tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7943760374039500574.post3987202952794228044..comments2018-12-24T15:56:16.481+11:00Comments on Enterprise Architecture in ANZ: EA can't be done with document or CASE toolsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7943760374039500574.post-7978892220928397522007-09-06T17:41:00.000+10:002007-09-06T17:41:00.000+10:00Would agree with everything in that list, with one...Would agree with everything in that list, with one addition that links to 'Auditing': the tool should directly support whatever governance methodology is in use. For example, it should generate and store PRINCE2-style 'products' associated with the governance of each phase of the architecture cycle. As one example, System Architect does this for the standard version of the TOGAF cycle. But it could be done a heck of a lot better - especially in Troux Metis, with its much stronger alignment to real EA (rather than to the misuse of CASE that - as you say - occurs in so many other 'EA' toolsets).<BR/><BR/>On the limitations of MS Office et al as standard, as a toolset for EA purposes, I fully agree; though you might like to take a look at Orbus Software's <A HREF="http://www.orbussoftware.com/ea.aspx" REL="nofollow">iServer</A>. It's an interesting attempt to provide an EA-oriented repository to cross-link and merge EA-related artefacts in MS Office documents, using Visio as the visual environment, SQL Server as the database engine and SharePoint as the distribution mechanism. Dunno how well it actually works, though - still waiting for a test-drive - but it might be a good intermediate step in some contexts, as long as people don't confuse it with the kind of real EA toolset you've described above.Tom Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12472133382563961875noreply@blogger.com