Svyatoslav Kotusev’s article, A comparison of the top four enterprise architecture frameworks received varying feedback when Cyma Co-Founder and Director Michael Tapp reposted it on LinkedIn. It assesses these frameworks and doesn’t pull any punches. The article is meant to be provocative, but there is a lot of truth in what Kotusev is saying. His approach to Enterprise Architecture is endorsed and promoted by the British Computer Society.
Rather than just bagging some of the best known EA frameworks, he does promote an alternative - Enterprise Architecture on a Page - which we have found is much closer to the reality of what works in the real world. We at Cyma are excited to see that others are aligned to our way of thinking. This is how we have been doing IT architecture for some time and we have embraced and further evolved this style of framework. Rather than define an explicit set of architecture processes, the framework provides a rich set of artefacts/tools that add real value, something that every IT architect should have in their kitbag.
Being pragmatic is key, especially in New Zealand scale organisations. Artefacts need to be right sized and fit for purpose. IT architecture is an art, but should also be empowered by science. Given an organisation’s often complex context, the ability for IT architects to embrace this complexity, apply tried and proven frameworks, but also have the creativity and innovation to produce something unique; results in a superior and more effective outcome. In the real world, many organisations are following some form of Agile method with inconsistent application. In these scenarios, the processes are fluid, but your kitbag of Architecture tools are invaluable to still provide a valuable and relevant outcome.
While few organisations in New Zealand would never consider the likes of FEAF and DoDAF (large US based frameworks), many still promote TOGAF as a good fit for New Zealand organisations and send their architects on related courses - this isn't a surprise, there are no well understood alternatives. As Kotusev explains in the Enterprise architecture is not TOGAF article (one of the best kept secrets in IT architecture), there is little ‘real world’ evidence of TOGAF being used - or where it is used its not delivering the value that it professes to.
My personal experience reflects that too. In my role as Head of Technology Architecture Practice at Cyma, I have interviewed in excess of 100 architects in the last 12 months. Not one person mentioned TOGAF. It's become a badge of honour, something many think they need to have on their CV. In my role, I'm all about reusable Cyma IP, such as frameworks, models, processes and diagrams. We have to ensure that we use something that gives value - not just a label that gives the customer a level of comfort that some industry framework is being used.
Part of what makes a good architect is the ability to question and challenge what we have done before, to make what we will do better. Something that is the core tradecraft of a Cyma architect.
Welcome to the revolution.
