Enterprise Architecture Framework

Enterprise Architecture Framework (EA Framework) is a formal definition of the essential elements or components of Enterprise Architecture, and their inter-relationship

• An Enterprise Architecture Framework is analogous to a mathematical equation or chemical formula in that it specifies the variables or elements, and their relationships required to solve the "practical model of enterprise" puzzle.
• It differs from equations and formulas in the sense that it pertains to one solution - a particular way of solving the enterprise modeling puzzle - and is not a universally applicable or accepted answer to the Enterprise Architecture problem. There can be many different frameworks for Enterprise Architecture each as applicable and effective as the other.
• It identifies "essential" elements or components i.e. those that are absolutely necessary, and sufficient to define the concept or solution

An Enterprise Architecture Framework can define enterprise modeling concept(s) in general or relate to a specific Enterprise Architecture Planning solution.

An Enterprise Architecture framework (EA framework) defines how to create and use an Enterprise Architecture. An Architecture Framework provides principles and practices for creating and using the architecture description of a system. It structures architects' thinking by dividing the architecture description into domains, layers, or views, and offers models - typically matrices and diagrams - for documenting each view.

Enterprise architecture frameworks are valuable for planning and visualization. They are especially helpful at the early stages of architectural change to lead the conversation with stakeholders and visualize the outcomes of business and IT alignment. However, they are still just toolkits for people responsible for preparing the roadmap to change

History of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAF)
A commonly held tenet is that enterprise architecture frameworks date to the mid-1980s, in accordance with the publication of the Zachman Framework, developed by then-IBMer John Zachman. But deeper historic inquiries indicate that enterprise architecture frameworks actually got their start two decades earlier when IBM produced their business systems planning (BSP), an effort that Zachman helped found.

A researcher of 20th– and 21st-century technology, Svyatoslav Kotusev says that we can look at the history of EAFs in three smaller eras:

• Pre-EA: Originating with IBM, the BSP formalized a methodology that indicates a theory for information systems architecture. It included both a top-down planning approach and an architecture planning process that was divided into a series of steps for a company to follow. The plan, with diagrams and matrices to illustrate its system, can be traced through all EAFs even today. The Method/1 process by Arthur Andersen as well as other BSP-like methodologies from consulting firms and tech experts also originated in this era. Overall, these approaches focused strictly on technical infrastructure, like how to deploy hardware and servers.
• Early EA: This begins in the 1980s and runs into the 1990s, and this era codifies the term “enterprise architecture”. The initial wave of EAF theories includes the PRISM, sponsored by IBM among others, released in 1986, the Zachman Framework in 1987, and the NIST EA in 1989. Later entries marked a newer approach in this era including Steven Spewak’s Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP), which has direct roots in the original BSP, as well as the TAFIM. These later frameworks began including applications and data integration, as systems became more sophisticated.
• Modern EA: Starting in the late 1990s, this era continues to the present day. Newer frameworks include the FEAF, which is based on Spewak’s EAP, as well as the TOGAF, a well-known version today, with roots in the TAFIM. Today’s frameworks aim to provide tangible solutions beyond only IT, integrating all layers of an enterprise, including overall strategy, business needs, IT infrastructure, and applications. Despite the differences in approaches that these eras indicate, all frameworks are generally based on the original BSP methodology, often advocating similar steps or phases for planning and implementing enterprise IT.

Types of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks
Many enterprise architecture frameworks are available, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Some focus on modeling existing architecture, while others focus on finding solutions to business problems. Nowadays there are now countless EA frameworks, many more than in the following listing.

• Consortia-Developed Frameworks
  • ARCON – A Reference Architecture for Collaborative Networks – not focused on a single enterprise but rather on networks of enterprises
  • Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (GERAM)
  • RM-ODP – the Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing (ITU-T Rec. X.901-X.904|ISO/IEC 10746) defines an enterprise architecture framework for structuring the specifications of open distributed systems.
  • IDEAS Group – a four-nation effort to develop a common ontology for architecture interoperability
  • ISO 19439 Framework for enterprise modeling
  • TOGAF – The Open Group Architecture Framework – a widely used framework including an architectural Development Method and standards for describing various types of architecture.
• Defense Industry Frameworks
  • AGATE – the France DGA Architecture Framework
  • DNDAF – the DND/CF Architecture Framework (CAN)
  • DoDAF – the US Department of Defense Architecture Framework
  • MODAF – the UK Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework
  • NAF – the NATO Architecture Framework
• Government Frameworks
  • European Space Agency Architectural Framework (ESAAF) - a framework for European space-based Systems of Systems
  • FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework
  • Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) – a framework produced in 1999 by the US Federal CIO Council for use within the US Government (not to be confused with the 2002 Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) guidance on categorizing and grouping IT investments, issued by the US Federal Office of Management and Budget)
  • Government Enterprise Architecture (GEA) – a common framework legislated for use by departments of the Queensland Government
  • Nederlandse Overheid Referentie Architectuur (NORA) – a reference framework from the Dutch Government E-overheid NORA
  • NIST Enterprise Architecture Model
  • Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF) – a framework for treasury, published by the US Department of the Treasury in July 2000.
  • Colombian Enterprise Architecture Framework - MRAE - Marco de Referencia de Arquitectura Empresarial a framework for all the Colombian Public Agencies
• Open-Source Frameworks: Enterprise architecture frameworks that are released as open source:
  • MEGAF is an infrastructure for realizing architecture frameworks that conform to the definition of architecture framework provided in ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010.
  • Praxeme, an open enterprise methodology, contains an enterprise architecture framework called the Enterprise System Topology (EST)
  • TRAK – a general systems-oriented framework based on MODAF 1.2 and released under GPL/GFDL.
  • SABSA is an open framework and methodology for Enterprise Security Architecture and Service Management, that is risk-based and focuses on integrating security into business and IT management.
• Proprietary Frameworks
  • ASSIMPLER Framework – an architecture framework, based on the work of Mandar Vanarse at Wipro in 2002
  • Avancier Methods (AM) Processes and documentation advice for enterprise and solution architects, supported by training and certification.
  • BRM (Build-Run-Manage) Framework - an architecture framework created by Sanjeev "Sunny" Mishra during his early days at IBM in 2000.
  • Capgemini Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF) – from Capgemini company in 1993
  • Dragon1 - An open Visual Enterprise Architecture Method recently recognized by The Open Group as Architecture Framework
  • DYA framework developed by Sogeti in 2004.
  • Dynamic Enterprise Enterprise architecture concept based on Web 2.0 technology
  • Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework - from Institute For Enterprise Architecture Developments in 2003
  • EACOE Framework – an Enterprise Architecture framework, as an elaboration of the work of John Zachman
  • IBM Information FrameWork (IFW) – conceived by Roger Evernden in 1996
  • Infomet - conceived by Pieter Viljoen in 1990
  • Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework (PEAF) - part of the Pragmatic Family of Frameworks developed by Kevin Lee Smith, Pragmatic EA, from 2008
  • Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture developed by Theodore J. Williams at Purdue University early 1990s.
  • SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework
  • Service-oriented modeling framework (SOMF), based on the work of Michael Bell
  • Solution Architecting Mechanism (SAM) – A coherent architecture framework consisting of a set of integrated modules.
  • Zachman Framework – an architecture framework, based on the work of John Zachman at IBM in the 1980s

Usage of Enterprise Architecture Framework
An Enterprise Architecture Framework should offer the following:

• to provide a common vocabulary
• describe a method for defining an architecture in terms of a set of concepts and a system in terms of building blocks
• to show how the concepts fit together
• to contain a set of tools
• to include a list of recommended standards
• to include a list of compliant products that can be used to implement the concepts and the building blocks

Creating a Custom EA Framework using Unified Modeling Language (UML)
Most enterprise architecture frameworks offer a limited number of viewpoints and aspects, so it’s reasonable and common to use them in combination. None of the proposed models can include all measures and meet every organization’s needs. However, this allows enterprise architects to customize documentation and create an independent overview of a system.

Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a descriptive visual language providing scalable diagrams used for standardizing software development. It’s easily expandable and customizable for different business domains using an extension mechanism – UML Profile. Enterprise architects use stereotypes, tagged values, and constraints to tailor the language to specific environments thus ensuring that the finished model will address corporate-specific requirements.

Some generic UML diagrams include the Deployment Diagram, visualizing a system’s execution architecture; the Activity Diagram, which models behaviors of the system and how these behaviors are related; and the Sequence Diagram, representing workflows and cooperation.

source: Sparx Systems

UML models allow businesses to develop a set of processes and use cases to visualize an enterprise architecture overall and each system within it. It’s a complicated tool that requires training to operate and adjust to a company’s needs, but the benefits of this approach are correlated with the enterprise architect’s effort.

The Problems with EA Frameworks
Almost 30 years after the creation of the Zachman Framework – the oldest of the currently used EA tools – a question has arisen: Do frameworks bring any value or do they cause harm? Here are the main concerns surrounding the use of enterprise architecture frameworks today.

• Documentation is not Comprehensive: Despite numerous updates to the most popular frameworks created in the 80s and 90s, their modern versions are still considered impractical and outdated. Moreover, creating and maintaining EA documentation requires resources that are not always available in the agile environments of many innovative companies.
• They are Time-Consuming and Lack Flexibility: Most EA frameworks are less dynamic than modern business toolkits such as Business Model Canvas. They take time to plan out, are not change-friendly, and require training to develop and present. Being more about documentation than real action toward innovation, they tend to slow down the process with excessive use.
• Complete Integration is Impossible: The limitations of each framework don’t provide an opportunity for seamless integration with a company’s new and existing systems and call for notable adjustments that require additional resources.

These concerns don’t necessarily mean that three decades of practice have led to EA frameworks becoming obsolete. Just like any formalized approach, Zachman or SABSA are criticized and augmented, introduced at the beginning and throughout the process, and used by enterprise architects in different ways. Be sure to take the most advantageous elements of a framework and work around the constraints.

See Also

• The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
• Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)
• Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEA)
• Enterprise Architecture Value Framework (EAVF)
• Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM)
• Architecture Description Language (ADL)
• Architecture Development Method (ADM)
• British Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MODAF)
• Component Business Model (CBM)
• Information Framework (IFW)

Further Reading

• The Three Types of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks
• The Four Types of Enterprise Architecture Framework: Which Is the Best Type For You?
• A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies
• Enterprise Architecture Framework in a Nutshell
• A comparison of the top four enterprise architecture frameworks