Enterprise Architecture Framework Comparison
Enterprise Architecture systems are very essential components for an organization and based on the organization’s business model and the information systems requirement, the Enterprise Architecture frame work can be adapted by the organization in order to develop effective EA systems for the organization.
In the following tabular representation, Varied EA architecture models has been analyzed and provided in a comparative analysis which could provide complete outlook on the EA architecture systems.
|Defining||It is a taxonomy for organizing architectural artifacts, which considers both who and What is being addressed
|In TOGAF, the architectural process that considers continuum of architectures, classifying from generic to specific
|FEA can be stated as an framework that is combination on both a comprehensive taxonomy, like Zachman, and an architectural process like TOGAF
|No specific definition is available, except the fact that Gartner Approach is considered as a process aiming at collaborating business owners, information specialists, and technology implementation.
|Approach||The emphasis is about the structure and the attributes to be considered||The process is given significance than the attributes||Works on set of interrelated “reference models”, in order to facilitate cross-agency analysis and mitigate redundancy
|Emphasize that the focus should be on what EA must start and on the objective rather than on where it is in the current scenario.
|Features||To ensure that all the stakeholder’s perspective is considered for the descriptive focus artifact
|TOGAF is not centric to generated documents and also it provides very little in the form of prescribed templates
|Can be considered as a model which has conglomerate of five references : Business, Service, Component, Technical and Data
|EA in Gartner approach is about strategy than engineering and is focused on the destination
|Key Process||Choosing Right Artifacts to build the EA system and believes that every cell should have sufficient artifacts||The Key process is based on foundation architecture that could be based on TRM (Technical Reference Model) and SIB (Standards Information Base)
|A core mission-area segment is one that is critical to the mission or objective of a particular boundary within the enterprise.||The process is essentially focused on creation of segment architecture for a subset of the overall enterprise
|Critical Success Factors||Getting right the matrix of Six descriptive Foci and Six Stakeholder perspectives
|More than the structure, having an effective process and the expertise and the competence of people who design the EA is critical as per TOGAF model||To define standard terms and definitions for the EA and facilitating the collaboration and the sharing
|Two essential factors are where an organization is heading to and how will it reach there
|Taxonomy Completeness||Highly effective guidance for the taxonomy approach due to the emphasis on Artifacts and cell distribution||Not highly supportive in terms of Taxonomy approach and the emphasis is more on process||Though it’s a combination approach the focus is on reference models and not suitable for all the organizations||The process is more strategic than the technical and may not be feasible for detailed EA approach|
|Maturity Model||The maturity model of the system is very inadequate as its key emphasis is only on artifacts||The maturity model of this system is also very poor as the total focus is on process||Due to the combinational approach, it can be stated that this model has adequate maturity model comparatively||This model has more terms in terms of model maturity as it only a strategic view based approach to the EA system|
|Business Focus||This approach is more on fragments or the simplified levels of artifacts and could miss the macro picture. So can be considered as inadequate levels of performance in this attribute||To an extent the business value aspects are considered in the process analysis, so it can be stated that it could be appropriate||Very inadequate approach to the business values as more the emphasis is on Completion, use and the outcome rather than the holistic business value||This approach has a strong drive to the business value as the approach is about the ongoing process of creating, maintaining and leveraging the EA potential|
|Information Availability||May not be adequate in this structure of EA as the focus is on the information from perspective||Packed model to have the information availability due to the factors like process oriented approach||May not be so effective in terms of quality approach as it is more of a gap identification process||Due to the macro level activity approach, there could be many essential aspects which might miss, from the scope|
|Process Completeness||It can be stated that in terms of process completeness, it is very poor and has no adequate framework||Is a potential framework that could help the stakeholders define the process and the EA to be structured accordingly||The focus on the process is not so effective and hence may not be yielding effective results in terms of good EA framework||Due to the focused approach and emphasis on where the organization is aiming, and the flexibility in the framework this could be effective to an extent|
The above tabulation provides an outlook on how different framework methodologies are resourceful for developing an effective enterprise architecture system and on the basis of the requirements for the organization, right kind of approach can be chosen by the organization.
Council, C. (1999). Federal Enterprise Architectural Framework. The CIO Council .
Rouse, M. (n.d.). The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF). Search SOA.
Sessions, R. (2007). A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies. Microsoft.
Zachman, J. A. (2003). The Zachman Framework. Zachman International .
Skype Id: hari.reddyc
Phone: +91-9502542081(IND) (Whats App, Viber)
phone: +1-2089086040 (US)