Mike Kavis‘ got me thinking about EA frameworks with his Twitter posts about the E2AF.
The Zachman Framework was my first introduction to an EA framework in 2004 and it continues to be a significant reference model for how I think about EA. Here is a slide of the Zachman Framework Version 2. The geometry of Zachman sits in one and two dimensions. For example, creating lists for cells in ZF Row 1 results in one dimensional, primitives. Next, creating matrices between the Row 1 lists results in two dimensional, composites. There is no third dimension to overlay or underpin the artifacts in this model. So how are governance, security and risk management articulated?
Mike is looking at leveraging the Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework. Here is a slide with their model – Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework (E2AF). This framework slightly modified Zachman components like the column interrogatives to: Why? With Who? What? How? With What? When? (Note: John Zachman has always maintained that there is no precident order to the columns in his framework). The rows have been simplified from 6 to 4 : Business, Information, Information – Systems, Technology – Infrastructure. This results in the same geometry as the Zachman Framework but the E2AF model goes a further step and introduces “Viewpoints” : Privacy, Governance, Security and Other Viewpoints are identified. These viewpoints introduce a critical third dimension and allow the framework to be view from specific stakeholder’s perspectives. Here is a link to the article that explains viewpoints in this framework. Read more...
On Friday, I hit an anniversary of sorts … it has been 3 years since my organization formally established the Enterprise Architect position, that I have been in. In Sept 2007, I moved from a senior staff member to management and was able to elevate EA leadership to the management level. Even though I feel like I have been working on architecture for over 15 years, I really did not have a formal name for it. Thank you John Zachman!
Since then we have come leaps and bounds, from only having a vague understanding of what EA was or could be and now having it embedded into our processes and culture.
EA practices that we value: Read more...
- embedding EA approvals into Project Management Processes to be able to guide technology adoption and manage complexity
- embedding EA approvals into Change Management Processes to ensure implementation of new technology and changes to existing technology reliably deliver core services
- embedding EA reviews for capital requests that come to the CFO’s office for approval
- creating a Technology Watcher role to build EA practices and broaden the people working on EA
- building a 3 year technology plan with EA guiding principles at its core
Two years ago, Dave Cresswell and I came up with a graphic to represent Enterprise Architecture @ BCIT. We needed a simple graphic to communicate EA and also knew that showing our senior Executive the Zachman Framework was too complex. Here is first draft EA model:
and Version 1 :
At that point, I was just getting introduced to the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and did not have a clear sense of how it fit within the bigger realm of Enterprise Architecture. We were also just beginning our work on developing IT Governance (ITG) and again I did not have a clear sense of how it fit with EA.
Here is Version 2:
I want to share with you my new thinking on how to represent the relationship between EA, ITG and ITIL. The new EA Taxonomy graphic now shows that BCIT will use ITIL Service Delivery and Service Support as a backplane to guide our IT Service Management work. ITG fits in the first backplane with Strategy and Policy and ensures alignment to BCIT’s strategy and vision.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this.