most discussed topic around is how to justify ROI
on architecture investment. In fact, most of architects
are currently burning their mid night oil to churn
out excel sheets and power points to sell the idea
of architecture benefits to their respective managements
with little or no success.
real challenge with architecture adoption is that
the IT people are recommending it. Unfortunately,
anything recommended by "IT people" or "techie"
is taken with pinch of salt.
of the senior manager in Sydney, commented, "The
justification of ROI on architecture is like justifying
the investment on my kid's education". This may
sound an extreme case of pro architecture group. But,
the point he was trying to bring out that yardstick
should be clearly defined to differentiate between
ROI on investments vs ROI on creating assets. We need
to look at the architecture related investments as
one resulting in long term " assets" vs.
"quick & dirty" gain.
civil architect can easily ask "show me a building
without good architecture surviving in any part of
the world". Even if you have the best of breed
steel frames, concrete, wooden frameworks, cements
or bricks, it's not a guarantee of a good structure
in absence of architecture. Similarly, having a team
with great programming skills, programming models
& framework, and tools is no way to guarantee
the success of systems in both short term and long
are the typical IT architecture related investments?
Some of the key areas of investment would include
training, tools, creating architecture artifacts,
refining process, repository, management & governance,
metrics & compliance. Additional investments are
required for transformations between views of the
enterprise architecture, the solution architecture
and the technical architecture of the system ensuring
traceability of architecture constraints and requirements
bigger issue is who will be more eager to fund an
architecture initiative? Is CEO or CFO? While the
tenure of a CEO is around 3-4 years, the typical tenure
of a CFO is around 7 years or more. Does it mean that
CFO is more likely to appreciate the value of architecture?
But, may be it's the CEO who will feel the pain of
lack of business and IT alignment and ask for setting
the architecture team?