In these days of corporate responsibility and compliance, we need to consider the efficiencies of our IT infrastructure along with other corporate assets. For most companies enterprise architectures are the single most limiting factor to their business economics since they don't have the ability to adapt to business changes in a timely manner. While many in IT have accepted this as one of life's realities, we co In these days of corporate responsibility and compliance, we need to consider the efficiencies of our IT infrastructure along with other corporate assets. For most companies enterprise architectures are the single most limiting factor to their business economics since they don’t have the ability to adapt to business changes in a timely manner. While many in IT have accepted this as one of life’s realities, we could be entering an era where such a reality is unacceptable. Indeed, as innovative corporations learn how to leverage concepts such as SOA to liberate their IT from a static and fragile architecture, less innovative companies could find themselves quickly losing market share to competitors that have embraced the agility value of SOA. Moreover, the companies who choose to maintain an inefficient architecture could find that their stock price and investor relations have suffered as well, perhaps even becoming targets for shareholder lawsuits as the mood shifts around enterprise architecture as a true corporate responsibility. If investors hold management accountable for accounting irregularities and missed sales, then lost dollars around the ineffectiveness of IT can’t be far behind. Thus, the ability to maintain effective and agile enterprise architecture is indeed a corporate responsibility, and those who don’t focus on their IT architecture could find that they suffer in the short term, and die in the long-term. While few will disagree that the inefficiencies of existing enterprise architectures have reached a critical level, many count on “flying under the radar” of those who look at the efficiencies of the company. Let’s face it; enterprise architecture is very technical and difficult to understand by the layman. The well publicized corporate scandals focused on shady accounting practices and corporate mismanagement, while IT received a pass in the past years. This will no longer be the case. Today, those who look to value and invest in a company take a critical look at all aspects of the corporation, especially any areas of inefficiencies, including IT. In other words, dysfunctional enterprise architectures could and will devalue the corporation overall, and could put the business at risk. Enterprise architectures, however, are not fixable by simply bolting on new technology or building connections between systems. Architecture is, well, architecture, and it requires a great deal of planning and analysis to create a strategy that rejuvenates the enterprise architectures into something that lives up to the corporate expectations of business agility and efficiency. Thus, fixing your architecture could take years, and now is the time to begin the steps toward creating an architecture that serves the needs of the business, and not the other way around. How Have Things Gotten This Bad? Architectures are like archaeology; in essence, layers upon layers of systems, applications, databases, and connections, typically built or procured to solve a tactical problem. Many corporations talk a good game and brag about the strategic long-term direction of the enterprise architecture that serves the business. The fact is, tactical needs have trumped strategic direction over the years. Thus, layers upon layers of technology on top of technology are the end result, and an architecture that is inflexible, static, fragile, and thus difficult to change along with the business requirements. This is the norm, not the exception. In reaction to this dilemma, enterprises created positions called enterprise architects. These are single individuals, or groups, within the organization who have the responsibility to drive the enterprise architecture strategy going forward. While a good idea in theory, the reality is that many of these enterprise architects simply don’t have the political or budgetary authority within their companies or government agencies to make much of a difference. In many instances, they have been relegated to those who create reports and presentations that nobody reads, and provide direction and guidance that’s easily ignored. Thus, without good architectural governance and ongoing corporate management pressure to redirect resources to tactical IT projects, the enterprise architectures continue to become more unnecessarily complex, static, and fragile. What was a mere annoyance only a few years ago, is today a clearly limiting factor in the businesses’ ability to create shareholder value. The company can’t easily shift into new and emerging markets, acquire companies, and adjust major business processes without a great deal of latency. In some cases, they are completely unable to change. In other words, things are bad and getting worse. Software Development