Enterprise architecture framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:38, 17 October 2018

Revision as of 06:00, 17 October 2018

Line 13:

== History ==

[[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 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]" on ''grahamberrisford.com'', last update 16/07/2013. Accessed 16/07?2003</ref>

Line 190 ⟶ 193:

* [[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>Kotusev, Svyatoslavname="The_Practice_of_EA" (2018) ''The Practice of Enterprise Architecture: A Modern Approach to Business and IT Alignment''. Melbourne, Australia: SK Publishing.</ref>

== See also ==