A few weeks ago, I wrote about EA Roadmaps and the process of reconciling them across an enterprise’s complex landscape. The blog generated several insightful comments, and some messaged me on related topics. One such topic that continues to generate interest is that of Enterprise Architecture tools, and their utility in the roadmap process.

During my consulting days, I helped organizations evaluate tools to enable aspects of their EA. I also led an Enterprise Architecture survey ( link ), that highlighted an interesting observation: Visio is by far the most popular and common tool to document Architecture. In many organizations, Visio aided by the office suite (Powerpoint, Excel and Word) is used to ‘document’ and communicate Architectures.

My interest in EA tools continued when I took on the responsibility for EA processes at a multinational manufacturing organization. There are two globally supported tools for EA and business process modeling that coexist with several other tools used for niche technical and functional requirements. The discussions on ‘ideal EA tool’ are occasionally revived when there are changes in leadership and a refocus of domains. We review alternatives, only to realize that switching to yet another ‘swiss army knife’ in the marketplace won’t drastically transform the practice of EA.

I periodically take calls from EA tool vendors, and continue to observe and learn about their emerging capabilities. The tools are evolving to address the requirements for architecting on cloud platforms and enabling digital transformations. Many in the marketplace do a good job of supporting key modeling requirements including:

Visual representation of ideas - The tools make it easy to manage and modify the visual representation of systems, capabilities and processes, and their interlinkages.

Supporting Transformations - Modeling tools, when used appropriately, can enable a large transformation program that requires a review of several platforms, processes and touchpoints. The tools populated with the right data and models can help with scenario planning, impact assessment, what-if analysis, etc.

My discussion with peers from across industries indicates that even in 2017 the landscape for EA tools continues to be fragmented. A majority of large organizations don’t depend on single tools, but rather leverage a “best of the breed” approach for specific BIDAT, functional and domain requirements. Visio, combined with office suite of applications continue to be the primary choice for the majority of Architecture modeling and communication requirements. This is because EA tools, like many technology platforms, are designed to be complex, and require resources to manage and sustain. A few aspects to watch-out for include:

Support and service for tools - In large organizations, users - architects and modelling teams - expect the tools to be offered as ‘managed’ service. Some vendors offer Saas-like modeling service with on-call training and user-support, minimizing the need for in-house support staff.

In large organizations, users - architects and modelling teams - expect the tools to be offered as ‘managed’ service. Some vendors offer Saas-like modeling service with on-call training and user-support, minimizing the need for in-house support staff. Managing change - Enterprise landscapes, systems, processes and ways-of-working are continually changing. The Architecture models (data in the tools) need to reflect such change. To ensure seamless update, the modeling database will need to be integrated for auto-discovery with other platforms like Service Management, CMDB etc.

Enterprise landscapes, systems, processes and ways-of-working are continually changing. The Architecture models (data in the tools) need to reflect such change. To ensure seamless update, the modeling database will need to be integrated for auto-discovery with other platforms like Service Management, CMDB etc. Don’t underestimate visualization – Copy-paste of diagrams from models to a PPT may not be a seamless process. Models defined in EA tools may require effort to make them “visually appealing.” (Keep in mind that Eye-candy sells!)

– Copy-paste of diagrams from models to a PPT may not be a seamless process. Models defined in EA tools may require effort to make them “visually appealing.” (Keep in mind that Eye-candy sells!) Governance - Sustenance of architecture modelling and the tool-database require basic governance -to ensure agreed taxonomy, modeling guidelines, naming standards, metadata for elements and ways of working and consistency across the enterprise.

- Sustenance of architecture modelling and the tool-database require basic governance -to ensure agreed taxonomy, modeling guidelines, naming standards, metadata for elements and ways of working and consistency across the enterprise. Integrating with organizational change management – In many organizations the Architecture, Planning and Business Partnering teams work closer to business-users, while the application platform and business enabling teams (including outsourced vendors) may have better access to information about landscapes, including:

Key dimensions of complexity of application platform landscape (e.g support model of the different BI/Analytics tools across the enterprise) Application environment tiers (including on-demand provisioning of tiers) Capabilities being enabled by smaller projects, system upgrades and fixes. (e.g a service pack upgrade done in one instance of SAP in the landscape)

Recognize the primacy of platform and domain specific tools. The scope of EA modeling in large organizations will cover BIDAT, functional domains and platforms. Some domains require specialized tools. For instance, data-modelling and database design is best done with specific tools like Erwin, likewise those working in a SAP landscape will need documentation in Solution Manager framework, and those on SFDC will leverage ERD, Force.com and Appexchange tools etc

Reading thus far, you might notice that I skipped the discussion on the role of EA tools in enabling roadmap reconciliation. As I stated in my previous post, this process requires insights into business and strategy that Architects, analysts and executives bring to the table. This aspect of human intelligence is yet to be replaced by “AI enabled EA tools.”

Bottomline: Assuming your EA modeling requirements are well defined and you have the executive support, you may have to evaluate more than one toolset for distinct requirements.

Thanks for reading! Please click on Like, Share, Tweet and Comment below to continue this conversation | Reposted on my blog