Jump to content

Talk:Enterprise architecture framework

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graham Berrisford (talk | contribs) at 13:29, 12 July 2013 (→History section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

location in wikipedia

This should really be move to "enterprise architecture frameworks" (unsigned)

I disagree with the previous unsigned statement. This location is just fine. --Nickmalik (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consistency with other topics

At some point, there needs to be a good consistent rewrite of the topics related to Enterprise Architecture to insure that the proper content is in the proper place. For example, the topic on the TOGAF ea framework describes criteria that each ea framework should be required to meet, and then states, simply, that TOGAF meets it. (clever, but not useful).

If there is to be a discussion on the comparison between frameworks, the criteria for considering a particular 'thing' to be a framework, or discussion on the history and future of ea frameworks, it probably should be here.

Related topics would include

  • The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF)
  • Zachman Framework
  • Enterprise Architecture
  • Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)

Of course, I could do this... in all my spare time ;-), but I'd like to get feedback from the community if you would agree or would feel that this is a useful exercise before embarking upon it.--Nickmalik (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote

I finally broke down and rewrote this, along with the article on Enterprise Architecture. Still needs work on the History section --Nickmalik (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed first example in the history section

I removed the first example in the history section, with the text:

The first documented implementation of an Enterprise Architecture framework was developed by the Partnership for Research in Information Systems Management (PRISM) in 1986

This seemed to be based on three sources:

  1. PRISM, CSC Index and Hammer and Company, Dispersion and Interconnection: Approaches to Distributed Systems Architecture, June 1986.
  2. Davenport, T. H., Hammer, M., Metsisto, T., How Executives can Shape Their Company’s Information Systems, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1989
  3. Richardson, Gary L., Jackson, Brad M., Dickson, Gary W., A Principles Based Architecture: Lessons Learned from Texaco and Star Enterprise, MIS Quarterly; December 1990.

I couldn't find any confirmation on the internet of the existence of the first source. I did find two books which mentioned "Partnership for Research in Information Systems Management" in connection with reengineering. But I couldn't find a source confirming the statement.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste registration

In this edit text is copy/paste from the view model. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source or Consortia-developed Frameworks

Having looked through the current list of 6 I can't find any evidence that any of them that are actually open source. Open source seems to be a different basis for development in any case and if, when there is one, would be better under an Open Source sub-heading. At the moment these 2 concepts are mixed which is confusing or raises hopes before dashing them! ;-) --Wikitect (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfHilliard (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) : You may want to reconsider both the categories and examples under "Types of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks"[reply]

Do you really intend to list just frameworks? If so, looking at the current list:

It seems to me that EABOK is not -- by its own description -- a framework itself; it is a body of knowledge about enterprise architectures.

Similarly, IDEAS is not an architecture framework, using the definition at the top of this article. It is an attempt at an ontological foundation for describing metamodels of architecture frameworks.

Zachman now claims his original papers were not describing am architecture framework, but a "classification system".[1] Even in the original papers which used the phrase "framework for information system architecture", there was no notion that what he was talking about was a framework in the sense of the definitions at the top of this wikipedia article!

GERAM is not considered an architecture framework by the ISO group maintaining its documents. They think of it as a toolkit for building enterprise methodologies. The GERAM standard states: "The scope of GERAM encompasses all knowledge needed for enterprise engineering / integration. Thus GERAM is defined through a pragmatic approach providing a generalised framework for describing the components needed in all types of enterprise engineering/enterprise integration processes" ISO 15704:2000.

RM-ODP considers itself an architecture framework, but not necessarily an enterprise architecture framework -- because it uses a very specialised definition of "enterprise". ISO/IEC 10746. Others might call it a reference model for building distributed applications.

Recent work in the field tends to distinguish true enterprise architecture frameworks from "enterprise IT (information technology) architecture frameworks"; TOGAF and RM-ODP being examples of the latter, some would say. (Refs needed on this point)

"Open source frameworks": The Essential project offers a framework, metamodel and tool set licensed under the GNU GPL.[2]

There was a recent deletion from the article of two "commercial works".[3] While it is certainly admirable to avoid commercial messages in wikipedia, the line between commercial and others in the world of frameworks is fuzzy. Why have a category of Proprietary frameworks and exclude commercial offerings? Even using some of the "Consortia-developed frameworks" is costly to end users and the licensing can be comparable to proprietary offerings, so I'm not sure the usefulness of these categories.

Disclaimer: I have no association with any of the commercial (or other) frameworks listed here.

LMO doesn't appear to be an EA framework according to the reference provided. It suggests that a mind map could be used to create one but that isn't the same as being an enterprise architecture framework Wikitect (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitect (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC) SABSA is not Open Source. As it says on the site 'Although copyright protected, SABSA is an open-use methodology, not a commercial product'. Open use is not Open Source - there is a small set of licenses under which something can be released (with source) to be considered open source. SABSA does not therefore belong under open source - suggest a new heading is used.[reply]

In an attempt to merge links from the "See Also" section of the page on Enterprise architecture, I brought across the links to two of the frameworks that had been mistakenly linked from that page, only to realize (after I saved my changes) that the pages in question were already linked from the text... so I undid my own edits. My apologies for the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain of attribution

The EA framework timeline is attributed to Stephen Marley. I've been using that diagram for some years and have been attributing it to Jaap Schekkerman. I'll aim to track down who is actually the author. regards Neil Neilynch (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving terms FEA and FEAF

Note that FEAF is not a term used by OMB in relation to OMB FEA. FEAF is a term from the CIO Council and their 1999 Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) document, version 1.1. The OMB FEA does not provide an EA Framework - it provides a set of reference taxonomies by which Federal organizations are to categorize their major IT investments whereby OMB may review them in relaton to the budget submissions for those investments. Unfortunately, the EA term "FEAF" term has migrated over into the vocabulary of those complying with OMB FEA guidance. Note that the hyperlink on the main page that says "Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework" actually points to the OMB FEA home page.

Definitions From 1999 FEAF 1.1 by CIO Council.

Enterprise Architecture (EA): a strategic information asset base, which defines the mission, the information necessary to perform the mission and the technologies necessary to perform the mission, and the transitional processes for implementing new technologies in response to the changing mission needs. An enterprise architecture includes a baseline architecture, target architecture, and a sequencing plan.

Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF): a conceptual model that begins to define a documented and coordinated structure for cross-cutting businesses and design developments in the Government. Collaboration among the Agencies with a vested interest in a Federal segment will result in increased efficiency and economies of scale. Agencies should use the Framework to describe segments of their architectures.

Roebuckr (Roebuckr) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, thanks for sharing your insides. There is a Federal Enterprise Architecture article, where this information might be useful. I am not sure if this could effect this article. If so, please explain. -- Mdd (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Roy for making these adjustments in the article. I am now starting to understand what you mean. I guess you can held me responsible for mixing up those two. In the Enterprise Architecture framework I have mixed those two while expanding that article between July 2008 and August 2009, see here. In the version just before that the FEAF wasn't mentioned at all, see here. I am now starting to wonder if there should be a separate article here on FEAF (and the US Federal CIO Council), if you understand what I mean? -- Mdd (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation from Software Architecture Framework

This article defines the term 'Enterprise Architecture Framework', or EA Framework, then proceeds merrily to use the phrase 'Architecture Framework' as a lazy synonym for it. This would be fine if the term 'Architecture Framework' did not also have a clear meaning in the realm of Software Architecture (SA). Should we:

  1. Add a note on terminology, that although 'Architecture Framework' is a synonym for EA Framework, it is also a term with (somewhat) different meaning in the SA realm? - OR -
  2. Add a disambiguation page for 'Architecture Framework'?

yoyo (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I suggest we move the following content from the main Enterprise Architecture page either to this location or to the page on Software Architecture:

A unified architecture framework consists of a coherent set of integral modules to collectively form a holistic discipline guiding the process of developing solutions in an enterprise computing environment, as described in Solution Architecting Mechanism (SAM).[4] Nickmalik (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization

Hi, I noticed the recent changes made by User:RfHilliard to the Enterprise Architecture framework and the ISO/IEC 42010h article. For now I have undone the changes made here to the EAF article: It seems the explaining about the standard has been moved here, while we should add some explanation in the ISO/IEC 42010 article itself.

Second these edits gave the following quote in the EAF article,

ISO/IEC 42010 defines an architecture framework as:
conventions, principles and practices for the description of architectures established within a specific domain of application and/or community of stakeholders;;

I haven't been able to verify this quote. I did find for example (source):

The current draft, ISO/IEC WD4 42010 (or ISO 42010:201X), defines it as follows:
architecture framework – conventions and common practices for architecture description established within a specific domain or stakeholder community

And third: This last source explains that the standard isn't excepted yet, but still a draft version which seems to be confirmed in this website.

-- Mdd (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfHilliard: the point of adding information here is that the standard includes work to define Architecture Framework, and rules for standardization of frameworks. [5] This seems relevant to the History and View Model parts of the article. The Standard is now a Final Draft International Standard, the last stage before publication, expected this year. [6]
The quote is taken from the FDIS. [7]
Once the Standard is published (per ISO rules) copies like this won't be floating around the web to cite.
Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RfHilliard (talk • contribs) 13:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links, I do appreciate that copy. I don't doubt the importance of mentioning ISO/IEC 42010 here in this article. The question is where (here or in the ISO/IEC 42010 article), and how? Now I rearranged your contribution in a separate section of this article. I hope this is to your satisfaction! -- Mdd (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, and anom (see here) claimed an unknown framework is one of the three popular frameworks. I have try to removed this, but this has been undone. Now I checked again and can't find any conformation in reliable sources, so I have removed it a second time. -- Mdd (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After an article for creation about that framework has been declined, see here, the anon has put the text back here, see here. I think this is just unacceptable spam, which should be removed. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

general

This entire topic is basically crap -- don't waste your time reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.13.52 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Today Graham Berrisford made a start rewriting the history section, see here, which I very much appreciate. I do think that the existing text and the image should not have been removed, but integrated in the new text added. The image still gives good overview of the development and interaction between the developments of the first EAF's.

The new text is not right and the elder text wrong, but there are just two ways of looking at the history. For example:

  • The current new text is referring to the 1982 Zachman article "Business Systems Planning and Business Information Control Study: A comparison", which is cited just over 100 times (see here)
  • The 1987 Zachman article is cited over 2000 times (see here) and is generally considered the article which made establish the EA field.

Now Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should acknowledge and incorporate these facts. Now I do agree with most of the new text added and think it should be further improved. -- Mdd (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I noticed that most of the new text related to the history of EA, while this article is particularly about EA Frameworks. One could seriously question the relevance of the new quotes added in this context. Those quotes are about BSP, EAP, and EA and not about AEF's. Those quotes would better fit in an article like the Origins of enterprise architecture (which could/should be renamed History of enterprise architecture). -- Mdd (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO I WRITE MY REPLY HERE? (GB) Deletion of the graphic was accidental - sorry.

IBM Business Systems Planning method (1980s) and Spewak's "EA Planning" (1990s) are far more obviously ancestors of modern EA frameworks like TOGAF than the Zachman Framework is.

However many citings Zachman's 1987 paper gets - the fact is that it does not include the term "enterprise architecture" at all. Even in the mid 1990s, Zachman and Sowa were still saying their framework mainly appealed to systems analysts and database designers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham Berrisford (talk • contribs)

Thanks Graham, this is indeed the place to reply. Please try to sign your comment next time (just type ~~~~). Also thank you for your further improvements to the text. As you can see I started rearranged some things, and might proceed some more soon. -- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mdd. I corrected the first sentence (in history) somebody added, since it was misleading. Other sections need rewriting too. First - can you rewrite the overview, which seems to assume an EAF is for documentation only? I'd recommend quoting the BCS definition there (same reference as already included in the ref list). It defines an EA framework as:

"A structured collection of guidance and techniques, a methodology, designed to help people create architecture descriptions and use them to good effect. A comprehensive framework contains: a development process (a process framework), a classification of architecture descriptions (a content or documentation framework) and advice on organisation."

Personally, I think the graphic's contents are somewhat misleading, but I suppose they liven things up a bit. Graham Berrisford (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I added that first sentence, which you find in the listing here in this edit, which I now have restored, see here, because.
  1. Your statement "There was nothing known as an "Enterprise Architecture Framework" in the 1980s." is incorrect formally correct, but just as confusing
  2. Both the initial Zachman Framework (from 1987) and the NIST Enterprise Architecture Model (from 1989) can be considered the first EA frameworks
I am well aware that the statement I added wasn't perfect, so I do appreciate other suggestions. -- Mdd (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I rephrased the first sentence myself, see here, replacing the word "Framework" by "model". -- Mdd (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response the text has been removed with the argument "correction to error in first sentence", see here. Now this is unacceptable, because I have tried to explain that there is no error. Both the Zachman Framework and The NIST Enterprise Architecture can be considered AE models. -- Mdd (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic's contents

Graham, because there are different issues here, I will start a separate one about this topic. Now you say the graphic's contents are somewhat misleading. Now again formally you are right, because graphics are always somewhat misleading. But I think they are appropriate because they come from reliable sources, and they are on topic.

First about the origin of the first (timeline) graphic:

  • The graphic is based on the "Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks from 1987 to 2003" graphic, developed by Stephen Marley, NASA /SCI and presented in 2003 in a presentation about Architectural Frameworks
  • Around the same time Jaap Schekkerman constructed a similar graphic, presented in the "A Comparative Survey of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks" 2004 presentation (still online)
  • This timeline is similar with for example the 2010 presentation Timeline of Enterprise Architecture by G. Hussain Chinoy

In short the graphic is comparable to graphics about this topic in reliable source, which is the basic requirement for Wikipedia content. -- Mdd (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General reply from GB to Mdd

Do you have a name? Thanks for the NIST 1989 reference - I will follow that up.

On the opening paragraphs in history Between us they are better now and I hope we can leave them alone. From 1987 to 1992, possibly much later, the ZF was determinedly an ISA framework. Zachman (who had used the term EAF in 1982) chose not to use the term EAF until sometime between 1992 and 1997. And to turn his ISAF into an EAF, he made some changes.

On the graphic To put POSIX and TAFIM at the root of EA is daft. To put Zachman's ISAF ahead of other sources is misleading. Jaap Shekkerman was working for a consulting organization. If he knew the IBM Business Systems Planning heritage, he was surely reluctant to acknowledge it. He also seems unaware of the debt that TOGAF owes to Information Engineering.

On acknowledgements The many corrections and improvements are drawn from the research for the BCS in 2008. I recently wrote up some of this research for the purposes of answering discussion group questions. To remove the acknowledgement of this seems unfair to me.

  1. ^ http://www.opengroup.org/conference-live/uploads/40/7350/locke_apc.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.enterprise-architecture.org/
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enterprise_Architecture_framework&diff=431714256&oldid=431714114
  4. ^ Tony Shan and Winnie Hua (2006). Solution Architecting Mechanism. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), October 2006, p23-32.
  5. ^ http://www.iso-architecture.org/ieee-1471/afs/index.html
  6. ^ http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=50508
  7. ^ http://www.iso-architecture.org/ieee-1471/docs/ISO-IEC-FDIS-42010.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enterprise_architecture_framework&oldid=563960245"