MEG worldwide Ltd Case Study

MEG International Ltd Case Study

Table of Contents

Introduction3

Enterprise Architecture As Strategy4

Re-engineering5

Information Security Risk impact on organization re-engineering9

Failure of MEG International10

REFERENCES15

MEG International Ltd Case Study

Introduction Most living IT-centric 'enterprise-architecture' structures absolutely go incorrect to realise this vital point. MEG International Ltd, for demonstration, recounted the 'enterprise-architecture' adequate to direct IT-infrastructure strategy: it was not apt (because not sufficiently-broad scope) for IT-applications scheme or, particularly, business-strategy. MEG International Ltd has likely amplified the scope adequately to cover IT-applications-strategy, but is still far from adequate for business-related scheme - even though numerous IT-folks trial to manage this, and then marvel why there's then an increase in opposition from remainder of the business. MEG International Ltd level scope is furthermore notoriously insufficient, recounting all non-IT infrastructure-level pieces as 'business' (confusing level with vertical); MEG International Ltd quotation to 'Human Capital' and 'Other Fixed Assets' shows a rather better grab of level scope, but still endeavours to characterise scheme for higher-level administration, from IT ('department' level) to 'business' (whole-of-organisation level). A whole-of-organisation or 'business' strategy' will inevitably count on a whole-of-enterprise architecture that recounts the context two or three levels outward from the prescribed boundaries of the business-organisation itself(Anderson, 2000, 32).

 

Enterprise Architecture As Strategy

Strategy and architecture are distinct in some rather basic ways. Strategy groups the direction: that's the entire issue of any strategy-capability. Architecture recognises the accessible alternatives and constraints for the most productive organisations, or configuration of organisations, that could apply that strategy; it furthermore generally makes some solid proposals in the direction of conceive, but that's where EA should actually be beginning to hand over to the solution-designers, and so on down the implementation chain. Strategy has a clear decision-making role; while it's arguable that architecture should only have a decision-support function at the strategic level. The architect may well be set down with producing key strategic conclusions, possibly for functional causes, or because no-one additional will accept the responsibility; but distorting the two functions simultaneously can be awkward, not smallest because of the risk of 'cart before the horse' schemes for example where an arbitrarily-chosen expertise finishes up going by car the scheme, other than the scheme going by car the alternative of technology.( Holland, 2003 45) (Holland, 2003,, 24).

For enterprise-architecture, this is another demonstration of why it's helpful to differentiate between 'organisation' and 'enterprise'. An administration is firmly enclosed by the respective rules; an enterprise is a much more fluid activity, enclosed by shared-commitment to distributed values, dream and values. (In result, as recounted in the preceding mail, the enterprise is a story.) Another way to realise the difference:

The administration is about 'truth', about demonstrable compliance to extrinsic constraints

The enterprise is more about 'value', about mutual affirmation and alignment with intrinsic constraints

 

Re-engineering

An administration and its directions can live at any grade, from a work-team to a gigantic conglomerate or an whole nation: therefore a enterprise is an administration, with explicit lawful boundaries of blame and control. Organisations can be nested, with the directions evolving more and more and exact ...