Mikkel Stokbro Holst and Tue W. Steensen are working on an academic project that deals with the estimation of value of Enterprise Architecture.
So far I assume the project is on the same level as a master thesis, and that would be say about 30 ECTS and as such the project would be a high academic level.
Follow the development of the project at http://eavalue.itue.dk/ .
The framework needs to include a chapter on how it interacts e.g., coherency management related frameworks like CoMOF or Extended CoMOFF or the IGIA-framework.
I plan to have a brain storm on how the ATOM-framework interacts with the various extensions of enterprise architecture.
In the other hand it can be argued that there is no need for that since the CoMOF, E-CoMOF and the IGIA-framework is enterprise architecture framework independent. In the other hand most other enterprise architecture frameworks don’t consider how the frameworks should evolve over time and for that the inclusion of a chapter dealing with the interaction with coherency management would be considered a positive thing, at least from my perspective.
Recently I’ve obtained a copy of Zoom Factor by Sharon Evans who states in her book that there can be identified certain patterns for highly successful Enterprise Architects. I plan to read the book “Zoom Factor” and then I will probably compare it to some of my own ideas that I have published on my blog CoherencyArchitect.com. I believe that the book “Zoom Factor” is a kind of innovation (also to Coherency Management, Enterprise Engineering and Enterprise Architecture since it tries to create an overview of how Enterprise Architects can create a career path, and thereby it implicitly identifies what enterprises expects of Enterprise Architects in 2010 (and perhaps 2011), in other words I believe it can be used as a source for trend spotting.
Enterprise Architecture which is core component of Coherency Management. In most enterprises the concept of Enterprise Architecture is in the early beginning, and that leads to the problems of dealing with Coherency Management.
However before executive will invest their time, effort and prestige into the project they would like to know what sort of value the Enterprise Architecture program contributes to the the enterprise. Likewise will there be different views on how to measure value of the Enterprise Architecture program.
There are four fundamental paradigms that can be used within the social sciences, and these have been dealt with by Burrell & Morgan back in 1979.
There are different philosophers who work with the concept of value in different ways through their views on ethics, and therefore will I make use of their views to identify how these paradigms can be used to measure value.
I am currently writing a paper where I exam the value of the enterprise architecture through the four paradigms that Burrell and Morgan presented in their paper from 1979. In the paper I will propose how to measure value (e.g., KPIs) through each of the paradigms.
When I have finished the paper then I will publish it on my blog CoherencyArchitect.com .
Coherency Management needs to be developed to stay alive, and for this the blog is dedicated. I have seen different elements that have been influenced by Coherency Management and of course the concept of Coherency Management itself. Gryning among others presented in their master thesis in 2009 their own edition of the CoMOFF framework, and they concluded that Coherency Management and Enterprise Architecture has to be separated otherwise the concept of Coherency Management will become to IT centric. Personally I have written a couple of projects dealing with Coherency Management, and I have reached an understanding of that Enterprise Architecture needs to be a part of the Coherency Management concept as a fundamental part; however the concept needs to be using a slightly different approach to achieve acceptance among the executives. For this the usage of corporate governance needs to be addressed in a manner that enables an effective form of communication among the stakeholders. The point being that innovation is needed to address these issues and the innovation has to deal with the academic approach, the practical approach and on how Coherency Management develops.
