Enterprise Architecture Frameworks,
Definition, Approach, and Differences

Write a technical report on five frameworks.

Introduction (More than 10 lines)
a. Definition of enterprise architecture frameworks
b. The importance/roles of frameworks when developing enterprise architectures.
c. You may include figures to illustrate the provided materials.
d. Citation should be included after each new information (explanation in the next
section).
2. Results
a. Brief description for each framework (More than 4 lines for each framework)
b. Citation should be included after each new information taken from the references
by including the reference number between two square brackets.
For example,
TOGAF is a framework and methodology to develop enterprise architectures
providing good guidelines to develop EA [1]. Where 1 is the reference number
(in the References section) from which you are extracting this information.
1. Qurratuaini, H. "Designing enterprise architecture based on
TOGAF 9.1 Framework." IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering. Vol. 403. No. 1. IOP Publishing, 2018.
c. Figures must be used to support your illustrations.
d. Comparison between the introduced frameworks for example, you can use the
criteria in the following table.
Table. 1. Comparison between the introduced frameworks.
Framework Approach (what it
does)
When it is
used
Features ...
Add new rows/columns as needed.
You are free to change the criteria according to your search finding.
3. Conclusion (More than 7 lines)
Brief description of this report for example: In this report, we introduced five EA
frameworks, TOGAF, GMT, ... after we analyzed their usage and features, we have
provided a comparison between them in terms of the method used, when they are used,
and their features. This comparison shows that TOGAF is more suitable for ... while
Zechman ...
4. References
You must write the references you used to write your report. The references could be
articles, documents, websites, or reports.
It must be in MLA format including:
a. The names of the authors are separated by a comma.
b. Title of the references.
c. Publisher. : The name of the conference or the journal that published the
article. Use the URL of the website instead if you used a post from the
website.
d. The year of publication.
Example:
1. OMG. Systems Modeling Language (SysML) v2 Request For
Proposal (RFP). (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc.cgi?ad/2017-12-
2). (2017b)

Grads:
Item Grade distribution
Introduction 15:
• 5 for using figures.
• 5 for the definition
• 5 for the importance of frameworks
Result 50:
20 Description
20 Comparison
5 Using figures.
5 Citation
Conclusion 20:
• 5 Your report description
• 15 The main finding
References 5
Style and
structure
10
Requirements:
• Introduction: Comprehensive use of figures, clear definition, and a
strong emphasis on the importance of frameworks.
• Result: Thorough description and insightful comparison with
appropriate use of figures and proper citation.
• Conclusion: Adequate description of the report, and a well-defined
main finding that aligns with the content.
• References: Adequate and appropriate sources are cited.
• Style and Structure: Well-organized, coherent, and appropriate
writing style and structure.
Section Excellent Good Fair Need Improvement
Introduction Definition [5] Provides a comprehensive
definition of the EA framework
with clear illustrations (4 lines or
more).
[3] Offers a concise
definition of the EA
framework (around 3 lines).
[2] Presents a basic
definition without
accompanying
illustrations.
[0] Lacks any definition
or illustration.
Importance [5] Exceptionally illustrates the
significance of EA frameworks
with consistency and depth
(more than 6 lines, including
descriptions and bullet points).
[3] Demonstrates the
importance of EA
frameworks with adequate
illustrations (about 4-5 lines
with descriptions and bullet
points).
[2] Includes a few
illustrations briefly
(around 3 lines).
[1] Provides a minimal
illustration, less than 3
lines.
Figures [5] Effectively uses clear figures
that enhance understanding and
insight.
[3] Employs figures, though
some may lack clarity and
labeling, they contribute to
understanding
[2] Presents figures,
but they don't
effectively enhance
understanding
[0] No figures provided
Result Description [20] Provides a comprehensive
description of more than 4
frameworks, each with insightful
elaboration (more than 4 lines
each).
[16] Describes more than 4
frameworks, offering
substantial explanations (2-3
lines each)
[8] Describes 4-3
frameworks with
explanations.
[5] Provides less than
3 frameworks, with
brief descriptions (1
line each))
Figures [5] Each framework is skillfully
coupled with a figure illustrating
its structure or steps.
[3] Most mentioned
frameworks are
supplemented with figures
illustrating their steps or
structure.
[2] Figures are
largely absent for
illustrating framework
steps or structure
[0] No figures provided
Comparison [20] Exhaustively analyzes all
mentioned frameworks using
more than 3 criteria and
highlights significant findings.
[16] Thoroughly compares
all mentioned frameworks
with 3 or more criteria but
might lack depth or analysis.
[8] The comparison
might include only 2
criteria or exclude
some mentioned
frameworks
[0] comparison
between the
frameworks is not
provided or includes
only one criterion.
Citation [5] Meticulously cites sources
for each new piece of
information, maintaining
scholarly integrity.
[3] Cites most pieces of
information, though some
may lack proper referencing
[2] Offers only a few
citations for
information.
[0] No citations
provided
Conclusion Report
Description
[5] Impart a comprehensive
description of the report,
[3] effectively describes the
report, including its
objectives
[2] The description
might lack clarity or
omit certain aspects.
[0] Fails to provide a
clear description of the
report's objectives.
outlining its objectives and
significance.
The main
finding
[15] Eloquently describes the
main finding, its significance,
and the primary outcome of the
comparison (most evident
results)
[10] Describes the main
finding, its importance, and
the main result of the
comparison
[5] Describes the
main finding,
possibly mentioning
minor outcomes of
the comparison.
[0] Main finding not
described, or the
description is
inadequately derived
from the comparison
Writing Quality [5] Demonstrates outstanding
writing quality with impeccable
grammar, spelling, punctuation,
and logical sentence structure.
Ideas are presented coherently
and transition smoothly
[3] Writing is clear,
displaying proficiency in
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and sentence
structure. Ideas are
coherent, with minor issues
in clarity, flow, or language
usage.
[2] Contains
occasional errors or
inconsistencies in
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, or
sentence structure,
affecting clarity.
Ideas might lack
cohesion or
expression.
[1] Contains significant
errors or
inconsistencies,
impairing
comprehension. Ideas
are poorly organized or
incoherent.
Structure [5] Skillfully organizes
information according to the
specified sections, enhancing
clarity and coherence.
[3] The information is mostly
well-organized, but a few
portions might be misplaced.
All required sections are
present
[2] Some required
sections are missed
or misplaced, which
slightly affects the
organization.
[0] Information is not
organized according to
the required sections
References [5] Meticulously cites each
reference inside the text,
exceeding the minimum
requirement of four references.
[3] Most references are cited
inside the text, meeting the
minimum requirement of four
references.
[2] Half/Most
references are not
cited in the text, and
the number of
references might be
insufficient.
[0] References are not
cited inside the text.