Skip to main content

EA and ContinuousNext

The Enterprise Architecture Ecosystem continues to evolve in interesting ways.

For example, we could almost speak of EA meaning Ecosystem Architecture in terms of all the potential players, themes, etc., tied to different contexts for doing Enterprise Architecture. We need to look at partners in manufacturing, supply, and logistics scenarios, just as we need to look at potential M&A partners.

But we also need to consider how EA facilitates collaboration between the many varied roles essential to build strategy, scope work, define ultimately comprehensive requirements iteratively and with agility linked to incremental delivery of value. Enterprise Architects must work with Solution Architects, Portfolio/Program/Project Managers, Agile Development Teams, Systems Engineers, and Operation and Maintenance specialists.


Advertisement

Also considering the velocity of changes in business models and technologies, EA must have a major role in innovation and as an overall Center of Transformation Excellence, whether driven by technical debt or trying to double the revenue of the enterprise in 5 years!

At the latest Gartner ITxpo in Orlando, Florida in October 2018, Gartner thought leaders introduced the concept of “ContinuousNext” after a few years of beating the Digital Transformation drum. EA has a major role to play in ContinuousNext, but only if it becomes a much more mature discipline, more of an Overall Architecture one that can best shine the light on the opportunities of Mastering the Architecture Landscape in all its dimensions.

To become more mature, architecture roles and roadmaps need to be further clarified and better understanding of enablers needed play the roles and execute the roadmaps are essential — EA approaches, tools, and techniques must become better integrated and then accelerators to value. EA must be perceived as Essential Value Added across all priority Value Streams in the relevant ecosystem, so Key Performance Indicators linked to such an outcome must be defined aggressively.

Comment