The IT innovation paradigm shift is key to enterprise agility as simple information systems have moved into more complex model driven systems. However, model is not the only essence of a model driven enterprise system. Meta-information (or models) is one of the key aspects of this new generation enterprise. The enterprise should also be able to seamlessly interact with other the enterprises using disparate technology. The key is the CORE (Classify, Organise and Relate the Entities). This CORE feature facilitates wiring the enterprise meta-information together in a robust, decoupled, on-demand enterprise environment that validates the activity events, supports transparent routing, transports the business information within the value chain boundary and transforms the value chain. This week’s discussion will detect and analyse the CORE signal.
Enterprise Architecture Framework Versus Enterprise Classification Framework
In earlier issues, I have addressed the currency gaining word puzzles. Now we are in a state of understanding more details about the enterprise architecture framework, which is not just a generic way of classifying the enterprise. On the contrary the enterprise classification framework is a step-by-step refining process to derive the enterprise architecture framework ingredients. The enterprise classification framework manages and orchestrates diversified information around the enterprise and beyond traditional information systems.
The enterprise classification framework classifies, organizes, and relates the enterprise business entities whereas the enterprise architecture framework defines the enterprise activities and deliverables from the stakeholders perspective, and within the enterprise life cycle phases. The enterprise classification framework, thus, forms the CORE of the model driven enterprise.
Zachman Framework: What is Under the Cover?
The Zachman Framework is one of the most widely accepted frameworks in the industry for the last two decades. The framework identifies the information chemistry that establishes a common vocabulary and a set of perspectives for describing complex enterprise systems. This balanced and orthogonal framework describes a holistic model of an enterprise information infrastructure from six perspectives – planner, owner, designer, builder, subcontractor, and the working system. However, the Zachman Framework does not:
- Classify B2B integration initiatives
- Differentiate classification framework versus enterprise architecture framework
- Emphasise model driven enterprise architecture development, which in essence lacks guidelines to model the enterprise
- Recommend enterprise tools
- Recommend any process
- Encourage portfolio reuse or enterprise asset generations
The inability of the Zachman Framework to address these issues successfully have now become the critical success factors of the enterprise architecture.As discussed previously, GERAM forms the foundation stone for the enterprise architecture framework development. This helps us to be equipped with all the necessary components of the enterprise architecture. Tables 1, 2, and 3 shows the list of GERAM recommendations in terms of enterprise success and compare them from the Zachman Framework point of view.
Note: All the four tables detailed in this issue are based on publicly available information about this framework being compared with the GERAM recommended parameters. Where information about any particular aspect of this framework was sketchy or was not available, the author used his judgment to derive an appropriate conclusion.
If you think of GERAM as an empty bookcase providing the requsite number of shelves, the Zachman Framework is not adequate to fill up those shelves with the relevant books. Therefore, the Zachman Framework can be thought of as more of a classification framework that classifies your information system infrastructure in a better way than an enterprise framework.
Top Down Versus Bottom up Approach
This is another interesting area we should be able to understand before we move to the next section. Her we’ll clarify where the Enterprise Architecture Framework and Enterprise Classification Framework stand in terms of Top-Down versus Bottom-up approach. Figure 1 is a self-explanatory depiction of the ‘top down versus bottom up’ puzzle in an enterprise Architecture context.
Figure 1: Top Down versus Bottom Up Puzzle in Enterprise Architecture Context
Figure 1 helps us to conclude that the enterprise classification framework is the input criteria for the top down enterprise architecture framework implementation approach. However, the enterprise classification framework itself could be used as a ‘top down’, ‘bottom up’, or ‘middle in’ approach to classify the enterprise Meta information.
The CORE
The CORE of the enterprise architecture includes the way to the enterprise business entities, within the context of how the enterprise Meta-Information systems are classified, organised and maintained in an appropriate relationship. Figure 2 explains the decomposition of the enterprise entity into fine grained functional objects. Figure 3 depicts the enterprise SOA layers.
Figure 2: Enterprise Entity Decomposition Approach
Figure 3: Enterprise Technology Layers
Figure 2 shows another interesting aspect of the enterprise business entity decomposition. It associates enterprise decomposition with different enterprise viewpoints. The enterprise classification framework is created with one of the other objectives to classify the layers and organise them into an ontological relationship. These two shows how to decompose the enterprise in terms of fine grained modules and layers in order to describe and predict the enterprise functionalities.
E=MC2: Matrix Enterprise Powered by MDA and Crosscutting Concerns
The enterprise grammar information systems have been transformed into Meta-Information systems value chains. This paradigm shift has drastically updated our enterprise grammar where ‘I AM’ [Information around Modules] has been deprecated with ‘We ARE’ [Wider Enterprise fueled by Abstracted Reusability Entity value chains]. The enterprise classification framework draws a roadmap to define the meta-information systems in terms of the enterprise architecture concepts.
Crosscutting Concerns or Concern Oriented Software Development is the right fuel for MDA-based enterprise architecture state-of-the art practice. Although MDA and Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) are still not established in terms of their comprehensive and robustness, enterprises stand to benefit greatly from the confluence of these practices. On a lighter note, Albert Einstein's famous formula E = MC2 , can be used to rightly describe the ultimate equation for the enterprise. See Figure 4.
Figure 4: E = MC2 : the Matrix Enterprise Powered by MDA and Crosscutting Concerns
Aspect-oriented, MDA-driven enterprise architecture development will bring about a paradigm shift from traditional enterprise architecture development principles towards crosscutting concern-separated enterprise. Separation of crosscutting concern is a powerful technique for deriving a modular matrix enterprise. Concern oriented modularisation techniques help MDA to weave a better enterprise solution. MDA and concern oriented development are made for each other, and together they can truly weave the ultimate enterprise architecture.
Figure 4 introduces the ultimate enterprise classification framework that can help us derive true natured model driven enterprise architecture and make the enterprise empowered by E=MC2.
Figure 5: A Model Driven Enterprise Classification Framework
It may often be misconstrued that the model driven enterprise classification framework aims to replace certain other existing classification frameworks; however, that is not the case. In the current enterprise market various classification frameworks have been proposed. Unfortunately, they neither emphasise model driven benefits nor populate the enterprise framework concepts properly. Therefore, the model driven classification framework has been proposed to leverage the best enterprise architecture framework practice that goes beyond simple enterprise architecture development to enterprise integration, and to benefit from use of emerging technologies such as SOA, and ESB. The model driven enterprise classification framework unleashes the power of a true classification framework that helps build a robust enterprise architecture.
Conclusions
This week I have introduced the only available classification framework of its kind that is powered by models and driven by crosscutting concerns. This classification framework provides a comprehensive roadmap to defining your enterprise signature in the context of the enterprise architecture framework. In the next issue, I will elaborate the model driven classification framework to unveil the real power of this framework.
References
- GERAM: Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology. Version 1.6.3; also in Handbook on Enterprise Architecture by P.Bernus, L.Nemes and G. Schmidt (Eds) from Springer (2003) pp 22-64
- Handbook on Enterprise Architecture, by Bernus, P., Nemes, L. and G. Schmidt (eds.), from Springer [ISBN: 3540003436]
- ZIFA
- 4. Zachman Framework: A Framework for Information Systems Architecture by J. A. Zachman, IBM Systems Journal 26, No. 3, 276–295 (1987) 5. Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture by J. F. Sowa and J. A. Zachman, IBM Systems Journal 3, 1992, No: 31 Page 590-616.
- Weaving the Ultimate Enterprise Architecture with Aspect Oriented Design
- Enterprise Entity
- Enterprise Reference Architecture Framework
- MDA Specification
- ECA
- Model-Driven Architecture: Vision, Standards And Emerging Technologies Position Paper Submitted to ECOOP 2001 for Workshop on Metamodeling and Adaptive Object by John D. Poole, Hyperion Solutions Corporation, April 2001
- Concepts for Modelling Enterprise Architectures by Henk Jonkers, Marc Lankhorst, René van Buuren, Stijn Hoppenbrouwers, Marcello Bonsangue, Leendert van der Torre, where Telematica Institute, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science, Leiden, the Netherlands, CWI, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
|
