Talk:Business architecture

message: The first statement in this article is enclosed in quotes, yet no reference to the source is given.  I am not certain that the definition provided is considered a standard or even common understanding of the term 'business architecture' so I'd love to know where it came from.
--Nickmalik (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I and many others have a problem with this definition. My group at the OMG (the Business Architecture Working Group) is about to publish our formal definition of Business Architecture (we have a draft one online now but it has issues as well). At that point I have committed to our group that I would update the definition here and provide a citation to the BAWG site. We are also planning on developing an overview of what Business Architecture is which I would like to contribute once it is complete. My concern with much of the existing material here is that it is still very IT-centric which is contrary to the stake in the ground that our organization and member practitioner organizations are trying to establish.
nmc (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definition updated to correspond to OMG BAWG definition and citation provided.
nmc (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes not attributed 

message: There is an entire topic on EA frameworks.  The section on TOGAF can be largely removed or moved to that page.  There are no claims that TOGAF specifically adds to the understanding of business architecture.  A smaller paragraph that indicates that business architecture is a recognized part of architectural frameworks, including Zachman and TOGAF, would be sufficient.  Otherwise, this section is off topic.  
--Nickmalik (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of information.... The Open Group is working on the next major update of TOGAF (version 9) which should make some major strides in positioning it as more than a technology-centric approach. The OMG and The Open Group have had initial discussions to coordinate their respective efforts in the Business Architecture space. I would love to have someone from the TOGAF community take ownership of the TOGAF section to make it relevant to their efforts in this area. I hope to do the same for the OMG's efforts.
nmc (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is TOGAF in here?

message: The restructuring of the article improves it.  Kudos to N McWhorter (assuming this is Neil McWhorter, a well known enterprise architect).  Question: does SOMF belong in this list?--Nickmalik (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that the restructuring seems to be acceptable and yes... you have the right NMcWhorter. I personally don't think SOMF belongs here either but I wasn't ready to perform that kind of surgery yet.
nmc (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I will be happy to. --Nickmalik (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: Given the fact that the Federal Enterprise Architecture framework covers the metrics and services aspects of business architecture (but doesn't cover business process), it could be debated that FEA is, at least partially, a Business Architecture framework.  Should the FEA be mentioned in the section on Frameworks, alongside eTOM/NGOSS?--Nickmalik (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think FEA should be included although it is important to discuss that FEA is a bit of an odd animal for two major reasons. First, because FEA focuses on the government sector which behaves a bit different than either commercial or not-for-profit organizations do. second, FEA is primarily focused on being an enabler for technology implementations which is one use of Business Architecture but is not the core motivation. nmc (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should FEA be included

message: The view that Business Architecture is a part of Enterprise Architecture is only one view of the world. This viewpoint has been actively attacked as foreign to the core constituency of Business Architecture whose practitioners seem to predominately take the view that EA is an IT-centric terminology that has nebulous meaning in the marketplace. Because of this it isn't appropriate to assert this viewpoint in the introduction.
nmc (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing how the main "Enterprise Architecture" page handles this I think we should consider following more closely its approach of discussing that there are multiple meanings and then citing the OMG BAWG meaning as a formal definition in the same way that the EA section cites the MIT CISR definition. nmc (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Definition 

message: The second and third sections of the article have no citations to any published works.  While I believe that the content is correct, and quite well put together, to meet the standards of wikipedia requires citations from published works.  In each section, each statement of fact needs to be based on a notable set of material.  
I'll be happy to remove the tags if we can bring up the citations.    
--Nickmalik (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to remove the MoreCitations tag 

message: I have undone the last five edits by User:Johankok, because.
# His edits were unreferenced 
# It seemed like original research  
# It added a source to a publication by a J Kok, which I can't find on Google
## Kok, J (2008). "Business Architecture: A business venture start up view". 
His edits deleted a just Wikified article, with several links. It seems to me he only rephrased the intro, using his own works, with the result that it doesn't link to any other wikipedia article any more. That is not my idea of progress. 
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undone edits by [[User:Johankok]] 

message: I am editing the page to remove the unattributed reference to marketing and branding architecture.  While there is possible a relationship between business architecture and the concept of branding architecture, it would not be recognized as a formal relationship by any business architecture models that I've seen, and no citation is provided to demonstrate that this is not original research.  Also, removing references to CAEAP which has not established the level of notability required to meet Wikipedia standards.  (I am a member of CAEAP but I do not believe it has met the notability requirements).  Nickmalik (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing and Branding architecture? and CAEAP references 

message: In the last few days, substantial edits took place.  Most were acceptable.  However, there were a number of edits that are outside Wikipedia guidelines which I reverted.
a) The definition of business architecture is cited from a source.  Reverted an edit that changed the definition away from what the source cited it to  be.
b) the list of views comes from the source listed.  Editorial content had been placed in the middle of the list challenging some of the views as "not being part of business architecture."  That is interesting, but not from a cited source, and therefore it is original research.  Removed
c) Removed editorial content in the later section on XML
d) removed the citatation of CAEAP (same reason as cited in prior discussion post... not notable).Nickmalik (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding of editorial and original content 

message: The OMG framework described on this page is out of date. As of today's date, the version on the OMG website involves five viewpoints, which it calls views. "The key views of the enterprise within the business architecture are: 1) the Business Strategy view, 2) the Business Capabilities view, 3) the Value Stream view, 4) the Business Knowledge view, and 5) the Organizational view." In my opinion, for what it's worth, the main omission from this framework is the Cybernetic View, which covers feedback loops and governance. I have discussed this at length on my blog. RichardVeryard (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six Views of Business Architecture 

message: Richard Veryard noted that the list of views may have been out of date and a recent series of changes modified the material away from the referenced source.  So I reacquired the source material from the OMG and re-asserted it into the section listing the views of business architecture. Nickmalik (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated list of views from source 

message: This section refers to modeling framework. This reference would be more appropriate to associate with the software development topic, rather than with business architecture. Voywiki (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed SOMF 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Business 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107140443/http://www.businessarchitectsassociation.org/resources/Documents/Business_Architecture-An_Emerging_Profession_Edition_4-28-09.pdf to http://www.businessarchitectsassociation.org/resources/Documents/Business_Architecture-An_Emerging_Profession_Edition_4-28-09.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130051908/http://www.soa-consortium.org/EA2010_Business_Architecture.pdf to http://www.soa-consortium.org/EA2010_Business_Architecture.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) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified