Comments on: Businesses aren't machines, and enterprise architecture can't make them so

By: The question is not "to ESB or not to ESB", but how to adapt : Elemental Links

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:27:13 +0000

[...] then, I saw a link for Neil Ward-Dutton’s post flow by on Twitter (yes, I tweet), and knew what I should really do was amplify Neil’s words [...]

By: The role of architecture, again « On IT-business alignment and related things

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:13:00 +0000

[...] second is that (as I said a while ago here) Even where architecture is highly effective (and in many places it isn’t), it can at best only [...]

By: Neil Ward-Dutton

Neil Ward-Dutton — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:47:00 +0000

Thanks for the comment Richard! As I said in reply to your original argument about “alignment” all the way back in July 2006, when we talk about alignment, we’re talking about a continuous process of moving towards better alignment – not permanent fixed synchronisation of IT and business. What’s important to focus on is the journey, not the destination. I still stand by that – we’ve done a lot of work in this area and the thesis still stands up.

By: Richard Veryard

Richard Veryard — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:00:00 +0000

I completely agree. There is a fantasy that Enterprise Architects are architecting the enterprise, when they are at best architecting systems of systems to support the enterprise.

The people who are really making structural decisions about the business organization itself are not called enterprise architects, they are called CEOs or COOs or something like that. And you can bet they aren't playing Zachman bingo.

Meanwhile, I remain doubtful that the word "alignment" makes sense to describe the relationship between IT and business, and I think your argument just reinforces my doubts on this.