A few people have asked why I call myself a Change Designer rather than an Enterprise Architect. The reason is simple: the EA label misrepresents what I do.
The popular understanding of Enterprise Architect is:
- attached to an I.T. view of the world - I’m not only focused on I.T.
- often synonymous with large arcane frameworks like TOGAF - I dislike them
- regarded as slow, top-down, big modelling up front etc - I prefer Dan Ward’s F.I.R.E. approach.
I use the title Change Designer because:
- They are two simple words, that together, explain what I do - I Design Change (transformational or otherwise).
- They don't t limit me to only focus on I.T. - but, at the same time, they don’t exclude I.T.
- Much of my thinking and toolset come from the world of “Design Thinking” (and Systems Thinking, Complexity Science etc.).
I guess I’m lucky in the sense I’m unemployable now, partly due to age but mostly due to temperament! :-) I’m more choosy about the things I work on where and when. All this means I don’t need to splash “Enterprise Architecture” and TOGAF all over my CV to find the next gig - and if I did, I’d probably not meet the client’s expectations!
Follow #foundindesign on Twitter to see what I'm up to these days.