George Paras

So there I am sitting on a panel at a conference a couple of weeks ago, answering interesting questions with some interesting co-panelists, when a thought struck me.  “After decades of positioning EA as a discipline for business-IT alignment, why aren’t EA programs more in tune with (driven by, owned by, participation from) the business?”

Almost every EA/ITG "frequently asked question" compilation includes a FAQ asking how to measure EA/ITG maturity. The answers invariably include a maturity scale, a set of qualifications and perhaps some average benchmark data. Armed with this basic information about measuring maturity, should every organization immediately complete an assessment? The answer is: not necessarily.

Nothing haunts the Enterprise Architecture discipline more than the elusive quest to define the business value of EA. Sought by first-time practitioners—and by established EA professionals responding to executive demand for quantifiable value—every enterprise architect must eventually face this daunting challenge.

Innovation is a driving force for business change and Enterprise Architects must prepare for it and, preferably, lead the charge. Unfortunately, for many EA groups, most discussions of innovation are limited to debates on the latest, greatest technology advances. This should not come as a surprise, based on the background of most Enterprise Architects and the demands placed on them. The Enterprise Architect must provide coherent guidance to the enterprise through principles, standards and models while also providing project enablement, engineering support and value delivery.

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the premier issue of Architecture & Governance Magazine. The magazine you hold in your hands is dedicated to the new realm of IT: the smart, rational and cost-efficient use of information technology resources to achieve a company's business objectives.