A recent article in CIO Magazine, raises a valid point about the communicated purpose of Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Architecture can be an overwhelmingly complex undertaking if approached comprehensively from the top down. In order to avoid getting lost in the matrix of the Zachman Framework, EA should be attached to solving business problems, and according to GM CTO Tony Scott, business peers shouldn't even know its called "enterprise architecture".
The goal of EA is to Reduce Complexity, not increase it. EA is described simply as the mapping of business requirements and processes to IT systems which support them. But its not a technology platform, or a one time mapping. It is a discipline. We don't sell disciplines, we practice them.
The EA discipline is practiced when key problem areas, inefficient processes, legacy systems, those things which can no longer be directly connected with the business need are re-evaluated. The goal is to provide agility, reduce complexity, so that the organization can "change the business rules" when need dictates without reinventing the IT systems that support them.
Often IT is viewed as slowing down the advancement of the organization, rather than enabling it. Strategic alignment has been thwarted by the increasing complexity of ad hoc computing solutions. IT is too busy just keeping the plethora of individual PC's, components, and nich products running. It seems like products are always being added, never removed. Clearly re-alignment is necessary, discipline is the key.
