Would you change the Zachman Framework?
25 July 2007
In his recent blog at http://4thresource.evernden.net/ Roger Evernden asks ‘would you change the Zachman Framework?’.
Recently Zachman and Locke have been doing great stuff to update the Zachman Framework themselves and it always sounds great at conferences, but it isn’t enough I think.
Their problem is that is it has been a good earner for them and since it is now their brand they can not be seen to change it too dramatically.
My general thinking is that an EA framework is multi dimensional (perhaps at least the 8 dimensions introduced in the book ‘ Information First’) and that the Zachman Framework presents one of many views that are useful.
I think the main issue is that many people find the language of ZF doesn’t match the names they use for deliverables in their own environment.
Also ZF is seen as too theoretical and formal, which puts many people off.
Many are looking for a quick win, keeping it simple, just good enough, just in time. However in real life the devil is in the detail and a more complex solution is needed.
The Zachman Framework talks about primitives and composites. The primitive information is what is classified in the Zachman cells. However most people produce complex composite deliverables as long documents whcih relate more to what Zachman calls the composites.
What needs to be changed I think is to add an orthogonal view of the Zachman Framework that just shows the composites. A mapping between composites and the deliverables promoted by Prince 2, OGC and other project management processes would be a good start.
I’ll post some of my other thoughts on the Zachman Framework later on.