Excellent examples.

But one thing to keep in mind is that those technologies were all 
significant changes. Breakthroughs if you will. And they certainly 
had a significant impact on what could be done, allowing new 
architectural styles and plans. For example, the switch from rivets 
to welding allowing higher buildings and more elaborate structures is 
something I've mentioned before.

Recognizing when technology can support new architecture approaches 
is the value-add of the skilled architect.

But business architectures are typically much more mundane. 
Technology can be a significant influence but for the most part, 
really isn't. Take, for example, all the so-called "SOA 
technologies." They've been around a while, applied in various ways 
with varying degrees of success. I don't know of a technology 
associated with SOA that is a game changer.

Folks can definitely do the technology wrong. An analogy might be 
having riveters plan and do the welding--it's likely to look an awful 
lot like what riveters did before.

I fundametally agree that a successful architecture program will 
consider business and technical aspects at each level. Where we may 
differ is in how much technology plays a role at the BA level. Most 
businesses aren't looking to build sky-scrapers--just run of the 
mill, warehouse style boxes in the 'burbs. :-)

-Rob

--- In [email protected], "Nick Gall" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agreed. I also use examples like a business plan to develop large
> amounts of office space in a small amount of land before the
> technology of skyscrapers had been developed. Or the business plan 
> to deliver packages overnight before jet transport had been 
> developed. Or the business concept of doing a census on 100 million 
> citizens before digital computers had been invented (or  whatever 
> number drove the US census bureau to be one of the first to use 
> computers).
> 
> I've seen way to many enterprises with the right business 
> aspirations screw it up because they couldn't get the technology 
> right to every believe that business-SOA is anything other than a 
> fantasy.
> 
> -- Nick
>


Reply via email to