In addition to the design of the Enterprise Architecture, this research carried out the implementation, and was tested by several Download full-text PDF. Download full-text PDF Enterprise Architecture Planning in Practice: the Perspectives of .. Spewak , Robson , Ward and. Peppard. Book details Author: Steven H. Spewak Pages: pages Publisher: *A Download Online PDF Read Enterprise Architecture Planning.

Enterprise Architecture Planning Spewak Pdf Download

Language:English, Indonesian, Japanese
Published (Last):11.09.2015
ePub File Size:29.66 MB
PDF File Size:17.77 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Uploaded by: SHANDI

– September TOGAF-based Enterprise Architecture Practice: An . b; Bernard, ; Spewak & Hill, ), TOGAF describes EA practice essentially as a .. Although this effort did not establish a true enterprise-wide architecture planning, it stimulated architectural thinking and Download pdf. Steven Spewak and Michael Tiemann. ABSTRACT. The Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAPTM) methodology and model are a seminal part of the common. Download and Read Free Online Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Applications, and Technology by Steven H. Spewak ebook PDF download.

But even a blended methodology will only be as good as an organization's commitment to making changes. This commitment must be driven by the highest level of the organization. The good news is that, with a real commitment to change and a tailored methodology for guiding that change, the year-old promise of enterprise architecture is within reach. That promise hasn't changed: reducing IT cost and complexity, while increasing business value and effectiveness—or, to put it even more simply, improving your competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world.

Introduction The year marks the year anniversary of enterprise architecture. In that time, a number of enterprise-architectural methodologies have come and gone. Should you care about a field that is 20 years old? It depends. This field was inaugurated to address two major problems in information technology IT that were then already becoming apparent. The first problem was managing the increasing complexity of information-technology systems.

The second problem was the increasing difficulty in delivering real business value with those systems.

As you can imagine, these problems are related. The more complex a system, the less likely it is that it will deliver maximum business value. As you better manage complexity, you improve your chances of delivering real business value. So, should you care about this field? It depends on how you feel about positively affecting your organization's bottom line.

If managing system complexity and delivering business value are key priorities for you, you should care about enterprise-architecture methodologies. If you are focused on maintaining, or rebuilding, IT's credibility in your organization, or if you strive to promote the use of IT to maintain a competitive position in your industry, you should continue reading this white paper. If these issues don't concern you, these methodologies have little to offer.

As systems become more complex, they generally require more planning. It is easy to see this in buildings. When Henry David Thoreau built his little cabin on Walden Pond shown in Figure 1 , he embraced simplicity and needed no architects. If you are building New York City shown in Figure 2 , simplicity is out of the question, and you will need many architects. Figure 1. New York City The relationship between complexity and planning for buildings and cities is similar for information systems.

If you are building a simple, single-user, nondistributed system, you might need no architects at all. If you are building an enterprise-wide, mission critical, highly distributed system, you might need a database architect, a solutions architect, an infrastructure architect, a business architect, and an enterprise architect. This paper is about the methodologies needed to develop the overall architectural vision for an organization. This is the responsibility of the enterprise architect. This is the architect who specializes in the broadest possible view of architecture within the enterprise.

This is the architect's architect, the architect who is responsible for coordinating the work of all of the other architects. Do you need such an architect?

It all depends on what you are building: Thoreau's cabin or New York City. Building a large, complex, enterprise-wide information system without an enterprise architect is like trying to build a city without a city planner.

Can you build a city without a city planner? Would you want to live in such a city? Probably not. Of course, hiring a city planner does not guarantee a livable city; it merely improves your chances. Similarly, having an enterprise architect does not guarantee a successful enterprise architecture.

There are many examples of failed enterprise architectures in the world today, and all of them had enterprise architects probably dozens! Architectural methodologies can help, but they go only so far.

I'll discuss some of the reasons for these failures, and how to avoid them, also in this paper. Before I get too far into comparing the methodologies that make up the enterprise architect's toolkit, I need to define some terms.

This is especially important in an article that is comparing methodologies, because the different methodologies sometimes use similar terms to mean different things. Yet these two methodologies share little in common other than the words enterprise, architecture, and framework. So, I will start by defining the terms as I will use them in this white paper. In that paper, Zachman laid out both the challenge and the vision of enterprise architectures that would guide the field for the next 20 years.

The challenge was to manage the complexity of increasingly distributed systems. As Zachman said: The cost involved and the success of the business depending increasingly on its information systems require a disciplined approach to the management of those systems. His multiperspective approach to architecting systems is what Zachman originally described as an information systems architectural framework and soon renamed to be an enterprise-architecture framework.

Zachman was a major influence on one of the earliest attempts by a branch of the U. Government, the Department of Defense, to create an enterprise architecture. The promise of enterprise architectures, such as TAFIM, to better align technical projects with business need was noticed by no less a body than the U.

Most likely influenced by the promised benefits of TAFIM, Congress in passed a bill known as the Clinger-Cohen Act of [04], also known as the Information Technology Management Reform Act, which mandated that all federal agencies take steps to improve the effectiveness of their IT investments.

Version 1. This document contained some innovate ideas, such as "segmented architectures"—that is, architectural focus on segmented subsets of the larger enterprise. I will describe FEA in greater detail, in the section dedicated to it. Despite the very significant enterprise-architectural activity in the Federal Government one could argue that no organization has spent more money attempting to develop an enterprise architecture than the U.

Government , progress has been slow and success stories are overshadowed by higher-profile failures. In , a full eight years after the Clinger-Cohen Act mandated the use of effective IT planning processes, the General Accounting Office GAO reported the following: Only 20 of 96 agencies examined had established at least the foundation for effective architecture management.

Further, while 22 agencies increased in maturity since , 24 agencies decreased in maturity and 47 agencies remained the same. In , about the same time that OMB was becoming the dominant EA force in the public sector, another organization was taking steps to become a dominant force in the private sector.

This group was Gartner. By , Gartner was already one of the most influential organizations specializing in CIO-level consulting. However, in the specific area of enterprise architecture, the best known IT research and advisory group was not Gartner, but Meta Group.

Gartner had struggled to build an enterprise-architecture practice, but never achieved the status of the Meta Group. In , Gartner decided that if they couldn't compete with Meta Group, they would do the next best thing: They would download it.

The two companies discussed how best to reconcile their often quite different approaches. In the end, a fairly simple algorithm was applied: If Meta Group liked it, it was in; if Meta Group didn't like it, it was out.

Gartner liked architectural frameworks.


The Meta Group liked architectural process. So, frameworks were out; processes were in. Figure 3 summarizes this history with an enterprise-architecture timeline.

This brings us up to date in the history of enterprise architecture. Now, let's look more closely at today's main methodologies and introduce a case study that will be used in this white paper. Figure 3. Enterprise-architecture timeline Case Study So that we can compare and contrast the four major approaches to enterprise architectures, I am going to illustrate how each would approach a similar scenario. This fictitious scenario is a composite of several enterprises with which I have worked over the past several years.

So, while it is fictitious, it is very realistic. I'll first describe the scenario. MedAMore is a chain of drug stores.

It started as a regional chain in In , it developed an innovative software system that enabled it to run drug stores very efficiently. MAM incorporated some innovate business ideas, such as patient-relationship management, inventory management, automated insurance billing, and even utility optimization. These three programs communicated through files that were transferred from one location for example, a store to another for example, a regional warehouse.

When reliable communications lines existed, file transfers could occur through FTP. The system was also flexible enough to accommodate transfers through courier, where necessary. MedAMore decided to begin expansion. To do this, it downloadd three regional chains. With these downloads, MedAMore extended its reach through the southeast quadrant of the U. By , it was clear that the same software systems that had initially fueled MedAMore's success were now hampering its future.

The regional warehouses that had been acquired through acquisition each had different ways of receiving orders from the retail stores and different procedures from ordering supplies from the wholesalers.

The file-transfer approach to information sharing that had worked so well when MedAMore consisted of 30 drugstores, one regional warehouse, and one home office were turning out to be difficult to coordinate among drugstores, four regional warehouses, two geographic offices, and one home office.

Files were often delivered late, sometimes not at all, and occasionally multiple times. This made it difficult for the home office to access reliable, up-to-date financial information, especially in the areas of sales and inventory. However, upgrading this system was difficult. Each of the three modules store, warehouse, and home office was huge, inefficient, and cumbersome, and each included functionality for everything that each entity might need.

The modules had grown to over 1 million lines of code each. It was difficult to change one function without affecting others. All of the functions accessed a single database, and changes to one record definition could ripple through the system in an unpredictable fashion.

Changing even a single line of code required a rebuild of the entire multimillion-line module. Debugging was difficult. Software builds were torturous. Installing new systems was hugely disruptive. These technical problems soon created internal conflicts within the home office of MedAMore.

The business side of MedAMore wanted to acquire two more regional chains, but IT was still struggling to bring the existing acquisitions online. This resulted in a rapidly growing divide between the business and the technical sides of MedAMore. The business side saw IT as reducing business agility.

The technical side saw the business side as making impossible demands and blamed it for refusing to consult IT before entering into acquisition discussions. The distrust had reached such a point that, by , the CIO was no longer considered part of the executive team of MedAMore. The business side distrusted IT and tried to circumvent it at every opportunity.

The technical side built its IT systems with little input from the business folks. Several large and expensive IT initiatives were ignored by the business side and were eventually abandoned. By , MedAMore was in crisis. It clearly needed to revamp its technical systems to make them easier to specialize for regional requirements. This was going to be an expensive proposition, and MedAMore couldn't afford for the effort to fail. Just as importantly, MedAMore also had to rebuild its internal relationships.

The constant bickering and distrust between business and IT was affecting morale, efficiency, and profitability. A company that only five years earlier was an industry leader in profitability—in large part, because of its innovative use of IT—was now struggling to stay out of the red—in large part, because of the inflexibility of those same IT systems.

At a CEO conference, she heard how many of her peers were using enterprise architectures to build stronger partnerships between their technical and business groups and deliver more cost-effective IT systems that enabled business agility. Cath decided that this approach merited further investigation. Irma was impressed with the approach, but recognized that any such initiative needed to be driven from the top and needed to involve the business side from the start.

Cath announced that she had decided to create a common enterprise architecture for MedAMore that would unite its technical and business people. Cath was depending on Bret the business side and Irma the IT side to make it work. So, that is the problem. The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures The first thing we need to understand about the Zachman Framework is that it isn't a framework—at least, by my definition of a framework.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a framework is defined as: A structure for supporting or enclosing something else, especially a skeletal support used as the basis for something being constructed; An external work platform; a scaffold; A fundamental structure, as for a written work; A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.

A taxonomy, on the other hand, is defined as: The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships; The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics; Division into ordered groups or categories [12] The Zachman "Framework" is actually a taxonomy for organizing architectural artifacts in other words, design documents, specifications, and models that takes into account both who the artifact targets for example, business owner and builder and what particular issue for example, data and functionality is being addressed.

As John Zachman retrospectively described his work: The [Enterprise Architecture] Framework as it applies to Enterprises is simply a logical structure for classifying and organizing the descriptive representations of an Enterprise that are significant to the management of the Enterprise, as well as to the development of the Enterprise's systems.

One popular book on Zachman, for example, says When you thoroughly understand the Framework, you can become more effective in everything you do. This means everything. This statement is not made lightly. What changes is our understanding of it and how to use it for Enterprise engineering and manufacturing. In that industry, architectural artifacts are implicitly organized using a two-dimensional organization. One dimension is the various "players in the game.

A building architect prepares different artifacts for each of these players.

Every player demands complete information, but what constitutes completeness differs for the different players. The owner is interested in a complete description of the functionality and aesthetics of the building. The builder is interested in a complete description of the materials and construction process.

The owner doesn't care about the placement of studs in the walls. The builder doesn't care how the bedroom windows line up with the morning sun. As Zachman said in his original article This dimension is independent of the first. Both the builder and the owner need to know what, but the owner's need to know what is different from the builder's need to know what. What what is what depends on who is asking the question. In his first paper and Zachman's subsequent elaboration in [17], Zachman proposed that there are six descriptive foci data, function, network, people, time, and motivation and six player perspectives planner, owner, designer, builder, subcontractor, and enterprise.

These two dimensions can be arranged in a grid, as shown in Figure 4. From the business owner's perspective, "data" means business entities. This can include information about the entities themselves, such as customers and products, or information about relationships between those entities, such as demographic groups and inventories.

If you are talking to a business owner about data, this is the language you should use. From the perspective of the person implementing the database, "data" does not mean business entities, but rows and columns organized into tables and linked together by mathematical joins and projections.

If you are talking to a database designer about data, don't talk about customer demographic groups, but talk about third-normal relational tables. It's not that one of these perspectives is better than the other or more detailed than the other or of a higher priority than the other. Both of these perspectives on data are critical to a holistic understanding of the system's architecture. As Zachman said: We are having difficulties communicating with one another about information systems architecture, because a set of architectural representations exists, instead of a single architecture.

One is not right and another wrong. The architectures are different. They are additive and complementary. There are reasons for electing to expend the resources for developing each architectural representation. And there are risks associated with not developing any one of the architectural representations.

Here, I will discuss the actual framework itself and how it could be used to help build MAM-EA, the problem proposed in the case-study section.

As I mentioned earlier, the Zachman Framework consists of six functional foci, each considered from the perspective of a major player. The Zachman Framework as it is portrayed today is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4. Zachman grid As you can see from Figure 4, there are 36 intersecting cells in a Zachman grid—one for each meeting point between a player's perspective for example, business owner and a descriptive focus for example, data.

As we move horizontally for example, left to right in the grid, we see different descriptions of the system—all from the same player's perspective.

As we move vertically in the grid for example, top to bottom , we see a single focus, but change the player from whose perspective we are viewing that focus.

The first suggestion of the Zachman taxonomy is that every architectural artifact should live in one and only one cell. There should be no ambiguity about where a particular artifact lives. If it is not clear in which cell a particular artifact lives, there is most likely a problem with the artifact itself. For example, artifacts relating to a service-oriented architecture live mostly in the third row designer's perspective. They generally will not be of interest to the business owner Bret, in the MedAMore case study.

The second suggestion of the Zachman taxonomy is that an architecture can be considered a complete architecture only when every cell in that architecture is complete. A cell is complete when it contains sufficient artifacts to fully define the system for one specific player looking at one specific descriptive focus. When every cell is populated with appropriate artifacts, there is a sufficient amount of detail to fully describe the system from the perspective of every player what we might today call a stakeholder looking at the system from every possible angle descriptive focus.

The third suggestion of the Zachman grid is that cells in columns should be related to each other. Consider, for example, the data column the first column of the Zachman grid. From the business owner's Bret's perspective, data is information about the business. From the database administrator's perspective, data is rows and columns in the database.

While the business owner thinks about data quite differently from the database administrator, there should be some relationship between these perspectives. Somebody should be able to follow Bret's business requirements and show that the database design is, in fact, being driven by those requirements. If Bret has requirements that are not traceable down to the database design, we must ask if the business needs will be met by this architecture. On the other hand, it there are database-design elements that do not trace back to business requirements, we might ask if we have included unnecessary design at the database level.

It can help: Ensure that every stakeholder's perspective has been considered for every descriptive focal point. Improve the MAM-EA artifacts themselves by sharpening each of their focus points to one particular concern for one particular audience. Ensure that all of Bret's business requirements can be traced down to some technical implementation.

Convince Bret that Irma's technical team isn't planning on building a bunch of useless functionality. Convince Irma that the business folks are including her IT folks in their planning. But Zachman by itself is not a complete solution for MedAMore. Zachman does not give us a step-by-step process for creating a new architecture. Zachman doesn't even give us much help in deciding if the future architecture we are creating is the best architecture possible.

For that matter, Zachman doesn't even give us an approach to show a need for a future architecture. For these and other issues, we are going to need to look at other methodologies. Figure 5. TOGAF's enterprise architecture As shown in the figure, TOGAF divides an enterprise architecture into four categories, as follows: Business architecture—Describes the processes the business uses to meet its goals Application architecture—Describes how specific applications are designed and how they interact with each other Data architecture—Describes how the enterprise datastores are organized and accessed Technical architecture—Describes the hardware and software infrastructure that supports applications and their interactions TOGAF describes itself as a "framework," but the most important part of TOGAF is the Architecture Development Method, better known as ADM.

ADM is a recipe for creating architecture. A recipe can be categorized as a process. Zachman tells you how to categorize your artifacts. TOGAF gives you a process for creating them. TOGAF views the world of enterprise architecture as a continuum of architectures, ranging from highly generic to highly specific.

It calls this continuum the Enterprise Continuum. It views the process of creating a specific enterprise architecture, such as MAM-EA, as moving from the generic to the specific. These are architectural principles that can, theoretically, be used by any IT organization in the universe. These are principles that one would expect to see in many—but, perhaps, not all—types of enterprises. These are principles that are specific across many enterprises that are part of the same domain—such as, in our MedAMore case study, all pharmaceutical enterprises.

These are the architectures that are specific to a given enterprise, such as MedAMore. Figure 6.

In my view, both the TRM and the SIB are flawed for the same reason: They are biased toward application portability, at the expense of application interoperability and application autonomy. I consider this an outdated view of technical architectures. But the day-to-day experience of creating an enterprise architecture will be driven by the ADM, a high-level view of which is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. MedAMore will have two choices on how it can get this experience. There is probably more free and inexpensive available information about TOGAF than about all other architectural methodologies combined.

Her three goals in the preliminary phase are to: Make sure everybody is comfortable with the process. Set up the governance system that will oversee future architectural work at MedAMore. Teri will work closely with Bret to understand the business philosophy, business models, and strategic drivers of MedAMore.

She will work closely with Irma to define the architectural principles that drive technological architectures at MedAMore and document those principles using the TOGAF-recommended format. In some organizations, achieving download-in on the need for an enterprise architecture could be very difficult. This is especially true when the effort is driven from the IT organization, and even more so when there is a history of discord between the business and the technical sides of the organization.

MedAMore does have this history of animosity. This gives the project high visibility and creates a positive incentive for cooperation from all sides. This document includes the business reasons for the request, budget and personnel information, and any constraints that need to be considered.

Because MedAMore has never done a Request for Architecture Work, Teri will probably need to work with the sponsoring organization in creating such a request.

In Phase A, Teri will ensure that the project has the necessary support within MedAMore, define the scope of the project, identify constraints, document the business requirements, and establish high-level definitions for both the baseline starting architecture and target desired architecture.

These baseline and target definitions will include high-level definitions on all four of the EA sub-architectures shown back in Figure 5—namely, business, technology, data, and application architectures. The culmination of Phase A will be a Statement of Architecture Work, which must be approved by the various stakeholders before the next phase of the ADM begins.

The output of this phase is to create an architectural vision for the first pass through the ADM cycle. Teri will guide MedAMore into choosing the project, validating the project against the architectural principles established in the Preliminary Phase, and ensure that the appropriate stakeholders have been identified and their issues have been addressed. Teri's goal in Phase B is to create a detailed baseline and target business architecture and perform a full analysis of the gaps between them.

She will work primarily with Bret or Bret's team to achieve this. Phase B is quite involved—involving business modeling, highly detailed business analysis, and technical-requirements documentation. A successful Phase B requires input from many stakeholders. The major outputs will be a detailed description of the baseline and target business objectives, and gap descriptions of the business architecture.

3rd Edition Resources

Phase C does for the information-systems architecture what Phase B does for the business architecture.

In this phase, Teri works primarily with Irma or her team. TOGAF defines nine specific steps, each with multiple sub-steps: Develop baseline data-architecture description Review and validate principles, reference models, viewpoints, and tools Create architecture models, including logical data models, data-management process models, and relationship models that map business functions to CRUD Create, Read, Update, Delete data operations Select data-architecture building blocks Conduct formal checkpoint reviews of the architecture model and building blocks with stakeholders Review qualitative criteria for example, performance, reliability, security, integrity Complete data architecture Perform gap analysis The most important deliverable from this phase will be the Target Information and Applications Architecture.

Phase D completes the technical architecture—the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed new architecture. This phase is completed mostly by engaging with Irma's technical team. Phase E evaluates the various implementation possibilities, identifies the major implementation projects that might be undertaken, and evaluates the business opportunity associated with each.

The TOGAF standard recommends that Teri's first pass at Phase E "focus on projects that will deliver short-term payoffs and so create an impetus for proceeding with longer-term projects. Therefore, Teri should be looking for projects that can be completed as cheaply as possible, while delivering the highest perceived value.

A good starting place to look for such projects is the organizational pain-points that initially convinced Cath the MedAMore CEO to adopt an enterprise architectural-based strategy in the first place. Phase F is closely related to Phase E. In this phase, Teri works with MedAMore's governance body to sort the projects identified in Phase E into priority order that include not only the cost and benefits identified in Phase E , but also the risk factors.

In Phase G, Teri takes the prioritized list of projects and creates architectural specifications for the implementation projects. These specifications will include acceptance criteria and lists of risks and issues. The final phase is H.

In this phase, Teri modifies the architectural change-management process with any new artifacts created in this last iteration and with new information that becomes available.

Teri is then ready to start the cycle again. One of the goals from the first cycle should be information transfer, so that Teri's services are required less and less as more and more iterations of the cycle are completed.

The scope of an enterprise architecture The term "enterprise" is used because it is generally applicable in many circumstances, including Public or Private Sector organizations An entire business or corporation A part of a larger enterprise such as a business unit A conglomerate of several organizations, such as a joint venture or partnership A multiply outsourced business operation The term enterprise includes the whole complex, socio-technical system[3] , including: people information technology Defining the boundary or scope of the enterprise to be described is an important first step in creating the enterprise architecture.

In doing so, they produce lists, drawings, documents and models, together called "artifacts". These artifacts describe the logical organization of business functions, business capabilities, business processes, people organization, information resources, business systems, software applications, computing capabilities, information exchange and communications infrastructure within the enterprise. A collection of these artifacts, sufficiently complete to describe the enterprise in useful ways, is considered by EA practitioners an 'enterprise' level architectural description, or enterprise architecture, for short.

A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise-Architecture Methodologies

The UK National Computing Centre EA best practice guidance[5] states Normally an EA takes the form of a comprehensive set of cohesive models that describe the structure and functions of an enterprise. Enterprise architecture and continues The individual models in an EA are arranged in a logical manner that provides an ever-increasing level of detail about the enterprise: its objectives and goals; its processes and organization; its systems and data; the technology used and any other relevant spheres of interest.

This is the definition of enterprise architecture implicit in several EA frameworks including the popular TOGAF architectural framework. An enterprise architecture framework bundles tools, techniques, artifact descriptions, process models, reference models and guidance used by architects in the production of enterprise-specific architectural description.

See the related article on enterprise architecture frameworks for further information. In , Steven Spewak described a process for creating an enterprise architecture that is widely used in educational courses. In his book on Enterprise Architecture, Spewak divides the practice into two domains at 'level 2': "Business Modelling" and "Current Systems and Technology" and three subordinate domains at 'level 3': "Data Architecture", "Applications Architecture" and "Technology Architecture".

The final level of Spewak's EAP is the "Implementation" or "Methods" level, which deals with "how" to migrate the Enterprise to match the new model. This practice also encourages the contributions of many individuals and allows the practice as a whole to make good use of individual domain-specific expertise and knowledge.

By taking this approach, enterprise architects can ensure a holistic description is produced. The popular and most common four domains and their component parts look like this: 1. Business: 1. Strategy maps, goals, corporate policies, Operating Model 2.

Functional decompositions e. Business processes, Workflow and Rules that articulate the assigned authorities, responsibilities and policies 4. Organization cycles, periods and timing 5. Suppliers of hardware, software, and services 2. Information: 1. Information architecture - a holistic view on the flow of information in an enterprise 2.

Data Architecture- describes the way data will be processed, stored , data flows and used by the projects teams that will use it Enterprise architecture 3.

Master Data Management, is the authoritative, reliable foundation for data used across many applications and business processes with the goal to provide a single view of the truth no matter where the data is located 4. Metadata - data that describes your enterprise data elements 5.

TOGAF® Study Guide Resources

These include the activities of decision support systems, query and reporting, dashboards , scorecards ,statistical analysis, forecasting, and data mining. Data Quality helps identify, analyze, improve, and measure the data quality and data integrity issues and improvement efforts 7. Data models: conceptual expressed as enterprise information architectures, logical, and physical 8.

Data Life Cycle Management Processes to govern how to create, classify, update, use, distribute, and archive, and obsolete data and information 3.

Applications: 1. Interfaces between applications that is: events, messages 4.

Enterprise architecture planning

Technology: 1. Inter-application mediating software or 'middleware'. Application execution environments and operating frameworks including applications server environments Enterprise Architecture Domains Subdomains and operating systems, authentication and authorisation environments, security systems and operating and monitoring systems.

Hardware, platforms, and hosting: servers, datacentres and computer rooms 4. Local and wide area networks, Internet connectivity diagrams 5. Operating System 7. Programming Languages, etc. Enterprise architecture Using an enterprise architecture Describing the architecture of an enterprise aims primarily to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the business itself.

This includes innovations in the structure of an organization, the centralization or federation of business processes, the quality and timeliness of business information, or ensuring that money spent on information technology IT can be justified. One method of using this information to improve the functioning of a business, as described in the TOGAF architectural framework, involves developing an "architectural vision": a description of the business that represents a "target" or "future state" goal.

Once this vision is well understood, a set of intermediate steps are created that illustrate the process of changing from the present situation to the target. Similar methods have been described in other enterprise architecture frameworks. The growing use of enterprise architecture Documenting the architecture of enterprises is done within the U. The Federal Enterprise Architecture FEA reference models serve as a framework to guide Federal agencies in the development of their architectures. Relationship to other disciplines Enterprise architecture is a key component of the information technology governance process in organizations such as Dubai Customs[14] and AGL Energy[15] who have implemented a formal enterprise architecture process as part of their IT management strategy.

While this may imply that enterprise architecture is closely tied to IT, this should be viewed in the broader context of business optimization in that it addresses business architecture, performance management and process architecture as well as more technical subjects.When examining each of these methodologies in depth, one is struck by the fact that none of these approaches is really complete. Others, such as the Business Reference Model, will require extensive renovation.

One dimension is the various "players in the game. Architectural methodologies can help, but they go only so far. Next, Fred will probably want to create a description of the segment architecture as it applies to MedAMore. A physician—say, Dr. The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures The first thing we need to understand about the Zachman Framework is that it isn't a framework—at least, by my definition of a framework.

One can map out the usage of segments across the political boundaries of the enterprise, then use that map to seek opportunities for architectural reuse.

SHAWNEE from Detroit
I do relish sharing PDF docs helplessly . Look over my other articles. I have always been a very creative person and find it relaxing to indulge in rubik's cube.