4 ea comparison

Zach m anZach m an
GartnerGartnerFEAFEA
TOGAFTOGAF
Zach m anZach m an
TOGAFTOGAF
Zach m anZach m an
TOGAFTOGAF
Comparison of the Top Four
Enterprise Architecture Methodologies
by Roger Sessions
Roger Sessions is the CTO of ObjectWatch. His ObjectWatch Newsletter is now in its
thirteenth year of publication. He has written six books (including Software Fortresses;
Modeling Enterprise Architectures) and many articles. He is on the Board of Directors of
the International Association of Software Architects (IASA), Editor-in-Chief of
Perspectives of the International Association of Software Architects, and a Microsoft™
recognized MVP in Enterprise Architecture. He holds multiple patents in both software
and enterprise architecture process An accomplished keynote speaker, Mr. Sessions has
given talks at more than 100 conferences around the world covering a wide range of
topics in Enterprise Architecture. Learn more about Roger Sessions and ObjectWatch at
www.objectwatch.com.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2
A Brief History of Enterprise Architecture......................................................................... 6
Case Study .......................................................................................................................... 8
The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures ................................................... 11
The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)...................................................... 15
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)............................................................................. 22
Gartner .............................................................................................................................. 29
Comparison....................................................................................................................... 33
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37
Glossary ............................................................................................................................ 39
References......................................................................................................................... 42

EA Comparisons Page 1
ObjectWatch, Inc.
Executive Summary
Twenty years ago, a new field was born that soon came to be known as enterprise
architecture. The field initially began to address two problems:
 system complexity: organizations were spending more and more money building IT
systems; and
 poor business alignment: organizations were finding it more and more difficult to keep
those increasingly expensive IT systems aligned with business need.
The bottom line: more cost, less value. These problems, first recognized twenty years ago,
have today reached a crisis point. The cost and complexity of IT systems have exponentially
increased while the chances of deriving real value from those systems have dramatically
decreased.
Today’s bottom line: even more cost, even less value. Large organizations can no longer
afford to ignore these problems. The field of enterprise architecture that twenty years ago
seemed quaintly quixotic today seems powerfully prophetic.
Many enterprise architectural methodologies have come and gone in the last twenty years. At
this point, perhaps 90% of the field uses one of these four methodologies:
 The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures™, which, although self-
described as a framework is actually more accurately defined as a taxonomy
 The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF™), which, although called a
framework is actually more accurately defined as a process
 The Federal Enterprise Architecture, which can be viewed either as an implemented
enterprise architecture or as a proscriptive methodology for creating an enterprise
architecture
 The Gartner Methodology, which can be best described as an enterprise architectural
practice
This white paper discusses these four approaches to enterprise architecture. It does so within
the context of a fictional company that is facing some very non-fictional operations problems.
These problems include:
 IT systems that have become unmanageably complex and increasingly costly to
maintain
 IT systems that are hindering the organization’s ability to respond to current, and
future, market conditions, in a timely and cost-effective manner
 Mission-critical information that is consistently out-of-date and/or just plain wrong

ObjectWatch, Inc.
 A culture of distrust between the business and technology sides of the organization
How should this company choose from among these four very different approaches to
enterprise architecture? This white paper traces the journey the company is likely to face in
using any one of these methodologies.
When examining each of these methodologies in depth, one is struck by the fact that none of
these approaches is really complete. Each has strengths in some areas and weaknesses in
others.
For many enterprises, none of these methodologies will therefore be a complete solution. For
such organizations, this white paper proposes another approach, one that might be called a
blended methodology. Choose bits and pieces from each of these methodologies and modify
and merge them according to the specific needs of your organization. This white paper gives
an approach to creating such a blended methodology that is a best fit for your organization’s
needs.
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 twenty-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 2007 marks the twenty year anniversary of enterprise architecture. In that time a
number of enterprise architectural methodologies have come and gone. Today, four dominate
the field: The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures™, The Open Group
Architecture Framework (TOGAF™), the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) and
Gartner™ (formerly, the Meta Framework).
Should you care about a field that is twenty years old? It depends. This field was inaugurated
to address two major problems in information technology 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.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
So should you care about this field? It depends on how you feel about positively impacting
your organization’s bottom line. If managing system complexity and delivering business
value are key priorities for you, then 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, then you should continue reading this white paper. If these issues don’t concern
you, then 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’s 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. Thoreau’s cabin at Walden Pond, as drawn by Thoreau’s sister, Sophia Thoreau

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Figure 2. 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, non-distributed 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? Probably. 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 only go so far. I will also discuss some of the reasons for these failures, and
how to avoid them.
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

ObjectWatch, Inc.
comparing methodologies, since the different methodologies sometimes use similar terms to
mean different things.
For example, we have two methodologies that describe themselves as enterprise architectural
frameworks: the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures and The Open Group
Architectural Framework (TOGAF). 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. Those definitions
marked with asterisk are taken mostly from IEEE-1471-2000 [01], whose definitions I use
where they exist and make sense.
architect – One whose responsibility is the design of an architecture and the creation of an
architectural description.
architectural artifact – A specific document, report, analysis, model, or other tangible that
contributes to an architectural description.
architectural description* – A collection of products [artifacts] to document an architecture.
architectural framework – A skeletal structure that defines suggested architectural artifacts,
describes how those artifacts are related to each other, and provides generic definitions for
what those artifacts might look like.
architectural methodology – A generic term that can describe any structured approach to
solving some or all of the problems related to architecture.
architectural process – A defined series of actions directed to the goal of producing either an
architecture or an architectural description.
architectural taxonomy – A methodology for organizing and categorizing architectural
artifacts.
architecture* – The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their
relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and
evolution.
enterprise architecture – An architecture in which the system in question is the whole
enterprise, especially the business processes, technologies, and information systems of the
enterprise.
Now that we have a common understanding of these key terms, I can take you through the
history of enterprise architecture methodologies, discuss the problems these methodologies

ObjectWatch, Inc.
are trying to solve, and compare the top four methodologies in terms of their approach and
their relationship to each other.
A Brief History of Enterprise Architecture
The field of enterprise architecture essentially started in 1987 with the publication in the IBM
Systems Journal of an article titled, “A framework for information systems architecture,” by
J.A. Zachman. 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. [02]
Zachman’s vision was that business value and agility could best be realized by a holistic
approach to systems architecture that explicitly looked at every important issue from every
important perspective. His multi-perspective 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.S.
Government, the Department of Defense, to create an enterprise architecture. This attempt
was known as the Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM)
[03]. TAFIM was introduced it in 1994.
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.S. Congress. Most likely influenced
by the promised benefits of TAFIM, Congress in 1996 passed a bill known as the Clinger-
Cohen Act [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. A CIO Council, consisting of CIOs from all major governmental bodies, was
created to oversee this effort.
In April 1998, the CIO Council began work on its first major project, the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Framework (FEAF). Version 1.1 [05] of this framework was released in
September, 1999. This document contained some innovate ideas, such as “segmented
architectures”, that is, architectural focus on segmented subsets of the larger enterprise.
Over time responsibility for federal enterprise architecture moved from the CIO Council to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 2002 the OMB evolved and renamed the
FEAF methodology as the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). I will describe FEA in
greater detail in the section dedicated to it.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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.S. Government), progress has been slow and success stories are
overshadowed by higher profile failures. In 2004, 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
2001, 24 agencies decreased in maturity and 47 agencies remained the same. [06]
Since January, 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO, not to be confused with the
OMB) has severely chastised a number of U.S. Agencies for failures in their adoption or use
of enterprise architecture. A few examples include the FBI [07], the Department of Defense
[08], the Department of Homeland Security [09], and NASA [10].
In 1998, four years after TAFIM (remember TAFIM?) was introduced and two years after it
became codified as Clinger-Cohen, TAFIM was officially retired by the Department of
Defense.
The work done on TAFIM was turned over to The Open Group. They morphed it into a new
standard that is today known as The Open Group Architectural Framework, better known by
its acronym, TOGAF. I will discuss the TOGAF work in the section dedicated to that topic.
In 2005, 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 2005, 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 2005, Gartner decided that if they couldn’t compete with Meta Group
they would do the next best thing. They would buy it.
Following the purchase of Meta Group, Gartner/Meta spent a year looking at what each
company brought to the table as far as enterprise architecture experience and methodologies.
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. I’ll discuss this
Gartner/Meta process in detail in the section devoted to Gartner.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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.
87
Zachman’s first article
94
TAFIM Released
96
Clinger/Cohen Bill passed
99
FEAF 1.2 Released
02
FEA replaces FEAF
05
Gartner/Meta merger
TOGAF 8.0 “Enterprise Edition” released
TAFIM Retired
FEA mostly complete
98 03 06
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 1960. In 1995, it
developed an innovative software system that enabled it to run drug stores very efficiently. It
called this system MedAManage, or MAM. MAM incorporated some innovate business ideas
such as patient relationship management, inventory management, automated insurance billing,
and even utility optimization.
MAM consisted of three programs: MAM/Store, which ran on a small computer at a drug
store, MAM/Warehouse, which ran on a server in a regional warehouse, and MAM/Home,
which ran on a large server at the home office.
These three programs communicated through files that were transferred from one location
(e.g., a store) to another location (e.g., 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.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
By 2000, MedAMore was doing quite well, in part because of the cost cutting moves enabled
by the MAM system. MedAMore decided to begin expansion. To do this, it purchased three
regional chains. With these purchases, MedAMore extended its reach through the southeast
quadrant of the US.
By 2002, it was clear that the same software systems that had initially fueled MedAMore’s
success were now hampering its future. Some of the problems MedAMore were running into
were the following:
 MAM/Store required regional specializations. For example, different insurance plans
needed to be supported in different regions, and these all required changes to the
MAM/Store module.
 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. Each of these differences required changes to the
MAM/Warehouse module.
 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 200 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
area of sales and inventory.
It was clear to MedAMore management that the MAM system needed many enhancements.
However upgrading this system was difficult. Each of the three modules (store, warehouse,
and home office) was huge, inefficient and cumbersome as they included functionality for
everything that each entity might need.
The modules had grown to over one million lines of code each. It was difficult to change one
function without impacting 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 multi-million line module.
MedAManage had become MedANightmare. 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 on-line.
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

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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 2005, 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 their 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 2006, 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 impacting 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.
Cath, the CEO of MedAMore, desperately needed a solution. 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. She asked Irma, her CIO, to
prepare a recommendation on the use of an enterprise architecture within MedAMore. 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.
On Irma's recommendation, Cath called a meeting with Bret, the Vice-President of Business,
and Irma. Cath announced that she had decided to create a common enterprise architecture for
MedAMore that would unite its technical and business people. This common enterprise
architecture would be named MedAMore-Enterprise Architecture, or MAM-EA. Once
completed, MAM-EA would drive all new IT investment and ensure that every dollar
invested in IT was delivering the maximum value to the business.
Cath knew that MAM-EA was a bet-the-company decision for MedAMore. The MAM-EA
vision had to work. Cath was depending on Bret (the business side) and Irma (the IT side) to
make it work.
So that is the problem. Now let’s see how each of the EA approaches might provide a solution
for MedAMore.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures
The first thing we need to understand about the Zachman Framework is that is 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. [11].
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 (i.e.,
design documents, specifications, models) that takes into account both who the artifact targets
(e.g., business owner, builder) and what particular issue (e.g., data, 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. [13]
Many proponents of the Zachman Framework see it as cross disciplinary, with influence
extending far beyond IT. One popular book on Zachman, for example, says:
…in due course, you will discover that the Framework exists in everything you do,
not only IT projects. When you thoroughly understand the Framework, you can
become more effective in everything you do. This means everything. This statement
is not made lightly. [14]
John Zachman himself told me in an interview that I recently conducted with him:
…the Framework schema has been around for thousands of years and I am sure it
will be around for a few more thousands of years. What changes is our understanding
of it and how to use it for Enterprise engineering and manufacturing. [15]

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Zachman originally explained his IT taxonomy using the building industry as an analogy. In
that industry, architectural artifacts are implicitly organized using a two dimensional
organization. One dimension is the various “players in the game.” For a physical building,
some of these players are the owner (who is paying for the project), the builder (who is
coordinating the overall construction), and a zoning board (who is ensuring that construction
follows local building regulations).
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:
… each of the architectural representations differs from the others in essence, not
merely in level of detail. [16]
The second dimension for architectural artifact organization is the descriptive focus of the
artifact, the what, how, where, who, when, and why of the project. 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 than 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 1992 [17], Zachman proposed that
their 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, 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:

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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.[18]
I discussed the historical importance of the Zachman Framework in the history section. 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.
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 (e.g., business owner) and a descriptive focus
(e.g., data). As we move horizontally (e.g., 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 (e.g., top to bottom), we see a single focus, but change the player from whose
perspective we are viewing that focus.
There are three suggestions of the Zachman grid that can help MedAMore in the development
of MAM-EA.
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, then there is most likely a problem
with the artifact itself.
As MedAMore begins accumulating artifacts in the development of MAM-EA, it can use the
Zachman grid to clarify the focus of each of these artifacts. 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).

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Figure 4. Zachman Grid
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). So
MedAMore can use the Zachman grid to ensure that appropriate discussions are occurring
between all of the important stakeholders of MAM-EA.
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 than the database administrator,
there should be some relationship between these perspectives. Somebody should be able to

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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, then 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,
then we might ask if we have included unnecessary design at the database level.
So we can see five ways that the Zachman grid can help in the development of MAM-EA. It
can help:
1. ensure that every stakeholder’s perspective has been considered for every descriptive
focal point.
2. improve the MAM-EA artifacts themselves by sharpening each of their focus points
to one particular concern for one particular audience.
3. ensure that all of Bret’s business requirements can be traced down to some technical
implementation.
4. convince Bret that Irma’s technical team isn’t planning on building a bunch of
useless functionality.
5. 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. There are far too many
issues that will be critical to MAM-EA’s success that Zachman does not address. 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.
The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
The Open Group Architecture Framework is best known by its acronym, TOGAF. TOGAF is
owned by The Open Group [19]. TOGAF’s view of an enterprise architecture is shown in
Figure 5.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Business
Architecture
Application
Architecture
Data
Architecture
Technical
Architecture
Enterprise Architecture
Figure 5. TOGAF’s Enterprise Architecture
As shown in this 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. Given that ADM is the most visible
part of TOGAF, I categorize TOGAF overall as an architectural process rather than either an
architectural framework, as The Open Group describes TOGAF, or a methodology, as it
describes ADM.
Viewed as an architectural process, TOGAF complements Zachman, which, recall, I
categorized as an architectural taxonomy. 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. TOGAF’s ADM provides a process for driving this
movement from the generic to the specific.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
TOGAF calls most generic architectures Foundation Architectures. These are architectural
principles that can, theoretically, be used by any IT organization in the universe.
TOGAF calls the next level of specificity Common Systems Architectures. These are
principles that one would expect to see in many — but perhaps not all — types of enterprises.
TOGAF calls the next level of specificity Industry Architectures. 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.
TOGAF calls the most specific level the Organizational Architectures. These are the
architectures that are specific to a given enterprise, such as MedAMore.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the Enterprise Continuum and the Architectural
Development Methodology (ADM).
Enterprise Continuum
Foundation Architectures
Common System Architectures
Industry Architectures
Organizational Architectures
ADM ADM
Figure 6. The TOGAF Enterprise Continuum
TOGAF defines the various knowledge-bases that live in the Foundation Architecture. Two
that you might run into are the Technical Reference Model (TRM) and the Standards
Information Base (SIB). The TRM is a suggested description of a generic IT architecture. The
SIB is a collection of standards and pseudo-standards that The Open Group recommends that
you consider in building an IT architecture.
TOGAF presents both the TRM and the SIB as suggestions; neither is required. 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.
For an organization such as MedAMore, TOGAF largely boils down to the Architecture
Development Method (ADM). Individuals within MedAMore will be exposed to the

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Enterprise Continuum, the SIB, and the TRM (as well as a few other TOGAF features) which
is why I discussed them. 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.
Phase: A
Architecture
Vision
Phase: Prelim.
Framework
and
Principles
Phase: B
Business
Architecture
Phase: C
Information
Systems
Architectures
Phase: D
Technology
Architecture
Phase: E
Opportunities
and
Solutions
Phase: F
Migration
Planning
Phase: G
Implementation
Governance
Phase: H
Architecture
Change
Management
Figure 7. The TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM)
As shown in Figure 7, the TOGAF ADM consists of eight phases that are cycled through after
an initial “priming of the pump.” I’ll take you through these phases as they could be applied
to the MedAMore case study. But, before MedAMore can start the ADM, it needs to gain
some experience with TOGAF. MedAMore will have two choices on how it can get this
experience.
First, MedAMore can train itself in TOGAF. MedAMore can download the TOGAF
documentation [20] which describes all of TOGAF including the ADM in considerable detail.
It can purchase books on TOGAF [21]. There is probably more free and inexpensive available
information about TOGAF than about all other architectural methodologies combined.
Second, MedAMore can buy expertise in TOGAF. There are consultants that specialize on
TOGAF and that have earned Open Group certification [22]. Since MedAMore wants to
minimize any chances of failure, it has chosen to call in a TOGAF consultant. MedAMore has
brought in Teri, an Open Group certified TOGAF architect. Remember the other players at
MedAMore are Cath, the CEO of MedAMore, Bret, the Business VP, and Irma, the CIO.
In the Preliminary Phase, Teri meets with the major players at MedAMore to introduce the
TOGAF process. Her three goals in the preliminary phase are to:
1. make sure everybody is comfortable with the process,
2. modify the TOGAF process as necessary to fit within the MedAMore culture, and

ObjectWatch, Inc.
3. set up the governance system that will oversee future architectural work at
MedAMore.
Teri will work closely with Brett 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 buy-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. However, it has another
fact going for it from which Teri should take heart: the effort is not driven by IT, but is driven
by Cath, the CEO. This gives the project high visibility and creates a positive incentive for
cooperation from all sides.
As soon as Teri and MedAMore have completed the Preliminary Phase, they are ready to start
Phase A. Phase A begins, at least in theory, with a Request for Architecture Work from some
organization within MedAMore. 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.
As soon as the Request for Architecture Work (or some equivalent) has been received, Teri
(the TOGAF consultant) starts MedAMore on Phase A. 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.
The Architectural Vision created in Phase A will be the main input into Phase B. 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.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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.
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:
1. Develop baseline data architecture description
2. Review and validate principles, reference models, viewpoints, and tools
3. 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
4. Select data-architecture building blocks
5. Conduct formal checkpoint reviews of the architecture model and building blocks with
stakeholders
6. Review qualitative criteria (e.g., performance, reliability, security, integrity)
7. Complete data architecture
8. Conduct checkpoint/impact analysis
9. 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 pay-offs and so create an impetus for
proceeding with longer-term projects.”
This is good advice in any architectural methodology. 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. These pain-points, described earlier, included difficulties in
completing regional/warehouse specialization and unreliability in data sharing.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
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.
Much of the results of the TOGAF process will be determined as much by the
Teri/MedAMore relationship as it will by the TOGAF specification itself. TOGAF is meant to
be highly adaptable, and details for the various architectural artifacts is sparse. As one book
on TOGAF says:
TOGAF is not wholly specific with respect to generated documents; in fact, it
provides very little in the way of prescriptive document templates – merely
guidelines for inputs and outputs. [23]
The TOGAF specification is also flexible with respect to the phases. As the specification itself
says:
One of the tasks before applying the ADM is to review its components for
applicability, and then tailor them as appropriate to the circumstances of the
individual enterprise. This activity might well produce an "enterprise-specific"
ADM. [24]
TOGAF allows phases to be done incompletely, skipped, combined, reordered, or reshaped to
fit the needs of the situation. So it should be no surprise if two different TOGAF certified
consultants end up using two very different processes, even when working with the same
organization.
TOGAF is even more flexible about the actual generated architecture. In fact, TOGAF is, to a
surprising degree, “architecture-agnostic”. The final architecture might be good, bad, or
indifferent. TOGAF merely describes how to generate an enterprise architecture, not
necessarily how to generate a good enterprise architecture. For this, you are dependent on the
experience of your staff and/or TOGAF consultant. People adopting TOGAF hoping to

ObjectWatch, Inc.
acquire a magic bullet will be sorely disappointed (as they will be with any of the
methodologies).
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
The Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) is the latest attempt by the federal government to
unite its myriad of agencies and functions under a single common and ubiquitous enterprise
architecture. FEA is still in its infancy as most of the major pieces have only been available
since 2006. However, as I discussed in the history section, it has a long tradition behind it,
and, if nothing else, has many failures from which it has hopefully learned some valuable
lessons.
FEA is the most complete of all the methodologies discussed so far. It has both a
comprehensive taxonomy, like Zachman, and an architectural process, like TOGAF. FEA can
be viewed as either a methodology for creating an enterprise architecture or the result of
applying that process to a particular enterprise — namely the U.S. Government. I will be
looking at FEA from the methodology perspective. My particular interest here is how can we
apply the FEA methodology to private enterprises.
Most writers describe FEA as simply consisting of five reference models, one each for
performance: business, service, components, technical, and data. It is true that FEA has these
five references models, but there is much more to FEA than just the reference models. A full
treatment of FEA needs to include all of the following:
 A perspective on how enterprise architectures should be viewed (the segment model,
that I will describe shortly)
 A set of reference models for describing different perspectives of the enterprise
architecture (the five models, mentioned above)
 A process for creating an enterprise architecture
 A transitional process for migrating from a pre-EA to a post-EA paradigm
 A taxonomy for cataloging assets that fall in the purview of the enterprise architecture
 An approach to measuring the success of using the enterprise architecture to drive
business value
You can see that the FEA is about much more than models. It includes everything necessary
to build an enterprise architecture for probably the most complex organization on earth: The
U.S. Government. As the FEA-Program Management Office (FEAPMO) says, FEA, taken in
toto, provides:
… a common language and framework to describe and analyze IT investments,
enhance collaboration and ultimately transform the Federal government into a
citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based organization as set forth in the
President’s Management Agenda. [25]

ObjectWatch, Inc.
While it might be a stretch to imagine that anything short of divine intervention could
“transform the Federal government into a citizen-centered, results-oriented, and market-based
organization”, there is at least hope that some of the FEA methodology could help our
beleaguered MedAMore corporation deal with its much more mundane problems. So, let’s
take a look at what FEA has to offer.
The FEA Perspective on EA
The FEA Perspective on EA is that an enterprise is built of segments, an idea first introduced
by FEAF [26]. A segment is a major line-of-business functionality, such as human resources.
There are two types of segments: core mission area segments and business services segments.
A core mission area segment is one that is central to the mission or purpose of a particular
political boundary within the enterprise. For example, in the Health and Human Services
(HHS) agency of the federal government, health is a core mission area segment.
A business services segment is one that is foundational to most, if not all, political
organizations. For example, financial management is a business services segment that is
required by all federal agencies.
Another type of enterprise architecture asset is an enterprise service. An enterprise service is a
well-defined function that spans political boundaries. An example of an enterprise service is
security management. Security management is a service that works in a unified manner across
the whole swath of the enterprise.
The difference between enterprise services and segments, especially business service
segments, is confusing. Both are shared across the entire enterprise. The difference is that
business service segments have a scope that encompass only a single political organization.
Enterprise services have a scope that encompass the entire enterprise.
In the federal government, for example, both HHS and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) use the business service segment human resources. However the people that are
managed by human resources is a different group for HHS than it is for the EPA.
Both HHS and the EPA also use the enterprise service security management. But the security
credentials that are managed by the security management service are not specific to either of
those agencies. Security credentials are only managed effectively when they are managed at
the scope of the enterprise.
Resist the temptation to equate either segments or services with services as in service oriented
architectures. There are two reasons such a comparison would be flawed. Firstly, enterprise
services, business-service segments, and core mission-area segments are all much broader in
focus than services found in service oriented architectures. Secondly, segments are an
organizational unit for an enterprise architecture, whereas services are an organizational unit

ObjectWatch, Inc.
for technical implementations. As organizational units for an enterprise architecture, their
depth includes not just the technical, but also the business and the data architectures.
One final note about segments: although segments function at the political (that is, agency)
level, they are defined at the enterprise (that is, government) level. Enterprise services, of
course, both function and are defined at the enterprise level.
The fact that segments are defined globally facilitates their reuse across political boundaries.
One can map out the usage of segments across the political boundaries of the enterprise and
then use that map to seek opportunities for architectural reuse. Figure 8, for example, shows a
segment map of the federal government from the FEA Practice Guide [27]. As you can see,
there are many segments (the vertical columns) that are used in multiple agencies and any or
all of these are good candidates for sharing.
Figure 8. Segment Map of the Federal Government
FEA Reference Models
The five FEA reference models are all about establishing common languages. The goal here is
to facilitate communication, cooperation, and collaboration across political boundaries.
According to the FEAPMO:
The FEA consists of a set of interrelated “reference models” designed to facilitate
cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative investments, gaps and
opportunities for collaboration within and across agencies. Collectively, the

ObjectWatch, Inc.
reference models comprise a framework for describing important elements of the
FEA in a common and consistent way. [28]
Why do we need a common language? Consider this exchange:
James: Do you have a torch I can borrow?
Roger: No, I’m afraid not.
James: Do you know where I can get one?
Roger: The hardware store in town should have one.
So James goes out to the hardware store and buys himself a torch. He returns.
Roger: Did you get your torch?
James: Yes, here it is.
Roger: That’s not a torch! That’s a flashlight. Why didn’t you say so? I have one
you could have borrowed.
James: Well why didn’t you say so?
The problem, of course, is that James comes from England where what I call a flashlight, they
call a torch. And when I hear torch, I think of a blowtorch. Although we both speak English,
we don’t necessarily speak the same English. The result is that James goes out and
unnecessarily spends money on something that I could have lent him.
This is exactly the problem that the FEA Reference Models are trying to solve on a much
larger scale. Suppose the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decides it needs a demographics
system to track taxpayer data. They ask around to see if anybody has one they can modify for
their purposes. Nobody does.
Little do they know that right next door the Government Printing Office (GPO) has a perfectly
good demographics system that is almost exactly what the IRS needs. They just happen to call
it a customer analytics system.
So, the IRS goes out and builds its system from scratch rather than simply modifying the one
already built (and paid for) by the GPO. And, in doing so, the IRS will waste considerably
more money than James spent on his unnecessary flashlight.
This, in a nutshell, is the goal of the five FEA reference models: to give standard terms and
definitions for the domains of enterprise architecture and thereby facilitate collaboration and
sharing across the federal government. The five reference models are as follows:
1. The Business Reference Model (BRM) gives a business view of the various functions
of the federal government. For example, the BRM defines a standard business
capability called water resource management that is a sub-function of natural

ObjectWatch, Inc.
resources that is considered a line-of-business of the broader business area services for
citizens. [29]
2. The Components Reference Model (CRM) gives a more IT view of systems that can
support business functionality. For example, the CRM defines a customer analytics
system that I described in the hypothetical interchange between the Internal Revenue
Service and the Government Printing Office above. [30]
3. The Technical Reference Model (TRM) defines the various technologies and standards
that can be used in building IT systems. For example, the TRM defines HTTP as a
protocol that is a subset of a service transport that is a subset of service access and
delivery. [31]
4. The Data Reference Model (DRM) defines standard ways of describing data. For
example, the DRM defines an entity as something that contains attributes and
participates-in relationships. [32]
5. The Performance Reference Model (PRM) defines standard ways of describing the
value delivered by enterprise architectures. For example, the PRM describes quality as
a technology measurement area that is defined as “the extent to which technology
satisfies functionality or capability requirements.” [33]
FEA Process
The FEA Process is primarily focused on creating a segment architecture for a subset of the
overall enterprise (in FEA’s case, the enterprise is the federal government and the subset is a
governmental agency) and is described in the FEA Practice Guidance [34]. I discussed the
FEA vision on enterprise segments earlier. The overall segment-architecture development
process is (at a very high level) as follows:
 Step 1: Architectural Analysis – Define a simple and concise vision for the segment
and relate it back to the organizational plan.
 Step 2: Architectural Definition – Define the desired architectural state of the segment,
document the performance goals, consider design alternatives and develop an
enterprise architecture for the segment including business, data, services, and
technology architectures.
 Step 3: Investment and Funding Strategy – Consider how the project will be funded.
 Step 4: Program Management Plan and Execute Projects – Create a plan for managing
and executing the project, including milestones and performance measures that will
asses project success.
FEA Success Measurement
The FEA framework for measuring organizational success in using enterprise architecture is
defined in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework 2.1 [35].
Federal agencies are rated as to their overall maturity levels in three main categories:
1. architectural completion — maturity level of the architecture itself

ObjectWatch, Inc.
The enterprise has developed multiple vertically partitioned architectures that
support core mission business functions, all approved by the appropriate business
owners.
Optimized5
The enterprise has developed at least vertically partitioned architecture that has
been approved by the business owner in writing. The relevant organization(s)
within the enterprise are actively migrating toward the relevant architecture.
Integrated4
The enterprise has developed both a baseline architecture (as described above)
and a target (goal) architecture. The target architecture is aligned to enterprise-
wide goals and organizational responsibilities. The target architecture addresses
the priorities and performance objectives identified in the enterprise business
plan.
Target3
The enterprise has developed a baseline (as-is) architecture. The architecture has
enterprise-wide scope and the linkages between levels are well established and
clearly articulated.
Baseline2
The enterprise is using informal and ad-hoc EA processes. Some architectural
artifacts for a given architectural level may exist, but the levels are not linked, or
the linkage is incomplete.
Initial1
DescriptionNameLevel
The enterprise has developed multiple vertically partitioned architectures that
support core mission business functions, all approved by the appropriate business
owners.
Optimized5
The enterprise has developed at least vertically partitioned architecture that has
been approved by the business owner in writing. The relevant organization(s)
within the enterprise are actively migrating toward the relevant architecture.
Integrated4
The enterprise has developed both a baseline architecture (as described above)
and a target (goal) architecture. The target architecture is aligned to enterprise-
wide goals and organizational responsibilities. The target architecture addresses
the priorities and performance objectives identified in the enterprise business
plan.
Target3
The enterprise has developed a baseline (as-is) architecture. The architecture has
enterprise-wide scope and the linkages between levels are well established and
clearly articulated.
Baseline2
The enterprise is using informal and ad-hoc EA processes. Some architectural
artifacts for a given architectural level may exist, but the levels are not linked, or
the linkage is incomplete.
Initial1
DescriptionNameLevel
Category: Architectural Completion
Description: This category measures the architectural maturity of an enterprise’s architecture in terms of
performance, business, data, service, and technology. This includes an assessment of the architectural
artifacts and both the baseline (existing) and target (goal) architectures.
2. architectural use — how effectively the agency uses its architecture to drive decision-
making and
3. architectural results — the benefits being realized by the use of the architecture
Figure 9. OMB Ranking of Architectural Completion,
Adapted for Private Sector by Author, Roger Sessions
OMB assigns each agency a success rating, based on its scores in each category and a
cumulative score, as follows:
 Green — The agency rates quite well in the completion area (it has a quite mature
enterprise architecture). It also rates well in both the use area (it is effectively using
that enterprise architecture to drive ongoing strategy) and the results area (the usage of
that architecture is driving business value).
 Yellow — The agency rates quite well in the completion area. It also rates well in
either the use area or the results area.
 Red — The agency either does not have a completed architecture and/or is not
effectively using that architecture.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
The framework is interesting beyond the confines of the public sector. The category ratings
can be fruitfully adapted by many enterprises to assess the maturity level of their own
architectural efforts. Figure 9, for example, shows my own interpretation of the OMB
maturity rankings for architectural completion as I adapt them for the private sector. Similar
adaptations can be created for architectural usage and architectural results.
FEA Applied to MedAMore
Now that I have taken you through the FEA approach, let’s see what this might mean to
MedAMore. Let’s assume that Cath (MedAMore’s CEO) has heard about FEA and how it is
promising to streamline the federal government. If it can do this for the federal government,
she reasons, surely it can do this for her company.
Cath hires a consultant, Fred, who is an expert on FEA (if such a thing can be said to exist for
a methodology that is, at the time of this writing, less than a year old!). Fred’s job is to show
MedAMore how to do FEA — of course, not the real FEA, but FEA as it might be applied to
the private sector. Cath introduces Fred to Bret (the business VP) and Irma (the CIO) and tells
them to build her a MEA — FEA adopted for MedAMore.
Keep in mind that Cath has taken quite a risk. No other company to date has attempted to
apply FEA to the private sector, and even the experience of using FEA within the public
sector is nominal at best.
The first thing that Fred will want to do is build enthusiasm for MEA. Keep in mind that he is
coming into an organization in which the business folks barely speak to IT folks. If MEA is
going to succeed, it needs to transform not only processes, but people. He will want to create
a series of seminars explaining the value of the soon-to-be-defined MEA and how MEA will
benefit not only MedAMore as a whole, but the individual units specifically.
Fred will next build a governance structure, MedAMore’s equivalent to FEAPMO. I’ll call
this group MEAPMO. MEAPMO will own MEA, including the processes, the models, and
the architecture itself.
The next thing that Fred will likely do is to create reference models that can be used by all of
the organizations across MedAMore. The five reference models from FEA can serve as a
starting point. Some, such as the Technical Reference Model, might be usable with few
modifications. Others, such as the Business Reference Model, will require extensive
renovation. He shouldn’t do these in excruciating detail, but create starting points and build
them up as MEA evolves.
Next, Fred will probably want to create a description of the segment architecture as it applies
to MedAMore. Note that he will not be doing a complete segment architecture — just a high
level description. The actual process of completing the architecture will be a constantly
evolving project.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
By this point, a lot of work will have been done with few results. Fred will probably want to
take a first pass at a segment architecture process. FEA’s process will be a good starting point,
but will require specialization to MedAMore at the detail level (such as who the team
members are and what form the generated artifacts should take).
Now Fred will test drive the process with the first segment delivery. He will need to build a
team and then lead this team in analyzing and prioritizing the segments — mapping them to
business value, determining their architectural options, delivering the work, and, perhaps most
important, measuring the results. These measurements will be critical in building momentum
for future work.
Soon after completing the first segment, Fred might decide that it is time to measure the
progress of the different groups in MedAMore in using MEA effectively. To do so, Fred
needs a yardstick to measure the success of the different groups within MedAMore in driving
business value with MEA. Fred thus leads MEAPMO in building a MedAMore equivalent to
the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework [35]. This yardstick
will be Cath’s main tool for ensuring that the different groups are taking MEA seriously and
that her investment is paying off.
And, finally, once Fred has completed this process, he will start the process again. Each
iteration will result in new segments being delivered, more business value being generated,
and more substance being added to the MEA methodology. At least, this is the theory. As I
said earlier, with MEA, we are working at the bleeding edge.
Gartner
So far, I have written about three different methodologies that come together under the banner
of enterprise architectures. This last methodology is a little different. It isn’t a taxonomy (like
Zachman), a process (like TOGAF), or a complete methodology (like FEA). Instead, it is
what I define as a practice. It is the enterprise architecture practice of one of the best known
IT research and consulting organizations in the world: Gartner.
Let me spend a moment exploring my use of the word practice. I use the word “practice”
much like I would to describe a physician’s practice. A physician — say, Dr. Perez — does
not diagnose a disease by studying taxonomies, although taxonomies do help him
communicate to other health care providers. He does not diagnose a disease by following a
process, although he might go through an informal process in his head. He diagnoses a disease
by applying his practice skills. These practice skills include his experience, training, and
ongoing relationships with his colleagues.
How do you choose a physician? Do you grill candidates on how well they know the
taxonomy of medicine? Do you sit candidates down and ask for a detailed description of the
methodology each follows to diagnose illness? Probably not. You might ask your friends, but
they probably only know a limited pool of candidates.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
One approach to choosing a physician is to go to a well known institution (a hospital or
medical school) and choose from among their staff. In this approach, you are counting on the
institution to choose highly qualified physicians and to have developed a community that
encourages collaboration and best practices.
Does that institution insist on a rigid methodology for its physicians to follow? Probably not.
Even if it does, it is not your primary concern. You are not even concerned with who the
physicians in the institution are — although, in time, that will be of more interest to you. Your
initial concern is only the reputation of the institution.
This is very similar to the Gartner approach to enterprise architecture. You don’t bring in
Gartner because they do or don’t use TOGAF. You don’t go to Gartner because they do or
don’t follow Zachman’s taxonomy. You go to Gartner because they are well known in their
field. You assume that they hire well qualified specialists and you assume that they have
developed a community that encourages collaboration and best practice.
If you are a Gartner customer and you check the Garner library for research notes describing
their enterprise architecture practice, you can find many such documents. For example, there
is Gartner Enterprise Architecture Process: Evolution 2005 [36] and the Gartner Enterprise
Architecture Framework: Evolution 2005 [37]. However these documents contain little
descriptive information and, in any case, are dated in the late 2005 timeframe. Gartner
contends that these best practices are timeless and they continue to augment them as
appropriate. The current Gartner methodology was not solidified until probably April of 2006,
after the Gartner/Meta merger that I described in the history section.
The best summation of the Gartner practice that I have heard is the following:
Architecture is a verb, not a noun.
What does it mean to say that architecture is a verb, not a noun? It means that it is the ongoing
process of creating, maintaining, and especially, leveraging an enterprise architecture that
gives an enterprise architecture its vitality. An architecture that is just a bunch of stiff artifacts
that sit in a corner gathering dust is useless, regardless of how sophisticated your taxonomy is
for categorizing those artifacts or how brilliant your process is that guided their development.
Gartner believes that enterprise architecture is about bringing together three constituents: the
business owners, the information specialists, and the technology implementers. If you can
bring these three groups together and unify them behind a common vision that drives business
value, than you have succeeded. If not, you have failed. Success is measured in pragmatic
terms, such as driving profitability, not by checking off items on a process matrix.
Gartner believes that the enterprise architectures must start with where an organization is
going, not with where it is. If we are going to clean house, we don’t need to exhaustively

ObjectWatch, Inc.
document every thing we are throwing out. Let’s focus our energy on what we want to end up
with. As soon as we know our goal, we can see how what we have relates to that goal.
Gartner recommends that an organization begin by telling the story of where its strategic
direction is heading and what the business drivers are to which it is responding. Gartner will
want this story in plain language, without worrying about prescribed documentation
standards, acronyms, or techno-babble. The only goal is making sure that everybody
understands and shares a single vision.
Most organizations are facing major changes in their business processes. The process of
creating an enterprise architecture vision is the organization’s opportunity to sit down, take a
collective breath, and ensure that everybody understands the nature, the scope, and the impact
of those changes.
As soon as an organization has this single shared vision of the future, it can consider the
implications of this vision on the business, technical, information, and solutions architectures
of the enterprise. The shared vision of the future will dictate changes in all of these
architectures, assign priorities to those changes, and keep those changes grounded in business
value.
Enterprise architecture, in the Gartner view, is about strategy, not about engineering. It is
focused on the destination. The two things that are most important to Gartner are where an
organization is going and how it will get there. Any architectural activity that is extraneous to
these questions is irrelevant. “Just enough enterprise architecture, just in time” is another
saying you will hear from the Gartner analyst.
Let’s say Cath (MedAMore’s CEO) likes what she hears. How is a Gartner engagement likely
to proceed? With FEA, TOGAF, or Zachman, Cath needs to start by finding a qualified
consultant who understands the methodology. With Gartner, this step is much easier. She
merely calls Gartner.
Let’s say Gartner sends Greg, the Gartner EA consultant. The first thing Greg will want to do
is make sure the architecture is driven from the highest levels of the corporation. The fact that
he is being called by MedAMore’s CEO will be very reassuring.
Exactly how Greg will proceed is difficult to predict, since Gartner does not have a firm, step-
by-step process. However it is likely that he will start by focusing on Cath’s strategic vision
for MedAMore. He will want her to specify her vision in business terms and resist any
temptation to discuss technology. Here are some possible business vision statements Greg
might elicit:
 MedAMore will have stores in at least 30 states spread out over 8 geographic regions
by the year 2010. It will accomplish this mainly through acquisition of regional
pharmacies.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
 MedAMore will be able to assimilate new regional systems within 120 days of
finalization of purchase.
 MedAMore will reduce its purchasing costs by 10% by consolidating all regional
purchasing into a central system.
 MedAMore’s central office will be able to view consolidated sales and inventory
reports from all stores that include data up to and including the previous day.
 MedAMore will be able to reduce its inventory on hand to no more than a five day
supply.
 MedAMore will be able to invoice insurance companies by the end of the day the
prescription was delivered to the patient.
 Patients will be able to transfer prescriptions from any MedAMore pharmacy to any
other.
 Patients will be able to request prescription refills though a web interface and receive
email notification of their readiness for pick-up.
Notice that none of these visionary statements mentions technology (except as a delivery
mechanism in the last statement). Greg is purposely keeping these early discussions focused
on business strategy.
Any one of Cath’s vision “bullets” will have major ramifications across the business,
information and technical architecture. Part of Greg’s job will be to prioritize the bulleted
items. Let’s say Cath decides that her highest priority is consolidating purchasing, because
this will improve profitability in the near term.
Greg will soon work to turn Cath’s idea about consolidated purchasing into a common
requirements vision (CRV). The CRV is where we will see some of the changes that will be
required to drive Cath’s vision for MedAMore. Greg will be going over the business changes
with Bret and the technical and information changes with Irma, but he will also be working to
bring everybody together as a unified team.
Greg will work with Bret (the business VP) to develop a target business architecture that
supports consolidated purchasing. Once they have spec’ed out the future system, they will
also look at their current architecture to see what can be recycled.
Greg will work with Irma (the CIO) to develop a target information architecture that allows
the home office to track regional inventories and consolidate procurement. They will also
work on the technical architecture for the IT systems that will support the new business
architecture. Once they understand the future, they will look at current architectures for
opportunities to reuse existing technology assets.
After Greg has completed the broad-brush architecture for their strategic vision, he will
probably step back from the picture until the consolidated purchasing system has been
implemented. If Cath needs help with the implementation of the architecture, she will likely
look outside of Gartner, since Gartner does not do implementations.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
As soon as the implementation of consolidated purchasing has been completed, Greg will step
back in to help with the next iteration. His approach will be to keep the architecture at a high
level, business focused, and hone in on details only when and where necessary. He will
continue to see his role not as creating an enterprise architecture for MedAMore, but helping
them institute a process for allowing an enterprise architecture to emerge and evolve from the
business strategy.
Comparison
As you can see, the leading enterprise architecture methodologies are very different in their
approaches. Which one is best for your organization? There is no one answer to this question.
I’ll take you through the 12 criteria that I most often use for comparing and evaluating
enterprise architectural methodologies. Not all of these criteria might be relevant to your
organization, and some might be more important than others. But, at least, this section can
serve as a starting point for your own evaluation.
I’ll rank each methodology in each criteria. The ratings will be assigned as follows:
 1: Does a very poor job in this area
 2: Does an inadequate job in this area
 3: Does an acceptable job in this area
 4: Does a very good job in this area
Keep in mind that these ratings are subjective. I’m sure most people would disagree with at
least one of my ratings.
Taxonomy completeness refers to how well you can use the methodology to classify the
various architectural artifacts. This is almost the entire focus of Zachman. None of the other
methodologies focus as much on this area. Ratings:
 Zachman: 4
 TOGAF: 2
 FEA: 2
 Gartner: 1
Process completeness refers to how fully the methodology guides you through a step-by-step
process for creating an enterprise architecture. This is almost the entire focus of TOGAF, with
its architectural design methodology (ADM). Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 4
 FEA: 2
 Gartner: 3

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Reference model guidance refers to how useful the methodology is in helping you build a
relevant set of reference models. This is almost the entire focus of FEA. TOGAF also
provides support; however, I am less impressed with the TOGAF reference models. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 3
 FEA: 4
 Gartner: 1
Practice guidance refers to how much the methodology helps you assimilate the mindset of
enterprise architecture into your organization and develop a culture in which it is valued and
used. This is a primary focus of Gartner’s architectural practice. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 2
 FEA: 2
 Gartner: 4
Maturity model refers to how much guidance the methodology gives you in assessing the
effectiveness and maturity of different organizations within your enterprise in using enterprise
architecture. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 1
 FEA: 3
 Gartner: 2
Business focus refers to whether the methodology will focus on using technology to drive
business value, in which business value is specifically defined as either reduced expenses
and/or increased income. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 2
 FEA: 1
 Gartner: 4

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Governance guidance refers to how much help the methodology will be in understanding and
creating an effective governance model for enterprise architecture. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 2
 FEA: 3
 Gartner: 3
Partitioning guidance refers to how well the methodology will guide you into effective
autonomous partitions of the enterprise, which is an important approach to managing
complexity. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 2
 FEA: 4
 Gartner: 3
Prescriptive catalog refers to how well the methodology guides you in setting up a catalogue
of architectural assets that can be reused in future activities. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 2
 FEA: 4
 Gartner: 2
Vendor neutrality refers to how likely you are to get locked into a specific consulting
organization by adopting this methodology. A high rating here indicates low vendor lock in.
Ratings:
 Zachman: 2
 TOGAF: 4
 FEA: 3
 Gartner: 1
Information availability refers to the amount and quality of free or inexpensive information
about this methodology. Ratings:
 Zachman: 2
 TOGAF: 4
 FEA: 2
 Gartner: 1

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Time to value refers to the length of time you will likely be using this methodology before you
start using it to build solutions that deliver high business value. Ratings:
 Zachman: 1
 TOGAF: 3
 FEA: 1
 Gartner: 4
The criteria and ratings are summarized in Figure 10.
Ratings
Criteria Zachman TOGAF FEA Gartner
Taxonomy Completeness 4 2 2 1
Process Completeness 1 4 2 3
Reference Model Guidance 1 3 4 1
Practice Guidance 1 2 2 4
Maturity Model 1 1 3 2
Business Focus 1 2 1 4
Governance Guidance 1 2 3 3
Partitioning Guidance 1 2 4 3
Prescriptive Catalog 1 2 4 2
Vendor Neutrality 2 4 3 1
Information Availability 2 4 2 1
Time to Value 1 3 1 4
Figure 10. Criteria and Ratings for Each Methodology
One of the important points of Figure 10 is that none of the enterprise architecture
methodologies are really complete. Each has strengths and weaknesses.
How do you choose which methodology is best for you? Here is my recommended approach:
1. Go through the rows (criteria) in Figure 10 eliminating any that you feel are not
important to your organization.
2. Add any additional rows (criteria) that you feel are important and rate each of the
methodologies in that area.
3. Change any of my ratings with which you disagree.
At the end of this exercise you should have a good idea about the strengths and weaknesses of
each methodology with respect to your enterprise’s needs. If a clear winner emerges, then
count yourself lucky. Find a consultant who specializes in helping enterprises implement that
methodology and go for it.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
For many organizations, there will be no clear winner. For these organizations, I recommend
you use a blended approach, in which you create your own enterprise architectural
methodology consisting of bits and pieces of each of the methodologies that provide the
highest value in your specific areas of concern.
You will want a different kind of consultant — one who has a broad perspective on all of
these methodologies and specializes in helping enterprises create a methodology that works
best given the specific needs and political realities of that enterprise.
Conclusion
This paper has covered a broad introduction to the field of enterprise architecture. The history
of the field goes back twenty years, but the field is still evolving — and rapidly so. Two of the
four major methodologies have undergone major changes just in the last two years (Gartner
and FEA).
As I have shown, these methodologies are quite different from each other, both in goals and in
approach. This is good news and bad. It is bad news in that it increases the difficulty for many
organizations in choosing one single enterprise architectural methodology. How do you
choose between methodologies that have so little in common? Choosing between Zachman
and TOGAF, for example, is like choosing between spinach and hammers.
But the good news is that these methodologies can be seen as complementing each other. For
many organizations, the best choice is all of these methodologies, blended together in a way
that works well within that organization’s constraints. This white paper should provide a good
starting place for understanding the value of each of these methodologies and how they can
complement each other.
Whichever route you choose, remember that enterprise architecture is a path, not a
destination. An enterprise architecture has no value unless it delivers real business value as
quickly as possible. One of the most important goals of any enterprise architecture is to bring
the business side and the technology sides together so that both are working effectively
toward the same goals.
In many organizations, there is a culture of distrust between the technology and business
folks. No enterprise-architecture methodology can bridge this divide unless there is a genuine
commitment to change. That commitment must come from the highest level of the
organization. Methodologies cannot solve people-problems, they can only provide a
framework in which those problems can be solved.
But once you have that commitment to change, an enterprise architecture methodology can be
a valuable tool for guiding that change. This change can manifest itself in many ways. Some
of the predicted benefits from a successfully implemented enterprise architectural include:

ObjectWatch, Inc.
 Improvements in using IT to drive business adaptability
 Closer partnership between business and IT groups
 Improved focus on organizational goals
 Improved morale as more individuals see a direct correlation between their work and
the organization’s success
 Reduced numbers of failed IT systems
 Reduced complexity of existing IT systems
 Improved agility of new IT systems
 Closer alignment between IT deliverables and business requirements
It is obvious that an organization that does well in these key areas will be more successful
than one that doesn’t. This is true regardless of whether success is measured with tangibles,
such as profitability and return on investment, or intangibles, such as customer satisfaction
and employee turnover.
The starting point for any enterprise architecture is some critical self-analysis. Does your
organization spend too much money building IT systems that deliver inadequate business
value? Is IT seen as improving business agility or hampering it? Is there a growing divide
between your business and IT folks? And then, perhaps the most important question of all: is
your organization truly committed to solving these problems and does that commitment come
from the highest levels of the organization. If the answer to all of these questions is “yes”,
then enterprise architecture is your path. It’s up to you to take that next step.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
Glossary
 ADM (Architectural Development Method) – A process for creating an enterprise
architecture that is part of the TOGAF standard.
 application architecture – The architecture of a specific application.
 architect – One whose responsibility is the design of an architecture and the creation of an
architectural description.
 architecture – The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their
relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and
evolution (from IEEE-1471-2000).
 architectural artifact – A specific document, report, analysis, model, or other tangible that
contributes to an architectural description.
 architectural description – A collection of products [artifacts] to document an architecture.
 architectural taxonomy – A methodology for organizing and categorizing architectural
artifacts.
 architectural framework – A skeletal structure that defines suggested architectural artifacts,
describes how those artifacts are related to each other, and provides generic definitions for
what those artifacts might look like.
 architectural process – A defined series of actions directed to the goal of producing either an
architecture or an architectural description.
 architectural methodology – A generic term that can describe any structured approach to
solving some or all of the problems related to architecture.
 business architecture – An architecture that deals specifically with business processes and
business flow.
 business reference model (BRM) – A FEA term that gives a business view of the various
functions of the federal government.
 business services segment – A FEA term that refers to a segment that is foundational to most,
if not all, political organizations, such as financial management.
 CIO — Chief Information Officer, the executive in charge of information technology in a
corporation.
 CIO Council – A council consisting of CIO’s from each of the federal governmental agencies
that coordinates work related to common interests.
 Clinger/Cohen Act — See Information Technology Management Reform Act.
 common systems architectures – A TOGAF term referring to an architecture that are
common to many, but not all types of enterprises. In contrast to foundation architectures and
industry architectures.
 component reference model (CRM) – A FEA term that gives an IT view of systems that
support business functionality.
 data architecture – The architecture of the data (typically stored in databases) owned by the
enterprise.
 enterprise architect – An architect who is who specializes in enterprise architectures.
 enterprise architecture — An architecture in which the system in question is the whole
enterprise, especially the business processes, technologies, and information systems of the
enterprise.
 enterprise service – A FEA term referring to a well-defined function that spans political
boundaries, such as security management.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
 FEA – See Federal Enterprise Architecture.
 FEAF — See Federal Enterprise Architectural Framework.
 FEAPMO – The organization within the OMB that owns and administers the Federal
Enterprise Architecture.
 Federal Enterprise Architecture – An architectural description of the enterprise architecture
of the U.S. federal government that includes various reference models, processes for creating
organizational architectures that fit in with the federal enterprise architecture, and a
methodology for measuring the success of an organization in using enterprise architectures.
 Federal Enterprise Architectural Framework (FEAF) — An enterprise architectural
framework used by the United States federal government to describe how the various
governmental agencies and their IT systems are related to each other.
 Federal Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework – A benchmark used by the
OMB to measure the effectiveness of governmental bodies in using enterprise architecture.
 foundation architecture – A term used by TOGAF to refer to the most generic of
architectures that can be used by any IT organization. In contrast to common systems
architectures.
 GAO — See General Accountability Office.
 Gartner – An IT research and advisory organization.
 gateway — A transfer point of an autonomous system from which messages from the outside
world are received or through which messages to the outside world are sent.
 General Accountability Office — A branch of the United States Government that is
responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of different organizations within the U.S.
Government.
 industry architecture – A TOGAF term that refers to a architecture that is common to most
enterprises within an industry. In contrast to a common systems architecture and an
organizational architecture.
 Information Technology Management Reform Act — An act passed by the United States
Congress in 1996 that requires all governmental organizations to use effective strategies and
frameworks for developing and maintaining IT resources.
 OMB (Office of Management and Budget) – Part of the Executive Office of the President of
the United States which serves the function of presidential oversight on federal agencies.
 organizational architecture – A TOGAF term that applies to an architecture that is specific
to a particular organization. In contrast to an industry architecture.
 performance reference model (PRM) – A FEA term that gives standard ways of describing
terms related to measuring value.
 Return on Investment — A measure (in percent) of the business value of a project based on
the increase in profit (either because of increased income or decreased expenses) divided by
the cost of the project. For example, a project with a cost of $100,000 that returned $200,000
in increased profit has an ROI of 200%
 ROI — see Return on Investment.
 segment – A FEA term that refers to a major line-of-business functionality, such as human
resources, that might be shared across organizations.
 standards information base (SIB) – A TOGAF term which refers to a collection of
information about standards, particularly in the area of open source.
 TAFIM (Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management) — An
architectural framework developed by the Department of Defense and officially discontinued
in 2000.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
 technical architecture – Usually refers to the architecture of the technical infrastructure
within which applications run and interact.
 technical reference model (TRM) – Part of TOGAF, a reference model that gives a common
language for various pieces of IT architecture. This term is also used for a similar meaning
within FEA.
 The Open Group Architectural Framework – see TOGAF.
 TOGAF (The Open Group Architectural Framework) 8.1 — An architectural
methodology that is controlled by The Open Group.
 Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures™ — An architectural framework in
which an enterprise is modeled as thirty or thirty-six cells, each of which represents an
intersection between a stakeholder perspective and an abstraction.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
References
01 – IEEE Standard 1471-2000: IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description
of Software-Intensive Systems.
02 – A framework for information systems architecture, by J.A. Zachman in IBM Systems
Journal, 26 3, 1987.
03 – U.S. Department Of Defense. Technical Architecture Framework For Information
Management (TAFIM) Volumes 1-8, Version 2.0. Reston, VA: DISA Center for Architecture,
1994.
04 – 1996 Clinger Cohen Act (PL 107-347) see http://thomas.loc.gov/
05 – Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.1, September 1999 by The Chief
Information Officers Council A04
06 – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies’
Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing, GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives, Might 19, 2004.
07 – Information Technology: FBI Is Taking Steps to Develop an Enterprise Architecture, but
Much Remains to Be Accomplished GAO-05-363 September 9, 2005
08 – DOD Business Systems Modernization: Long-Standing Weaknesses in Enterprise
Architecture Development Need to Be Addressed GAO-05-702 July 22, 2005
09 – Homeland Security: Progress Continues, but Challenges Remain on Department’s
Management of Information Technology, Testimony Before Congressional Subcommittees,
Randolph C. Hite, Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems Issues, GAO,
March 29, 2006
10 – Business Modernization: Some Progress Made toward Implementing GAO
Recommendations Related to NASA's Integrated Financial Management Program GAO-05-
799R September 9, 2005
11 – “framework.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company
12 – "taxonomy." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
13 – The Framework for Enterprise Architecture: Background, Description and Utility by
John A. Zachman, published by Zachman Institute for Framework Advancement (ZIFA)
Document ID 810-231-0531
14 – Enterprise Architecture Using the Zachman Framework by Carol O’Rourke, Neal
Fishman, and Warren Selkow. Published by Thomson Course Technology 2003. ISBN 0-619-
06446-3
15 – Interview with John Zachman by Roger Sessions, Editor-in-Chief, in Perspectives of the
International Association of Software Architects, Issue 6.
Journal, 26 3, 1987.
17 – Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture, by J.F.
Sowa and J.A. Zachman in IBM Systems Journal, 31 3, 1992.
Journal, 26 3, 1987.
19 – www.opengroup.org.
20 – www.opengroup.org/togaf/
21 – Guide to Enterprise IT Architecture by Col Perks and Tony Beveridge, Springer,
published 2003, ISBN 0-387-95132-6.
22 – www.opengroup.org/togaf/cert/
23 – Guide to Enterprise IT Architecture by Col Perks and Tony Beveridge, Springer,
published 2003, ISBN 0-387-95132-6.
24 – TOGAF Version 8.1.1.
25 – FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.1, December 2006, published
by the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, Office of Management
of Budget.
26 – A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture by the CIO Council, Version 1.0,
February 2001.
27 – FEA Practice Guidance, December 2006, published by the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Management Office, Office of Management of Budget.

ObjectWatch, Inc.
of Budget.
29 – ibid.
30 – ibid.
31 – ibid.
32 – The Data Reference Model, Version 2.0, November 2005, published by the Federal
Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, Office of Management of Budget.
of Budget.
34 – FEA Practice Guidance, December 2006, published by the Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Management Office, Office of Management of Budget.
35 – Federal Enterprise Architecture Program EA Assessment Framework 2.1, Dec 2006
35 – ibid.
36 – Gartner Enterprise Architecture Process: Evolution 2005 by R. Scoltt Bittler and Gregg
Kreizman, October 21, 2005 Gartner ID: G00130849
37 – Gartner Enterprise Architecture Framework: Evolution 2005 by Greta A. James, Robert
A. Handler, Anne Lapkin, and Nicholas Gall, October 25 2005 Gartner ID: G00130855

4 ea comparison

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to 4 ea comparison (20)

4 ea comparison