group since 2001. The most often used tools are Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. These tools were used probably because they were the familiar ones at hand. But, something happened over the last few years to make textual architecture description even more useless, Globalization.

All of us work in a world that has been “flattened” by technology. I have worked with companies whose projects are mandated to be spread across the globe. In this environment, enterprise architecture is more critical, and so is clear and unambiguous communication about the architectural description. It’s time for the profession to grow up. I’m sure there was a time when the civil architecture profession used what ever drawings and descriptions they wanted to have a building built. Then buildings became more complex, there were more of them being built, and construction processes became standardized. To become more efficient in their work, civil architects adopted a standard notation and taught the building trades how to use that notation. We know this today as a blueprint. Further, it is rare for the architect to show the blueprints to the clients because they contain the technical detail drawings which might confuse the client. Instead they build a balsa and paper model of the building to show clients what it will look like.

So, what is the enterprise architect’s equivalent to the “blueprint notation”. There is a faction in the EA community that would like to have a new architecture description language, creating a new standard. Another camp would like to adopt an existing standard that the development community already uses, UML. There are good arguments on both sides. I am on the side of using UML, an existing standard. Do we really need to haggle over another standard?

What do you think?

Are certifications valuable?

An article from Infoworld came to my attention today. It talks about the value of technical certifications in the current job market that is affected by the economic downturn. The Open Group IT Architect Certification program (ITAC) was listed on the top of the list. The author also made the same case I have been making on the Google Groups EA Network that EA work is critical in an economic downturn.

Blog Introduction

I searched around for a while before deciding to start my own blog on Enterprise Architecture. It is interesting to find the dead blogs on Blogger, WordPress and other sites that have Enterprise Architecture in their titles. Like all architecture practitioners, I have opinions about how EA should be carried out, and it seems a little presumptuous to blog about EA. Then, there is the notion of shared experience and support related to growing the community.

There is blatant purpose in this blog. I am working with Chris Armstrong, and the other great people at Armstrong Process Group. As we grow the EA business at APG, I will use this blog to build our brand. We have definite ideas about the practice of EA and how it needs to mature toward more formality and rigor. We bring to EA all of the disciplines learned through implementing formal software development processes. APG believes in formal modeling usage in EA. In a global environment that crosses time zones and cultures, ambiguous textual descriptions of Enterprise Architecture content and process is no longer viable. Additionally, the demands of corporate governance and the critical role EA plays in corporate strategy deployment require EA practitioners to be more formally governed. It’s time to grow up.

My career wound its way through technical sales support to the early days of adding the IT Architect disciplines to software technical sales at IBM. I participated in the IT Architect profession after my certification in 2001 as a Security Architect. I have been active in The Open Group since 2000, and I was honored to serve the Architecture Forum as the Vice-Chair for North America in 2004 and 2005, and the Chair in 2006. From 2001 through 2004 I lead the effort to bring the IT Architect Certification program from IBM to The Open Group with the help of many friends.

I retired from IBM in April of 2007. I continue to participate in the IT Architect Certification board of The Open Group ITAC program, and I have an appointment as a Senior Research Fellow at Boston University School of Management. I now have time to focus my full attention to the areas of EA that I believe are critical.

I make no promises about frequency of updates to this blog, except to say that I know blogs are like sharks, they must continue to move forward or die. I also believe in community participation, so my ranting will be in vain unless it is part of a dialog.