--- In [email protected], "Steve Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This makes a big assumption that architecture is _just_ about > principles. In my view this is often the problem in that > architecture is so abstract that it doesn't really deliver value.
Doesn't this depend on how abstract the principles are? I agree that if one gets too abstract, then it gets to be pretty worthless. > When I look at the Business Service Architecture for a business > (100% not a design thing) then I can clearly see elements (e.g. > Sales, Finance, Procurement, "report sales" on Finance, "buy" on > Sales) that are part of the overall architecture of the system and > which can be directly traced down to the final implementation. > These things are not simply principles but are, to use a phrase > from Fred Brooks, the conceptual framework. > > > You don't implement the architecture. > > I agree that you don't implement principles, but you should be > implementing the business architecture, otherwise how will the IT > estate resemble and support the business effectively? > One thought is perhaps "Business Service Architecture" isn't the right name. "Business Service Framework?" "Business Service Design?" "Business Services?" -Rob
