Natty Gur

After mapping the current systems and how they integrated one with each other I decide to map applications with users in order to find out if there are useless applications/systems.

Enterprise architecture is actually about mapping the current situation defining the desire situation and finally planning how to fill the gap. Almost every enterprise architecture framework argues that you need to map the current situation first. Is that true? While mapping the current situation we are actually learning what has been done by now, and simply block our mind to new and even better solutions. Maybe it’s better to understand your enterprise business needs and first to find out the best information, system and infrastructure architecture. Maybe, just after you've got the best architecture its time to map the current situation, make gap analysis and plane how to close the gaps? Just a thought...

After we finished our systems architecture we spend some time on development methodology. As part of the discussion I decide to make a presentation about XP and to hear what my team member have to say about it. I was pretty excited about presenting XP because I thought it will get resistance by team member whom none of them know or use it before.

I just finished reading an interesting article on the IEEE computer magazine that deal with implementation of XP inside enterprises. One of the article conclusions was that XP needs modifications and adaptation in order to be integrated successfully into the organization development process. As far as my experience shows that what I’ve been seen so fat.

Yesterday we presented the architecture work that we’d been done by now to major contract of our organization. One the outputs of our Enterprise Architect (EA) initiative concern the organization contractors because they need to a. follow that architecture from now on. B. give estimation of cost to convert existing project that they have been done to follow our architecture. Therefore our CIO ask us to prepare a presentation and to hear what the constructor have to say.

As I already wrote my employer form several teams to deal with architecture. While we had tremendous progress in the infrastructure, business and system architecture teams we seem to go very slow with the information team. At first sight I was sure that it won’t be any trouble to deal with information architecture but as the time pass is became more and more difficult to deal with.

We were working the other day on interoperation between .Net and Magic. We need to pass string as parameter for a method. The string parameter actually holds XML definitions passes from .Net to Magic and vice versa. Now there is a bug in Magic and XML definition (<? XML …. > ) actually isn’t send to .Net as part of the envelope XML.

One of the problematic issues in enterprise data management is data islands / silos. No one can prevent Bill from creating his own excel shit with his remarks on all the dealers that he works with. It won’t interest anyone, said Bill to himself, and create the file. Well, WRONG this data might be useful to someone else in the enterprise. The problem is that actually this data doesn’t exist because no one knows about it and no one can retrieve Bills data. Bills data not just might harm the enterprise performance but no one really knows that such a silo exists!