The zachman framework for enterprise architecture ebook free download

Summary of the ZFEA perspectives [1]. Gregor emphasized the importance of developing good theory and highlighted the limited discussions regarding the nature of theory as well as the structural components of different types of theories in IS. Theory allows for different perspectives and aims to enhance our understanding of the world by providing explanations, descriptions, pre- dictions and actionable guidance [28]. It might be required in some instances to determine the cause of an event to provide an explanation.

The same is true for predictions, insights into the cause influences the prediction. The degree of generalization determines different viewpoints. Gregor did not use generalization for classifying theory types. The primary goal of a theory is directly related to a question or a problem that need to be solved. Table 3. A taxonomy of theory types in information systems research reproduced from [28] Theory type Distinguishing attributes I.

Analysis Says what is: Focuses on analysis and description only. Explanation Says what is, how, why, when and where: The main aim is one of explanation and to provide understanding. The theory provides explanations but does not aim to predict with any precision.

The theory is not testable III. Explanation and Says what is, how, why, when, where and what will be: Provides Prediction EP predictions and has both testable propositions and causal explanations V. Design and action Says how to do something: The theory gives explicit prescriptions e. This might include mathematical terms, symbolic logic, tables, diagrams, graphs, illustrations, models, prototypes Constructs The focus point or object of the theory. Many different types of constructs are possible e.

An understanding of the origins and the thinking underpinning EA has relevance for this paper as it provides the foundation for EA concepts and frameworks, and provides the motivation for using the ZFEA as representative of the structural and ontological aspects of EA in general.

The results of this analysis are summarised in Table 5. These results support the legitimacy of the discipline and support the use of EA as a theoretical base. Table 5. Organisation as a holistic entity. Holistic system before the individual Shewhart From industrial engineering emphasized organizational control to enable [50] adaption. Past experience and process Forrester Motivate an underlying base to understand the business system as a whole for [51] organizational management.

Discuss the elements of the organisation and interactions between elements Drucker [52] Business management motivation that argue for system as a whole broken into elements, as well as the interactions between elements Blumenthal Holistic systems planning to adapt to change, focus on IT systems within [53] organisations.

Underlying elements and interaction between elements is an enablement factor. Framework to understand organisational concepts and their contribution Senge [56] Emphasizes the system as a whole, with 5 elements of technology that are interdependent, and the interrelationships of system elements.

As indicated in Table 5, systems theory and systems thinking underpin much of the theoretical base of EA. Systems thinking supports a way of thinking about the organisation as a whole while also considering system parts with their interactions [56, 57]. Systems theory provides a theoretical base from which to model the complete organisation as well as elements and interrelationships between elements [16]. The underpinning of systems thinking is furthermore distinguishable in EA in general as published by Lapalme [10], Simon et al.

According to Gregor it is required to look at the primary goals of the theory in order to classify it [28]. The ZFEA is a structural representation or an ontology of an organization and all its elements with their relationships that is descriptive in nature.

According to Zachman, the archi- tecture built using the ZFEA schema would necessarily constitute the total set of descriptive representations that are relevant for describing the enterprise [1, 31]. We now need to determine which one. We followed the exact method of Gregor and this analysis is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. ZFEA and the theory components of Gregor [28]. A holistic view is displayed. The ZFEA is a general schema that aims to provide a holistic view of any enterprise or engineered complex object and a very high level of generality is proposed. Generalization was part of the ZFEA development as the schema is derived from observing many different objects and industries Causal explanations Conforms: The ZFEA attempts to give statements of relationships among phenomena represented by the rows and columns in the matrix.

Zachman states that the model should not be applied deterministically but that it is an ontology that is repeatable and testable such as the periodic table , however, there is not yet evidence of the ZFEA being implemented in such a way.

An explanatory theory typically do not conform to this component Prescriptive statements Does not conform: Statements in the theory specify how people can accomplish something in practice e. This is somewhat supported by the ZFEA as the purpose of the ZFEA is to model an enterprise by using the interrogatives and perspectives, however, detailed process or method is not supported.

An explanatory theory typically do not conform to this component Given the results of the analyses, the conclusion can be made that the ZFEA could be regarded as an explanatory theory. An explanatory theory aims to provide an understanding on how, when and why an occurrence took place based on causality and argumentation.

The ZFEA is aligned as its intent is to provide insights into the how, when and why of an enterprise. Each row, column and cell in the architecture is impacted by another e. Changes in any model will have an effect on the other models. Changes in strategy cause for example, will have an impact effect on the rest of the enterprise.

All components form part of the whole to provide context. The ZFEA is described as an ontology and a structural schema that aims to be a repeatable and testable description of an enterprise. It can be argued that the main goals of the ZFEA is aligned to the goals of an explanatory theory since both aim to provide insight, understanding and causal explanations, as well as indicate relationships among components.

Many different Enterprise Architecture Frameworks EAF addressing different business needs are available for use today, but for the purposes of this paper the framework of choice was the ZFEA. The ZFEA is an ontology and a two-dimensional schema aimed at providing a descriptive representation of a complex object [31]. ZFEA as explanatory theory provides a fresh perspective on how EA can be viewed, not as a methodology, but as a theory providing a lens for viewing or explaining an enterprise.

EA as an explanatory IS theory for organisations also present a new platform, context and therefore perspective, for focussed strategic organisational research. Further research would extend the analysis of EA as IS theory to other frameworks, as well as explore the implications when using EA as theory.

We furthermore want to investigate whether the ZFEA as meta-ontology for enterprises, may be considered as a meta-theory for organisational research. References 1. Zachman, J. IBM Syst. Urbaczewski, L. Accessed 05 Jan 5.

Adenuga, O. IJCIT 03, 30—33 6. The Open Group Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework. Accessed 30 Oct Lapalme, J. IT Prof. College Publications, London In: Aveiro, D. EEWC LNBIP, vol. Springer, Cham Rouhani, B. Lankhorst, M. Springer, Heidelberg Simon, D. CAIS — Commun. AIS 32 Aier, S. Rahimi, F. Ernst, A. Presented at the BIR Matthes, F.

Hinkelmann, K. Lange, M. McLeod, J. Bloomberg, J. Kotusev, S. It is normally called the Zachman model, which also refers to a previous version of the model written by John Zachman only. Architecture is the set of descriptive representations that are required in order to create or change an object1. The principle is that definitions, plans and documentation are to be produced in a way that gaps are identified and excellence achieved.

In the Zachman model, when discussing the representation of an organization, one must take into consideration multiple dimensions and perspectives. For example the planner or investor perspective allows understanding the scope and basic shape of the intended organization in order to get the appropriate investment and high level planning; The technology perspective allows identifying which tools, methods, approaches and materials will be used to create the intended structure, in order to have appropriate actions in place.

For each perspective there is a set of questions that must be answered. Zachman Framework Principle is simple: Definitions, documentation and deliverables should be organized in a matrix, 6 rows x 6 columns.

Columns represent several questions that must be answered for each of those perspectives. On each line, the multiple perspectives2,3 are: Perspective Applies to… Planner or investor perspective, to understand from a high level view Scope the shape, result, investment, timelines or methods Owner perspective, the one that will live with its daily routines, the Enterprise or team managing it. Represents the design of the business and shows Business model business entities, processes and how they interact System architect or analyst perspective, who needs detailed System model requisites, data elements and functions that represent business entities and processes Builder perspective, who will assemble and build the components Technology model and need to understand constrains on tools, technology and materials that will be used Subcontractor perspective that will build each component without Components knowing the overall landscape, needs definitions with a programmer model detail so that objects and functions can be built User perspective or produced result.

This view represents the actual Functioning result, actual instances of the processes, team members or network enterprise elements. As stated by Zachman, the Roman Coliseum is not Architecture, is the result of Architecture On each column, the multiple dimensions are: Dimension Addressing… What information is needed? What entities are relevant for the What data business, requiring information to be maintained, what are their relations?

How processes How the organization will work, using which methods? Inputs and and functions outputs are also considered in this column Where activities and assets will reside, where information will be Where network used? What are the geographical locations, how is the field organized? Who is acting, what are the roles and teams, with what permissions Who people and responsibilities, how are they related? What is the business motivation?

On each row what is the motivation Why motivation for the other cells? On each cell resides the deliverables that reply to all questions for the specific perspective and actor. Each row defines constraints that influence the lower levels.

Enterprise Architecture and documentation standards Multiple and numerous formats are used to represent enterprise elements, their relations, processes and data.