The Zachman Framework

The Zachman framework was introduced by John Zachman in 1987 based on the methods used in the aircraft and construction industries in creating an inclusive schema for documenting information systems architecture (Bernard, 2012). The Zachman’s framework has evolved from 30 to 36 cells that consist of six views or perspectives (roles), namely, planner, owner, designer, builder, subcontractor and user showed in rows. The second element of the framework is the six basic questions that are what, how, where, who, when and why that corresponds to the engineering terms that are data, function, network, people, time and motivation respectively, showed in column (Urbaczewski et. al., 2006; Collins, 2008). Basically, the Zachman framework is a logical

In July 2011, TOGAF released its latest version 9.1. This architecture framework is extensively used by the practitioners and it facilitates the development of an EA management function by providing guidelines in the form of methods, models and techniques (Achenbach, 2013). The TOGAF framework contains seven main components (as depicted in figure ??) with ‘Architecture Development Method’ (ADM) as the most essential part of the framework. ADM specifies the process of architecture development through a continuous and iterative process via a cyclic approach with 8 phases and complemented by the central requirements management activity as illustrated in figure

The seven components and the cyclic phases provide a complete collection of procedures that facilitates the development and the implementation of the EA management function. This framework via ADM plays a key role in identifying business requirements and developing an architecture that is relevant by fulfilling all those identified requirements. Besides that, this framework aids an organisation to plan, assess and build the right architecture that suits their business objectives. Not only that, it supports the decision making process across the enterprise, provides guidance on managing IT resources as well as on change management (Urbaczewski et. al., 2006).

According to some of the industry practitioners, the downsides of this framework are:

• The framework’s comprehensiveness and massive set of guidelines might not be appropriate for an agile EA development. Agile development method requires a parallel processing whereas TOGAF stresses on sequential method. Although ADM has the agility feature of iterative and continuous process but the sequential method dominates the development methodology (Pieterse, 2009).

• The full scope of the business is not captured by the TOGAF framework (for example, value identification, value creation or service delivery to form a cohesive view of this aspect of the enterprise (Kemp et. al., 2013). Hence, TOGAF could be used together