#entarch #value & #business
What is an EA practise? What is value and how is an EA practice organized? These are relevant questions and some that I, and some fellow EA’s, will try to answer in an upcoming collaborative project. Would you like to tip in, please contact me. Disclaimer: work in progress.
Recently I read the blog entry from Nick Jones on the Gartner site. I dont know him, havnt read anything that he wrote before. The titel was “UK Politicians still don’t get Technology” and the title refered to a heated debate, on free internet ..or not, based on the file-sharing discussion; should the state provide free and non-restricted internet to its citizens?
Well, I have my thoughts on this, but will revert back and look into the title “(UK) politicians still don’t get technology” (with out the UK) I find this much more interesting that a debate on free internet. Perhaps the question is, as the title of this blot headline states: – do they have to?? I think not, of course it would be convenient if the knew all aspects and all technologies – or, heck, if the were Enterprise Architects, that would be nice. But I see no specific value here. I see that there should be a layer underneath the political layer that are officer of the state and possesses the relevant knowledge on technology etc.
It seems that there’s a (digital divide) gap between this layer and the politicians, since the public offices have an immense job to communicate what they see as a right path to venture into. In some ways I see a similarity to the “digital divide” paradigm, since it’s all about a gap that isn’t bridged and therefor creates problems. So, in conclusion, I dont see why the politicians should concern themselves about technologies, standards etc. but if they did,by accident, it probably wouldn’t hurt. – In addition to this, the next layer, being the public (IT-)officers, probably ought to posses communication skills, understand politics/the game, a bit of economics, efficiency etc. .. and do they do that now? There’s the headline for a new blog entry.
Some time ago, I have been asked if I wanted to participate in peer reviewing upcoming articles, for the WMSCI Conference in Florida. Im happy to participate in this activity in the future and will hope that I, as well as the authors, will benefit from this, optimizing/enhance the quality of papers submitted. Furthermore I see this as a way to expand my horizon in others directions, no only focusing on Enterprise Architecture, Silos, Agility, Coherency, Standards and so on, but venture into areas like social science and technology, Mechatronics, Robotics etc.
In addition I experience that there are authors from new and formerly closed economies like Iran, former eastern european countries. It great (!!) to experience entries from these geographies being able to read about their work and conclude that the difficulties that they are faced with, are not so different from the ones in this part of the world – well besides a bit of corruption, lack of resources etc. Really, this is a great way to stitch the world together and let knowledge float through the manmade boundaries.
My paper that i co-wrote/researched for together with my boss Søren Duus Østergaard titled “How can Government benefit from Web2.0?” was presented at 2008 WMSCI conference in Florida in June, was was awarded “Sessions Best Paper“.
In my other assignment about NPM (New Public Management) I try to discuss the enhanced web tools (web2.0) and the way they can challenge old mindsets and put forward an improved, along with a much inexpensive, value proposition to the public sector. In this regard, I think the acknowledge is a step closer to this goal .. but there is a long way to go still.
So on wednesday is my trip to Bruxelles, and it is a city i havnt been in before. Looking forward to going there, gathering data for my master thesis, and hopefully getting an interview with some of the central people.. maybe.
As of now I have a lot of unanswered questions, that need to be adressed. For instance where are the challenges in the EIF work, in order to get the member countries to use it. Seems like the benefits are obvious. Ought the framework to be compulsory in order to reach the declared i2010 goal on interoperability “enhancing devices and platforms that ‘talk to one another’ and services that are portable from platform to platform“? Can it be done at alle due to member states sovereignty? Or should it be put out there and hopefully, over time, be the default framework, the cross-country systems could be modelled after?
These are some of my questions, that I think Id be looking for answers to..
My holiday is in a week – three weeks with the family, ooking forward to it. Hope you enjoy your summer 🙂