This week I was asked to focus on Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs). Enterprise Architecture and its frameworks are still relatively new for me. What follows is a chart that represents what I know about Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, what I would like to know, and what I have learned since beginning of my exploration.
Summary
In the past ten years, Enterprise Architecture (EA) has gained wide used within many businesses and in government organizations. Given the growing demands in today’s globalized work environment, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs) are continuing to grow in popularity. Many businesses and organizations are using “hybrids” of these models or are customizing them to meet and adapt to the needs of their stakeholders. Educational institutions are also starting to implement EA frameworks as well.
Cameron and McMillan’s (2013) work is a good starting point for understanding the history of EA frameworks. Their review of the literature provides an overview of the five major EAFs. These include the Zachman Framework, which is considered to be one of the first frameworks for EA, The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF), which is based on the Department of Defense’s Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (Do DAF), which focuses on operations, systems, and technical standards, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), which places the organization and sharing of federal information as a priority function, and the Gartner Framework, which involves a continuous, on-going process.
Urbaczewski and Mrdalj’s (2006) add to the work of Cameron and McMillian by drawing comparisons between the EA frameworks developed and also include attention to the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF), which is designed to address the interrelationships among all of its organizations to manage all of its IT resources. Their comparison of the EA frameworks suggests that each of the frameworks differs by the stakeholders needs addressed and also offers guidance for determining the best EAF to meet the criteria for each organization.
Since the current EA frameworks were developed with either specific needs in mind or might not meet the growing needs of organizations, a “hybrid” or customized version of an existing EA framework might be needed for educational institutions, as it might afford greater flexibility. Although further research is needed, the TOGAF and Zachman EA frameworks appear to be the frameworks to build upon. Finally, according to the literature so far, all of the existing frameworks are weak in addressing the maintenance of an information system. This seems to be an area where more work is needed. In terms of adoption of EA frameworks by educational institutions, the present challenge rests with the sequence, process, and transition from individual systems to full implementation of EA.
References:
Bernard, Scott A. (2012-08-13). An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture: Third Edition (Kindle Locations 487-488). AuthorHouse. Kindle Edition.
Cameron & McMillan, 2013. Analyzing the Current Trends in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. Journal of Enterprise Architecture. http://ea.ist.psu.edu/documents/journal_feb2013_cameron_2.pdf
Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006. A comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. Eastern Michigan University. http://iacis.org/iis/2006/Urbaczewki_Mrdalj.pdf
In the past ten years, Enterprise Architecture (EA) has gained wide used within many businesses and in government organizations. Given the growing demands in today’s globalized work environment, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs) are continuing to grow in popularity. Many businesses and organizations are using “hybrids” of these models or are customizing them to meet and adapt to the needs of their stakeholders. Educational institutions are also starting to implement EA frameworks as well.
Cameron and McMillan’s (2013) work is a good starting point for understanding the history of EA frameworks. Their review of the literature provides an overview of the five major EAFs. These include the Zachman Framework, which is considered to be one of the first frameworks for EA, The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF), which is based on the Department of Defense’s Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management, the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (Do DAF), which focuses on operations, systems, and technical standards, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), which places the organization and sharing of federal information as a priority function, and the Gartner Framework, which involves a continuous, on-going process.
Urbaczewski and Mrdalj’s (2006) add to the work of Cameron and McMillian by drawing comparisons between the EA frameworks developed and also include attention to the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework (TEAF), which is designed to address the interrelationships among all of its organizations to manage all of its IT resources. Their comparison of the EA frameworks suggests that each of the frameworks differs by the stakeholders needs addressed and also offers guidance for determining the best EAF to meet the criteria for each organization.
Since the current EA frameworks were developed with either specific needs in mind or might not meet the growing needs of organizations, a “hybrid” or customized version of an existing EA framework might be needed for educational institutions, as it might afford greater flexibility. Although further research is needed, the TOGAF and Zachman EA frameworks appear to be the frameworks to build upon. Finally, according to the literature so far, all of the existing frameworks are weak in addressing the maintenance of an information system. This seems to be an area where more work is needed. In terms of adoption of EA frameworks by educational institutions, the present challenge rests with the sequence, process, and transition from individual systems to full implementation of EA.
References:
Bernard, Scott A. (2012-08-13). An Introduction to Enterprise Architecture: Third Edition (Kindle Locations 487-488). AuthorHouse. Kindle Edition.
Cameron & McMillan, 2013. Analyzing the Current Trends in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. Journal of Enterprise Architecture. http://ea.ist.psu.edu/documents/journal_feb2013_cameron_2.pdf
Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006. A comparison of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. Eastern Michigan University. http://iacis.org/iis/2006/Urbaczewki_Mrdalj.pdf
RSS Feed