The Zachman Framework - Essay Example

?Running head: THE ZACHMAN FRAMEWORK The Zachman Framework 12 July The Zachman framework is believed to be the most comprehensive and practical of all enterprise architecture systems currently known to the public. This paper presents a brief overview of the model and its practical applications. The relevance of the model compared to other models of enterprise architecture is discussed. The weaknesses and drawbacks of the Zachman framework are evaluated. Keywords: Zachman, framework, enterprise architecture. The Zachman Framework Enterprise reengineering has already become one of the most popular objects of information systems research. Recent advances in information technologies and the growing role of technologies in globalization and communications urge the development of new, more sophisticated systems of enterprise engineering. Despite numerous achievements, many information systems leave sufficient room for improvement. Less than a decade ago, John A. Zachman (1996) wrote that information technologies and systems in most of Fortune 500 enterprises were in the state of deep frustration. Today’s information technologies are much better than those in the middle of the 1990s, but there are no limits to excellence. The Zachman framework exemplifies a successful attempt to revolutionize enterprise architecture principles and solve the centuries old problem of inefficient enterprise architecture, which hinders the development of relevant business frameworks. The beginning of the 1980s was marked with the rapid advancement of information technologies and systems. However, it was not before the end of the 1980s-the beginning of the 1990s that enterprise engineering ideas became popular and relevant. Throughout of the 1980s, most enterprise modeling ideas were limited to simplified application development, with no attention given to the concept of architecture and its implications for information systems evolution (Zachman, 1993). The lack of attention to enterprise architecture and reengineering precipitated the development of the Zachman framework. In today’s information systems practice, the Zachman framework is believed to be the most comprehensive and practical of all enterprise architecture systems known to the public (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006). The Zachman framework represents a logical structure that helps to clarify, classify, and organize the main descriptive representations of enterprise architecture (Zachman, 1993). The Zachman framework “comprises descriptive representations that are essential to successful management of enterprises and future development of information systems” (Zachman, 1993). The framework is built on previous models of architecture and engineering, used to organize processes and decisions in complex manufacturing processes (Zachman, 1993). The main goal of the framework is to simplify and facilitate the development of complex enterprise architecture solutions (Zachman, 1993). The Zachman framework is a bi-dimensional scheme of classifying all descriptive representations of any enterprise (Frankel et al, 2003). The framework comprises one vertical and one horizontal dimension; the former describes all perspectives of those who use the descriptions and models in the cells, whereas the latter helps to answer “the basic questions of enterprise architecture – what, how, where, who, when, and why” (Frankel et al, 2003). Models represented in the Zachman framework include (from the top to the bottom) “scope, business model, system model, technology model, detailed representations, and the functioning enterprise” (Frankel et al, 2003). The scope sets the boundaries of enterprise architecture and creates a general picture of enterprise architecture to be considered by managers (Frankel et al, 2003). The business model incorporates all types of architectures and frameworks used by corporate owners (Frankel et al, 2003). The system model is devoted to architectures and systems used by architects and engineers, whereas the technology model is essentially about models an architectures used by technicians and architects working directly on the final product (Frankel et al, 2003). Detailed perspectives are used to present architectures and models from a subcontractor’s viewpoint. Types of descriptions/ abstractions presented in the horizontal row of the framework include data, functions, network, people, time, and motivation (Frankel et al, 2003). At the very bottom of the graphic framework, all data, elements and people actually deployed by the organization are presented (Frankel et al, 2003). It should be noted, that the Zachman framework relies on the common principle of classical architecture, with “a common vocabulary and a range of perspectives used to describe complex enterprise architectures”(Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). That the framework operates in accordance with classical architecture mechanisms also implies that it is subjected to a set of rules, which govern orthogonal relationships between its separate elements. The basic rules involved in the Zachman framework are simple but extremely important to the success of its implementation within organizations. First and foremost, there is no strict order of columns (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). All columns of the Zachman framework must be present, but the order in which they are organized will always depend upon the enterprise itself and specific enterprise architectural requirements (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). Second, each column is based on a simple model, which also constitutes a generic metamodel (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). Third, each basic model is unique: no basic model must repeat the concepts or names from the rest of the basic models within the framework (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). In a similar vein, each row must comprise and represent a unique perspective (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). Eventually, each and every cell within the Zachman framework must be unique. This is logical, given that each row and every column shaping the cell is also unique. The last rule claims that a combination of cells in one row creates a complete picture of enterprise architecture from one particular perspective/ view (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). Simply stated, every new column added to the framework must correspond with the perspective presented in the row, to ensure the clarity and consistency of the graphic model. The Zachman framework has proved to be extremely useful in the development of various organizational models and enterprise applications. More often than not, the Zachman framework is discussed in terms of the system development life cycle (SDLF). The latter is actually a set of steps used to develop and run systems (Hay, 2000). It usually includes “strategy, analysis, design, construction, documentation, transition, and production” (Hay, 2000). The Zachman framework has far-reaching implications for the SDLC. First, there are no distinct steps or phases; rather, the framework comprises different perspectives and viewpoints, which allow for flexibility and smooth transition from one step to another (Hay, 2000). Second, the Zachman framework adds to the SDLC in the sense that its scope perspective is the same as the first step in strategic planning (Hay, 2000). It creates a general view of the situation, sets the boundaries, and makes it easier to describe the problem in comprehensive terms. Third, the Zachman framework is more than a mere description of data and functions – it is a complex source of information that encompasses the elements of phase, function and data, people, location, motivation, and time for every single element (Hay, 2000). Fourth, the framework facilitates the development of architecture reengineering documentation which, consequentially, enhances the quality of enterprise architecture decisions within organizations (Hay, 2000). It goes without saying that the Zachman framework is applied in a variety of models, situations, and applications. Some of them are only indirectly related to information systems. It appears that, at times, the framework can be extremely useful in the development of a holistic view of the situation. This is particularly the case of baseball models. The Zachman framework was applied to organize various models of baseball, including those published in peer-reviewed journals, into a single, complete Baseball system (Bahill, Botta & Daniels, 2006). The perspectives used in the framework included (from the top to the bottom) Commissioner of Baseball, Team owner, General manager, Team manager, Scientists and coach, and Baseball player (Bahill et al, 2006). The data for each row also included equipment rules, rules of baseball, stadiums and leagues, revenues and salaries, chronology, and entertainment (Bahill et al, 2006). It appears that the Zachman framework does not simply create a holistic picture of the situation but can serve an effective instrument of assessing the existing and missing data sets, and even the scope of skills needed to develop an effective architecture (Bahill et al, 2006). The Zachman framework can be successfully utilized for security purposes. The framework creates a complete picture of security planning from the viewpoint of multiple organizational players (Ertaul & Sudarsanam, 2005). Even products information traceability can become an object of the Zachman framework analysis. For example, the use of the Zachman framework ensured the comprehensibility of “the guideline for applying the standard and for providing the key players in information systems design with a methodology to use the standard for traceability purposes” (Panetto, Baina & Morel, 2007, p.1). Certainly, the Zachman framework is not the only model of enterprise architecture currently available to the public. The Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework and the Department of Defense Architecture Framework are used extensively to develop effective enterprise architecture systems and solutions. The Department of Defense Architecture Framework builds upon and provides the linkages between Operational, Technical, and System views on the architecture (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006). In the meantime, the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework was designed specifically to organize and structure information for the whole Federal Government (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006). Despite their relevance, there seems to be no single model or enterprise architecture framework better than the one created by Zachman. Simple, flexible, and comprehensive, the Zachman framework exemplifies a successful attempt to revolutionize enterprise architecture principles. Nevertheless, future researchers must focus on the analysis of its applicability in diverse environments and pursue uniqueness in the development of enterprise architectures. Conclusion The Zachman framework exemplifies a successful attempt to revolutionize enterprise architecture principles and solve the centuries old problem of inefficient enterprise architecture, which hinders the development of relevant business frameworks. The Zachman framework represents a logical structure that is used to and helps to clarify, classify, and organize the main descriptive representations of enterprise architecture. The Zachman framework is applied in a variety of models, situations, and applications. Nonetheless, information systems professionals should devote themselves to the analysis of its applicability in diverse environments. References Bahill, T., Botta, R. & Daniels, J. (2006). The Zachman framework populated with baseball models. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, November, 1-19. Ertaul, L. & Sudarsanam, R. (2005). Security planning using Zachman framework for enterprises. Proceedings of EURO mGOV 2005. Frankel, D.S., Harmon, P., Mukerji, J., Odell, J., Owen, M., Rivitt, P. & Rosen, M. (2003). The Zachman framework and the OMG’s model driven architecture. Business Process Trends, September, 1-14. Hay, D.C. (2000). A different kind of life cycle: The Zachman framework. Essential Strategies. Retrieved from http://www.essentialstrategies.com/documents/zachman2000.pdf Panetto, H., Baina, S. & Morel, G. (2007). Mapping the IEC 62264 models onto the Zachman framework for analyzing products information traceability: A case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(6), 679-698. Urbaczewski, L. & Mrdalj, S. (2006). A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in Information Systems, VII(2), 18-23. Zachman, J. (1993). Concepts of the framework for enterprise architecture. Zachman International, Inc. Zachman, J. (1996). Enterprise architecture: The issue of the century. Zachman International, Inc. Read More