Architecture and Engineering

It seems that I am having to take side journeys whilst trying to get back to the issue of complexity. It seems necessary, however, for me to assert a position regarding the linkage between architecture and engineering in the context of the enterprise.

Within the Enterprise Architecture community and the wider information systems architectural community, there seems to be a developing trend to move away from the term Enterprise Architecture and towards Enterprise Engineering. I have considerd this move and actually started moving towards it in the language of my client work. However, a recent experience has reasserted for me the view that architecture is the language we seek at the interface between the business, its aspirations, and the information systems which support the achievement of those aspirations.

Recently I attended a traditional latin mass at a Cathedral in Melbourne with all its attendant mystery and ritual. I realised as I sat there transfixed by the experience, that here was a process being applied to the use of a technology (and great Cathedrals are certainly technological achievements) that was a perfect expression of the aspirations of a community.

In like manner, the discipline of Enterprise Architecture was intended to express the vision of the enterprise in a means that would allow it to be translated into the relevant technologies to deliver that vision or aspiration.

One of the conclusions I have drawn is that the push to move to the use of the term enterprise engineering instead of enterprise architecture is flawed. The discipline of EA was intended to be the means for expressing the vision of the enterprise. As you will see my thinking has evolved to encapsulate techno-social systems. Such systems have a deep impact on the evolution of human communities. And once you put the pieces together it becomes obvious that what we are actually talking about is the evolution of the human enterprise. Ever since those earliest ancestors of homo sapien sapien picked up rock and bone and turned them into tools, the ascent of man has been the story of human evolution through the application of process to the use of tools to either shape or respond to the environment. The very use of those tools has even shaped the evolution of our own bodies - the opposable thumb being a great example.

The discipline of architecture in the built environment is one of expressing the aspirations of a community, group or family in the shape of a built environment. Engineering is about taking the architectural vision and translating it into pipes and bricks and cement and all of the other materials that make up a built environment. Therefore, to try and reframe EA as an engineering discipline is to remove the business vision from the organisation. We are then back to the IT centric view which expresses the solution in terms of databases and transactions and communication systems. Engineering at the solution layer is right. The concept of a solution architect has never been about anything more than working out how to put the pieces together.

It is fundamentally wrong to try and reframe EA though. If we remove the architecture from the concept then where does the enterprise go to, to express the linkage between the enterprise goals and aspirations and the processes and technologies used to deliver that vision. To further try and reframe it because the IT industry has done a poor job of providing EA services is, again, a flawed approach.

EA expresses the concept of Aristotle's "holon" in it's holistic intent. With Husserl I believe that the disciplines of information systems are the source for the philosophy of our time. For that philosophy to be relevant it must, as expressed by Hegel, represent "it's very age comprehended in thought". EA is the right frame of reference for expressing the aspirations of the organisation. Enterprise engineering does not in my humble opinion.