Heel toegankelijk geschreven stuk over EA en mooi dat je diverse definities hebt opgenomen (Gartner, Graves, Ross & White). Het valt mij op dat de gekozen beschrijvingen een gepland deterministisch blauwdruk proces als perspectief nemen.
Je zou, dit wordt door jou enkele zinnen ervoor reeds aangekondigd, daar tegenover het emergente perspectief kunnen benoemen (wat mijns inziens goed past bij een niet -kenbare toekomst), zie o.a. het volgende in de bijlagen:
Our notion of design, however, must be interpreted broadly and seen as devising “courses of action aimed at changing existing (enterprise) situations into preferred ones” [Simon, (1969), p.111]. We consider design as an activity based on enterprise learning whereby enterprise members cope with the ‘unexpected’ much like Weick’s metaphor of an ‘improvisational theatre’ (Tsoukas, 1994), as opposed to the traditional ‘architecture’ metaphor.
(Bron, The Discipline of Enterprise Engineering)
De werkgroep stelde het volgende vast inzake definities over architectuur:
Fairly soon it became clear that a useful architecture framework could only be developed if two notions would be conceived in an appropriate way and would be defined precisely. These notions are “architecture” and “architecture framework”. At the same time, we had to conclude that both notions were hardly defined at all and used in very diverse ways. I do not exaggerate when I say that the working group suffered from a veritable tower of Babel. Despite the definitions of architecture by respectable institutions, like IEEE and The Open Group, we were convinced that architecture is not or should not be what these institutions proposed, namely a kind of global design or blueprint.
As an example, we take the definition known as IEEE 1471 [39]. It reads as follows:
Architecture is the fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
Let us start by making a critical note: this definition will not win the beauty award, for two reasons. One reason is that it is ambiguous. It states that architecture is ‘the fundamental organization of a system’ and, at the same time, it states that architecture consists of ‘the principles guiding its design and evolution’. Therefore, what is it going to be; do we have to toss a coin? The other reason is that the formulation, as cited above, scarcely deserves the name definition; it is merely a description. In order to call something a definition, it must be embedded in a theoretical framework, and it must be formulated precisely, preferably in a formalized language.
Dietz et al, stellen daarom de volgende definitie inzake architectuur voor:
Theoretically, architecture is the normative restriction of design freedom.
Practically, architecture is a consistent and coherent set of design principles.
Heel toegankelijk geschreven stuk over EA en mooi dat je diverse definities hebt opgenomen (Gartner, Graves, Ross & White). Het valt mij op dat de gekozen beschrijvingen een gepland deterministisch blauwdruk proces als perspectief nemen.
Je zou, dit wordt door jou enkele zinnen ervoor reeds aangekondigd, daar tegenover het emergente perspectief kunnen benoemen (wat mijns inziens goed past bij een niet -kenbare toekomst), zie o.a. het volgende in de bijlagen:
Our notion of design, however, must be interpreted broadly and seen as devising “courses of action aimed at changing existing (enterprise) situations into preferred ones” [Simon, (1969), p.111]. We consider design as an activity based on enterprise learning whereby enterprise members cope with the ‘unexpected’ much like Weick’s metaphor of an ‘improvisational theatre’ (Tsoukas, 1994), as opposed to the traditional ‘architecture’ metaphor. (Bron, The Discipline of Enterprise Engineering)
De tegengestelde definitie van de traditionele ‘architectuur’ definities, zoals Gartner, wordt gegeven in ‘Architecture’: http://www.sapio.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Architecture.pdf.
De werkgroep stelde het volgende vast inzake definities over architectuur: Fairly soon it became clear that a useful architecture framework could only be developed if two notions would be conceived in an appropriate way and would be defined precisely. These notions are “architecture” and “architecture framework”. At the same time, we had to conclude that both notions were hardly defined at all and used in very diverse ways. I do not exaggerate when I say that the working group suffered from a veritable tower of Babel. Despite the definitions of architecture by respectable institutions, like IEEE and The Open Group, we were convinced that architecture is not or should not be what these institutions proposed, namely a kind of global design or blueprint.
As an example, we take the definition known as IEEE 1471 [39]. It reads as follows: Architecture is the fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
Let us start by making a critical note: this definition will not win the beauty award, for two reasons. One reason is that it is ambiguous. It states that architecture is ‘the fundamental organization of a system’ and, at the same time, it states that architecture consists of ‘the principles guiding its design and evolution’. Therefore, what is it going to be; do we have to toss a coin? The other reason is that the formulation, as cited above, scarcely deserves the name definition; it is merely a description. In order to call something a definition, it must be embedded in a theoretical framework, and it must be formulated precisely, preferably in a formalized language.
Dietz et al, stellen daarom de volgende definitie inzake architectuur voor: Theoretically, architecture is the normative restriction of design freedom. Practically, architecture is a consistent and coherent set of design principles.
Wellicht het overwegen waard,
Hans