Seems like a much more logical and realistic approach to Business Architecture than the simplistic, yet more complicated approach adopted by the Business Architecture Guild (as reflected in BIZBOK and/or examples based on BIZBOK). For example, let's compare the statement that Capability is defined by ALL perspectives in the Burlton hexagon with how BIZBOK defines and maps Capabilities: decomposed into many hierarchical levels (nothing wrong with that), mapped to Value Chains, which are mapped to Value Stages, which are mapped to Resources.... in a very linear and simplistic way (despite being much more complicated). And all along this long chain of secondary, tertiary, etc. mappings, the Guild seems to treat Business Processes as some lower-level, secondary, "operational constructs", almost entirely outside of Business Architecture (a rather naive view, in my opinion). Where can I learn more about this model? BPTrends? Thanks:)
Some aspects of this model are fine as they are best practices, though sometimes rebranded. But there are some glaring simplifications that are commonly mistakes.
Roger Burlton sutiko dėstyti ISM Executive School vadovų magistrantūros modulyje Verslo procesų valdymas, kuris vyks 2014 m. pavasarį. Preliminariai planuojama data kovo 14-15 d.
