Issue 2

An ontology-driven enterprise architecture framework is presented that provides substantial benefits over conventional representations of traditional architecture domains such as business, data, application, and systems. These benefits range from the tractable synthesis of large and complex domains, improved architecture maintainability and evolution, and more effective analyses of architecture improvement scenarios. An enhanced architecture meta-model is presented, followed by an ontology framework that emphasizes composition via sub-ontologies and normalization. Tools and techniques for ontology persistence, development, testing, reasoning, querying, and visualization that constitute the solution landscape are also discussed. Finally, a set of recommendations provides guidance on selecting the right mix of technologies and tools to compose and interpret enterprise solutions.

Enterprise Architecture is a complex and daunting discipline that touches multiple aspects of an enterprise as well as people participating in various roles throughout the life cycle of the enterprise. The Zachman FrameworkTM for Enterprise Architecture offers a formal and highly structured representation of an enterprise. The Framework’s “Perspectives” correspond to specific stakeholder groups that play different roles in the implementation of an Enterprise Architecture. This article demonstrates that the influence that the Zachman Framework’s Perspectives (rows) have on each other can be used to derive a rational allocation of stakeholders’ skills and time that promotes specifications cohesion throughout the implementation of an Enterprise Architecture. We do so by prescribing upper bounds to stakeholders’ relative degree of involvement based on the level of influence that they exert at any given point in time on Enterprise Architecture artifacts mapped to the Zachman Framework.

Available in July 2009, the new book, Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance discusses a more outcome-oriented way to envision the practice of Enterprise Architecture (EA). The book is edited by Gary Doucet, John Gøtze, Pallab Saha and Scott Bernard, and commenced with the publication of an article in the May 2008 edition of JEA that captured the essential elements of what Coherency Management is all about. This article also formed the basis of a solicitation that went out to Enterprise Architecture leaders throughout the world as the editors looked for others to contribute to the book. The result is a work that covers a wide spectrum of current EA theory and practice throughout the world, with Coherency Management as an organizing principal.

This article discusses two important improvements that are needed in Enterprise Architecture (EA) programs: (1) formalization in EA approaches and (2) auditing of EA programs. Formalization occurs through the implementation of six elements that are foundational to any EA approach: governance, methodology, framework, artifacts, repository, and best practices. Auditing is accomplished through an approach-neutral process that evaluates completeness, consistency and utilization to promote transparency, accountability, maturity, and value. The article provides context through a discussion of the background of EA, the growing popularity of EA programs in the public and private sectors, and the mixed record of value the EA programs have produced for different stakeholder groups, some of whom tend to view a formalized architecture as expensive to develop, light on returns, and a threat to project or system-specific interests. Auditing is discussed as a best practice that should be considered as an essential aspect of any EA program, just as auditing is integral to most quality assurance approaches and is the impetus for several influential federal laws that seek to improve accountability, accuracy, and service delivery. The article concludes with an introduction of the EA Audit Model (EA2M) as a method to support the formalization and maturation of EA programs.