From: Rick Kennett [mailto:
dina@guildweb.com]
> oh no! ITSSSSsss Youuuu !
Hi Jack!
As usual you are several steps ahead of me. I think it may be a bad sign
that I
am now equally confused by the questions as well as the answers. If you are
speaking of my 'audience' at the time the presentation was given, and
equating
the term "architecture" to how "the IT was organized" across (and between)
the
four paradigms, then I would say it was unnecessary to ask that question. It
seemed to me that everyone was able to 'find their place' first and then,
without really making any admission, recognize where we wanted to be. I
imagine
if I were to trot this out again, where I work today, and include a new
paradigm to represent the oncoming shift to wireless, I would have similar
results. Then again, that's my perception :-)
The point is that it wasn't necessary, I don't think, to ask those folks
about
I.T. architecture. In fact as I think about it, the important part was to
get
them to focus on business issues rather then technology. This presentation
helped our folks do that and set the stage for increased trust in us (the
I.T.
weenies) to do the technology piece.
Hope you're doing well Jack
L8R
Rick
>
> From: Jack Ring <
jring@amug.org>
>
> The charts tell a good story.
> Now, what if you asked them to consider not how the IT is organized thus
> affects them but what "architecture" they should have and how IT could
> enable that.