The former is the classic metaphor for enterprise architecture, primarily because it is so readily understood by non-ea practitioners. EA is to business as traditional architect is to buildings.
The latter is a view that I turned to about 3 years ago, as my view of EA matured and as I began to work on developing the Queensland Government Enterprise Architecture and looking not only through the lens of an overarching, framework but also at a massive federated enterprise like the Queensland Government.
Jeff insightfully points out the differences between building architecture and enterprise architecture as follows (summary):
- Building architects get paid for creating architecture, not buildings. In most cases the architect gets paid when the blueprints are complete.
- Building architects work from requirements. Their clients provide very specific requirements for what they want to be designed. EAs generally have to figure out what they are architecting and then sell it to the client.
- Building architects usually start with a green field. EAs almost never work in a green field environment. Most of what they do at the enterprise level is renovation.
With respect to the town planner vs EA comparison:
- City planners build plans, not cities.
- City planners have laws that back up what they say. Needless to say, EAs don’t.
- City planners work on long-term visions. City planners work at a glacial pace compared to the typical enterprise architect. City planners generally think in decades. Even the most strategic businesses use three to five years as their planning horizon.