Nmcwhorter
Hi, I undid your edit because of the importance of the changes I put in, namely (1) new heading under Value Proposition and (2) adding the phrase "unlike other disciplines" to complete the value proposition statement.
- I undid this for several reasons:
- Anonymous edits are discouraged. Please register.
- This doesn't seem to be a discussion about "Value Proposition" so adding this as a section doesn't seem appropriate. Using statements like "unlike other disciplines" is argumentative without adding meaning and should generally be avoided.
- The statements in the value proposition are certainly areas that many others would disagree with. The sense that Business Architecture is all about "operational effectiveness" is problematic because many practitioners would disagree with this and claim that for some organizations it is not at all about this. The limitation of the value proposition to mapping and modeling is also only one viewpoint. In general, for this to be included like it is would require it to be more balanced than it currently appears to be.
- Thanks for the reminder to register and sign in; done. In the Fortune 50 company I work for as Business Architect, I'm confronted with the question of value on a regular basis when I talk to our internal clients. Questions like, "What do you do and what benefits do you offer that are different from the IT/systems architect, business process analyst, business analyst, product manager, project manager, etc.?" It's important for me and my organization to articulate Business Architecture's value proposition to continue to establish credibility and relevancy. This is definitely an attempt to do that. If you disagree with this value proposition statement, please reply and state your version so that we can discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acguitarte (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for registering! In response to your statements:
- I do disagree with the value proposition but I'm not sure that there is a single concise definition of the value proposition. We are hoping to come up with some discussion that will help illuminate the various ways in which Business Architecture provides value but we don't have anything we are prepared to release at this point. But more to the point, this is a discussion section so it is important to treat it as one. Your edits don't really adhere to the spirit of that intent. And I still object strongly to the vague "unlike other disciplines" statement which strikes me as an "us vs. them" statement about an unnamed "them". I don't think that furthers any particular end.
- By definition, a product's (or vendor's or discipline's) value proposition must state what and how it is unique as compared to another product (or vendor or discipline). Hence the phrase "unlike other disciplines". That completes a unique value proposition statement. Any disagreement with my statements above?
Business architecture
editPlease don't remove the image from the Business architecture. There is a discussion about this subject on the articles talkpage, see here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand you are linked to the OMG Business Architecture group. The version of the OMG framework on the Business Architecture page doesn't look the same as the current version. See my comment on the talk page. I should also be interested in your response to my suggestion of a sixth view, namely the Cybernetic or Governance view. RichardVeryard (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)