Talk:Enterprise architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Enterprise modelling.
 

EA & Architecture / protection of title[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Brewing edit war dealing with non-notable source[edit]

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) REVISED Nickmalik (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A portion of this discussion is taking place on my personal talk page. For reference, see User_talk:Nickmalik#on_Notability_of_EA_definitions Nickmalik (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)

Opening paragraph and emerging industry consensus[edit]

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)

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)
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)

New Section on academic treatment of EA[edit]

I've added a section on Education, not as a form of advocacy, but as a mechanism for describing the emergence of new degrees in Enterprise Architecture. The section is organized by "type of program" instead of a chronological treatment (which I believe would add very little value to the discussion). If you feel that the section should be organized in a different manner, please let me know. The previous "list" format was deleted by an editor as a Link Farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talkcontribs) 07:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The section on academic programs was deleted by Ronz as a linkfarm in the form of prose. This is unfortunate, as there are numerous other pages in Wikipedia that list an array of universities that offers information about a field, including the pages on Science fiction studies, performance studies, Masters of Business Administration (from a historical perspective), Jewish studies (which compares different programs at various universities), women's studies, ethnomusicology, and public policy. Each of these pages takes a slightly different approach to providing this information. However, in each case, the reader is learning about a field that is so narrow that very few universities have programs in that field. Therefore, providing information about the various programs in a comparative format is useful.
If the concern is that the links are all reference links, and not internal Wikipedia links, that is easily fixed. If that is the suggested remedy, please let me know. Nickmalik (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The suggested content itself follows. (This provides a place to make the changes needed so that this material may actually be added to the article.

As a relatively new field, most colleges and universities do not yet offer courses in Enterprise Architecture. As Gartner described in 2012[1], there is a shortage of well qualified Enterprise Architects, yet only a handful of universities offer full degree programs in Enterprise Architecture. This short list includes Pennsylvania State University[2] in the United States, the University of Antwerp[3] in Belgium, the University of East London[4] in the UK, and both Griffith University[5] and RMIT[6] in Australia. Each of these programs have taken different approaches to their EA curricula, so students interested in a degree in EA should research each program carefully to find a program that matches their goals and aspirations.

Instead of a full degree in Enterprise Architecture, two universities have chosen to offer a master's degrees in Technology with a focus on Enterprise Architecture. Both of these universities have chosen to kick-start their EA curriculum through partnership with a professional training company.

Professionals looking to improve their skills in this new field, without the overhead of taking a full degree, can opt for certificate programs. Nearly every university that offers a degree in EA also offers a certificate program for professionals. In addition to the universities above, some institutions offer certificates only. Notable in this group is a certificate program from California State University[9] that is tailored to US Federal Government Enterprise Architecture practices. Stevens Institute of Technology[10] (USA) and the University of Toronto[11] (Canada) both offer more general certificate programs in Enterprise Architecture.

A small handful of universities are offering individual courses in Enterprise Architecture, including the University of Chicago[12], the University of Denver[13], and the University of South Australia[14]. Commercial training companies also offer courses for professionals, usually framed around a single framework or methodology.

The development of common curricula for degrees in Enterprise Architecture is a just beginning. A description of a single course in EA was included in the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and Association for Information Systems (AIS)’s Curriculum for Information Systems as one of the 6 core courses.[15]

In order for a field of study to mature, rigorous academic research must be conducted, peer reviewed, and published. Academic research into Enterprise Architecture is currently being conducted at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research[16] and at Pennsylvania State University's Center for Enterprise Architecture[17]. Articles on Enterprise Architecture can be found in the Journal of Enterprise Architecture, published by the AEA[18]. The most notable Enterprise Architecture research conference in the field is the International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), held annually. Proceedings from the EDOC conference are published by the IEEE.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talkcontribs) 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So where are the independent sources that we need to incorporate anything of this type in any manner whatsoever? --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
every one of the references to a program in the paragraph above is meticulously cited. If you look at the parallel articles mentioned in my discussion above, you will see that referencing primary sources is used repeatedly for this type of material. You have set a standard for this page that is not being followed on other pages in Wikipedia. If you'd like, the suggested text can be rewritten to provide information ABOUT each of the programs (as is done in the article on public policy). Once again, primary sources are used in that article. Alternatively, I could write it to be historical: including the dates when specific programs started (although I am not fond of that because the chronological order of creation of these programs is not particularly interesting information). The Wikipedia article on Master of Business Administration takes that approach. Once again, using primary sources. Realize that a PREFERENCE for secondary sources is not the same as a REQUIREMENT for secondary sources. All of the sources cited are accurate and current in that they are essentially descriptions of legal purchase agreements between the university and the potential student. Nickmalik (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No independent sources then, so not worth mention as far as we know. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
While you are holding this page to a higher standard than dozens of other similar pages, including the ones I referenced above, your quality bar is not unreasonable. I have found a number of Gartner articles that describe the EA programs at both Penn State and RMIT. I'm researching the material behind the citations now to make sure I know what the research reports actually say (the Gartner site only shows the brief). That should provide the same amount of support as the section on EA tools in this article, and a greater level of sourcing than the other pages cited. Nickmalik (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope that all editors can agree that we're here to improve the quality of articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
As tempting as it is to get into a philosophical discussion, I'd rather just get to the point where the quality of this section is sufficient to keep it from being deleted the moment it is added back to the page. I have no doubt that I can reach that point. The information is correct, useful, and impartial. You've set an uncommonly high bar, but not an unreasonable one. You've also offered very little insight into where the bar is, so you are keeping me guessing. Nickmalik (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"You've set an uncommonly high bar" No. I'm simply following the relevant policies and overwhelming consensus. I don't know why anyone would be wondering what the solution is, as I've repeated it again and again: independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


A key problem here becomes clear if you look at the references used:

Most of these references will be outdated next year, or so. I think there is no doubt, that a section about this topic can be include in this article, if it is based on (far) less contemporary sources. -- Mdd (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable enterprise architecture tools section[edit]

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 [1]. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)

Criticism[edit]

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)