The Restaurant at the End of the Internet

This week I will not yet continue my Web 2.0 series, but rather respond to a comment on my last post. My claim that Web 2.0 needs architects, led to a comment/question: Especially the phrase 'of course' caught my attention. Why do you think enterprise-architects should already be involved this early on in the process? Is strategy in their domain too? I would be very interested in seeing a post why you feel enterprise architects add value to an organization, and what you feel should be part of their responsibilities. If you make me really happy, please address the role of enterprise architecture in relation to the effectiveness and efficiency of information security controls. Which was a direct response to my statement: " This actually triggered me into realising that the Web 2.0 needs information architects. Of course, when an enterprise considers utilizing Web 2.0 technologies an enterprise architect should be involved in deciding-on/designing the best way of doing this.

This blog entry is cross-blogged between the VNA website and my own blog site. I like to keep my blog entries, as well as my comments to other people’s blogs, accessible through my personal blog site. The result is that people will be entering comments on different locations. Even more, since Plaxo also includes these blogs in my pulse stream, people can even respond to my blogs in plaxo, and I have noticed that these comments do not automatically show up on the original blog sites. Of course one might argue that "cross blogging" should not be done, but at the same time I think it is a defendable stance that I should be able to publish my blog (and their comments) through multiple channels. This actually triggered me into realising that the Web 2.0 needs information architects. Of course, when an enterprise considers utilizing Web 2.0 technologies an enterprise architect should be involved in deciding-on/designing the best way of doing this. However, I also think the techn