Coordinating updates to pages dealing with Enterprise Architecture
editSince the field of EA is so small, and the number of editors is so small, I've decided not to attempt to create a WikiProject for the effort of modifying the pages for Enterprise Architecture. Instead, we will use this page for coordination at this point. If you want to add a comment to deal with one of the noted pages, please do.
Goals of the effort:
- To ensure that the pages dealing with Enterprise Architecture are well written, follow Wikipedia style guidelines, and rely on reliable third party sources for the material
- To ensure that the ideas expressed in the EA pages are up to date with changes in the field (post ~2005)
- To provide a clear and consistent voice that reflects a high quality bar for describing the field of EA to non-practitioners avoiding technical jargon
Ideas that we want to ensure are reliably included and sourced
- EA as a process, not a thing
- EA as a business activity that includes, but is not limited to, Information Technology
- EA as distinct from, but inclusive of, the domains of EA
Collaborators
| Voytek J Janisz | Progressive Insurance | Wikipedia id: voywiki (talk) |
| Kurt Nelson | Boeing | Wikipedia id: unknown |
| Murat Yesilsirt | Informatica | Wikipedia id: payava (talk) |
| Nick Malik | Microsoft | Wikipedia id: nickmalik (talk) |
| Pat Willis | Swinton Insurance | Wikipedia id: williswiki (talk) |
Priorities of the pages to modify
editThis section will discuss the pages that we will focus on in the first pass of cleanup for the Enterprise Architecture project. Specific Domains
- Enterprise Architecture
- Data or Information Architecture
- Business Architecture
- Enterprise Architecture Management
- Solutions Architecture
Specific Roles
- Enterprise Architect
- Business Architect
- Software Architect
- Solutions Architect
- Systems Architect
Pages included in this effort
editBooks included in this effort
| Name of page | Proximity Score | Referencing Score | Quality Score | Comments |
| AGATE (architecture framework) | 2 | Low | Low | French military framework. Still in use? There are ZERO valid references to this one. If we cannot find references in English, do we keep it? |
| Application Portfolio Management | 3 | Low | Low | So badly referenced, its comical. What's embarrassing about this article is that it's only real reference is to my blog. So to say that it needs references to reliable sources would be a massive understatement. If it wasn't in scope for this effort, I'd be tempted to blow it up.Nickmalik (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Applications architecture | 2 | Low | Low | Very poor quality information. It reads as pure opinion and questionable at best. Some of it makes me cringe :-). ZERO references! The page includes definition and tasks of an Applications Architect which may belong in a separate page. Same with architecture patterns - not sure it belongs here. Voywiki (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Architecture domain | 2 | Low | Low | This page is largely unreferenced and contains lot of jargon Payava (talk) |
| Business analyst | 3 | Low | Medium | ZERO references. A lot of opinion-like statements but reads smoothly. The page is included in the scope of an existing Wiki Project so it may get cleaned up outside of this effort. There is no mention of enterprise architecture anywhere on the page, probably should be. Our goal may be to provide well sourced description of relationship between Business Analyst role and Buisness Architecture and/or between Business Analyst and Enterprise Architecture. Voywiki (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Business architect | 1 | High | High | Truly awful page. Zero references. Basically, this is a stub. Needs to be completely redone. Truly awful. Nickmalik (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Business architecture | 1 | High | Med | Very clumsy writing, clearly written by numerous authors with different opinions. No examples, just an old NIST model. One section is almost completely unreferenced. This is a major priority. |
| Business Capability Roadmap | 3 | ? | ? | This page needs to be created. We could consider creating a page for Business Capability Model and combine it with Business Capability Roadmap. Voywiki (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Business process management | 3 | Med | Low | This page needs a lot of work but it is probably lower priority for us. At minimum I think it needs some references to Business Architecture and explanation about how BPM and BusArch are related. Voywiki (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC) |
| Business process reengineering | 3 | High | Med | Article is way too long, including topics outside the scope of business process re-engineering. Some sections are well referenced, while other sections seem like original research. |
| Capability management in business | 3 | Medium | Medium | This article is probably not in our main focus by itself. However, it begs for some connections to Enterprise Architecture as it speaks about strategic planning, value contribution etc. In other words, it touches concepts that are near and dear to EA. Some references are weak, some claims not substantiated. Language is reasonably good although at times it seems out of context. Voywiki (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Business model | 3 | High | Medium | If this article was about capability models then I would have given it a different proximity score. However, it is about business models and as such only remotely connected with Enterprise Architecture. Very well referenced, and reasonably written. Voywiki (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Actually, I think it is only one level removed from business architecture. I think it is an independent thread from capabilities. Nickmalik (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Chief information officer | 3 | Low | Low | The article is not well referenced, and does not read like a Wikipedia article describing a job title. Needs a serious quality pass. |
| Data architect | 1 | Med | High | This article is a mishmash of various opinions, mostly unsourced, with most of the article simply describing data architecture and very little describing the role, skills, or competencies of a data architect Nickmalik (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
| Data Architecture | 1 | Low | Low | This article is basically trash. It needs a total rewrite and possible we marge Information Architecture and Data Architecture into this one page, and cite DAMA and other sources like TOGAF. |
| Department of Defense Architecture Framework | 2 | High | High | Specific example of an architecture framework. Well referenced with the DoDAF spec as a source. It's a little bloated with information from the spec that could be simply pointed to. Could use some third party authoritative references to DoDAF, but overall it's not a bad article. Voywiki (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework | 2 | High | High | It is a very specific example of an assessment framework - it gets proximity score 2 because of that. References sourced directly from Federal Government, the owner of the framework. |
| Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge | 2 | Low | Low | Out of date information, no mention of the EABOK Consortium or current efforts to update the guide. Very poorly referenced. Contains an analysis that does not exist elsewhere (violating WP:NOR). We should keep and update this one. |
| Enterprise architect | 1 | Med | Med | The article is out of date, but not awful. It needs to reference more reliable and modern material, including the FEAPO document and textbooks on EA rather than blog posts that are focused on technology architecture. |
| Enterprise architecture | 0 | Medium | Medium | Sample data to demonstrate the use of tables |
| Enterprise architecture framework | 1 | Low | Medium | Fairly decent quality in the Overview and History sections. Some references are old in those sections but it may be okay when they apply to information about history. Gets worse from there. Needs reorganization as some subtopics are duplicated (e.g. Architecture Domains) and not consistently explained. Needs better content especially in the area of "Components of EA Framework". There are no references in that section. Voywiki (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Enterprise architecture management | 1 | Low | Low | Outdated information, single reference |
| Enterprise architecture planning | 2 | Medium | Medium | Surprisingly, tt's another example of a very old framework, and not a general page on the concept of enterprise architecture planning - fooled me :-). Generally, the references are to some old materials but due to the nature of this information it may be okay. One reference is broken and another is confusing (FAA). This should be a low-priority item for us. Voywiki (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Decided on a call to cut this down to "referencing the book" since it is probably no longer relevant. Nickmalik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Enterprise life cycle | 2 | Medium | Medium | Very few references and most of them are very old. Many instances of statements that sound like opinions. Language is somewhat outdated - uses terminology that may be out of circulation. Since most references point to federal agencies, the language is also tilted towards government-speak. Most concepts covered here are relevant for EA but the article needs to be modernized.Voywiki (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC) I moved the proximity score to 2. I don't think this is as central to EA per se. Nickmalik (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Enterprise modelling | 2 | High | Medium | The page is well referenced and has a great deal of useful information. That said, it is fairly jargon-y and some sections repeat information from other sections. The content on EA is developed at the end of the article but not mentioned in the LEDE. It could use a consistency check and some reduction in jargon, but all in all, it's a pretty good article. |
| FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework | 2 | Low | Low | Outdated (circa 2005) references point to materials that only mention FDIC EA Framework. No authoritative source from FDIC puts quality of information in question. We may consider deleting the page if we cannot identify reliable source.Voywiki (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Federal enterprise architecture | 2 | Med | Med | This article is odd, in that it is titled as though it refers to any federal enterprise architecture, but then goes on to describe ONLY the US Government Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework. We may want to retitle this page to be specific to the US Government Federal EA Framework (FEAF). Note that a page does not exist for the frameworks of other federal governments (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc). Mostly referenced well except the tools section (which shouldn't be there anyway). Written readably but with a great deal of jargon.Nickmalik (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations | 2 | High | High | I'll admit to being biased on this one, since I'm a key member of FEAPO. That said, the article is accurate and well referenced. |
| Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology | 2 | Low | Low | Most statements sourced in single, very old reference, which is an "Overview of GERAM". The link is broken. Strange language - some of it is in future tense. I'm not sure we want to devote much energy to cleaning this page up. Voywiki (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Strip down this page. No reason to believe it is relevant to modern EA. Nickmalik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| IDEAS Group | 4 | Low | Low | ZERO references. It is essentially an overview of a project. Even the IDEAS web page (not Wiki) which seems to be the source of most of the information here doesn't appear to be fresh. Many unsubstantiated claims. I suggest dropping this page. Voywiki (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC) I concur. Let's begin the process of having the page deleted. Nickmalik (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
| IEEE 1471 | 3 | Medium | Medium | One broken reference. A few opinion-like statements but for the most part it's a decent, concise article. I don't think it requires a lot of work. Voywiki (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC) We should nominate this page to be merged with 42010 since that standard supersedes this one. Nickmalik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| ISO/IEC 42010 | 3 | Medium | Medium | Added this page because it is a standard that superceded the IEEE 1471. The article is referenced by the standard itself, which makes it easy. However, some statements may have to be verified against the standard. The article may be mixing concepts of software/system architecture with a concept of enterprise architecture. Some mentions of architecture frameworks point to EA frameworks, which may be a stretch here as this standard focuses primarily on the system/software architecture. Should not be a lot of work to clean it up though. Voywiki (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Information Framework | 2 | Low | Medium | Surprise, surprise! This is not about generic "information framework" but about specific IBM's creation. Many opinion-like statements, which are not backed by any references at all. The whole article reads a little like an infomercial created by IBM. Unfortunately no third-party references are provided. Voywiki (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Possible submit for deleting due to advertising. Nickmalik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Information architecture | 1 | Low | Low | Very little information. In fact, this page does not include what I was expecting to see, especially that I consider Information Architecture as one of the components of EA. The page needs a lot of work. In fact, it's probably a good candidate for a complete rewrite. Some references are old, some are just strange - one takes you to page encouraging you to join IA Institute Network. Questionable (awkward) section on "notable people in Information Architecture" Voywiki (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Integrated Architecture Framework | 2 | Low | Low | Very short, and not too informative page. Capgemini reference to the main source is inactive. If we can't find that source anywhere on Capgemini site then we may want to consider removing this page as it may mean that Capgemini no longer endorses this framework.Voywiki (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Submit to Wikipedia for deletion. Nickmalik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| MODAF | 2 | Low | Medium | Another example of an EA framework. Most references are broken. Remaining ones do not cover or support the main assertions of this article. Voywiki (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
| NATO Architecture Framework | 2 | Low | Low | ZERO references. The page has very little information and hardly goes beyond acknowledging that it is based on MODAF concepts. I suggest deleting this page and potentially mention NAF on the MODAF page. Voywiki (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
| NIST Enterprise Architecture Model | 2 | High | Medium | Example of EA model developed in the 1980s. Lots of historical information and references to materials from the 80s and 90s - probably okay because of the nature of this article. Overall not a bad article. Language could use some minor polishing. Voywiki (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
| OBASHI | 2 | Low | Medium | Article includes References section but the references are weak and not tied to specific statements. It makes it difficult to distinguish options from authoritative statements. Overall, the article is rather light on content, which may be okay if we were to provide more substantive references. Voywiki (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Operating model | 2 | Low | Low | Article includes many unreferenced statements. It seems very light and at times incoherent. It is an important topic as it intersects with Business Architecture and by extension with EA. We should give this our article some attention. Voywiki (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC) See note below on "Target Operating Model" -- I agree Nickmalik (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Process modeling | 3 | Low | Low | Some references are old (90s) and some statements sound like opinions. This topic is somewhat peripheral to EA as it focuses on the modeling. I suggest treating it lightly and focus on cleaning up mentions of business architecture and enterprise architecture. Voywiki (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Project management office | 2 | Med | Med | Fairly light article with some referencing but some unreferenced facts as well. Needs a little research and resourcing. Doesn't truly explain why a PMO is needed or how it adds value. (voywiki) -- Is this really a proximity 1? Moving to proximity 2. While this is important to EA, it is not a responsibility of EA. Nickmalik (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Project portfolio management | 3 | Low | Med | There is a huge overlap between this article and the article on IT portfolio management as well as some confusion between those two and Application Portfolio Management. I'd like to consider that we merge the IT portfolio management page into the project portfolio management page. I'd also like to suggest that we clearly indicate, in the resulting page, that application portfolios are a distinct in that they manage assets, not efforts. Nickmalik (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Queensland Government Enterprise Architecture | 2 | Medium | Medium | Another example of a framework, which appears to be in use. Good news is that it is very short and to the point. It directs readers to the actual specification. We should probably treat this article just like other non-mainstream frameworks that are in use. Low priority, not a lot of work. Voywiki (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| RM-ODP | 3 | Medium | Low | Many opinion-like statements. Poorly referenced. Probably farther disconnected from EA than architecture frameworks, but perhaps worth some attention. I would consider it low priority. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Reference model | 2 | Low | Medium | Not a bad page given the generic nature of the topic. All information seems to be based on OASIS SOA reference model. However, it includes many opinion-like statements. The concept itself is important to EA but this page needs some work. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Service-oriented modeling | 3 | Low | Medium | Very few references. I was expecting a generic topic but the article goes into specifics of SOMA and SOMF. Perhaps its title should be changed to reflect what is in it. Low priority for us. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Software architect | 1 | Low | Low | Terrible article. Zero references and many opinions. I wish we could just remove this page but since the term functions in modern IT world we must address it to reconcile it with other "architect" roles. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Software architectural model | 3 | Low | Low | This article is a really bad encyclopedia article. There are zero references, and the entire article may represent original research. The content is probably correct, but it needs to be referenced from somewhere else. Is it relevant to our project?
Nickmalik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Merge this into Software or Solution Architecture. |
| Solutions Architect | 1 | Low | Low | Zero references, many opinion-like statements. Article includes many assertions about relationship of this role to other architecture roles including the role of Enterprise Architect. For that reason we must address this article. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Solution Architecture | 1 | Medium | Medium | Zero references, many opinions. Includes statements that attempt to position Solution Architecture relative to Enterprise Architecture. Needs some serious cleanup. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Promoting scores to Medium. The page has been cleaned up and I consider it "good enough" at this point. Somehow I can't make myself to score it as High/High. I think it may still need work but its priority dropped. Voywiki (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
| Strategy map | 3 | Medium | Medium | This is a very specific topic that seems to be peripheral to our task. Also, this may be better tied with Capability management in business or Business capability roadmap rather than directly with EA. I suggest removing it from the scope of our effort. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Systems analysis | 4 | Low | Low | This abysmal article is poorly formatted and poorly written. It is a mashup of notions from business analysis and systems theory. The page needs to be blown up. That said, I'd suggest that it may be out of scope for Enterprise Architecture. Nickmalik (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Systems architect | 1 | Low | Low | Just like other "role" articles this one is really bad. Zero references and many opinions. Needs serious work. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Systems development life cycle | 3 | Low | Low | Poorly structured article that makes many assertions about what SDLC must do. Needs to be trimmed down to be more generic and include links to specific examples of SDLC. There is almost no mention of Enterprise Architecture, which should probably be rectified to indicate how EA feeds the SDLC. Voywiki (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) |
| Target operating model | 3 | Low | Low | This article is terrible and should probably be merged with Operating model. It is essentially only a definition with no sources. Nickmalik (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Agreed to merge |
| Technology life cycle | 4 | Low | Med | While the article has style issues, the writing is not it's problem. The Referencing is laughable. As in nearly non-existent. The article is jargony and full of unsubstantiated claims. The question is: Is it EA? It is written from the perspective of a company that produces a technology, not one that consumes it (where EA cares)... so should we just drop the page from our list? Nickmalik (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| The Open Group Architecture Framework | 2 | High | Med | Not a bad article. The certification section is a little out of date, and the article isn't particularly deep, but it is reasonably well referenced. Minor tweaks will bring this up to snuff. Nickmalik (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Total cost of ownership | 4 | Low | Low | Bringing the text over from Whole Life Cost may dramatically improve this crappy article. The references are non-existent and the page may simply be original research. It is poorly written and makes unfounded claims. Nickmalik (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework | 2 | Low | Med | The Treasury of the US no longer uses this homegrown EA Framework. It is interesting from a historical standpoint as a documented home-grown framework, but I wonder if we should submit a request to delete the page from Wikipedia altogether. Nickmalik (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Whole-life cost | 4 | Med | Med | The biggest problem with this page is that it should be merged into the page for Total Cost of Ownership. The term "whole life cost" seems to have arisen independently in either the UK or Australia and does not seem to be widely used. Most of the references are to TCO. The text is reasonably well written. Nickmalik (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Zachman Framework | 2 | High | Med | Overwritten and too long, this article goes into detail that no encyclopedia article should ever devolve into. It reads as much like an advertisement as it does as a useful article written for the general public. I suggest we cut this in half. Nickmalik (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
Stuff that we have dropped from scope in the table below
| Application software | 3 | Low | Low | Seems like a lot of original research. Weak references, mostly to magazine articles. I don't think this topic is relevant for our effort - it would be a stretch to connect this to Enterprise Architecture. Consider dropping this topic from the list. Voywiki (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC) |
| Architectural pattern | 3 | Low | Low | Questionable quality of content and poor or questionable references. Overall, I think this whole page needs a lot of work but I'm not sure it should be in scope of our effort. The focus of the page seems to be software architecture patterns but even there the page falls short. There is one mention of EA Framework, which is somewhat out of context. No mention of EA itself. I suggest removing this page from our scope. Voywiki (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
| ISO/IEC 12207 | 4 | Low | Low | This is a software lifecycle standard. Single reference, which is the standard document itself. Many statements sound like opinions and are not directly backed by any references. Enterprise Architecture is not mentioned anywhere in this article and I'm not surprised. This is a marginal topic for us. We can consider injecting some EA context for software lifecycle but in my opinion this is a very low priority item for us. Consider removing from scope. Low score for single reference and Low score for clunky language. Voywiki (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
| Project manager | 2 | Med | Med | Some questionable references. I'm giving it proximity score of 2 just because it relates to PMO topic above. Other than that, I'm not sure how much time we want to spend on this topic. There is no mention of enterprise architecture in this article and frankly I'm not sure there needs to be. I can see using PMO topic to connect with EA but this page seems too detached from our focus. I suggest removing it from our scope. Voywiki (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Technology roadmap | 3 | Low | Med | This well written how-to article does not describe a technology roadmap. It is a complete guide for how to create one. Unfortunately, it is unreferenced original research and has to be ripped out. This article requires reasonable citations, but the real question is: is it EA? The notion of an EA capability roadmap is different and perhaps we should not incorporate it here. Nickmalik (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
Possible attributes
- Name of page
- Proximity to EA
- 0 - the Enterprise Architecture article itself
- 1 - topics directly relevant to Enterprise Architecture
- 2 - topics directly relevant to level 1 topics
- 3 - recursive, yada, yada, yada and all that
- Score for sourcing and references
- Low - Many unreferenced claims or content with no source
- Medium - Most claims are referenced, but some of the references are not good
- High - All references are reputable verifiable third-party sources
- Score for writing Quality / Clarity
- Low - Lots of jargon, difficult to follow, grammar issues
- Medium - Readable but clunky, seems to be taken out of context
- High - Smooth clear and elegant, formal writing at its best
- Comments
- Write anything that would help other editors to know if there is work to be done on that page