Jason Uppal, P.Eng. is a chief architect of QRS (Canada) and is a Certified Master IT Architect by The Open Group. He holds an undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering, graduate degree in Economics and a post graduate diploma in Computer Science.

Currently, Jason is the lead architect for ITO Software Solution, a community based software solution that provide business processes automation to industrialize – enterprise architecture, portfolio management, program and project management and IT service management (key ITIL functions) practices. For more information on ITO solution: visit ITO community web site www.itoProcesses.com.

For further discussion on this topics, Jason can be reached at jason.uppal@quickresponse.ca

Presentations
Making the Business Case for Enterprise Architecture

In most large organizations the role of Enterprise Architect (EA) is now generally understood. However, the exact RESPONSIBILITIES of the EA are subject of much debate. This debate, in part, stems from the fact that many CIO’s and IT leadership have not accepted the fact that Business Architecture is a necessary component of Enterprise Architecture practice. Without the inclusion of Business Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Practice will never be able to construct a tangible business case and as such will continue to be a backroom activity within IT Organization.

In this session, I will outline the RESPONSIBILITY (RACI Model) of the Enterprise Architect and describe a pragmatic business case that can be supported both by the CIO and the CFO.

What will you learn?

• RESPONSIBILITY of an Enterprise Architect
• Dimensions of a Business Case
• Business Case Drivers
• a Sample Business Case

In recent months, among TOGAF ADM practitioners, descriptive versus prescriptive nature of ADM, has become a subject of major debate. The argument consists that while TOGAF ADM is an excellent product, its very nature is preventing it from becoming a dominant methodology for EA development.

In this session, I will look at why TOGAF ADM needs to remain descriptive and how to balance the descriptive versus perspective nature. A specific example will demonstrate how TOGAF ADM could be made more prescriptive for specific scope of architecture work without impeding the work of architects who require descriptive methodology to address broad range of business challenges.

In this session, you will learn:

• the value of prescriptive and descriptive ADM
• how to make ADM prescriptive without loosing its descriptive character?
• Application of prescriptive versus descriptive ADM

Example of a prescriptive/descriptive ADM implementation for:

• Inter-Organizational scope
• Organizational scope
• Divisional scope
• Business Process scope

return to program