EA and Agile do muddy the waters of Digital Transformation (ii) (IT Toolbox Blogs)

In “Architecture is Dying – Why EA and Agile isn’t enough to stop Shadow IT“, Barry O’Reilly writes for IASA, “an association for all IT architects“, that “architecture is dying”…


continuing from

Enterprise Architecture and Agile do muddy the waters of Digital Transformation

Agile holds back the Digital Transformation (i)


Yes, both Enterprise Architecture and Agile live their fads while hardly delivering to the enterprise Digital transformation, wasting time, money and opportunities in the process.

It was not enough that most IT projects usually fail (the usual cited figure is higher than 70%) but now the Digital transformation has both EA and Agile to contend with.


A problem is that, while the Digital transformation is held back by EA and Agile, the Shadow IT takes happily over, says Barry.


Yet, Shadow IT appeared in the context of Web and Cloud solutions quick delivery rather than because of the EA and Agile miss-firing. It materialised because the central IT department failed to respond in time to the other departments’ requests. Because business could not wait for the IT team to sort out their priorities and budgets or till they employed the right skills.

Shadow IT happened because the IT department failed to understand that they exist to support the Value Chain of the company rather than replace it. The IT departments turned introspective, demanding, slow moving, argumentative… and in particular expensive. That while the business needed instant solutions rather than perennial justifications and counter demands. And the business found then ready-made solutions on the web, in the Cloud. The Shadow IT was formed as such.


Barry also supports System Engineering (SE) as a solution to EA miss-firing.

SE focuses though on making sure that a system implementation is properly implemented, integrated, configured, rightly scaled and optimised, secure and reliable and that the non-functional requirements are realised.

Hence SE, does not really do the Enterprise Architecture job which is about documenting and (re-)structuring an enterprise, its functions and relationships, so that one is able to manage the enterprise complexity and facilitate its fast change. EA also reduces the enterprise duplication and eases its understanding.

Thus, EA reduces costs and renders the enterprise manageable and changeable at the pace of the market.


Moreover, while EA requires a broad knowledge of the enterprise, its functions and systems, SE demands in depth knowledge of a system and attention to detail. As such, the professionals in these disciplines have rather different skills and personalities.

Nevertheless, EA should be complemented by SE at system level because EA does not go into the depth the SE does.


EA books

Adrian Grigoriu is an executive consultant in Enterprise Architecture now living in Sydney, Australia. Shortlisted for the Computer Weekly IT Industry blogger of the year 2011. Former Head of Architecture and EA at OFCOM, the Agency providing regulation to frequency spectrum utilization and broadcasting industry in the United Kingdom. Previously Chief Architect of TMForum, the standards organization providing Frameworx, the Integrated Business Architecture framework for the telecommunications and digital media industries. Adrian also is an Executive Enterprise Strategy and Architecture Consultant and author of “An Enterprise Architecture Development Framework” book available on






and elsewhere. Reviews of the book are available from



the Angry Architect



is a short Enterprise Architecture animated slideshow summarising his view. Adrian also offers an EA and business architecture training course on-demand, based on the book. You may get in touch at grigoriu@hotmail.co.uk. His



Enterprise Architecture
System Engineering

Source: SANS ISC SecNewsFeed @ May 2, 2017 at 05:09AM