If we intend to model all the information we have
identified, we will need a Metamodel, aka a list of Entities and their
Relationships of the things that we will model. It would be nice to choose one,
however in reality, one Metamodel to cover the entire Transformation domain
does not exist and so a hybrid approach is needed.
Here we see an example of a full hybrid meta-model,
constructed by taking the most appropriate things from various meta-models from
various frameworks, and producing a meta-model with 100% coverage. We say 100%
coverage because it covers both Structural and Transformational information, from
a Strategy to Deployment perspective.
You may be surprised that the part that Pragmatic contributes (in red) is so small. This is
perfectly understandable as Pragmatic have
always asserted that lack of meta-models has rarely been the reason for EA’s
failure and since there are already a multitude of Metamodels already in
existence it would be churlish to re-invent the wheel so to speak. Pragmatic has, however, made a massive contribution
by the introduction of Transformation Debt™ Agreements (TDAs) that allow the
exposing and management of Transformation Debt™.
In addition Pragmatic’s contribution
is by the definition of the Ontology that all these other frameworks co-exist
within, aka DOTS, MACE and MAGMA.
Having said that, it has become obvious over time, that the
lack of a single coherent metamodel, coupled with the difficulty most tools
have in using hybrid metamodels, creates a massive problem for Enterprise and
therefore a full Pragmatic Metamodel is in production, which will cover all
domains and all levels.