1 person found this helpful
I guess your design should reflect an enterprise architecture. It is more about whether you followed an enterprise architecture approach with analysis -> design -> implementation. Which would require that you really do your work in that flow.
We ran into something similar, at our first attempt to build the design we started early with implementation, which we regret later. Than we started again from scratch going thru the enterprise architecture flow. It was tough many times, but it was really worth understanding to go thru it step and layer by layer. It made a difference and we felt what a lot people say: It's about the journey, not the achievement.
Thanks - great input. VCDX is about excellence - so if they are asking about the use of EA, then they are assuming a level of profeciency and excellence in what is presented. Given that, would like to know if it is enough just to show that you did the analysis->design->implementation in that order. Or are they expecting a more detailed, more thorough, more concise mapping of EA principles to your design than just to be able to show that you did things in the analysis->design->implementation method? Should you be able to articulate a defense of your design based on articulation of your EA?
Can't find a whole lot of info on this - so any input appreciated?