As I was researching the current industry Enterprise Architecture Capability Models I ran across an interesting observation. I found that most of the EA Maturity Models (even TOGAF) actually derive or are heavily influenced by The Department of Commerce Architecture Capability Model (ACMM).
What is interesting about this is that instead of focusing on true capabilities, they rather focus on characteristics. Below you can see this in the example from Department of Commerce ACMM.
As a first step and initial cut at an EA Maturity Model I think this was a large leap forward. But is it the end state? I don’t think so. While it was a good first step I think we can mature on this baseline. The key first step is to have a bit better classification on what we are evaluating and assessing through the Maturity Model. That brings us to the topic of this post.
Let’s look at comparing these two aspects:
Characteristics
Capabilities
· Ad Hoc
· Mixed Abstraction
· Pointed
· Context Missing
· Defined
· Abstraction Defined
· Very Pointed
· Context Defined
The key differences here is the evolution of these key ideals into something more structured and at a higher level abstraction.
Technorati Tags: Enterprise Architecture,Maturity Model
Kommentarer