How was Training?

more

Good - BI Architect, Board of Equalization, USA, Jan 2015

Recommend PEAF?

more

Yes - Very well structured Seems will be continuously developed Easy to be understand - Enteprise Architecture Manager, Romtelecom, Romania, Jun 2012

  Introduction   Context   Methods   Artefacts   Culture   Environment   Adoption  

Desktop

Mobile

 

<< Previous <<

>> Next >>

Here we see some criteria that we will use to analyse and compare PEAF, TOGAF and Zachman:

Transformational Focus

      Strategic - Frameworks that score highly here are ones whose remit is more towards the Strategising, Roadmapping and governance of Initiating phases of the Transformation domain - the domains typically associated with Enterprise Architecture.

      Project - Frameworks that score highly here are ones whose remit is more towards the Initiating, Elaborating, and the governance of Construction phases of the Transformation domain - the domains typically associated with Enterprise Engineering.

Structural Focus

      Enterprise - Frameworks that score highly here are ones whose remit is more towards the structure of the entire Enterprise without limitation - the domain typically associated with Enterprise Architecture.

      IT - Frameworks that score highly here are ones whose remit is more towards the structure of only those parts of the Enterprise consisting of IT and the other parts of the Enterprise that are connected to IT in some way - the domain typically associated with Enterprise IT Architecture (EITA).

Content

      Detail - Frameworks that score highly here are ones that are large and contain massive amounts of detail.

      Usability - Frameworks that score highly here are ones that are easy to understand, use and deploy.

 

Are these reasonable criteria?

If not, what criteria would you use?

How would you score each Framework?

 

 

2008-2016 Pragmatic EA Ltd