I was asked an interesting question the other day on my experience as an architect. Did I lean more towards the visionary and conceptual side of architecture or the more pragmatic and results oriented side? I suppose as an IT architect an answer indicating one or the other is commonly expected. But if I was a civil architect that question would rarely be asked as the client expectation of the architect would be that both qualities are exhibited in equal measure. An answer that favored the pragmatic over the conceptual would suggest a civil engineer or a building contractor, while the opposite answer would indicate a graphic artist or fantasist. In most cases the customer may be disappointed that they are not getting both in the same package.
Why then should enterprise architecture be any different? Civil and enterprise architects perform similar functions, they both ensure that designed structures meet the purpose and goals of their clients. Indeed even the processes they follow have close or identical steps, and the way they analyze, conceptualize and define their artifacts has immediate conformity as pointed out by Roger Sessions in his joint white paper with Nikos Salingaros comparing urban and enterprise architectures. Yet there is a disparity in how the civil and enterprise architects are viewed and engaged. The executive board of a company may be involved in the architectural design and purposing of their new HQ building, but have little time to countenance reviews and discussions of enterprise architecture which can have a profound effect on their business processes, information and technical services. Can there can be any doubt which architectural discipline will have the larger impact on revenue and the company bottom line?
All too often the enterprise architect lacks equivalent visibility, especially at the most senior levels of a company. Part of that obscurity can be attributed to the fact that EA is considered part of IT and IT services, a department whose success is determined by efficiency (more for less) and performance (uptime, availability). A department, furthermore, often considered as a necessary evil rather than a contributor of value and thought leadership. Another reason lies in the fact that a large majority of architects achieve their position through education and careers in technology. However successful enterprise architects have to transcend the limitations of a technical perspective, just as civil architects have to learn how to exercise esthetic judgement in the selection of materials and the coherence of design.
For the enterprise architect that esthetic calling is to become a strategist and visionary, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. This demands a competency in understanding business purpose, culture, financial imperatives, and the nature and state of enterprise legacies. Only when armed with this knowledge can a practitioner, with the collaboration of the business, envision the future and determine the path that needs to be followed to get there from the current state. An architect who does not embrace this holistic approach is likely to be and most probably will remain a technical engineer. And an architect who does not understand the structure and behaviors of the technology supporting the business will be regarded as a theorist rather than a visionary and potentially an early target for downsizing. Furthermore that necessary understanding can only be achieved with full engagement with the drivers and managers of the business including IT leadership.
Returning to the original question - which direction should you lean as an enterprise architect - can there be any better answer than both in equal measure? To prejudice either is to offer less than the whole.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment