Is this really the question? Or is this even foolish to ask?
[Alternatively insert your comparative frameworks of choice here]. I think to a certain point these are valid questions. However, indeed, it
appears that the debate on the level of completeness for frameworks continue to
reach seemingly Shakespearean heights of intrigue and borderline melodrama.
Admittedly, a framework can leave a lot up to the
organization to fill in the blanks. But this should be no surprise -- a
framework by definition is skeletal, and perhaps one can use the word "deliberately
vague" as a remote synonym. Sampling some frameworks, I see that others
are more generous with substance, but these come mostly as examples i.e. so-called
Reference Models, and can still leave you with the option to explore your own
specific elaboration.
If you google on "EA frameworks", discussions will be
replete with comments that a framework is not a cookbook. It is not a
methodology in itself. Although a framework can suggest its own methodologies
for specific areas of the framework, e.g. TOGAF's ADM.
As an additional example, a framework can introduce the concept
of views and viewpoints, and will perhaps illustrate the concept with the
primary viewpoints, but will leave the option and flexibility for the
organization to explore what other viewpoints make sense for their particular
business context. Thus, I continue to
see consistent illustrations that reinforce the notion that these frameworks
are meant to be explored, and allows the happy free experimentation to see how
one framework can actually be combined with others.
Take a look at what Raytheon tried with TOGAF, DoDAF, and
Zachman.
Allen Brown, President and CEO at The Open Group, says this: “If
people are struggling with TOGAF, either they’re not adapting it for their
organization, or they’re not getting people who’ve ‘been there, done that, got
the T-shirt, have the scratch marks’ to help with the initiative.”
Vish Viswanathan, Managing Principal of an Australian EA
consulting firm agrees: "TOGAF consists of best practices, processes,
principles, rules, guidelines, techniques – basically, a toolkit” A toolkit by
definition is a kit of tools -- tools you use to build your house - definitely
not the house itself, and not even the finished modular components of the
house. Apropos, Viswanathan warns us that “A fool with a tool is still a
fool." i.e. we need to have a healthy expectation of what the tools are for, so we can use them properly.
See the full discussion about fools with tools here:
Being a firm believer in the power of visuals to bring out insights, I hope the following attempt helps. I know I myself will want to see these
notes again, when I relapse into my own confusion.
Check out this house, and the next.
And then the next below.
If you noticed something similar, you're right - the three were
all built using the same basic framework. But each one was customized to
reflect the preferences for taste, function, and other purposes known only to
the homeowners. The same goes for the
internals of these houses - same frameworks, but the execution of details can vary depending on many factors.
Now please take a look at the fourth house below.
Clearly the framework for this bigger house
is different. The point being -- the choice of framework matters because some
frameworks might be too big for the occupants, or possibly too small.
Going over to another favorite analogy, please take a look at
the next two vehicle frames.
Do you notice the differences?
Both fundamentally have the same essential elements and shape for their framework. However, the construction and composition of the two frameworks are
different, because one is built for rough and tumble, the other for smooth
roads and speed. The first is for the Humvee, and the second for the Corvette.
Again, the point being, purpose and application are important
criteria for selecting the more appropriate framework.
Now take a look below at the advantage of a framework which is
deliberately "vague" and more bare-bones to the essentials. This kind
of framework gives you the openness and flexibility to express the full
potential of your vision.
Lastly, I would like to leave with the picture below of what should be the
whole EA landscape.
Again the picture above includes the essential elements of enterprise architecture, to which I pose the question:
Would there be an organization -- so experienced in systems development, and deep in their artifacts inventory, that they can run off with this fundamental EA schema, and devise their own framework?
What do you think?
I quite understand that active discussions can be a sign of
attempts to resolve confusion. However, I would think that this should only be to
a certain point, and we need to check if we just need to go back to
fundamentals to get back our bearings. As I mentioned elsewhere, I can see why Allega
said "framework debates are irrelevant" Hopefully the sigh was not
too long.
Cheers always, and let's try to keep it light.
Addendum:
Some good references which maintain consistent terminologies
regarding frameworks.
Cameron, BH., McMillan, E. (2013). Analyzing the Current Trends
in Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. Journal Paper. Journal of Enterprise
Architecture. http://ea.ist.psu.edu/documents/journal_feb2013_cameron_2.pdf
Urbaczewski, et al. (2006). A Comparison of Enterprise
Architecture Frameworks. Journal Paper. Eastern Michigan University. Issues in
Information Systems. Vol7,No.2. http://ggatz.com/images/SOA_COMPARE.pdf
Open Group. (2001). Other Architectures and Architectural
Frameworks. Web Article. The Open Group. http://www.opengroup.org/public/arch/p4/others/others.htm
Walker, M. (2013 Feb 10). TOGAF Demystification Series:
Comparing TOGAF To Other Frameworks. Web Article. http://www.mikethearchitect.com/2013/02/togaf-demystification-series-comparing-togaf-to-other-frameworks.html
/
A very interesting post on EA Frameworks. I like the way in which you have selected the examples of the houses and the vehicles to better explain what a framework is. I completely agree that a framework can suggest methodologies but it is completely up to the EA to understand the org culture and customize the framework for optimal use in an organization. In a company like mine where people at any level do not have patience to read paragraphs, adhering to TOGAF would be a complete mistake. Hence what I have decided and am currently doing is picking artifacts and sections that mean the most from the TOGAF/Gartner deliverables and completely customize it to my company's environment so that it is widely accepted. Keeping it light and drawing the line for what is enough is a challenge. I think it is better to follow one or more frameworks and customize, only because any industry standard framework can be easily understood by another EA who comes in fresh into the organization.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great post.
Veena.