Talk:Enterprise architecture framework

message: An enterprise architecture framework (EA framework) defines how to create and use an enterprise architecture. 
is a generalisation. It is not true that all EAFs defines how to create and use an enterprise architecture. This is probably true because of confusion between 'architecture' and 'architecture description' (AD) i.e the latter describes the former. If you substitute 'architecture description' for 'architecture' you get: ...
defines how to create and use an enterprise architecture description. 
This is closer - all EAFs probably define how to create an AD. Not all EAFs define how to use an AD.
However, if the change is accepted then the following statement already present is better:
An architecture framework provides principles and practices for creating and using the architecture description of a system.
The proposal is therefore to delete the first sentence. 
--Wikitect (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Statement

message: This should really be move to "enterprise architecture frameworks"
(unsigned)
I disagree with the previous unsigned statement.  This location is just fine.
--Nickmalik (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  location in wikipedia 

message: At some point, there needs to be a good consistent rewrite of the topics related to Enterprise Architecture to insure that the proper content is in the proper place.  For example, the topic on the TOGAF ea framework describes criteria that each ea framework should be required to meet, and then states, simply, that TOGAF meets it.  (clever, but not useful).
If there is to be a discussion on the comparison between frameworks, the criteria for considering a particular 'thing' to be a framework, or discussion on the history and future of ea frameworks, it probably should be here.  
Related topics would include
* The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF)
* Zachman Framework
* Enterprise Architecture
* Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
Of course, I could do this... in all my spare time ;-), but I'd like to get feedback from the community if you would agree or would feel that this is a useful exercise before embarking upon it.--Nickmalik (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  consistency with other topics 

message: I finally broke down and rewrote this, along with the article on Enterprise Architecture. Still needs work on the History section --Nickmalik (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote 

message: I removed the first example in the history section, with the text:
:The first documented implementation of an Enterprise Architecture framework was developed by the Partnership for Research in Information Systems Management (PRISM) in 1986
This seemed to be based on three sources:
# PRISM, CSC Index and Hammer and Company, Dispersion and Interconnection: Approaches to Distributed Systems Architecture, June 1986.
# Davenport, T. H., Hammer, M., Metsisto, T., How Executives can Shape Their Company’s Information Systems, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1989
# Richardson, Gary L., Jackson, Brad M., Dickson, Gary W., A Principles Based Architecture: Lessons Learned from Texaco and Star Enterprise, MIS Quarterly; December 1990.
I couldn't find any confirmation on the internet of the existence of the first source. I did find two books which mentioned "Partnership for Research in Information Systems Management" in connection with reengineering. But I couldn't find a source confirming the statement. 
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed first example in the history section 

message: In this edit text is copy/paste from the view model. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 

message: Having looked through the current list of 6 I can't find any evidence that any of them that are actually open source. Open source seems to be a different basis for development in any case and if, when there is one, would be better under an Open Source sub-heading. At the moment these 2 concepts are mixed which is confusing or raises hopes before dashing them! ;-)
--Wikitect (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems solid. For now we could/should move LEAD under the Proprietary frameworks-section. -- Mdd (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Source or Consortia-developed Frameworks 

message: In an attempt to merge links from the "See Also" section of the page on Enterprise architecture, I brought across the links to two of the frameworks that had been mistakenly linked from that page, only to realize (after I saved my changes) that the pages in question were already linked from the text... so I undid my own edits.  My apologies for the error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging links from other pages 

message: The EA framework timeline is attributed to Stephen Marley.  I've been using that diagram for some years and have been attributing it to Jaap Schekkerman.  I'll aim to track down who is actually the author.
regards
Neil
Neilynch (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncertain of attribution 

message: Note that FEAF is not a term used by OMB in relation to OMB FEA.  FEAF is a term from the CIO Council and their 1999 Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) document, version 1.1.  The OMB FEA does not provide an EA Framework - it provides a set of reference taxonomies by which Federal organizations are to categorize their major IT investments whereby OMB may review them in relaton to the budget submissions for those investments.  Unfortunately, the EA term "FEAF" term has migrated over into the vocabulary of those complying with OMB FEA guidance.  Note that the hyperlink on the main page that says "Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework" actually points to the OMB FEA home page.
Definitions From 1999 FEAF 1.1 by CIO Council.
Enterprise Architecture (EA): a strategic information asset base, which defines the mission, the information necessary to perform the mission and the technologies necessary to perform the mission, and the transitional
processes for implementing new technologies in response to the changing mission needs. An enterprise architecture includes a baseline architecture, target architecture, and a sequencing plan.
Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF): a conceptual model that begins to define a documented and coordinated structure for cross-cutting businesses and design developments in the Government. Collaboration among the Agencies with a vested interest in a Federal segment will result in increased efficiency and economies of scale. Agencies should use the Framework to describe segments of their architectures.
Roebuckr (Roebuckr) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Roy, thanks for sharing your insides. There is a Federal Enterprise Architecture article, where this information might be useful. I am not sure if this could effect this article. If so, please explain. -- Mdd (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks Roy for making these adjustments in the article. I am now starting to understand what you mean. I guess you can held me responsible for mixing up those two. In the Enterprise Architecture framework I have mixed those two while expanding that article between July 2008 and August 2009, see here. In the version just before that the FEAF wasn't mentioned at all, see here. I am now starting to wonder if there should be a separate article here on FEAF (and the US Federal CIO Council), if you understand what I mean? -- Mdd (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving terms FEA and FEAF 

message: This article defines the term 'Enterprise Architecture Framework', or EA Framework, then proceeds merrily to use the phrase 'Architecture Framework' as a lazy synonym for it.  This would be fine if the term 'Architecture Framework' did not also have a clear meaning in the realm of Software Architecture (SA).  Should we:
#Add a note on terminology, that although 'Architecture Framework' is a synonym for EA Framework, it is also a term with (somewhat) different meaning in the SA realm?  - OR -
#Add a disambiguation page for 'Architecture Framework'?
yoyo (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation from Software Architecture Framework 

message: Yesterday, and anom (see here) claimed an unknown framework is one of the three popular frameworks. I have try to removed this, but this has been undone. Now I checked again and can't find any conformation in reliable sources, so I have removed it a second time. -- Mdd (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After an article for creation about that framework has been declined, see here, the anon has put the text back here, see here. I think this is just unacceptable spam, which should be removed. -- Mdd (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV about popular frameworks 

message: This entire topic is basically crap -- don't waste your time reading it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.13.52 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  general 

message: Graham, because there are different issues here, I will start a separate one about this topic. Now you say the graphic's contents are somewhat misleading. Now again formally you are right, because graphics are always somewhat misleading. But I think they are appropriate because they come from reliable sources, and they are on topic. 
First about the origin of the first (timeline) graphic:  
* The graphic is based on the "Evolution of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks from 1987 to 2003" graphic, developed by Stephen Marley, NASA /SCI and presented in 2003 in a presentation about Architectural Frameworks
* Around the same time Jaap Schekkerman constructed a similar graphic, presented in the "A Comparative Survey of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks" 2004 presentation (still online)
* This timeline is similar with for example the 2010 presentation Timeline of Enterprise Architecture by G. Hussain Chinoy
In short the graphic is comparable to graphics about this topic in reliable source, which is the basic requirement for Wikipedia content. -- Mdd (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The graphic's contents 

message: I have just removed the following section from the article (see here):
::Since 1980, in the evolution of modern enterprise architecture frameworks, influential sources have included: 
::# "Business System Planning" (BSP) IBM. 
::# "Information Engineering" James Martin and others. 
::# "Framework for Information System Architecture" John Zachman.
::# "Enterprise Architecture Planning" (EAP) Stephen Spewak.
::# "Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), Federal CIO Council.
::# The Enterprise Edition of TOGAF, The Open Group.
::# "EA as Strategy" MIT’s Centre for Information System Research.
::A comparison of EA frameworks shows that TOGAF is akin to FEAF which is akin to EAP which is akin to BSP. Modern Enterprise Architecture frameworks (at least, all those including an Enterprise Architecture process) descend from planning methods like EAP and BSP, and borrow (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) from the other sources. 
For the following reasons:
* This listing solely relies on one primary/secondary source, not published in a reliable source
* The subjects mentioned in the listing span over 25 years.  
** Business System Planning and Information Engineering from the late 1970s, are not mentioned in other sources to my knowledge  
** The Zachman Framework evolved since 1982 and have been updated ever since, and did play a role. 
** Stephen Spewak presented his version of Enterprise Architecture Planning in 1992, but other versions of EAP have been presented. Yet not mentioned in the EAP Wikipedia article.
** The first US govenment EA frameworks like TAFIM, C4ISR, DOE Information Architecture, Treasury Information System Architecture Framework‎ set the standard for FEAF, but are not mentioned in the listing
** TOGAF started with adopting TAFIM 2.0 and absorbed many developments in the field. But where is the prove, that it influenced new developments in the field?
** The 2006 book "EA as Strategy" MIT’s Centre for Information System Research is about EA but doesn't relate to EA frameworks.
** Multiple thinks are missing in this listing, such as the origin in CIM, the development of reference models in the 1990s, development of separate reference models such as the NIST AE model.  
In the history section a synthesis like this would be very nice, but it should be build on multiple reliable source. -- Mdd (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influential sources in the evolution of modern enterprise architecture frameworks, section removed 

message: I can't find any references to the following methodology, other than direct quotes from wikipedia.
GOD, a generalist observation methodology, contains an enterprise architecture framework based on observation, an innovative certified approach provided in the SDFL Department of DUJ.
I'll mark up with citation needed, but wondered if anyone else could validate this - or perhaps it should be removed?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.238.149 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for noticing. I couldn't find any references either, and removed it (for now). -- Mdd (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  is "generalist observation methodology" genuine?  

message: I removed the citation from the History section because the references now seemed varied enough to no longer require that.  Please let me know if anyone objects to that.  It seems straightforward though.  Alex Jackl (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Removed from History Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Enterprise architecture framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213215829/http://www.cio.gov/Documents/fedarch1.pdf to http://www.cio.gov/documents/fedarch1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424131138/http://www.img-ggi.forces.gc.ca/pub/af-ca/index-eng.asp to http://www.img-ggi.forces.gc.ca/pub/af-ca/index-eng.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318003653/http://www.eaframeworks.com/TEAF/teaf.doc to http://www.eaframeworks.com/TEAF/teaf.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified