|
Written by Charles Edwards
|
|
Sunday, 19 April 2009 00:06 |
AbstractThis paper proposes a simple mechanism for calculating the Money Future Value of Enterprise Technical Debt (ETD) showing a simple worked example, so that the business people can understand the financial implications of their Tactical versus Strategic technical architectural decisions. DownloadThis is available for download provided you have subscribed to the site and logged in under the Whitepapers Tab - Governance section |
|
Last Updated on Sunday, 19 April 2009 00:33 |
|
|
Written by Charles Edwards
|
|
Sunday, 12 April 2009 22:08 |
Changes in this release are too numerous to list here:Updated the version number to v2009.0.038 and Date to 13 April 2009. A lot of items were changed, added, and reworded. Some 123 line items were add, changed or refactored. Modified the diagrams within the Delivery Process iterations to look more like the Discipline structure. Added a Security View and Security Threat modelling. Added a Strategy View. Added a Services View. Details of the latest release can be seen here: Latest process release v20090038 - detail
|
|
Last Updated on Sunday, 19 April 2009 00:30 |
|
Written by Charles Edwards
|
|
Wednesday, 01 April 2009 23:35 |
|
Having looked at the poll results and seen the request for more detail on the Operational Process topping the list; as well as considering the level of completeness of the Operational Process of AgileEA generally, you will be please to know that I am going to concentrate on furter enhancing the content of the AgileEA process more for the next few months. Of course its always more fun and quicker to write the odd blog as it condenses the thoughts and gets things into a better perspective. |
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 April 2009 23:45 |
|
|
Written by Charles Edwards
|
|
Saturday, 04 April 2009 21:48 |
Changes in this release are:- Updated the Version of the EPF-Composer to latest version 1.5.0.2 released in December 2008.
- Restructured the version information to include new collaborators.
- Added a Principle to AgileEA Principles called "Principle: Architect the whole Enterprise"
- Added a principle to AgileEA Principles called "Principle: Shape Project Portfolio from an Archictural Viewpoint"
- Added a folder section called "Concepts" in the "Getting Started" tab
- Added a Concepts called "Enterprise Technical Debt"
- Updated the Feedback URL to tell users about the Linkedin Group or the AgileEA wiki.
- Updated the start page to tell users about the Linkedin Group or the AgileEA wiki.
- Updated the Diagram that displays Disciplines - added the "Supplier & vendor Management Discipline"
- Updated the EA Management Disciplines Diagram.
- Updated the AEA Disciplines whitepaper - incorporating the new EA Management discipines.
- Updated the "Todo" Whitepaper for the disciplines and pointed to the AEA_Disciplines_v0.5.pdf
- Moved some of the Concepts into a Concepts folder (Phase, Iteration, Discipline, WorkProduct)
- Edited the Start page to add in version info about Togaf and reference PeaF.
- Renamed and moved the Concepts of the Tabs in to the Concepts folder.
- Refined the Service Cataloge Work Product Description.
- Added a Task called Monitor Change Metrics
- Refactored the descriptions on change control action item, change control item, change control metrics.
- Connected the Work Products to the Configuration Manager role and added more description to some of the Tasks.
- Updated some of the Roadmaps for the process.
- Updated the Inception Milestone definition.
- Updated the EA Maturity roadmap
- Updated the Feasibility Phase roadmap
- Updated the Inception Phase Roadmap
- Updated the Elaboration Phase Roadmap and Phase definition.
- Updated the Architecture as usual Phase roadmap and Phase definition.
|
|
Last Updated on Sunday, 19 April 2009 00:30 |
|
Written by Charles Edwards
|
|
Saturday, 28 March 2009 13:10 |
|
The clue is in the title. One of the issues I see as an EA practitioner all the time is the fact that Enterprise Architecture typically falls within the IS/IT Department remit within many enterprise organizational structures and not where I believe it ought to be positioned. EA should be part of the Strategy Department under the CEO and therefore divorced from either the Supply or Demand side of the Enterprise, thereby governing from a neutral position and informing the executives of the enterprise. EA positioned within IS/IT it's like having two opposing Lawyers in a court room where one of them is also acting as the Judge; the verdict is always only going to go one way. Read up on it in my blog here: Who owns Enterprise Architecture? |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 April 2009 10:02 |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 2 of 8 |