During my presentation, "Building an Effective EA Team," I received a number of questions regarding the relationship of the core EA team to other related teams. Please review this graphic and note the following comments, by way of explanation:

A complementary set of five chartered roles needs to be played to bridge the gap between forward business strategy and supporting technical implementation. If roles are defined, many types of organization charts will suffice, but if people are unsure as to their roles, no organization chart will save you. (1) C-level executives should be "stratospherically" focused on the forward strategy. Contrast this with (2) Technical or Domain Architects tasked to create re-usable services, that (3) Solution Architects or project teams assemble together as business solutions. (4) The IT Portfolio Managers must determine (A) What to architect (that has business value)?, and (B) What sequence to execute IT solutions in? For these two problems, the Portfolio Managers require (i) A theory of the business, and (ii) a future technical state description. These two things (i and ii) are the output of (5) The Core Enterprise Architecture Team.

With regard to the charter of the core EA team, I should note the following: One of the first deliverables for the architecture team is the enterprise architecture (EA) program charter. This document specifies the scope, objectives, deliverables and governance structure for the architecture program. The purpose is to gain agreement with the executive steering committee on the mandate for the EA program, empowering the EA program to design and oversee the evolution of the architecture.

Those programs that continue to function without a charter will always be deemed failures (by at least some portion of the constituency). Simply stated, the architecture program charter is an agreement among the architecture team, its sponsors and key stakeholders that specifies what, how and when things will be done - and by whom. Without this agreement, the architecture team exposes itself to criticism (founded or unfounded) and has no means to defend itself.

Submit a Comment | Permalink