"Capgemini has been developing its own
architecture approach that
covers business, information and technology since 1993". Quote from
Cap's web site. Here it is, IAF.
As I studied the IAF I discovered that the E2AF
framework looks similar.
While I won't copy the IAF picture in here, for copyright reasons,
I will refer to it. You might open the URL above in another window.
What I want to understand is how it works and how it compares to other
frameworks.
IAF reminds me of Zachman's because of a sub-set of its questions.
They are shown as two dimensional thin bands crossing the rest of the
framework's tri-dimensional elements, horizontally. The picture also
shows us the four standard layers, found in any EA, in Spewak's work
and later in TOGAF. The layers are not positioned top down, but from
left to right and crossed by Zachman's questions, as thin bands.
Hence, the "What", "How", "With What" question bands cross
Business, Information, Information Systems and Technology
Infrastructure layers forming a Matrix framework.
The "What" question is subtitled "Conceptual". I can see little
association though. In Zachman's the two are different dimensions.
Zachman's "What" means, debatably, Information, for most
practitioners. But Information is already another layer in IAF. So
"What" does not mean Information in IAF.
<<As the question is applied to all layers it appears that a
conceptual architecture is required for each layer.
The next question, "How" is associated with "Logical". Not that it
matters a lot but it may confuse you since Logical and How, in
Zachman's, are on different axes.
The "How" is again applied to all layers meaning probably four
Logical architectures. Does it make sense? At least, they would have to
be aligned. I would have thought that a single logical architecture for
the Enterprise suffices.
"With what" or "Physical", the 3rd question is a new dimension for
Zachman. But "With what", to my mind, looks like pointing to the
technology resources implementing the Business layer. That creates a
problem: we already have the Technology Infrastructure and Information
Systems layers. So, what is the meaning then?
I believe that the aim was to describe each EA layer in terms of
concept, logic and physical, but layers don't exist as independent
systems. They exist only in the context of one system, the Enterprise.
Hence, I would say that a single conceptual and logical architecture
would do for the Enterprise. The questions dimension then is
unnecessary.
The "Information Systems" layer probably denotes mostly
"Applications layer" because of the potential overlap with the
"Technology Infrastructure" layer.
Security and Governance architectures have a tridimensional body,
unlike the question bands, but like them they extend the length of the
layers.
But, if we have Security, we might like to have other views like
Finance, Real Estate etc. Later.
The "Why" band is floating on top of the framework, touching
nothing. In its isolation, it looks like it's posing the question "Why
are we doing this?" at all levels.
All in all, I think IAF looks good for customers. It attempts to
combine the goods of a few approaches. By using Zachman terms with
different meanings it confused me though. I can see duplication between
the "With what" and the IT (Information System and Technology) layers.
The question bands suggest Conceptual, Logical and Physical views
at each layer which looks good but unnecessary as we have one single
system, the Enterprise. If you remove the question bands, what is left
is the four layers architecture we all know, which is still good.
All is well when it ends well!>>
You can read this blog at:
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/ea-matters/iaf-integrated-architecture-framework-analysis-31784
Gervas
|
Gervas Douglas <gervas.douglas@...>
gervasdouglas
 Offline
 Send Email
|
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
