This is a response to a very thought-provoking discussion that's been going on at the Business Ecology Initiative LinkedIn Group on the topic of whether Business Architecture is synonymous with Business Ecology. I suppose the answer depends on where one draws the scope boundary around Business Architecture. Based on our observations from how this works in practice, it will probably be different in different organizations. For example, in our Vanilla Enterprise Architecture Capability Map, Business Architecture is a core business capability portfolio (or core function) of Enterprise Architecture, similar to how The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Architecture Development Method (ADM) positions the discipline. Business Ecology, on the other hand, encompasses Enterprise Architecture, along with other Office of the CXO strategy and planning functions, such as Risk Management, Portfolio Management, Asset Management, et al. It also includes the delivery and ongoing operational steady state functions of a given organization.
- They each (RM and PM) have unique organizational attributes (e.g. culture, org structure, etc.), as one would expect of two organizations with completely different mission statements-especially around communication!
- They each have unique business attributes - the business of mitigating risk is quite different than that of getting leadership to agree on the priorities of various efforts;
- They each have unique technology needs and tools - although a seasoned Enterprise Architect may detect a certain amount of commonality between GRC and EPPM tools.