Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Connected Execution's avatar

Hi Eetu, love your work. I think there are a lot of similarities in our thinking, but I think you're missing a couple of critical elements.

I completely agree with some of your key messages:

- Shaping strategy-to-execution before requirements lock down delivers disproportionate value.

- Feeding architectural insight into existing governance structures: portfolio boards or steering committees, don’t be a parallel entity

- No amount of modelling survives without executive backing and resourcing. Architecture needs secure sponsorship to drive continuity

However, I think you're missing a representation of the business layer (a business architecture) allowing modelling of the business and bridging into technology:

- Capabilities, data flows, and applications are not distinct artifacts, they need to align to deliver customer or stakeholder outcomes. Value-stream mapping represents value delivery and shows how capabilities collaborate in distinct business contexts.

- EA content tends to focus heavily on systems and data and underplays other operating model elements (e.g. people, process). To be useful, capabilities should be business capabilities representing all operating model elements.

- It is important to be able to have discussions with the business in their language. This means EAs should not just model applications and data flows but also vocabularies, business terms, or domain ontologies. A shared business language is crucial for unambiguous requirements, regulatory compliance, and cross-domain integration.

Expand full comment

No posts