...there is definitely a strong relationship between EA and BP standardization and integration, it relates to the operational model. I would recommend to look at authors as Weill and Ross.

Thank you !

Is there any readings that are recommended, if you would suggest a specific reading or book?

Thank you!

I would recommend the book from Weill, Ross, Robertson titled "Enterprise Architecture as Strategy" from 2006 (Harvard Business Review Press).

Also check out youtube content; one of the authors recommended by Peter has a great lecture on this topic.

Some years ago I worked on a project to apply an EA to a business.  In order to gain the benefits of the EA the business needed to change some of its processes and data.  As a consequence, of course, the people in the business needed to change the way they approached their jobs.

There was benefit in this path to standardization. Inefficiencies were were flushed out and new ideas sourced from EA were introduced.

And there was risk in that the move towards standardization began to make the business look like a lot of other businesses.  To the extent that this mimicry was limited to those portions of the business that did not provide competitive advantage benefit was gained and risk to the competitive posture minimized.

if, on the other hand, the mimicry occurred in those portions of the business that provided competitive advantage, then the risk to competitive posture grew.

One needs to be careful as what is being standardized.

One further point.  Standardization tends to limit the opportunity for innovation. 

Jim

Thank you all for your explanation.

@Jim, would you mind explaining if possible, how EA helped with Standardization? in both, IT and business architecture.

I am trying to find out how enterprise architecture is being involved in the process of standardization for both aspects, IT and business.

Thank you

My argument rests in my understanding of the sources of EA and my participation in some early developments in the field before it became known as EA.

EA, in my view, results from formal and informal collaboration between practitioners.  This collaboration tends to elevate, over time, best practice.  It's this best practice that makes it into the formal descriptions of EA. 

If all move towards best practice, then all move towards a a set common denominators.  If we're all at the same place, what's the differentiation?

I've linked to a PowerPoint slide the summarizes my thinking on this.

My view is that the business architecture (BA) comes first, then comes the information technology architecture (ITA).  After all, the only legitimate uses of information systems are to improve the performance of the enterprise.

On the other hand, one needs to keep in mind that there are some BAs that are only possible if certain ITAs are employed.  See the second link.

It is, as they say, complicated.

Jim

http://jmsdrgn.squarespace.com/storage/Standarization%20in%20Context.jpg

http://jmsdrgn.squarespace.com/storage/Context%20Management.pdf

Thank you James for your prompt answer, and for the presentation.

I am trying to find a scientific channel that takes me from EA to Process Standardization (PS).

After reading many journals, i can tell that business architecture (BA) is the source or the tunnel that you take to reach PS, the question which is still without an answer for me, how BA is helping with PS ? I wonder why is it too difficult to find journals and scientific researches about this? 

- P.S: Is it the Enterprise Architecture Management?

Regards,

Re "I am trying to find a scientific channel that takes me from EA to Process Standardization (BS)."  By the way, I think you may mean PS instead of BS.  It seems to me that PS is a necessary component of EA.  The link below may shed some light on my thinking on this matter.  The link may also help address your third paragraph.

I think the EA is not a subject that is generally thought to lie within the the sciences.  Hence, it doesn't appear in these journals.  One needs to turn to the business literature to find relevant material.

The meaning of "Is it the Enterprise Architecture Management?" is not quite clear to me.  EA is the result of  process and its application is the result of a process.  In that sense there is the management of EA.

Jim

http://jmsdrgn.squarespace.com/storage/Note%20on%20Building%20a%20Management%20System.pdf

If we believe that organizations are not homogenous monoliths but rather quite diverse, then standardization would be more of an art than a science...

It depends on the line of business. According to Ould, organizations in the same line of business have same processes. Therefore, standardization can be achieved according to the line of business.

After process analysis and modeling we can prove standardization in processes that will lead to standardization in improvements and automation.

My answer would be "how could it not?"

But before going into this issue in detail, a serious warning is in place: the term "process" is one of the most abused terms in the field. Almost everyone means "practice" when they use the term "process" - especially when they discuss "business processes". Do the test: check 10 publications that have "process management" in their title, and check how many indeed discuss processes after page one...

A similar misunderstanding is widely spread re the term "Enterprise Architecture". It mostly means "Enterprise information architecture". Most of these EA's discuss practice reference models of a true underlying architecture. And almost all overlook the fact that the meaning of the organization is in their services (we live in a service-dominant economy nowadays), so the origin of the EA should be a Service Management Architecture (SMA). Have you ever seen a true SMA? If not, determine what it is before you take a dive into any derivative of the SMA.

Back to your original question: standardization, consistency and sustainability are the main objectives of any architecture. Therefor, if you scope the question to the enterprise, the answer can only be "yes".

There are impediments that get in the way of standardization.

First, people may not wish to change. There is comfort in an old pair of shoes that may not be evident in the shiny new pair.

Second, change may move people into an employment position they are unwilling to accept.

Third, the cost of resolving the first two items may be prohibitive.

Hence, while EA may lead to standardization, there is no guarantee that it can be achieved.

One can explore the risk and readiness of an organization to change, and in that analysis find a way to resolve the issues. There is, or at least was, a discipline called change management that addressed these difficulties.

Jim