Probably most you are using any sort of methodology for yor EA life cycle. There is always a need to have several architecture environment as defined in the title for various reasons. 1. Do a gap analysis, 2. Have an history 3. Develop various future scenarios.
For unknown reasons, I haven't found any discussions around that topic and I haven't found how to do that.. Those familiar with ArchiMate may understand that I'm looking for a concept similar to the "Plateaus", same with TOGAF, etc...
How have you adressed that situation in your projects?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Right, I understand that notion of variation of objects which may also be a diagram but I'm expecting a lifecycle that I haven't really found. Assuming that I use the Variant concept, once my architecture is completed, the Variant should become the current version and the previous Variant put into history. Maybe the notion of Repository should also be considered? Still, this woud require some customized development. Also playing with Variants for many objects could be quite complex to work with and to link several Variants from various environments together be quite a challenge.
I also saw some functionalities to EA projects but the documentation looks be incomplete. Probably not to be explored.
Still I'm wondering how other companies are doing as I cannot believe that lifecycle is not a concern.
I remember to have seen a company using the same diagrams to store both current and future architecture and simply adding red cross over no more used systems components...definitely not what I'm looking for.
Here you would need to use the ITBM solution where you create your Transformation Stages, and link the different architecture models to each stage. Depending on your licenses you can also add Object Lifes to certain objects like the Application. The as-is application can have one lifecycle, and the to-be application (which could be a varaint, but not always) would have a different lifecycle.
Thanks for sharing that great idea. Obviously I don't have the licenses but went through the documentation. However I mainly see stages related to the development of Business Capabilities maps for baseline/target and associated roadmaps.
Are you saying that you can benefit of these Transformation Stages to manage at the sametime the udelying models from other levels of the architecture? I haven't seen any documentation... Do you have any experience in that matter?
Yes, each transformation stage has a duration, and you can link the different underlying architecture models, like application landscape, or information model to each stage. You can also specify which of you capabilities, from you capability map, that you are working on in each stage. This gives you the Roadmap for your "Digital Transformtion"
I have used several technics in the past to manage this sort of things.
1. Same diagram with As-is and To be elements with notes and specific color of the name for to be objects for example
2. 2 Diagrams, 1 for as-is and 1 for To be
3. Several repositories giving different views of your Information system in time
4. Temporary repository for on going to-be with synchronization with As-Is when needed
If I'm not wrong new more integrated solutions are now available with latest versions of HOPEX in IT portfolio management and IT architecture solutions but I did not experiment them as of today
I think the solution depends on the effort you want to invest in managing that, the level of complexity and also the "precision" you want to get in your repository.