Here we see how the important seeds that John A. Zachman
planted have been extended and built upon by POET and PEAF. Without Johns
important work it is debatable whether POET and PEAF would even exist.
The red line illustrates how the content of the Zachman
Ontology maps to the content of POET and PEAF. The height of each box is
proportional to the quantity of material in each section.
The core of Zachman is an Enterprise Ontology which defines
Artefacts hence the larger overlap with the Artefacts section of POET. However,
it is only shown just over half width because Zachman is 5/6 Structural (What,
How, Where, Who, When) and 1/6 Transformational (Why) which means it only
covers just over half of the full Enterprise Transformation domain.
Whilst there is no methodological guidance in Zachman, there
is a small overlap with the Methods section of POET because Zachman does define
the notion of Transformational perspectives (Executive, Business Management,
Architect, Engineer, Technician, Enterprise/Users). Context, Environment and
Culture are covered to a small degree in training although the Ontology itself
Do you agree? If not, why not?
If not, how would you map
What things do you think are
in Zachman that do not exist in POET or PEAF?
What things would you add to