Frameworks are meant to abet the design and governance of enterprises’ organization and systems, not to add any methodological layer of complexity. If that entry level is to be attained preconditions are to be checked out for comprehensiveness, modularity, clarity of principle, and consistency.
Meeting these requirements will in turn greatly facilitate declarative and iterative approaches to enterprise architecture.
The primary objective of an enterprise framework is to bring under a common management roof different contexts and concerns (business, technical, organizational), and synchronize their respective time-frames. That can only be achieved through an all-inclusive and unified conceptual perspective.
Suggested check: Variants for core concepts like agents or events must be clearly defined at enterprise and system levels; e.g people (agents with identity and organizational status), roles (organization and access to systems), and bots (software agents without identity and organizational status).
On one hand enterprise frameworks must deal with strategic issues without being sidetracked by enterprises idiosyncrasies. On the other hand swift and specific adaptations to changing environments should not be hampered by cumbersome procedures or steep learning curve. That can only be achieved by lean and versatile frameworks built from a clear and compact set of architecture artifacts, to be readily extended, specialized or implemented through the enactment of dedicated processes.
Suggested check: How a framework is to further the development of a new business, facilitate the merging of organizations, or support the transition to a new architecture (e.g SOA).
Clarity of Principle
Comprehensiveness and modularity are pointless without a principled backbone supporting incremental changes and a smooth learning curve. For that purpose a clear separation should be maintained between the semantics of the core patterns used to describe architectures and the processes to be carried out for their evolution.
Suggested check: The meaning of primary terms (event, role, activity, etc) should be uniquely and unambiguously defined based on the core framework principles, independently of the processes using them.
EA frameworks should be more compass than textbook, drawing clear lines of action before providing details of implementation. Lest architects been lost in compilations of ambiguous or overlapping definitions and rules, core meanings must remain unaffected when put to use across the framework.
Suggested check: Carry out a comprehensive search for a sample of primary terms (e.g event, role, activity, etc.), list and compare the different (if any) definitions, and verify that they can be boiled down to a unique and unambiguous one.
EA & Model Based Systems Engineering
These basic requirements get their full meaning when set in the broader context of EA evolution. Contrary to their IT component, enterprise architectures cannot be reduced to planned designs but grow from a mix of organization, culture, business environments, technology constraints, and strategic planning. As EA evolution is by nature incremental, supporting frameworks should provide for iterative development based on declarative knowledge of their organizational or technical constituents. That could be achieved by combining EA with model based systems engineering.
- Thread: Enterprise Architectures
- EA & MDA
- EA Documentation: Taking Words for Systems
- Abstractions & Emerging Architectures
- Alignment for Dummies
- Alignment: from Entropy to Abstraction
- Enterprise Systems & the OS Kernel Paradigm
- Thread: MBSE/MDA