Types of Enterprise Architecture

In a recent article at Inside Architecture, Nick Malik took time to detail the different enterprise architecture frameworks. He then goes on to pose the question, what would the ideal framework be? What would you take from each of the individual methods below to make your enterprise architecture fit your needs?

- TOGAF - Basic strength: solution architecture. Various models and how to create them. Basic weaknesses: Planning methods and governance framework. Weak on Information Architecture

- FEAF - Basic strength: complete implementation tied to measurement framework. Basic weaknesses: very specific to government, lack of independent process taxonomy keeps processes "in the silo."

- eTOM - Basic strength: excellent process taxonomy with rich details. Strong information architecture. Great for governing external vendors. Basic weaknesses: fairly specific to telecom industry, gaps in governance and enterprise architecture models.

- ITIL - Basic strength: excellent process framework for operations and (now) governance. Basic weaknesses: no architectural methodology to speak of. Sizeable gaps in information or application architecture.

- Enterprise Unified Process - Basic strength: soup-to-nuts coverage of enterprise software development processes, including funding and operations. Basic weaknesses: poor adoption rate and lack of a governing body to allow for growth, minimal architectural methods, no enterprise process or capability framework.

- Zachman - Basic strength: comprehensive taxonomy of architectural artifacts (to let you know when you are done). Basic weaknesses: Lack of published and vetted methods to avoid "boil-the-ocean" exercises and focus on one particular benefit. Very shallow: No detailed process, capability, or solution frameworks for "level 2" detail. Highly proprietary.

Coordinating information company wide will help SOA

In a recent blog post by Nick Malik at Inside Architecture, he ponders a very common question: Will information in the enterprise ever be able to be coordinated? Many of his readers think it is a nearly impossible task, but Nick believes with a little bit of software and coordination, it can happen. While all information is department specific, there is some overlap that can be coordinated. The value of coordinated communication is not something businesses should look over.

Nick believes that the information can be a powerful asset if shared throughout the company. So the easiest way to do this is to come up with a submission model. This model would be assembled by enterprise architects, then put together in a common repository. They can then assemble the information together in a way that information could run parallel in departments. Nick points out that in the end, we may be closer to having enterprise-wide architecture. There will be criticisms throughout the process, but the productivity in the end will shine brightly for enterprise architecture efforts.