The artefacts at each level should not really be considered
as separate boxes but more as a Russian doll of artefacts where the levels
above provide an encompassing context for the levels below. In this way, these
levels of artefacts are not separate and disconnected are much more cohesive
and provide the context and environment for the levels below them.
Who, What, Why, When, How, Where - the Six interrogatives
made famous by Rudyard Kipling (and John A. Zachman of course!) What could be
simpler? But those six words are much more complicated that the simple
categorisations they intimate. Why is probably the most important but there are
(at least) two important Whys. Why are we doing something in the first place,
and why are we doing what we are doing, in the way we are doing it.
The Why are we doing it
generally relates to MAGMA and could be simply stated as Motivation (or requirements) that are refined the
further down we go.
The Why are we doing this way
general relates to MACE and are effectively constraints that become more strict
the further down we go (although the Assessment
domain of MAGMA also constitutes a Why are we doing
Does your Enterprise think of
the two Whys?
When people in your Enterprise
talk about why they are doing something, do they always talk about the same
why or do they talk at cross purposes?
Does one group think more in
terms of Why are we doing it and other groups think more in terms of Why
are we doing it this way? (Remember the difference between a Strategic
project being executed in a Tactical way)