Linkedin is full of posts with EA's trying to reclaim the title this is all sponsored by one particular well meaning individual.
The posts are asking to claim back the fact that EA is all about I.T. TOGAF style not anything else.
We find it a bit amusing as they are right in their own way; in at least they recognise what their EA actually is based on what most people with this, rather odd, title actually do on a day to day basis; but it is really amusing when the label doesn't just doesn't fit.
These guys just don't like the fact that Enterprise Architecture is viewed by some as architecting the enterprise.
Other protagonists argue that EA is more than just architecting the I.T. across the enterprise: systems thinking, strategic planning/thinking, consulting and design. They say "EA doesn't do what it says on the tin" in most organisations. True.
All these parties have an opinion, which is fair enough, but it causes so many problems in positioning this type of activity in the business for both EITA , EA and architecting in general.
Highly confusing all round, no wonder business people raise and eyebrow and shuffle off down the corridor.
EA is really EITA or is it?
Is business architecture a subset of EA or has EA become so abused as a term that business architecture has to take the lead as the overarching discipline?
This has been going on for years and in truth it is getting boring.