Talk:Main Page

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 by using the 'Add topic' button. Pages can be created and revised using the 'Edit' button. You can respond to a discussion topic in the same way (please add your name in advance of your comment). For further information on editing syntax see the mediawiki help system mediawiki-help.

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