EA Practice
Peer Connect: Answers from different peers:
Where in the organization does the EA Team reside (IT?)
In the current iteration we have EA in IT reporting directly to CIO. Also I believe that this is where it adds most value. If you are planning to implement a strong business architecture function then the answer will be slightly different. Essentially you want the function to report to someone who is the main sponsor and can make and drive decisions.
Typically, in the US (and Canada), EA Teams are in IT. Other parts of the world lead the efforts is moving this from IT into the business, typically under a CTO, if one exists. This is a better positioning to really impact the company, but in the US we are slow in getting there. If it is still in IT, the closer to the CIO (or Director or VP of IT or whomever is the “head” of IT) the better. Having the manager of EA reporting directly to this person is ideal. The further down you are layered, the less visibility, access, and both formal and informal authority you have.
Under to CIO, CTO, or CEO depending upon the company. Usually in IT, but not always. Need to consider if the goal of the EA group is to help accelerate realization of business value how you can do that if the organization is hidden away within the bowels of IT. It will be more visible and more effective if it reports up to the CEO, COO, or something similar.
How does it interact with the BRM's?
We have consolidate the BRMs and EA's into a single team. We find it more efficient this way.
The ideal situation is to have a close working relationship with the BRMs. Good BRMs interface regularly with their business counterparts and keep their fingers on the pulse of that business leader and his/her business unit’s needs. EA should be involved in conversations BRMs have with the business leaders about future needs (strategies and vision) as well as about current pain points.
In some instances the BRM's are really business architects and thus are working really close with the EA function. Where I am now, I have Enterprise Archiects, Solution Architects, Technology Architects, and Data Architects in my organization. BRMs report up through a PMO function, but my team works very closely with them. Our success criteria is focused on delivering business value, preferably on time and on budget. As such the architects and PMs need to align to ensure success.
How does it interact with the PMO?
EA's are responsible for Strategic planning and overall direction. PMO's interact on a per project basis during project gates via an Architecture Review Board (ARB) which ensures that the project is in alignment with the strategic direction. In case of technical deviation they have to get approvall from the ARB.
The interaction between EA and PMO is multi-faceted. EA should be engaged before the project is approved – at the idea/project proposal phase. EA should be providing guidance at that point if there is already a solution in place or if the request is to enhance a system that is slated for replacement, or that the project aligns / does not align with current architectural goals and objectives (which should be supporting the business’ strategic goals and objectives), etc.
EA should also be engaged with PMO as an approver at various other check points (a.k.a. “gate approval”) along the way in the project process. For example, there should be architectural review and approval of initial design before design work begins or approval of the architecture prior to the purchase of a commercial (COTS or SaaS) solution.
Both groups are involved in the "portfolio" process to determine what projects to do and how to do them. We have aligned EA project reviews with the tollgates that the PMO processes require, so as to not add extra meetings or overhead for the projects.
The Architecture Review Board has set up criteria for what is needed for what projects, based on size, complexity, and risks. A project that is relatively small, using existing technologies and archiecture (such as an enhancement to an existing application), might not need to be involved at all or might assign an architect for the project to go to with questions, but no approvals or review are needed. Projects that introduce new technologies, new appliactions, and/or create risk may require a part time or full time architect, reviews prior to all tollgates, etc.
The PMO and the EA team work together every day.
How does it handle governance?
Via the ARB.
First, there must be defined processes and standards. You cannot govern what isn’t defined. Just as a law enforcement officer must site a law you are violating when issuing you a ticket, you need to have a documented (and socialized) process or standard to which to point to govern. Governance of a process is part of the process itself; not an entity unto itself. A part of the governance process, there needs to be some sort of Architecture Review Board (ARB) established from which projects gain approval to move forward. However, the ARB is only one piece of governance. Whatever your scope in the EA charter, you need to govern the entire process.
The Architecture Review Board (ARB) is the governing body. I (Chief Enterprise Architect) chair the ARB, but I only get one vote. It isn't me making the decisions, I just developed and run the processes. The ARB decides on standards, deviations, metrics, criteria for when projects need an architect, architect review, etc.
The ARB includes leaders from the business and all of the major groups in IT (architecture, operations, infrastructure, data, application development), as well as the business. One vote per area, 9 areas represented. Requires 5 votes (a majority) for a decision to be made
To what degree to you manage the artifacts (i.e. Process Models, various landscapes, artifact relationship?
Not sure what you are asking here. if you are talking about the creation and maintenance of the architecture landscape, they are done on priority and value basis. So we have have not mapped out everything but only things that are critical based on the company's drivers and goals.
Unmanaged artifacts are of little use. If you can’t find them when they are needed, they do little good. However, it doesn’t take a comprehensive, expensive EA tool to do that. You can manage them on SharePoint or even OneDrive. The key is the process around their management. When is what artifact required? Who develops it (using what tools and following what process or standard)? How is it approved? Where is it stored? How is it versioned, if it changes over time?
We, Novelis, use Sharepoint as a repository for all of this stuff. We have been looking into purchasing a tool to help us, but so far we have been just organizing things in Sharepoint.
Ref: