x
Announcement:

Download the Chicago Agenda At A Glance Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In vulputate purus mollis risus feugiat vitae pellentesque risus aliquet. Phasellus dictum volutpat semper. Etiam faucibus massa non quam placerat facilisis. Aliquam rhoncus tempus nisl et mattis. Vivamus a elementum purus. Curabitur ut diam libero, vitae rutrum felis. Praesent mauris elit, cursus vel dictum a, porta id ligula.

Nunc mollis fermentum lacus a sodales. Nullam eleifend felis at eros gravida tempor. Ut tincidunt lorem vitae metus ullamcorper nec scelerisque nulla dignissim. Aenean sed quam sit amet ligula consectetur dignissim sed et mauris. Duis sagittis fringilla leo, sit amet ultricies libero tempus eu. Etiam sapien lorem, placerat ac consectetur id, adipiscing vel ligula. In condimentum orci ante. Donec urna erat, luctus eu tempus id, fringilla sit amet libero. Aliquam erat volutpat. Curabitur id sapien sem. Cras suscipit vulputate nulla sit amet consequat. Maecenas lacinia urna sit amet arcu rutrum auctor vehicula libero sollicitudin. Nulla facilisi.

Home › Community › BA Group › GODS generic business architecture be adopted as a base model for further work, proposal

GODS generic business architecture be adopted as a base model for further work, proposal

Posted by Adrian Grigoriu on Friday, November 26, 2010 - 05:48
Total votes: 0

"There is good news on the business architecture front. The level of discourse has elevated dramatically around how to effectively represent the business architecture. At the forefront of this discussion are two essential focal points: the business capability and the value stream." This is an extract from William Ulrich's new article "Capabilities & Value Streams: Business Architecture's Essential Alliance" just posted. I presume this refers to the argument with Ralph W in this forum about a proposed "generic business architecture".

I would comment first on William's statement: "If you are wondering why I introduced aspects of IT architecture into this discussion, it is because transformation initiatives rarely succeed when attempted in total isolation from IT architecture." In my book, business architecture is implemented not only by IT but by any technology and, most of all, by all people in the organization. So why introducing only IT or IT at all, in this discussion then?

William wrotes then: "Additional information will also continue to emerge from OMG’s Business Architecture Special Interest Group (BASIG)... The recently established Business Architecture Guild will be producing a Business Architecture Body of Knowledge in 2011 that will expand dramatically on these concepts".

I am glad to hear that, like most of us. But these are projections.

I offer for adoption the "generic business architecture" (discussed here and described at http://www.enterprise-architecture-matters.co.uk/gods-business-architecture) as a base model for further BA work, in OMG or elsewhere. After all, there is more in there than the idea of Capability-Value Streams joint usage. What do you think? The model and its descriptions are free to use and enhance upon, with attribution.

Comments

Login or register below to comment on this discussion.
Adrian Grigoriu
, Enterprise Architect, Own
posted 2 years 24 weeks ago
William, I see no reason you should continue to discuss on this thread (even if you created the group) making references to your own work in OMG and book which are part of your own agenda. This discussion is about the GODS generic business architecture proposal. You did the same to my previous discussion thread. You also have not provided references for the elevated discourse on "capability - value streams" joint usage and to my question on the OMG's BA deliveries schedule. I offered GODS for adoption to OMG. If you think there is interest please let me know.
William Ulrich
, President, TSG, Inc.
posted 2 years 24 weeks ago
Adrian You said - "I believe that the capability-value streams topic is of interest to all in the business architecture arena." - No one has argued this point. Using this site to setup straw man arguments to communicate your own personal agenda it is a violation of the principles that govern this and all discussion boards. RE: Discussion Links: - I provided links and where publicly open, will continue to do so. There were also numerous links in my original article. It appears you have setup another straw man argument here. - One additional link is to the OMG BASIG meeting agenda being held in Santa Clara on Dec. 7, 2010: http://www.omg.org/news/meetings/tc/agendas/ca-10/BASIG.pdf Updates are being posted. Go to - http://www.omg.org/news/meetings/tc/ca-10/agendas.htm - for latest links to all agendas. There will be specific discussions around the mapping topic. - To your last point on links, private discussions occur within the context of client work. Client work is strictly protected but here are some case study examples of clients who have shared their stories: http://bawg.omg.org/cambridge_information_day_presen_2010.htm These sessions were sponsored by the BASIG. I sense a frustration on your part as to not having a seat at the table in terms of these discussions. I suggest that you come to Santa Clara, CA on Dec. 7th and join the open discussion on value stream, capability, innovation and conceptual model mapping. One last request regarding your GODS Metamodel – please provide a direct link to the model. I would be happy to submit it to the OMG given that you cannot attend in Dec. Finally, given that this discussion has run its course, I suggest you join the organizations that are discussing these issues – or at least follow the work they provide online. You will see that there are many blueprints and metamodels. I suspect you can contribute. But coming in with the view that your blueprint should be the baseline is a non-starter for all of the reasons that I have provided in this thread. I wish you the best of luck. - William Ulrich [Updated on 11/27/2010 3:05 PM] [Updated on 11/27/2010 3:06 PM] [Updated on 11/27/2010 3:08 PM]
Adrian Grigoriu
, Enterprise Architect, Own
posted 2 years 24 weeks ago
William, #1 I believe that the capability-value streams topic is of interest to all in the business architecture arena. That is why I had my discussion with Ralph, to plead for their joint usage. Please do post for the future links or quotes of "discourses" you refer to, to prove your point and let the BA community know. #2 I don't think "irresponsible" is the proper word; but because you used it, I think it would be "irresponsible" for business people to emphasize IT against people organization and non-IT technology. Half a century ago IT did not even exist while companies have been in existence since the dawn of time. There are many industries where IT is not the core technology. Besides, with Cloud Computing, the details of IT will fade away anyhow, somewhere in the Clouds. #3 The "generic business architecture" could have served the effort to jump-start the BA definition process. After all, the OMG "strategy paper" version 7 dates from February 2010, it's called "Defining Requirements" and it looks to me like a problem statement or declaration of intent document. Figure 1 looks like a collection of un-linked items, of which "Organization Units" is not part of a business architecture, unless you lump, like TOGAF, everything that is not IT in there. External stakeholders like Customers, Suppliers and Competitors are mentioned but financial Institutions, labor suppliers, marketing agencies... are left out. The figure looks like listing issues you may want to address in an architecture in the long run. Is there a planning document stating when and what BA elements are going to be delivered so that you set the right expectations for the announcements in the article? Indeed, BA is more that an one page architecture. But, in my experience, this is the essential artifact all stakeholders use. Moreover, most other enterprise views (that address specific stakeholders), should be structured on this since it defines the essential business structure and operation and ultimately the core components and processes of your enterprise. You should not allow stakeholders to re-name, reinvent or duplicate them. Besides, there is a supporting metamodel and an EA framework (see http://www.enterprise-architecture-matters.co.uk/home) supporting the "generic business architecture", that define architecture views and layers concepts in a fully integrated EA. Ultimately it was just an offer since GODS is free to use with attribution, and it exists now. [Updated on 11/27/2010 4:40 AM] [Updated on 11/27/2010 4:41 AM]
William Ulrich
, President, TSG, Inc.
posted 2 years 24 weeks ago
Adrian - #1 - You said: "I presume this refers to the argument with Ralph W in this forum about a proposed "generic business architecture". - It would be presumptuous to think that you are the only ones discussing this topic. It is part of the standards discussions, workshops and client work going on in the field. #2 - You said: "So why introducing only IT or IT at all, in this discussion then?" - I do not understand your question. I stated that IT architecture is introduced because leaving it out is impractical and irresponsible. I do not see much gray area in this statement. If you choose to ignore IT architecture as an adjunct topic that is essential to transformation deployment, that is your call - but not a best practice. #3 - You said: I offer for adoption the "generic business architecture" as a base model for further BA work, in OMG or elsewhere. After all, there is more in there than the idea of Capability-Value Streams joint usage. What do you think?" - It is erroneous to think that the discussion of value stream and capability posed in my recent article and in your discussion with Ralph precludes inclusion of other business architecture domains. Value Stream and Capability are only two of many business domains outlined in our OMG strategy paper. See - http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/2010-02-01 - Figure One for details. - You show a number of these domains in your GODS blueprint. But, it is just a blueprint - a singular view of the business. It is not foundational because it is a blueprint, not a model of what is behind the blueprint. There are many such blueprints in use across industry - some good, some better. In practice it would be dangerous to rally around a single blueprint. Blueprints are customized to an organization's governance structure, the level of mapping management wants to see, the scenario being pursued and the unique views the organization selects for its purpose. To support these blueprints, we require a foundation such as the one we are working on at OMG. Your GODS blueprint has some useful notions that I am sure people can leverage, but no single blueprint can or should serve as a baseline. - William Ulrich

Join to comment on this discussion

Already a Member? Login Here:

Shopping cart

View your shopping cart.

Editorial DIrectors

Tom Dwyer
Editorial Director
BPMInstitute.org
William Ulrich
Editorial Director
BAInstitute.org
Mike Rosen
Editorial Director
SOAInstitute.org