Brief History of Architecture Frameworks

Late 60s…

• Dewey Walker, the grandfather of architecture methodologies

• IBM’s Director of Architecture in the late 1960s

• Produced architecture planning documents that later became known as Business Systems Planning

1980s…

• During the mid 1980s, one of Walker’s students, John Zachman, contributed to the evolution of BSP

• Published “Business Information Control Study” in the first edition of the IBM Systems Journal in 1982.

• Became widely recognized as a leader in the field of enterprise architecture, identified the need to use a logical construction blueprint (i.e., an architecture) for defining and controlling the integration of systems and their

components.

“…how those disciplines crossed the analogous bridge.”

• “During the 1980s, I became convinced that architecture, whatever that was, was the thing that bridged the strategy and its implementation. This led me to investigate other disciplines that manufactured complex engineering products to learn how those disciplines crossed the analogous bridge. I published the result of this investigation in the September 1987 issue of the IBM Systems Journal in an article entitled

A Framework for Information

Systems Architecture.”

Mid-80s…

• Zachman developed a structure or framework for defining and capturing an architecture

• This framework provides for 6 perspectives or “windows” from which to view the enterprise.

Mid-80s…

• The six abstractions or models associated with each perspective covers1. how the entity operates

2. what the entity uses to operate

3. where the entity operates

4. who operates the entity

5. when entity operations occur

6. why the entity operates

Mid-80s…

The windows include the:

1. strategic planner

2. system user

3. system designer

4. system developer

5. subcontractor

6. system itself

Mid-80s…

• He also proposed six abstractions or models associated with each of these perspectives.

• His framework provides a way to identify and describe an entity’s existing and planned component parts’ relationships, BEFORE the entity begins the costly and time-consuming efforts associate with developing or transforming itself.

Since Zachman introduced his framework…

• The FEAF described an approach, including models and definitions, for developing and documenting architecture descriptions for multi-organizational functional segments of the federal government.

• Similar to the Zachman Framework, the FEAF proposed models to describe an entity’s business, data, applications and technology.

Since Zachman introduced his framework…

– Since 1989, other federal entities have issued frameworks including the DoD and Treasury Department.

– In September 1999, the federal CIO Council published the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) to provide a common construct for architectures.

Explosion Path of EA Frameworks

Frameworks

• TAFM• JTA – Joint Technical Architecture• DoD TRM• C4ISR –Command, Control, Communications, Computers,

Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance

• DoDAF – Department of Defense Architecture Framework• TOGAF – The Open Group Architecture Framework• ISO/IEC 14252 – International Standards

Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission

• Refer to http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/p4/others/others.htm

Frameworks

• EAP - Enterprise Architecture Planning• FEAF – Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework• TEAF – Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework• IAF v1 – Integrated Architecture Framework• UVA Model – Uniform Visualization Architecture• TISAF- Treasury Information System Architecture Framework• E2AF- Extended Enterprise Architecture Framework• XAF – Extensible Architecture Framework• CIMOSA – Common Information Model Open System Architecture• PERA – Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture• SAGA – Standards and Architectures for eGovernment Applications• GERAM – Generalized Enterprise Reference Architecture

• Refer to http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/p4/others/others.htm

“The 3 Faces of Enterprise Architecture”

EA Survey from 2003

Presently…

• OMB established the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office to develop a federal enterprise architecture according to a collection of 5 “reference models,” intended to facilitate government-wide improvement through cross-agency analysis and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and integration with and across government agencies.

Presently…

• PRM – common set of general performance outputs and measures to achieve business goals and objectives

Presently…

• BRM – describes business operations including defining services provided to state and local governments

Presently…

• SRM – identifies and classifies IT service (i.e., application) components that support federal agencies and promotes component reuse across agencies and to support the discovery of government-wide business and application service components in IT investments and assets.

• The SRM is structured across horizontal and vertical service domains that, independent of the business functions, can provide a leverage-able foundation to support the reuse of applications, application capabilities, components, and business services

Presently…

• DRM – describes at an aggregate level, data types that support program and business lines of operations, and relationships among these types

Presently…

• TRM – describes how technology supports the delivery of service components, including relevant standards for implementing the technology

Presently…

• Post Zachman frameworks differ in nomenclature and modeling approaches, but all – provide for defining an enterprise’s operations in

both logical and technical terms– provide for defining these perspectives for the

enterprise’s current and target environments, and

– call for a transition between the two.

Align or Become Extinct?