Monthly Archives: August 2016

Progressive​ Enterprise Architecture Maps – Update 2

Pavel Harbe asked an interesting question with respect to the original version of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map: “Why … is Strategy first and then Motivation and not in opposite order (or in many iterations)?” and goes on to explain that, yes, in fact Motivation should precede Strategy (at least initially, and then followed by possibly several iterations).  Of course, Pavel is correct …but so is the diagram (see below). However, Pavel’s comments do indicate a need to clarify these points – here in text as well as in a new version of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map.

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-NoArrows-Slide

*Original discussion: Progressive Enterprise Architecture Maps

To respond directly to Pavel’s question, the subtlety in the original diagram can be found in text beneath the caption of each layer (emphasis added for this explanation):

  • Strategy refers to the “Strategy of the *Enterprise*”, the organizational strategy.
  • Motivation refers to the “Intentions of the *Architecture*”, a phrase borrowed from Gerben Wierda’s original discussion (An ArchiMate 3 Map (Layers? What Layers!))

The original diagram referred to the strategy of the organization driving the motivations [intentions] for the companion enterprise architecture.

Given pragmatic usefulness is one of my goals for the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (while at the same time preserving architectural simplicity), the following elaboration is warranted: adding 2 more layers to clarify the levels at which Strategy and Motivation are used to drive continuous transformation of the organization and its enterprise architecture.  Here is version 2 of Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map.

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-PEAM2-Slide

On the left side of the diagram, there is a distinct pair of Motivation and Strategy layers for enterprise-level strategy planning.  In addition, there is a distinct pair of these 2 layers which transform the enterprise-level drivers, goals, and strategies into drivers, goals, and strategies for the enterprise architecture. You can argue these should be the same but due to many reasons such as timing and resources, they are not always the same.

Progressive Enterprise Architecture Maps, Continuous Transformation, and Total Enterprise Architecture Managment

Given this elaboration, I decided to “take it all the way” and link Progressive Enterprise Architecture Maps to Continuous Transformation and Total Enterprise Architecture Managment – topics I’ve discussed and modeled in the article [Enterprise Architecture] Tools and Methods Don’t Create Business Value.  The model for Continuous Transformation and Total Enterprise Architecture Managment looks like the following:

Parallelspace-Business Value from Transformative Change4

Here’s version 3 of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (linked to Continuous Transformation and Total Enterprise Architecture Management).

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-PEAM3-Slide

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

Leave a comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Enterprise Architecture, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM)

Crossing the Chasm: Progressive​ Enterprise Architecture Model (PEAM)

[Updated October 5, 2016]

Inspired by Gerben Wierda’s thoughtful discussion about how the full framework is depicted in the new ArchiMate* 3.0 specification (An AchiMate 3 Map (Layers? What Layers! — 1)), I’m going to suggest there’s another level of improvement that can be made to the specification’s “peanut butter and jelly sandwich” diagram. [Please excuse the visual metaphor but that’s what it looks like – with PB&J leaking out on all sides.]

image004

Figure 1. ArchiMate 3 Layers and Aspects

In his posting, Gerben suggests a succession of improvements (depicted below).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Figure 2. Gerben Wierda’s Suggested Improvements

But they still left my question unanswered: Why were Strategy, Motivation, Implementation & Migration left as disconnected layers on opposite sides of the enterprise architecture map? [I don’t accept Motivation being classed as an Aspect but that’s a topic for another article.]

What happened to the architectural principles of simplicity and elegance?

Aren’t the following series of enterprise architecture maps more informative and more understandable?  …more pragmatically useful?  I refer to the version below as the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map.

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Base-Slide

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Layers-Slide

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Aspects-Slide

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Both-Slide

Figure 3. Progressive Enterprise Architecture Model: Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map

Check them out for yourself and please add your feedback in the Comments section below. Click on any diagram to see a larger version.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

p.s. If the arrows make the enterprise architecture map too prescriptive from a pure ArchiMate specification perspective, what do you think of this version?

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-NoArrows-Slide

p.p.s. In October 2016, in the article Crossing the Enterprise Architecture Chasm, I extended PEAMs to include:

  • Continuous Transformations
  • Strategy Chasm
  • Enterprise Architecture Chasm

Here’s an example (click to enlarge):

progressive-ea-model-1-0-6-peam3-chasms

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

5 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Application Architecture Analysis, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM), The Open Group