Enterprise architecture framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:39, 31 January 2019

Latest revision as of 16:11, 13 August 2025

(45 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Frame in which the architecture of a company is defined}}

{{Cleanup bare URLs|date=September 2022}}

[[File:NIST Enterprise Architecture Model.jpg|thumb|240px|[[NIST Enterprise Architecture Model]] initiated in 1989, one of the earliest frameworks for [[enterprise architecture]].<ref name="CIOC99">The Chief Information Officers Council (1999). [http://www.cio.gov/documents/fedarch1.pdf Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.1] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213215829/http://www.cio.gov/Documents/fedarch1.pdf |date=2012-02-13 }}. September 1999.</ref>]]

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. This allows for making systemic design decisions on all the components of the system and making long-term decisions around new design requirements, sustainability, and support.<ref name="Enterprise Architecture Purpose">{{Cite web |url=http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/enterprise-architecture |title=Tech Target |publisher=SearchCIO}}</ref>

== Overview ==

Line 14 ⟶ 16:

[[File:Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks.jpg|240px|thumb|Overview of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks evolution (1987–2003).<ref name="SM03"/><ref>[[Jaap Schekkerman]] (2004) ''How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks''. p.89 gives a similar scheme.</ref> On the left: The [[Zachman Framework]] 1987, [[NIST Enterprise Architecture Model|NIST Enterprise Architecture]] 1989, [[Enterprise Architecture Planning|EAP]] 1992, [[TISAF]] 1997, [[Federal Enterprise Architecture|FEAF]] 1999 and [[Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework|TEAF]] 2000. On the right: [[TAFIM]] influenced by [[POSIX]], JTA, JTAA, [[TOGAF]] 1995, DoD TRM<ref>US Department of Defense (2001) ''[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.5206&rep=rep1&type=pdf Department of Defense Technical Reference Model]''. Version 2.0. 9 April 2001. p. 11, mentioned that also the DoD TRM is influenced by POSIX.</ref> and [[C4ISTAR|C4ISR]] 1996, and [[DoDAF]] 2003.]]

The earliest rudiments of the step-wise planning methodology currently advocated by [[The Open Group Architecture Framework]] (TOGAF) and other EA frameworks can be traced back to the article of Marshall K. Evans and Lou R. Hague titled "Master Plan for Information Systems"<ref>Evans, M. K. and Hague, L. R. (1962) ''Master Plan for Information Systems'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 92-103.</ref> published in 1962 in Harvard Business Review.<ref name="The_Practice_of_EA">Kotusev, Svyatoslav (2018) ''The Practice of Enterprise Architecture: A Modern Approach to Business and IT Alignment''. Melbourne, Australia: SK Publishing.</ref>

Since the 1970s people working in IS/IT have looked for ways to engage business people – to enable business roles and processes - and to influence investment in business information systems and technologies – with a view to the wide and long term benefits of the enterprise. Many of the aims, principles, concepts and methods now employed in EA frameworks were established in the 1980s, and can be found in IS and IT architecture frameworks published in that decade and the next.<ref name="GB 2013">Graham Berrisford (2008-13) "[http://grahamberrisford.com/A%20brief%20history%20of%20EA.htm A brief history of EA: what is in it and what is not] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130918061630/http://grahamberrisford.com/A%20brief%20history%20of%20EA.htm |date=2013-09-18 }}" on ''grahamberrisford.com'', last update 16/07/2013. Accessed 16/07?2003</ref>

By 1980, IBM’sIBM's [[Business Systems Planning]] (BSP) was promoted as a method for analyzing and designing an organization’sorganization's information architecture, with the following goals:

# understand the issues and opportunities with the current applications and technical architecture;

# develop a future state and migration path for the technology that supports the enterprise;

Line 24 ⟶ 26:

# provide the information system (IS) with a blueprint for development.

In 1982, when working for IBM and with BSP, John Zachman wasoutlined perhapshis theframework firstfor toenterprise-level mention"Information EnterpriseSystems Architecture in the public ___domain". Then and in later papers, Zachman used the word enterprise as a synonym for business. "Although many popular information systems planning methodologies, design approaches, and various tools and techniques do not preclude or are not inconsistent with enterprise-level analysis, few of them explicitly address or attempt to define enterprise architectures."<ref name="JZ 1982">[[John Zachman]] (1982) ''Business Systems Planning and Business Information Control Study: A comparison'' in IBM Systems Journal 21(1). p32.</ref> However, in this article the term "Enterprise Architecture" was mentioned only once without any specific definition and all subsequent works of Zachman used the term "Information Systems Architecture".<ref name="JZ 1987" /><ref name="JZ 1992"/>

In 1986, the [[PRISM architecture framework]] was developed as a result of the research project sponsored by a group of companies, including IBM, which was seemingly the first published EA framework.<ref name="HISTORY">Svyatoslav Kotusev (2016). ''The History of Enterprise Architecture: An Evidence-Based Review''. In: Journal of Enterprise Architecture, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 29-37.</ref>

In 1987, John Zachman, who was a marketing specialist at IBM, published the paper, ''A Framework for Information Systems Architecture''.<ref name="JZ 1987">[[John A. Zachman]] (1987). '' A Framework for Information Systems Architecture''. In: IBM Systems Journal, vol 26, no 3. IBM Publication G321-5298.</ref> The paper provided a classification scheme for [[Enterprise architecture artifacts|artifacts]] that describe (at several levels of abstraction) the what, how, where, who, when and why of information systems. Given IBM already employed BSP, Zachman had no need to provide planning process. The paper did not mention enterprise architecture.

In 1989, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the [[NIST Enterprise Architecture Model]].<ref>W.B. Rigdon (1989). ''Architectures and Standards''. In Information Management Directions: The Integration Challenge (NIST Special Publication 500-167), E.N. Fong, A.H. Goldfine (Eds.), Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), pp.135-150.</ref> This was a five-layer reference model that illustrates the interrelationship of business, information system, and technology domains. It was promoted within the U.S. federal government. It was not an EA framework as we see it now, but it helped to establish the notion of dividing EA into architecture domains or layers. The NIST Enterprise Architecture Model seemingly was the first publication that consistently used the term "Enterprise Architecture".<ref name="HISTORY" />

In 1990, the term "Enterprise Architecture" was formally defined for the first time as an architecture that "defines and interrelates data, hardware, software, and communications resources, as well as the supporting organization required to maintain the overall physical structure required by the architecture".<ref name="HISTORY" /><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Richardson | first1 = G.L. | last2 = Jackson | first2 = B.M. | last3 = Dickson | first3 = G.W. | year = 1990 | title = A Principles-Based Enterprise Architecture: Lessons from Texaco and Star Enterprise | url = | journal = MIS Quarterly | volume = 14 | issue = 4| pages = 385–403 | doi=10.2307/249787| jstor = 249787 }}</ref>

In 1992, a paper by Zachman and Sowa<ref name="JZ 1992">Zachman and Sowa (1992) ''Extending and formalising the framework of information systems architecture'' IBM Systems Journal, Vol 31, No 3</ref> started thus "John Zachman introduced a framework for information systems architecture (ISA) that has been widely adopted by systems analysts and database designers." The term enterprise architecture did not appear. The paper was about using the ISA framework to describe, “...the overall information system and how it relates to the enterprise and its surrounding environment.” The word enterprise was used as a synonym for business.

In 1993, Stephen Spewak’sSpewak's book [[Enterprise Architecture Planning]] (EAP) defined a process for defining architectures for the use of information in support of the business and the plan for implementing those architectures. The business mission is the primary driver. Then the data required to satisfy the mission. Then the applications built to store and provide that data. Finally the technology to implement the applications. Enterprise Architecture Planning is a data-centric approach to architecture planning. An aim is to improve data quality, access to data, adaptability to changing requirements, data interoperability and sharing, and cost containment. EAP has its roots in IBM’sIBM's [[Business Systems Planning]] (BSP).<ref name="HISTORY" />

In 1994, the Open Group selected [[TAFIM]] from the US DoD as a basis for development of The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), where architecture meant IT architecture. TOGAF started out taking a strategic and enterprise-wide, but technology-oriented, view. It emerged from the desire to rationalize a messy IT estate. Right up to version 7, TOGAF was still focused on defining and using a Technical Reference Model (or foundation architecture) to define the platform services required from the technologies that an entire enterprise uses to support business applications.<ref name="GB 2013"/>

In 1996, the US ''IT Management Reform Act'', more commonly known as the [[Clinger-Cohen Act]], repeatedly directed that a US federal government agency’sagency's investment in IT must be mapped to identifiable business benefits. In addition, it made the agency CIO responsible for, “...developing, maintaining and facilitating the implementation of a sound and integrated IT architecture for the executive agency.”

By 1997, Zachman had renamed and refocused his ISA framework as an EA framework; it remained a classification scheme for descriptive artifacts, not a process for planning systems or changes to systems.

In 1998, The Federal CIO Council began developing the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) in accordance with the priorities enunciated in Clinger-Cohen and issued it in 1999. FEAF was a process much like TOGAF’sTOGAF's ADM, in which “The architecture team generates a sequencing plan for the transition of systems, applications, and associated business practices predicated upon a detailed gap analysis [between baseline and target architectures].”

In 2001, the US Chief CIO council published ''A practical guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture'', which starts, “An enterprise architecture (EA) establishes the Agency-wide roadmap to achieve an Agency’sAgency's mission through optimal performance of its core business processes within an efficient information technology (IT) environment."

At that point, the processes in TOGAF, FEAF, EAP and BSP were clearly related.

In 2002/3, in its ''Enterprise Edition'', TOGAF 8 shifted focus from the technology architecture layer to the higher business, data and application layers. It introduced structured analysis, after [[information technology engineering]], which features, for example, mappings of organization units to business functions and data entities to business functions. Today, business functions are often called business capabilities. And many enterprise architects regard their business function/capability hierarchy/map as the fundamental Enterprise Architecture artifact. They relate data entities, use cases, applications and technologies to the functions/capabilities.

In 2006, the popular book ''Enterprise Architecture As Strategy''<ref>[[Jeanne W. Ross]], [[Peter Weill]], and [[David C. Robertson]] ( (2006) ''Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution''. Harvard Business Review Press</ref>'' reported the results of work by MIT’sMIT's Center for Information System Research. This book emphasises the need for enterprise architects to focus on core business processes ("Companies excel because they've [decided] which processes they must execute well, and have implemented the IT systems to digitise those processes.") and to engage business managers with the benefits that strategic cross-organisational process integration and/or standardisation could provide.

A 2008 research project for the development of professional certificates in enterprise and solution architecture by the [[British Computer Society]] (BCS) showed that enterprise architecture has always been inseparable from information system architecture, which is natural, since business people need information to make decisions and carry out business processes.<ref name="GB 2013"/>

Line 62 ⟶ 64:

=== Architecture ___domain ===

[[Image:Layers of the Enterprise Architecture.jpg|thumb|320px|Layers of the enterprise architecture.<ref name="Hwe06">Niles E Hewlett (2006) , [http://www.ocio.usda.gov/p_mgnt/doc/PM_Class_EA_NEH_012506_Final.ppt The USDA Enterprise Architecture Program] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070508175931/http://www.ocio.usda.gov/p_mgnt/doc/PM_Class_EA_NEH_012506_Final.ppt |date=2007-05-08 }}. PMP CEA, Enterprise Architecture Team, USDA-OCIO. January 25, 2006.</ref>]]

Since Stephen Spewak's [[Enterprise Architecture Planning]] (EAP) in 1993, – and perhaps before then, – it has been normal to divide enterprises architecture into four [[architecture ___domain]]s.

* [[Business architecture]],

Line 75 ⟶ 77:

=== Layers of the enterprise architecture ===

[[Image:FEA Reference Models.jpg|360px|thumb|right|Example of the [[federal enterprise architecture]], which has defined five architectural layers.<ref name="WH05">[https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/egov/documents/CRM.PDF FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100705040628/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/egov/documents/CRM.PDF |date=2010-07-05 }}. whitehouse.gov May 2005.</ref>]]

For many years, it has been common to regard the architecture domains as layers, with the idea that each layer contains components that execute processes and offer services to the layer above. This way of looking at the architecture domains was evident in TOGAF v1 (1996), which encapsulated the technology component layer behind the platform services defined in the "Technical Reference Model" - very much according to the philosophy of TAFIM and POSIX.

Line 134 ⟶ 136:

== Types of enterprise architecture framework ==

[[File:Enterprise Architecture frameworks utilized 2011.jpg|thumb|240px|Just a few of the Enterprise Architecture frameworks utilized today, 2011<ref>[[Dennis E. Wisnosky]] (2011) ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20120921044933/http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/business-enterprise-architecture/8.1/products/BusOpsTransformation_EA_BI/7_cdq_issue9_january2011.pdf Engineering Enterprise Architecture: Call to Action]''. in: ''Common Defense Quarterly''. January 2011, p. 9</ref>]]

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<ref name="ARCON00">L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, Collaborative Networks: Reference Modeling, Springer, 2008.</ref><ref name="ARCON01">{{cite journal | last1 = Camarinha-Matos | first1 = L.M. | last2 = Afsarmanesh | first2 = H. | year = 2008 | title = On reference models for collaborative networked organizations | url = | journal = International Journal Production Research | volume = 46 | issue = 9| pages = 2453–2469 | doi=10.1080/00207540701737666| s2cid = 51802872 }}</ref>

* The [[Cloud Security Alliance]] (Trusted Cloud Initiative) TCI reference architecture.<ref name="CSATCI">{{cite web |title=The CSA TCI reference architecture |url=https://ea.cloudsecurityalliance.org/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106161638/https://downloads.cloudsecurityalliance.org/initiatives/tci/TCI_Reference_Architecture_v2.0.pdf |website=[[Cloud Security Alliance]] |archive-date=6 November 2016 |access-date=7 July 2020 |quote=""}}</ref>

* [[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 system (computing)|open]] [[distributed systems]].

Line 153 ⟶ 156:

=== Government frameworks ===

* European Space Agency Architectural Framework (ESAAF) - a framework for European space-based Systems of Systems<ref name="ESAAF">{{cite book|titlechapter=Introducing the European Space Agency Architectural Framework for Space-Based Systems of Systems Engineering |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-25203-7_24 |journaltitle=Complex Systems Design & Management. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Complex Systems Design & Management CSDM 2011 |pages=335–346|isbn=9783642252020 9783642252037 978-3-642-25202-0|year=2012 |last1=Gianni |first1=Daniele |last2=Lindman |first2=Niklas |last3=Fuchs |first3=Joachim |last4=Suzic |first4=Robert |citeseerx=10.1.1.214.9671|publisher=Springer }}</ref><ref name="ESAAF">Gianni, D., Lindman, N., Fuchs, J., & Suzic, R. (2012). Introducing the european space agency architectural framework for space-based systems of systems engineering. In Complex Systems Design & Management (pp. 335-346). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.</ref>

* [[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 [https://web.archive.org/web/20090708035937/http://www.e-overheid.nl/atlas/referentiearchitectuur/nora/nora.html 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.<ref name="TEAF00">US Department of the Treasury Chief Information Officer Council (2000). [http://www.eaframeworks.com/TEAF/teaf.doc Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090318003653/http://www.eaframeworks.com/TEAF/teaf.doc |date=2009-03-18 }}. Version 1, July 2000.</ref>

* [[Colombian Enterprise Architecture Framework]] - MRAE - [https://www.mintic.gov.co/arquitecturati/630/w3-propertyvalue-8114.html Marco de Referencia de Arquitectura Empresarial] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510163329/https://www.mintic.gov.co/arquitecturati/630/w3-propertyvalue-8114.html |date=2021-05-10 }} a framework for all the Colombian Public Agencies

*India Enterprise Architecture (IndEA) framework - [https://negd.gov.in/india-enterprise-architecture IndEA] is a reference framework from Government of India.

*[https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/data-systems/medicaid-information-technology-architecture/index.html Medicaid Information Technology Architecture] (MITA) - US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) framework to foster integrated business and information technology transformation for Medicaid

===Open-source frameworks===

Enterprise architecture frameworks that are released as [[Open Source Definition|open source]]:

* [[ArchiMate]]

* MEGAF<ref>[http://megaf.di.univaq.it/ MEGAF]</ref> is an infrastructure for realizing architecture frameworks that conform to the definition of architecture framework provided in [[ISO/IEC 42010|ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010]].

* [[Lean Architecture Framework]] (LAF)<ref>https://lafinstitute.org/ {{Bare URL inline|date=August 2025}}</ref> is a collection of good practices thanks to which the IT environment will respond consistently and quickly to a changing business situation while maintaining its consistent form.

* MEGAF (Mega-modeling Architecture Framework)<ref>[http://megaf.di.univaq.it/ MEGAF]</ref> is an infrastructure for realizing architecture frameworks that conform to the definition of architecture framework provided in [[ISO/IEC 42010|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 [[GNU General Public License|GPL]]/[[GFDL]].

* [[Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture]] (SABSA)<ref>[http://www.sabsa-institute.org/ SABSA]</ref> 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 ===

Line 180 ⟶ 188:

* IBM [[Information FrameWork]] (IFW) – conceived by [[Roger Evernden]] in 1996

*Infomet - conceived by Pieter Viljoen in 1990

* Labnaf <ref name="Labnaf">Labnaf ''[http://www.labnaf.one/]''</ref> - Unified Framework for Driving Enterprise Transformations
* Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework (PEAF)<ref name="Pragmatic EA ">Pragmatic EA ''[http://www.pragmaticea.com/]''</ref> - part of Pragmatic Family of Frameworks developed by Kevin Lee Smith, Pragmatic EA, from 2008

* [[Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture]] developed by [[Theodore J. Williams]] at the Purdue University early 1990s.

* [https://www.cgi.com/en/solutions/RCDA-agile-architecture Risk- and Cost-Driven Architecture] (RCDA), developed by CGI since 2015.

* [[SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework]]

* [[service-oriented modeling#Service-oriented modeling framework|Service-oriented modeling framework (SOMF)]], based on the work of [[Michael B.T. Bell|Michael Bell]]

* Solution Architecting Mechanism (SAM)<ref>[http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/EDOC.2006.54 ''Solution Architecting Mechanism (SAM)'']</ref> – A coherent architecture framework consisting of a set of integral modules.<ref name="Tony Shan">Tony Shan and Winnie Hua (2006). [http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/EDOC.2006.54 ''Solution Architecting Mechanism'']. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International EDOC Enterprise Computing Conference (EDOC 2006), October 2006, p23-32.</ref>

* [[Zachman Framework]] – an architecture framework, based on the work of [[John Zachman]] at IBM in the 1980s

== Criticism ==

Despite that EA frameworks have been widely discussed and strongly associated with the very notion of EA, their real practical value has been questioned:

* Historical analysis of EA publications shows that EA frameworks are "nothing more than typical [[Management fad|management fads]] aggressively promoted by consulting companies and gurus."<ref>[http://www.bcs.org/content/conWebDoc/56347 "Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: The Fad of the Century"], Svyatoslav Kotusev, British Computer Society (BCS), July 2016</ref>

* Research shows that EA frameworks "appear theoretical and impossible to implement."<ref>Sabine Buckl, Alexander Ernst, Josef Lankes and Christian Schweda (2009). ''State of the Art in Enterprise Architecture Management''. Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (SEBIS), Munich, Germany, pp. 1-31.</ref>

* [[Vivek Kundra]], the federal CIO of the United States, argued that EA frameworks "are worse than useless."<ref>[http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/total-cio/two-it-gurus-face-off-on-value-of-enterprise-architecture-frameworks/ "Two IT Gurus Face Off on Value of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks"], Linda Tucci, visited 3 August 2016</ref>

* Jason Bloomberg reports that EA frameworks only waste architects' time instead of solving real problems. "Frameworks are cocaine for executives - they give them a huge rush and then they move to the next framework."<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2014/07/11/is-enterprise-architecture-completely-broken/#49d222e52f30 "Is Enterprise Architecture Completely Broken?"], Jason Bloomberg, visited 3 August 2016</ref>

* Empirical analysis of the established EA best practices shows that these practices do not resemble prescriptions of any EA frameworks.<ref name="The_Practice_of_EA" />

== See also ==

{{Wikipedia books|Enterprise Architecture}}

{{Commons category|Enterprise architecture}}

* [[Architectural pattern (computer science)#Examples|Architecture patterns (EA reference architecture)]]

* [[EABOK]] (The Guide to the Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge)

Line 211 ⟶ 212:

== External links ==

*[httphttps://www.bcs.org/contentarticles-opinion-and-research/conWebDocenterprise-architecture-frameworks-the-fad-of-the-century/56347 Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: The Fad of the Century] (July 2016)

*[https://www.bcs.org/articles-opinion-and-research/a-comparison-of-the-top-four-enterprise-architecture-frameworks/ A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise Architecture Frameworks] (July 2021)

{{Systems Engineering}}

Line 219 ⟶ 221:

[[Category:Enterprise architecture frameworks| ]]

[[ja:エンタープライズアーキテクチャフレームワーク]]

[[ja:Enterprise architecture Framework]]