Here is an interesting thought of a colleague yesterday (Thomas Vermassen – Lead Architect ORES) on documenting IT systems:
You have basically two strategies for keeping your Enterprise Architecture knowledge under control.
The first one is to capitalize on people. If your organization is stable enough you can assign clear responsibilities and you should be able to find the right information by finding the right person.
The second one is to capitalize on documentation. Through deliverables you make sure everything is described as it should be. This is most suitable if you have a high collaborators turnover like when you work with a lot of sub-contractors.
The ideal world is probably to have both.
I’m a deliverable minded person and I so I tend to prefer the second one. I value information sharing as it often avoids job protection and silo thinking. The notion of deliverable is also linked to another value that I like : personal contribution.
Also when the architecture is complex I don’t see how you can just book a meeting with someone in oder for him to explain you the 100 business processes in scope. That must be why clever people write books……
- Lousy leaders
- Confusion regarding the strengths on the team
- Fear of failure
- Low expectations
- Lack of focus
- Insecure team members
Exceptional is the result of reaching beyon current performance.
1. Can you do the job?
2. Will you love the job?
3. Can we tolerate working with you?
Source : Forbes.com…
Recently I have started working on Information Governance.
I have been used to work on SOA governance for several years and I find information governance seems at first sight to be much more complex. To have an idea, look at at Mike2.0’s section on Information Strategy, Architecture and Governance offerings.
But I just had an idea. What if I substitute “Service” by “Information” in my typical SOA governance framework ?
Would it give a easy to understand and to apply Information Governance ?
To be continued…
What’s the difference between direct marketing, advertising, telemarketing, brand recognition… ?…
In a 1958 article, IBM researcher Hans Peter Luhn used the term business intelligence. He employed the Webster’s dictionary definition of intelligence: “the ability to apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action towards a desired goal.”