Virtuous circles of strategy, architecture and delivery

If we don't support a virtuous circle of use - we won't achieve much (and certainly not cost effectively).

The majority of people who need to consume an Enterprise Architecture and Strategies are business teams (owners, analysts etc.) and solution architects, designers etc. i.e. down-stream project teams wanting to do something (buy, build, change etc.). NOT other EAs and Strategists. You can see the same thing with a town plan i.e. the majority of people who consume the town plan are property owners, architects etc. wishing to do things.

Governance functions also have a need (e.g. project office, contract/vendor management, business case analysts).

Until EA can effectively understand its place in the lifecycle of think, plan, excute, operate - it will struggle.

Enterprises wish to make changes (transform, optimize) and EA is intended to guide these changes (it is not an end in itself). The changes will usually be implemented in initiatives, programmes, and projects. Those involving IT will usually have requirements, solution architectures, etc. These projects are where the rubber hits the road.

So EA needs to be consumed by down-stream projects - which will indicate their use of existing assets (applications, services, interfaces, hardware etc.), standards (products, technologies, patterns), capabilities (skills, resources) - and indicate where they will produce new assets or require new/different standards to be adopted or capabilities established etc.

Most of what one sees in a tradional EA once came from some project that drove the need for it. This is true on the business and technology side - but is usually more obvious with technology.

An EA needs to be produced and consumed both bottom up and top down.

EVP - Powerpoint fails to deal with complexity well - who would have thought

I have heartened to see this "U.S. Army discovers PowerPoint makes you stupid" (http://blogs.computerworld.com/16006/powerpoint_makes_you_stupid?source=CTWNLE_nlt_entsoft_2010-05-03).

For many years I have been presented with powerpoints that claim to communicate complex things e.g. strategies, roadmaps, architectures, transition plans etc.

I have been perplexed when on examination the PPTs turned out not to contain the information necessary to describe the complex situation being dealt with. I am then asked how do we model these - or why can't you produce a model, visualisation or report that communicates like these do. The reason is that the powerpoints are often specious - being favoured by executives, sales people and other trying the illusion that analysis has been done and sound conclusion reached based on facts - when in the facts, analysis and conclusions are at best usually disconnected. If one points out the limitation of the powerpoint source documents - one hear "Oh so you don't know how to represent this". Well the answer is that if the data is rubbish expressing in a semantically precise way will just highlight that it is rubbish. This doesn't to fly well with the executives.

I like these quotes:

"Have you fallen in love with your bulletized slides, nifty transitions, and pretty charts in PowerPoint? If so, you're likely getting more stupid ..."
"... We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint... When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war."
"It's dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control. Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable."
"... it leads to bad decision-making, with serious consequences ..."
"... that tremendous amounts of time are spent in the military on putting together presentations, and that this takes away from true productivity."
"... [PPT] does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters." [or executives]
"hypnotizing chickens."