Talk:Enterprise architecture

message: I would delete the reference to ISO 42010.  It's description is only related to software architecture documentation.  Bass and Clements, formally of SEI, in their Book Software Architecture in Practice provide a specific reason for this citing 42010.  Taylor and Medvidovic, in their work Software Architecture, Theory and Practice have a whole chapter comparing software architecture with the concept of architecture from Vitruvuis.  It is clear from that discussion that there is much more than listed by ISO 42010 and they also reference 42010 as an interesting alternative definition.  If the leaders in software architecture see problems with this definition I don't see enterprise architecture using this definition.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agilearchitecting (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of Architecture 

message: Surprised to see no mention of the fact that the title "architect" is regulated in many juristictions around the world (i.e. restricted to accredited designers of buildings) , and that using the title "enterprise architect" is e.g. a technical breach of the UK Architects Act 1997. "solutions architect" has the same problem. 213.205.230.58 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All editors: Please ignore any discussions, now and in the future, that attempt to describe a "restriction" on the use of the term "architect" as it applies outside the building construction industry.  As American Institute of Architects makes clear, the term "architect" is ONLY limited with respect to professionals who offer services related to the building construction industry.  See Use of the term Architect Nickmalik (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the UK Architects Act, Section 20, subsection (2) specifically allows the term architect in three named cases that are unrelated to building trades.  The UK courts have upheld this to mean that the term can be used outside of the building trades with no restrictions as long as there is no confusion in the mind of the public. Nickmalik (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  EA & Architecture / protection of title 

message: One unnamed editor has repeatedly added a definition of EA from a non-notable source: a blog site called "CIOIndex".  The site does not meet any standards for notability, and the source of the definition on that site is from an unsigned article with no date and no reference to its sources.  It is pure opinion.  If that editor would like to return this definition to the EA page, they need to discuss it here.  I will request a lock on this page if this silliness continues. 
In addition, however, the very well respected EA expert Graham Berrisford has added an unsourced opinion that EA applies only to technology and not social systems change, an opinion that is directly contradicted with well respected and notable sources.  The elements of his comment that are salient (that EA includes technology elements) is already included in the other definitions and in the summary to the definition section (last sentence).  While I have great respect for Mr. Berrisford and would love to have a discussion with him on the topic, I cannot in good conscience leave that small addition in the article.
Also, for some reason, the EARF definition returned.  I have deleted it again.  The organization is defunct and not sufficiently notable to maintain the definition (see previous section on the talk page).
Nickmalik (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The ip has been blocked. It's not a reliable source, and has been spammed here prior to this latest ip, which is a likely sockpuppet of the previous editors and ips that added it. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ronz for your adequate response in this matter. The ip-address was blocked for 1 day, and is advised to comment here on the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brewing edit war dealing with non-notable source 

message: An analysis paper has been published by the Federation of EA Professional organizations, which brings together a description of Enterprise Architecture from existing practices and describes the field in layman's terms.  While it takes the format of a magazine article in a neutral impartial publication (Architecture and Governance Magazine), this paper is unique in that it was vetted and ratified by 17 international organizations whose members include a wide array of Enterprise Architecture practitioners world wide.  As that description is the first cross-group consensus describing EA, I submit that it is no longer valid to state that the term is disputed.  The term "Enterprise Architecture" has many meanings depending on the perspective that you take (that remains true, and is, in fact, common of thousands of terms in the English language), there is less dispute in the practice of Enterprise Architecture than there is in the practices of law, medicine, or many of the sciences.  
Given this new fact, I have copied (and directly cited) this description as a replacement for the prior disputed term opening sentence for this article.  Please discuss if you disagree.  Nickmalik (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi first of all if you directly cited a source you should always use quotation marks, which are just added. Second, using one single quote for the whole lead of a Wikipedia article is just not a good idea. The lead should not only define the field but also summarize, what is in the article. Especially the lead of an article should remain open for new input. This is the reason why practically all Wikipedia articles start with an own developed description. That particular phrase can be used to construct a new lead, or improve the existing lead, but not replace it. -- Mdd (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all Wikipedia articles start with an own description (anymore). I just noticed the current Wikipedia article on Research also starts with a quote. This quote was (partly) added there 1.5 years ago (see here), corrected with quotation-marks 6 months ago (see here) and corrected last week (see here). -- Mdd (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph and emerging industry consensus 

message: The section was added here. Any additions need to be verifiable as notable. 
I've trimmed it back to the original list plus those with their own articles . --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree all items listed should be notable on its own. None of the items now removed seem to have (much) coverage in independent sources, such as books. -- Mdd (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Relying on the most recent Gartner and Forrester Research reports for most of the list seems questionable, but so far we've kept the spam clear. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable enterprise architecture tools section

message: The "headline" quotations given are highly selective and do not give the reason for the criticism e.g. "90% of EA initiatives fail" (... in the companies I was brought in to look at). Have clarified some, toning down the negative sensationalism, and provided links to original article on others. MaryEFreeman (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Removed one of the definitions because it was not referencing the source that seemed authoritative (private profile page). Added one from EABOK, which is more aligned with mainstream understanding of EA and is more authoritative. Having said that, I'm thinking that it may make sense to take the FEAPO definition which is currently used in the opening statement and move it to Definitions too. Voywiki (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: As part of the "relationships to other disciplines" section, the following image has been in the EA article for a number of years.  However, it is both dated and ugly.  I pulled it out but I'm including it here in case someone feels strongly that they'd like to discuss this image:
The following image from the 2006 FEA Practice Guidance of US OMB sheds light on the relationship between enterprise architecture and segment (BPR) or Solution architectures.  
In addition, I replaced an unsourced paragraph with a direct reference to a source (that basically said the same thing).  
Lastly, I integrated in the "relationship to SOA" into a single paragraph rather than as a subsection, adding references to back up the new assertion that we should view EA as an enabler to SOA.Nickmalik (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite of relationships to other disciplines 

message: This page is in dire need of an update. Many of the links in the references section are broken or point to irrelevant pages. 210.54.38.12 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Enterprise architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.enterprisearchitecture.info/Images/EA%20Survey/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Survey%202005%20IFEAD%20v10.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016043354/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/fea_docs/FEA_Practice_Guidance_Nov_2007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Last year (June of 2021) an unnamed user changed the top paragraph to refer to an article published in an open access (not peer reviewed) journal.  That article states "The aim of this paper is not to
provide a comprehensive explanation or a new, updated definition of EA; however,
for the better understanding of this paper, Enterprise Architecture is defined as..."  
In other words, the definition introduced in that paper, written by a noted independent consultant in Enterprise Architecture, is not more notable or referencable than an international standard ratified by over twenty international membership organizations including the IEEE, IIBA, DAMA, and others.  
I have returned the opening paragraph to the international standard (and updated the citation which was stale).  I also added two words to the prior definition to improve it's clarity Nickmalik (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it right to call Enterprise Architecture a "business function"? Compared with other business functions - developing products, selling services, managing finances etc. - EA as a function seems distinctly 'odd'. Personally, I'd rather align with the academic literature - e.g. that by Stephan Aier and Robert Winter - and identify it as a management practice or discipline: the use of models constructed according to principles to guide change in an enterprise. This is of course "Enterprise Architecture Management" - as opposed to "Enterprise Architecture" - the latter referring to the "structure and behaviour of the business" (enterprise) rather than how the evolution of that structure and behaviour is managed. But most practitioners when they refer to "Enterprise Architecture" usually mean the management practice and not the model of the business. Ian Glossop (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to international consensus definition 

message: The international definition according to the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations is "a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a comprehensive approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes."
I've seen a lot of this in my extensive travel, and usually it's associated with a lead in a bad state of repair, because quotations have a special immunity to quick and dirty editing. 
Plus these definitions usually make drying paint yawn or beg for quick release from the buzzword listicle torture chamber, but maybe that's just me. — MaxEnt 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long definitional quotes in lead are a bad practice