However, relying on too many different platforms is sometimes just as counterproductive: the providers’ sales people promise a lot when it comes to interoperability, compatibility and the use of standard protocols. And even if they don’t exaggerate: Every tool stores data in a database. Some use MySQL, others PostgreSQL and others use Oracle.
So there is no easy solution in this area either. Too many platforms create a Tower of Babel, too few and there is a risk of vendor lock-in. We haven’t even talked about the costs involved if the entire development takes place in-house.
3. Too much outsourcing to the cloud (or too little)
The cloud has made life easier for enterprise architects. Computing resources are available on demand at any time, orders are no longer necessary and rack space is also unnecessary. All you need today is a credit card.
The advantages are obvious. The biggest disadvantage, however, is the price: Cloud computing is often significantly more expensive than an in-house solution. Just ask CFOs how excited they are when the monthly cloud bill arrives. On the other hand, additional employees, the data center and the necessary equipment also cause costs.
Some enterprise architects can make big profits with the cloud. These are usually the ones who benefit from controlling resources depending on the load. All other EA specialists have to, or should, determine whether they have invested too much or too little in the cloud.
4. Idolize (or condemn) frameworks
In order to cope with the complexity of today’s enterprise stacks, several enterprise architecture frameworks have been developed. TOGAF, for example, is one such strategic framework for building just about everything modern businesses need. To do this, it provides a set of guidelines and best practices, including an architecture development methodology and an architecture compliance framework. Other approaches, such as the Zachman Framework or FEAF, introduce their own guidelines and regulations for building an enterprise stack.
