The Complete Pragmatic Family of Frameworks

◄◄◄ Previous Page         


          Next Page ►►►

Plate A

Here we see the Zachman Ontology, showing the two labels used for each row. On the left is what is referred to as “Audience Perspectives” and on the right is what Z is referred to as “Model Names” or “Representations”. These “Perspectives” and “Model Names” form a stack from high level strategy at the top to physical things in Operations at the bottom. The “Perspectives” on the left relate to people and therefore the work those people do. The “Model Names” on the right relate to the information those people use to do their work.

Because of this it is more apt to move the “Model Names” down a little to sit between each of the perspectives because each model forms the output from one perspective and the input to the next as illustrated in Plate B.

Plate B

As we move down these perspectives and models this makes sense:

¨      The Executives create the Context models…

¨      …which are taken by Business Management as input who create Business Models…

¨      …which are taken by Architects as input who create Logical Models…

¨      …which are taken by Engineers as input who create Physical Models…

¨      …which are taken by Technicians as input who create Configuration Models…

¨      …which are taken by Users as input who create Operational Instances ?????????

Hang on … that last one doesn’t sound right at all … users don’t create Operational Instances … Users use Operational instances … so we need to move the User’s Perspective down to the correct place.

Plate C

OK - that’s better! Users take Operational Instances as their input and use them … correct!

But this creates a hole in our diagram - a Perspective that takes Configuration Models and creates Operational Instances. We also recognise that there is another hole at the top - a Model that the Enterprise Perspective needs to use as its input.

Plate D

And so we add the missing Deployer Perspective and the missing Enterprise Context Model.

To be fair to Zachman, he isn’t missing the Enterprise Context Model per se, as he says that the enterprise’s context is comprised of other Enterprises, which would have their own Zachman models. This is true, but as we know Context is King™, and so we really need to show it as, from our Enterprises perspective, it is the most important.


Questions to ponder...

Do you agree that the Deployer Perspective is missing in Zachman?

If not, why not?

If not, how to you reconcile the mismatches?

◄◄◄ Previous Page          

          Next Page ►►►


© 2008-2019 Pragmatic EA Ltd