How was Training?

more

“Really positive and thought provoking” - Senior Solution Architect, HSCIC, UKA, Feb 2015

Recommend PEAF?

more

“Yes - This is a pragmatic process.” - Software Architect, AP Software Ltda, Brazil, Jul 2010



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 does not.

 

Do you agree? If not, why not?

If not, how would you map these things?

What things do you think are in Zachman that do not exist in POET or PEAF?

What things would you add to Zachman?

 

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►














 

© 2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd