email article printer friendly more resources

A Common Framework for IT and Business
IT and business must follow the same cognitive model to effectively communicate.
by Jeff Tash

November 15, 2004

What's more difficult, teaching a businessperson about technology or teaching a technologist about business? The answer depends largely on which group you ask.

The view of many CIOs, confident in their command of technology, is that they are well-suited to serve as catalysts for business-oriented strategic thinking. Yet, according to a recent Gartner report, , CIOs rank last among senior executive positions that CEOs think are important to the strategic direction of their enterprise. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to be a businessperson trying to figure out what IT is talking about most of the time.

Take, for example, the term enterprise architecture. What exactly does that phrase mean? John Zachman, usually considered the father of enterprise architecture, would tell you it's a 6x6 matrix. The columns correspond to the following six questions: What? How? Who? Where? When? Why?

The rows of the matrix are:

• Scope
• Business model
• System model
• Technology model
• Detailed implementations
• Functioning enterprise

Frankly, I have never been able to figure out what differentiates one row from another within the Zachman Framework (see Resources), especially as you go from system model down to functioning enterprise. In other words, deciding which row something belongs in often seems arbitrary.

In my experience, the Zachman Framework is most useful for strategic planning initiatives. Scope, the top row, presents a good big picture overview. The second row, business model, describes business processes adequately. However, as you move down the rows away from a business-oriented perspective and toward a more technology-oriented view, the Zachman Framework becomes increasingly less effective.

I challenge Zachman's fundamental assertion that complex IT systems somehow mimic architecture and construction. They do not. Nor are IT systems similar to engineering and manufacturing. In fact, in my opinion, the limitations of the Zachman Framework stem directly from John Zachman's complete lack of experience actually developing software systems.

I can only imagine what the cognitive model must look like inside Zachman's head when he thinks about or talks about software. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that his cognitive model is quite similar to that of most non-IT business managers. That's probably been the key to the Zachman Framework's success.

A different definition of enterprise architecture, one that I prefer, comes from an organization called The Open Group. It describes enterprise architecture as consisting of four types of subset architectures:

• Business architecture
• Data architecture
• Applications architecture
• Technology architecture