Missing the BAWG of TOG
Interesting week this week. The Open Group is holding a quarterly meeting in San Francisco — as local to me as it will ever be. But I’m consciously NOT representing IBM in the meetings of the Business Architecture Working Group (BAWG). This is part of my resolution to stop maintaining any illusion that my views on the subject of business architecture represent IBM, or vice versa. IBM has embraced business architecture fairly substantially lately, but not in a way that I can recognize as my understanding of the architecture of businesses or other enterprises. I hope to stay in touch with the BAWG. There are some very good thinkers there, and people I count as friends. This is a strangely painful and liberating moment all at the same time.
January 29th, 2008 19:34
I’m in the middle of listening to a podcast on EA and BA from The Open Group, but have decided that I’m not going to finish it.
Part of this is because I’m not learning anything, but the major issue is that the speaker is providing a lot of definitions, and I just disagree with those. In an academic setting, I would probably ask for references. A lot of the definitions were in the business domain (e.g. strategic intent), and having a dictionary description isn’t very helpful.
I’ve had a strong theory of practice for some years, now, so if the definitions help someone else, that’s fine for them. However, taking this approach too literally just rubs me the wrong way. I really didn’t like the discussion on principles, which felt like legal (rule-based) order, as opposed to the negotiated order (where I was co-author of a journal paper).
The practices of business architects involve more than following rules.
January 30th, 2008 04:14
Yes, the definition thing does get a bit tedious. Language is a living system, characterized by inevitable polysemy and continuous evolution. But my main concern is that it doesn’t seem possible to get the living system perspective on the table with respect to businesses and enterprises. I know this position puts me in a minuscule minority, but it is fundamental according to my analysis over the years, with significant implications.
February 7th, 2008 11:25
Doug & David, we’ve bumped into each other from time to time in the socio-tech-sphere. So I feel I’m posting this among friends. It’s a disturbing moment when struggling with the masses adopting a new discipline. Ideals can get compromised. Messages can spin out of whack from verbicide. So many things can get off balance. I’m deciding to focus on Business Architecture as a personal discipline at the moment. I’m concluding that application of governance, professional standards, and codified discipline, at this point, is more likely to be a distraction. I will look for principles and techniques to apply. I hope to establish a practical foundation for myself.
February 10th, 2008 01:28
Nice to see you here, Matt! I hope you’ll share your insights into the architecture of business as you develop them over time. What’s a good way to keep current with your thinking?