Week 4: EA Frameworks

Frameworks are common used in EA, making it more meaningful and easy understanding for different system stakeholders.

There are about 20 kinds of EA framework existing nowadays.

Among these diverse frameworks are some popular ones like:

• Zachman framework, the originator of EA raised at 1987, regard architecture from a taxonomy view.
• The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF®),a commercial process-like framework which just released its verision 9.1
• Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), used in the Federal government and help them  better execute their core missions.
• The Gartner Methodology, a practical framework focusing on strategy, regarding Architecture as an ongoing process.

There is a comparison between four mainstream framework that I found useful.

I would like to introduce some details about zacheman framework for this week.

The Zachman Framework is an Enterprise Architecture framework for enterprise architecture, which provides a formal and highly structured way of viewing and defining an enterprise. It consists of a two dimensional classification matrix based on the intersection of six communication questions (What, Where, When, Why, Who and How) with six rows according to reification transformations. link

Zoom in the Columns

The six most famous interrogatives made up the columns, and each of them has a explanation in EA.

• WHAT is my DATA?
• HOW will it FUNCTION?
• WHERE can NETWORK reach? 
• WHO are PEOPLE?
• WHEN is the TIME? 
• WHY is this MOTIVATION? 

Each column focus on a fundamental point, so they are more indispensably unique from each other, than successive or interweaved with.

Zoom in the Rows

Different from the columns, rows are layering, each on behalf of a different field participator's view , at least in I understanding.

• PLANNER decides SCOPE.
• OWNER conceptualizes BUSINESS MODEL.
• DESIGNER responds for a logical SYSTEM MODEL.
• BUILDER provides a TECHNOLOGY MODEL physically.
• SUBCONTRACTOR specified DETAILS.

It is not that with the row getting upper the perspective should be more comprehensive, but each row should be deliverable to the abut row.

More details for exploration pdf

A considerable number of companies show interest in EA, but attitudes towards those frameworks various from CIOs in different areas.

• Some appreciate its utility in strategy and convenience in data communication. 

• Some concern about the high cost and risk it brings, and whether the methodology is applicable for specified condition of their companies.

• Also some doubts the practicability of these frameworks, and believe the recent upsurge in funding for American EA efforts may be what is hampering them.link 

As DevHawk said EA ROI is both a blessing and a curse. 

It’s a curse because EA can’t justify their existence in terms the business can understand. It’s a blessing because if EA is running as deep in the red as I suspect they might be, the company would cut EA entirely in a heartbeat. 

The ROI is a major part to conduct its value but hard to measure since most of its value reflected indirectly. Also a relatively heavy denominator more or less fades the benefit.

On one side, I would like to cite ROI in some case study to give managers a first impression. 

Meskell, D. gave a table of financial data from 8 state-level e-government initiatives.

In this table, the ROI of e-government Enterprise Architecture is desirable in most of states conducting this program.
Also in commercial organizations there are plenty successful stories of ROI in EA, such as John Hancock's $6.25M savings on redundancies and Key Corp's annually $7M in reduction in software maintenance.
There is study shows EA save 60% of the man-day efforts, and increase 10% in deliverables from investments in IT projects by architecturally checking projects in the preparation phase, and reduce 10% in yearly operating costs by the discovery of redundancies or excessive spending in the IT support.

On the other side I would quantify ROI of EA based on their company's specified situation. Starting with each LOB, comparing the average period of planning and decision-making cycles, time spent on planning meetings. 
Then we can take a look at overlapping of LOBs, discussing and evaluating potential duplicated resource , even finding out the gaps of resource integration. 
After that we might even find redundancy in labor.
These things are all directly related to benefits of EA and main concern of managements.


Ps. This week we got our EA project description, to evaluate a one-stop portal for SA government. I am going to do some research on one-stop eGov pattern.
We haven't seen our clients yet. Hope to get more directions from her.