Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
(→Architecture of the Enterprise) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Architecture of the Enterprise == | == Architecture of the Enterprise == | ||
| + | ''Topic Owner: Peter Bryant'' | ||
| − | + | ''Theme: Influencing TOGAF Next'' | |
| + | |||
| + | The Open Group is revising and restructuring The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) standard. It is experimenting with an ultra-simple set of definitions along the following lines. | ||
| + | |||
| + | System = a collection of components — which can also be called parts — working together to fulfil a mission | ||
| + | |||
| + | System has Architecture | ||
| + | |||
| + | Architecture = fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment embodied in its elements, their relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution | ||
| + | |||
| + | Enterprise = any group of organizations with a common set of goals. For example, an enterprise could be a government agency, a whole corporation, a division of a corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations linked together by common ownership. A large project, or endeavour involving multiple agencies, could also be an enterprise, e.g. London Olympics 2012. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Is this characterisation sufficiently explicit and general for our usage?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Enterprise is a class of System | ||
| + | |||
| + | Enterprise Architecture = Architecture of Enterprise (as System) | ||
| + | |||
| + | At first sight this would seem an ideal definition of Enterprise Architecture from a ESE perspective | ||
| + | *'''do you agree?''' | ||
| + | *'''Is this characterisation sufficiently explicit and general for normal usage?''' | ||
| + | *'''Does this conflict with ‘standard’ definitions of EA from the literature? If so, what will be missed?''' | ||
| + | *'''How could the characterisation be improved?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I look forward to your comments | ||
Revision as of 14:56, 24 October 2013
The aim of this Wiki is to provide a forum for discussion of topics relating to Enterprise Systems Engineering (ESE).
Please add a new topic page to start a debate. Use the 'Add topic' button. Pages can be created and revised using the 'Edit' button.
Examples of legitimate types of topic are:
- those relating to the ESE subject within SEBoK
- those relating to ESE aspects of standards such as TOGAF
- others inspired by our Interest Group event presentation or discussions.
Please feel free to e-mail Peter Bryant for advice relating to use of this Wiki.
Architecture of the Enterprise
Topic Owner: Peter Bryant
Theme: Influencing TOGAF Next
The Open Group is revising and restructuring The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) standard. It is experimenting with an ultra-simple set of definitions along the following lines.
System = a collection of components — which can also be called parts — working together to fulfil a mission
System has Architecture
Architecture = fundamental concepts or properties of a system in its environment embodied in its elements, their relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution
Enterprise = any group of organizations with a common set of goals. For example, an enterprise could be a government agency, a whole corporation, a division of a corporation, a single department, or a chain of geographically distant organizations linked together by common ownership. A large project, or endeavour involving multiple agencies, could also be an enterprise, e.g. London Olympics 2012.
Is this characterisation sufficiently explicit and general for our usage?
Enterprise is a class of System
Enterprise Architecture = Architecture of Enterprise (as System)
At first sight this would seem an ideal definition of Enterprise Architecture from a ESE perspective
- do you agree?
- Is this characterisation sufficiently explicit and general for normal usage?
- Does this conflict with ‘standard’ definitions of EA from the literature? If so, what will be missed?
- How could the characterisation be improved?
I look forward to your comments
