Enterprise Architecture in Higher Education

Some off the cuff thoughts (rushed off in a spare moment so please forgive the directness).

I would hope as Chief Architect you would also manage the PM activities in the early days (A PM for a team of 2 when one of the 2 is the PM and the other is the Leader seems a little premature). Looking then for a data analyst seems two specialised at this early stage.

I would first focus on finding at least one or two key architecture players. These need to be strong individuals with a creative bent and a thirst for knowledge. They need to be great communicators with a willingness to make decisions in the absence of certainty. Broad experience is useful, but if this comes hand-in-hand with laboured cynicism and a lack of belief in the impossible made possible then err on the side of belief.

With these key players you will be able to behave like an exciting “start-up”, delivering real content and showing those who depend on you that you mean business. You will gain credibility, and be able to deliver value quickly.

As things grow you may then reach a point where your ability to multi-task is challenged and then (and only then) should you consider bringing in specialists to handle the load.

There is no place in a small team for specialists who cannot generalise.

Now… Hiring a PM and an analyst is fine if you are a consultancy, as someone else is footing the bill, but the one-person-one-job mentality has no place (IMO) in a small team, and all architecture teams should (IMO) be small and agile to truly succeed.

Regards
The Enterprising Architect
http://theenterprisingarchitect.blogspot.com

I wouldn’t so much pick a role (i.e. skillset) as a type of person – specifically, a very good generalist with a very strong social network throughout the enterprise. If they’re to be your contact and link-person to get the architecture going, *who* they know matters a lot more than *what* they know. And the broader the range of SMEs and other ’super-nodes’ they know, the better, because a true enterprise-architecture needs to cover everything at every level, not solely a single domain such as IT.

Apart from that, I would agree strongly with Jon – an experienced PM (especially a ’scrounger’ who knows how the game *really* works within the enterprise) is probably the skillset you need the most at the start, and build outward from there. I’d also agree that the permanent EA team should always be small – though might co-opt any number of specialists on a project-by-project basis.

(Looking forward to Nick’s comments on this, too. )

Hi Leo,

great question.
I think the answer depends on the type of organisation you are in. In some orgs you need political clout to get anywhere (so get a respected senior manager on board), whereas in others you might need innovative generalists with an entrepreneurial streak.
Either way, you need generalists, people who can context-switch and people who aren’t afraid of looking stupid by asking stupid questions (there are no stupid questions!).

I would prioritise social skills and emotional intelligence above domain (especially technical) knowledge; enthusiasm and vision above rigour; pragmatism above idealism; curiosity above all else.

this answer doesn’t really do justice to the question; I too am interested to hear other people’s views.

regards
Martin

Interesting idea from Nick, but in reality, I doubt there are too many IT shops that are adequately sized such that they could hire their own PM or data analyst. This leaves you with two options. First, find enterprise architects who also have experience in project management, communication, data analysis, etc., and leverage these secondary skills as needed. Second, contact internal sources (e.g. PMO, IT Communications, etc.) to supplement your skills, if you have them.

For me, the takeaway from Nick’s comment is that you need to look at the secondary skills (in addition to the primary skills for the job function) of your EA team and make sure you strike the right balance. If you have a bunch of great architects, but none of them communicate well, you will struggle. If you have a bunch of great architects, but no one can organize and manage an effort in a more formal manner, you will struggle.

I agree with Todd here, but there is another issue that has to be addressed: too many EAs are IT-centric, and that doesn’t and isn’t flying with the business much, and that’s to whom EA value must be shown in the end, not necessarily the CIO or CTO.

EA groups are getting more traction and success by breaking free of IT centricity and concentrating on the overlaps between business architecture, information architecture (not data modeling per se, but HOW, WHY, and WHAT information is used within the org, not just atomic data or structures), and, of course, IT architecture and structures.

Sorry if I’m sounding a bit Gartner-esque here guys, but I’ve been noodling the ‘EAs being too IT-centric’ issue lately, and I might get off my duff soon and blog about it….

Some of the prior comments allude to skills a type of person who fits what I just described would have.