Data architecture defines how data is stored, managed, and used in a system according to the Carnegie Mellon Software Institute. 

An application architecture is commonly used for the internal structure of an application, for its software modularisation.  It also refers to the combination of various software components and their interrelationships.  This includes data bases, application layer, presentation layer, etc.   

In looking for definitions of what a solution architecture is, no agreed definition was offered on the Solution Architecture Org website.  The best way of explaining solution architecture seems to be that it is the set of components and the changes needed to support a solution to ensure that the components work together in a manner sufficient to ensure the delivery of the functionality within the scope of an IT project.  Specifically it pays attention to applications, infrastructure, networks, hardware and software to ensure that they actually will work together.    

Based on TOGAF, an enterprise architecture provides the fundamental technology and process structure for an IT strategy in support of a business.   TOGAF goes on to say “An enterprise architecture … provid[es] a strategic context for the evolution of the IT system in response to the constantly changing needs of the business environment.”   From this, it is apparent that the immediate purpose of the enterprise architecture is to provide the framework for the IT environment. 

What is interesting about these definitions is that none of them talks directly about the architecture of the business.  The TOGAF architecture process has a business architecture component.  This business architecture describes “the product and/or service strategy, and the organizational, functional, process, information, and geographic aspects of the business environment, based on the business principles, business goals, and strategic drivers.”  Its fundamental purpose is to understand the business environment so that the enterprise architecture can be best described to support the business.  The TOGAF business architecture is basically the business requirements which the enterprise architecture is supposed to support.    

It appears that none of these architecture practices has as its mission the direct and meaningful support of the business.  When I started this review, I did not think I would arrive at this conclusion.   I cannot prove that such a practice does not exist (it being difficult to prove a negative), but I have not seen one, although components of an emerging business architecture discipline can be seen to exist.   

Because there is no accepted definition of what a business architecture is, let’s take a stab at it.  At the least it will serve as a straw man so that discussion can focus on it and refine the definition. 

We previously concluded that an architecture is a plan and or design of some thing, to fulfill a purpose and meet requirements that are imposed by its intended use.  That it serves a purpose, that its design may be constrained by available materials and techniques, that it should be structurally sound, and that additional requirements can be imposed on it or affect the design of the architecture. 

If we look at the purpose of a business, its fundamental purpose is to make money.  How this is to be accomplished is usually set out in a business plan that outlines the business strategy, customer types and target markets to be served, products and services to be delivered and the expected costs and revenues of the business.  If there is to be a business architecture then it must support and take account of all of these factors as inputs. 

The business plan is the critical input to the business architecture.  The fundamental purpose of a business architecture is to support the business plan and business strategy.  So a business architecture does have a purpose, and the selected customers, products, etc., will impose some fundamental requirements.  In addition, the hours of operation of the business, the channels that are selected to deliver the business, the products or services to be sold, the need to collect money and account for its use, management control and tracking, and regulatory reporting (including all those nasty taxes) impose some fundamental but assumptive requirements.   

To support the execution of the business plan and strategy, a business must have staff, roles, responsibilities, functions, processes.  It must also collect information and report information.  It must attract and serve customers through one or more channels and usually from a location or office.   These elements all have either a physical or logical structure.  We talk in terms of organization charts, process and functions.  They are sized because they have a capacity.  We add additional staff, buildings, furniture or system hardware to increase the ability of the organization to perform its functions.  And they do have structure.  When we talk about functions, they can be decomposed into hierarchies of activities and tasks.  We can look at the map of a process.  These represent the operations of the business and can be said to form the operational structure and design of the business. 

A business that is structurally sound will have plans and controls to mitigate its operational risk and it will focus on the design and sequencing of its process so that they perform smoothly and satisfy the needs of the business, i.e. they can be tested or reviewed for structural soundness. 

A fundamental constraint on a business is cost.  If the cost is too high so that it exceeds revenues and available financing the business will cease to exist.  

From this, it seems to make sense to talk about a business architecture exclusive of the business plan and exclusive of technology.  To extend the architecture metaphor a business architecture is the plan and design of the operations of a business, in support of and guided by the business plan.  

The business architecture is not a strategy of and by itself although it may enable the business strategy, and it may embody a strategy for operationlizing the business.

I looked at several dictionaries and one of them came up with the phrasing “the plan and design of a building.”   Whenever we talk about a building or a structure, we talk about its architecture to talk about the entirety of its form, size, and structure.  We can easily extend the definition to include all these attributes. 

 We sometimes also talk about how a structure is constructed and what it is constructed of, i.e. techniques and materials because these can limit a structure’s size and form.  For example, the Eiffel Tower is constructed of steel girders.  Its size and shape (its  engineering) would have been quite different if it were built of stone or brick.   Techniques and materials impose constraints on building of structures. 

 What is interesting is that the definition does not include the usage of the building, although it seems absolutely clear that each and every building is designed for a purpose, and the building or structure would be deemed a failure if it did not support the purpose for which it was built.  Extrapolating, we can assume that “fit for use” should also be an attribute of a good architecture.  The architecture should fulfill a purpose.  For buildings, this could include shelter. 

 The buildings should also not collapse under there own weight, so they should also be structurally sound. 

 Note that some buildings are designed to withstand extreme environmental conditions, such as floods, earthquakes and severe weather, while others are designed to be easily repaired if they are damaged.   Some buildings are designed to be mobile, to retain heat, dissipate heat, house a family, house an army, be an antenna, be a bomb shelter, etc.  We can think of an endless variety of building designs.  These different design criteria can be thought of as requirements imposed on the design of the structure.  

 We have identified that an architecture is a plan and or design of some thing, to fulfill a purpose and meet requirements that are imposed by its intended use.  That it serves a purpose, that its design may be constrained by available materials and techniques, that it should be structural sound, and that additional requirements can be imposed on or affect the design of the architecture. 

 The other qualification that needs to be made is that an architecture is not the thing itself.  An architecture is not a building, but it is a representation or model of a building.   So an architecture is also a model.  

These notes are my personal point of view on Business Architecture.  This point of view is based on the following major influences, and not necessarily in any order.  First, my personal experience over the last 20 as a business transformation consultant, business analyst focused on business requirements, and my experience with package selection and implementation projects.  Second, discussions about various people on business architecture conducted through the Linked In Business Architecture group and anyone else that cared to share their opinion with me.  Third, my experience as a business data modeller.  I love to categorize and classify things.   And fourth, my understanding of my daughter’s education and practice as a landscape architect.  What better than a good example close to home?

Wherever possible, I will try to avoid technical terminology and stick to common English usage so that what I do have to say is clearly understandable by both technologists and business people alike.  If I do stray from this it is because I do not know how to express the concept I am dealing with outside of the terminology I am using, so I will try to add a brief English explanation of the concept.  So if you find yourself interpreting the information in this series of postings in a technical manner, stop, grab a dictionary and look up the common English meaning of the word.  If it still does not make sense then I would ask you to contact me so that I can make a clarification or correction.

This discussion is intended as a discussion of Business Architecture so that I can clarify in my mind what Business Architecture should be for the sake of understanding and planning a business.  I intend to do this by asking a series of questions and then exploring what I think the answer is.

While Enterprise Architecture, the planning and design of enterprise systems and infrastructure, has a business architecture component, it is primarily focused on the business factors that influence the planning and design of enterprise systems and infrastructure.   I want to see if Business Architecture should be different and if it can serve a broader purpose than enterprise systems and infrastructure alone.   This is my operating hypothesis.

So, this is a personal journey of discovery for myself.  I invite you to come along for the ride and help me shape my thoughts on what I think will be an interesting journey.