What is the Enterprise Architectures value and how it can be assessed and demonstrated has been a topic subject to an interesting discussion among practitioners and researchers. Although this discussion has continued for several years, there is still no consensus about what the value of an Enterprise Architecture is and how it can be demonstrated. The lack of a clear understanding of the concept of value, the need to consider different views (of stakeholders) in assessing the value, the difficulty in identifying the key variables that contribute to the value and how and on what terms they should be measured and, finally, the organization‟s need to quickly prove the architecture‟s value are, in our opinion, the main issues contributing to the complexity and difficulty in assessing the Enterprise Architecture‟s value. In this article we discuss these main issues on value assessment and we make an introductory reference to an approach based on Enterprise Architecture value drivers that is being studied and which may be useful to mitigate these problems and, consequently, used in value assessment of Enterprise Architectures.
This article advocates for a complete restructuring of the Services Viewpoint and Views within the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) V2.0. It introduces the concept of overloading of the term “Service” within DoDAF V2.0, and provides a means of clarifying what is meant in the DoDAF regarding Services via the introduction of the term “Commoditized Service” into the DoDAF vernacular. The Commoditized Service is a manifestation of Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) at a higher level of abstraction than Web Services; it is not in-and-of-itself a Performer – the definition of Service in DoDAF V2.0 states a Service requires a Performer [as a Mechanism] to execute. The Commoditized Service (as well as the Web Service), requires a Service Level Agreement (SLA) to declare available functionality for the Service. This article introduces the concept of the SLA as a means of „information hiding‟ for the Commoditized Service, which allows for the manifestation of three concepts: (1) Capabilities as Systems that are bought or developed outright that are internal or functionally-specific applications, with no intention of offering underlying capabilities as a Service. (2) Outsourcing Capability (or parts of a Capability) to Commoditized Services. (3) Building the Service „in house‟ with the intention of offering it as a Commoditized Service. Each has different requirements regarding development of DoDAF artifacts; each case is discussed in detail as to the artifacts required for their manifestation. Finally, the article proposes a means of management of the underlying data associated with Commoditized Services. As such, what is presented is a logical construct for accommodating and modeling Commoditized Services, Web Services, Systems, Organizations, and People, providing value added to the architect and the organizations they support.
This case study presents an example of how one federal agency was able to utilize its enterprise architecture (EA) throughout an information technology (IT) investment‟s acquisition lifecycle; and describes how EA and IT acquisition management (ITAM) were integrated to positively influence and enhance the IT program‟s acquisition strategy. Once the agency determined the relationship between EA and ITAM, it was able to improve mission performance by utilizing relevant and mature data and relationships captured in the EA items. Because these EA items were provided to agency executives and stakeholders at specific times throughout the acquisition lifecycle, they made more informed decisions regarding resources and investments, thus resulting in more streamlined processes and more efficient buying power. EA delivered choices on actions and laid out the impacts so that actions could be weighed and measured. Success translated into dollars through eliminated purchases, redeployment, compliance to standards, tactical optimization for the strategic direction, and much more.
Len Fehskens’ excellent book reviews.
Scott Bernard interviews Larry DeBoever.