Social Network for enterprise architecture practitioners
Syed, well done for putting-up such a model, which I think captures the idea well. It's similar to the business canvas model (Alex Osterwalder) and Tom Graves' enterprise canvas. There's a useful web site 'light enterprise architecture web site' with references (http://liteea.com/).
To clarify your model please define the difference between 'vendors' and 'providers'. 'Client facing channel partners' is interesting as it allows for being partway along a value chain.
Thanks for the clarification and didn't mean to embarrass you Syed. Commenting on your 'providers', other models might refer to such relationships as 'partners'. Its interesting though that government doesn't think of those relationships (e.g. doctors, physiotherapists etc) in that way, so applies different thinking and business patterns when maybe a partner model would work better. Certainly a major use of such models is not only to represent a business but also to explore different 'what if' scenarios.
Notable missing from this particular model, which appears in others, is 'value proposition'. To me this is critical, as not a lot of point setting-up the paraphernalia for doing business if the value proposition isn't clearly defined and understood. Indeed, at one level the simplest business model I suggest is:
supplier <-> value proposition <-> customer
Syed, sure, the main point of a one page model is to provide the top level 'headings' to be considered, and the relationships between these headings. Better still if its a small enough number of headings to be manipulated in short term memory, i.e. Miller's magic number 7 plus or minus 1.
Syed, there are a number of such models with similar top level 'headings', see my earlier reference. The Microsoft one (if that's where it originated) appears to be based on Alex Osterwalder's business canvas (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Model_Canvas), so I'm going to bow down to Alex rather than Microsoft :). The concept of 'collaboration' in the Microsoft model is different and strikes me as a bit of an odd term for what is really 'orchestration' of a number of process areas (1 to 4 in this model). Noteably the model is missing 'value proposition(s)', which in my view should be depicted in the high level diagram (e.g. see Tom Graves' model http://weblog.tomgraves.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/value-web-se...).
'Value proposition' might also be indicated as 'Vision', as they are strongly related. 'Vision' works better for non profit or government organisations. Value proposition and/or vision are what drives the model, without them what's the point! Which brings me on to 'competitors', which is also absent from the business canvas. I wonder why as 'Competitors'change the whole dynamic of business. Of course 'competitors' doesn't normally feature in and is a major distinguishing factor of government business, although it is often relevant to non profit business, e.g. competing charities.
In any case these models are variations on a common theme which I think captures well what we mean by 'business architecture'. The business canvas, Microsoft model, Tom Graves' models, are I think at the right level of abstraction to provide a top down grasp of the key concepts and their relationships.
Commenting on 'GODS', my immediate reaction is that, unlike the business canvas, it is at too low a level of abstraction to be generic, although could be seen as a useful example model of the design of a specific enterprise. To understand how and whether the detail makes sense in a generic architectural context, I would want to map it back to a model at a higher level of abstraction, such as the business canvas, or Microsoft model presented here.