Once again I feel compelled to suggest that we learn about how to implement Enterprise Strategic Transformation and Optimisations (Enterprise Strategy and Architecture, Strategic IT planning etc.) from another domain focused on the enterprise use of knowledge and collaboration based on that knowledge i.e. CRM.
See: CRM Success Sealed with a KISSS - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9177484/CRM_Success_Sealed_with_a_KISSS?taxonomyName=Applications&taxonomyId=18
Most people with experience in trying to change patterns of behavior know that incremental change is easier for people to accommodate. Most people with experience in trying to implement systems know that big-bang approaches are high risk. Implementing new systems for knowledge management and collaboration involves both i.e. changing behaviour and implementing systems.
ESTO solution projects also "need to be much more flexible and adaptive than general IT applications. All too often, the users don't really know what they need, and the smart ones will admit it. Even if they did know, the business rules and your company's competitive environment will change before an 18-month "big bang" project ever gets deployed. ESTO projects are not only less expensive when delivered incrementally, they are a better fit with the business needs. So it's important to get your project staff -- and the ESTO system's executive champions -- comfortable with Agile.
Personally I have issues with methods that are focused on, or derive from, SW development being applied at different levels. And I think that SW developers per se are too keen to see each problem as one that requires development i.e. to get 100% fit might require development; but using an OOTB solution that reflects best practice might get you 80% of the way there - in 10% of the time.
I think the comments on vendor roadmaps interesting - and what we really need in ESTO is an aspirational roadmap with features defined near release drops.
See other ideas from comparisions with CRM: