Comments for The Coherency Architect http://coherencyarchitect.com The Coherency Management Blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:01:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ Comment on The Fractal Organization: From an Enterprise Architecture Point of View. by Buy the Book: The Fractal Organization | Steve Nimmons http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/01/29/the-fractal-organization-in-an-enterprise-architecture-point-of-view/#comment-357 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:01:39 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=435#comment-357 [...] is an interesting discussion on the Coherency Management Blog about the “The Fractal Organization from an Enterprise Architecture point of view.” I am also [...]

]]> Comment on The Capability Map: Identifying Strategic Initiatives Through Enterprise Architecture. by Fem måder at koble EA til værdiskabelse | EnterpriseArkitekten.com http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/12/04/the-capability-map-identifying-strategic-initiatives-through-enterprise-architecture/#comment-355 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:26:07 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=549#comment-355 [...] kaldes for et ”capability map” og bruges egentlig til at vise de forskellige dele af organisationens enterprise arkitektur der [...]

]]> Comment on The Capability Map: Identifying Strategic Initiatives Through Enterprise Architecture. by Udvidet arkitektur | EnterpriseArkitekten.com http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/12/04/the-capability-map-identifying-strategic-initiatives-through-enterprise-architecture/#comment-349 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:12:31 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=549#comment-349 [...] ”Organizational Capability Maps” der viser, hvordan organisationen kan tilgå problemstillinger i organisationen og organisationens domæne. [...]

]]> Comment on The Capability Map: Identifying Strategic Initiatives Through Enterprise Architecture. by Udvidet arkitektur | EnterpriseArkitekten.com http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/12/04/the-capability-map-identifying-strategic-initiatives-through-enterprise-architecture/#comment-348 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:12:31 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=549#comment-348 [...] ”Organizational Capability Maps” der viser, hvordan organisationen kan tilgå problemstillinger i organisationen og organisationens domæne. [...]

]]> Comment on Value of Enterprise Architecture by Paul R. Taylor http://coherencyarchitect.com/2010/12/25/value-of-enterprise-architecture/#comment-162 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:08:24 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=424#comment-162 Peter, to see my narrative on how architects effectively behave in each of the 4 modes you investigated, go to http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/149682 and download the thesis, look at 2.2.1 page 17, depictions of each philosophical position thru the rest of chapter 2, and then the Discussion chapter page 228. You will find many echoes of your thinking here!

]]> Comment on Value of Enterprise Architecture by CoherencyArchitect http://coherencyarchitect.com/2010/12/25/value-of-enterprise-architecture/#comment-150 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:49:33 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=424#comment-150 Dear Paul,

That would be nice of you.

Kind regards,
Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin

]]> Comment on Value of Enterprise Architecture by Paul R. Taylor http://coherencyarchitect.com/2010/12/25/value-of-enterprise-architecture/#comment-146 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:25:37 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=424#comment-146 Peter, I did some similar work on applying Hirscheim and Klein’s four quadrants to explain or account for the self-reported accounts software architects as part of my PhD. I came up with similar analyses and also concluded that the effective architect draws on all 4 perspectives at times. I can send you a link to the content if you are still interested in this. Also my blog on all things design theory is at designerlythinking.wordpress.com

]]> Comment on A Model for Literature on Enterprise Architecture by CoherencyArchitect http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/07/31/a-model-for-literature-on-enterprise-architecture/#comment-136 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:00:04 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=518#comment-136 The reason for why I have composed this comment is, that I have been contacted by various persons who would like more information on why the various books have been arranged as they are. I am in a situation where I don’t have too much time at hand, so I have only taken out some examples from the model.
As you probably have noted there are nine different perspectives that I have applied in order to gain an overview of the various good books on enterprise architecture (or somehow related to enterprise architecture) is on the market.
Potts’ “Fruition” from 2008 has been located under information due to I feel like the novel (is a work of fiction) deals with identifying what the Chief Information Officer (CIO) should do in order to gain an understanding of how the enterprise’s other managers think of strategy and how they should go on. Potts’ intention with the book is probably to emphasize a focus on investing in the enterprise, and as such focuses on the managers can create more value through their actions by including a person who has a great insight in what the enterprise does and how it works to be hold accountable on applying the systems (hardware, software, machinery etc.) that the enterprise invests in.
My view of what “Fruition” is all about might differ slightly on what Potts’ might think it is about. From my point of view (next generation enterprise architecture) the book really deals with identifying sources for strategic planning and make use of the information available in the social networks that consists of the various decision makers in the enterprise. The book is rather economics centric (or rather it focuses on business administration and management) and it is valuable on many different levels but I am of the opinion that the way it works the best from an enterprise architecture point of view is through the usage as an inspiration of taking actions based on a proper view of what the c-level executives and other decisions-makers to setup an enterprise architecture program that in a sense is born with a set of economics indicators that are likely to be supported by the management themselves.
Potts’ book titled “Recreation” (2010) is likewise written as a novel and it is based on fiction. The focus of the story is to introduce the focus of a market driven enterprise through applying the ideas and approaches of the enterprise architects have identified. As such I have identified the book as important to the strategy development of market driven strategies of the enterprises due to the novel explains how c-level executives can apply different approaches to ensure that their enterprises can deliver value to their customers. Due to the focus on power relations within the enterprise that the book deals with I have come to the conclusion that the enterprise architects can make use of the book to be inspired to apply their various enterprise architecture program to enable the enterprise to achieve better results by retaining customers. That is my reason for why I placed Potts’ books under the two different sections in the model.
Finkelstein’s book titled “the breakout strategy” is in reality a book on business models, but as such it addresses the problems of where to get more information on how the enterprise works. The information can be used to create a holistic understanding of what the enterprise should be about and as such it is rather easy to apply the models that the books proposes in order to gain an understanding of how the enterprise operates and how it should be operating in the future, and as such I feel that the book can be used as a source of inspiration to gain access to information that can enable the chief architect and the enterprise architects with scanning their environment for data that can be used in order get a better understanding of what is happening in the enterprise’s environment and how to deal with it.
I hope that this comment have answered the questions that you might have, and I invite all of you to comment this post if you need further information.

Kind regards,
Peter Flemming Teunissen Sjoelin.

]]> Comment on The Fractal Organization: From an Enterprise Architecture Point of View. by The Viable System Model is the missing theory behind Enterprise Architecture « on Enterprise Architecture http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/01/29/the-fractal-organization-in-an-enterprise-architecture-point-of-view/#comment-103 Thu, 19 May 2011 14:29:29 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=435#comment-103 [...] Further reading at http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/01/29/the-fractal-organization-in-an-enterprise-architecture-poin… [...]

]]> Comment on The Fractal Organization: From an Enterprise Architecture Point of View. by Tom Graves http://coherencyarchitect.com/2011/01/29/the-fractal-organization-in-an-enterprise-architecture-point-of-view/#comment-85 Thu, 10 Feb 2011 04:13:36 +0000 http://coherencyarchitect.com/?p=435#comment-85 If you’re interested in how VSM can be used in enterprise-architecture, perhaps take a look at my book ‘The Service-Oriented Enterprise’ http://tetradianbooks.com/2008/12/services/ . The main theme is that each of the VSM ‘systems’ can also be reconceived as services (in the most generic sense of ‘service’ – i.e. not IT-only!). Applying this to a whole organisation requires something of a rethink of system-3*, from Stafford Beer’s ‘verify and audit’ to a more whole class of what I described as ‘pervasive services’, services that tackle every type of qualitative concern (security, quality, safety, efficiency, probity – all the so-called ‘non-functional requirements) across the whole of the enterprise.

Perhaps also take a look at my most recent book ‘Mapping the Enterprise’, http://tetradianbooks.com/2010/11/ecanvas/ . This focuses more on a VSM system-1 view (because ultimately every service is a system-1, delivering something), but also includes links to all the other VSM systems as ‘guidance services’ that help integration of the respective service into the whole.

Hope this helps, anyway?

]]>