From Down Under, RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) is offering a complete Master of Enterprise Architecture, a high-level IT postgraduate by coursework program, specifically designed for ICT professionals who wish to advance their career to the role of Enterprise Architect within an organisation. That’s a great initiative!
Looking at the description, however, it occurs to me that there is very much technology and too little business in the curriculum.
My two EA Masters courses (at ITU and Copenhagen Business School) serve as individual “EA-infusions” in various masters programmes: Master in eBusiness, Master in Software Development, and Master in Business Administration and Computer Science. A number of students choose to continue after the course to create their own “Master of Enterprise Architecture” within one of the major programmes, by making individual projects under my supervision.
One of the discussions I often get into is about whether you can train an enterprise architect, or whether it’s a discipline of practicians. My view on this is simple: Of course you can train people in enterprise architecture, and even young (and bright) students can learn a lot. That doesn’t necessarily make them practising enterprise architects, however. You can also take a master in rocket-science, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you get to build NASAs new rockets right away. I think there is a need for EA training at all levels, from students to CEOs and politicians.
The professionals can choose the Open Group IT Architect Certification Program or some of the other Enterprise Architecture Certification schemes, if certification is what’s needed.
I am responsible for the content of the RMIT Enterprise Architecture masters and I find your comments interesting and of value.
The balance between business & IT is also difficult to master. One way in which we are planning to address it is through the involvement of many of the large companies here in the delivery & assessment of the material, in particular for the later subjects in the program.
However, we are very much focused on making the masters as valuable as possible so I would welcome a discussion with you on what you think should be more the business emphasis and focus and also which parts you would think are less valuable.
As a side comment, the overall structure was heavily driven by non-academic advice and was heavily reviewed by non-technical executives from various organisations. It does not match our initial thoughts at all!
I look forward to discussion and communication,