Zachman Framework: Enterprise Architecture Overview

Introduction to the Zachman Framework

The Zachman Framework is "a descriptive framework" for information systems architecture, developed by John Zachman drawing on other disciplines as a source of inspiration (Zachman, 1987). The framework comprises the following elements: identification, definition, representation, specification, configuration, and instantiation (Zachman, 2008). This paper seeks to develop a clear understanding of what the framework is and how it was developed.

Zachman developed the framework while working for IBM during the 1980s. He saw the central problem as the increasing size and complexity of information systems during this period, and believed that a framework by which the architecture of such systems could be understood was the appropriate response. This framework uses analogies from outside of information systems to explain IS architecture, allowing for better managerial understanding of complex systems. Zachman rightly recognized that the pace of IS complexity was increasing, and that going forward it would be difficult to understand IS architecture without such a framework and its accompanying language. He published his ideas in the IBM Systems Journal (Zachman, 1987), and the framework was developed as a combination of concepts and language drawn from the disciplines of architecture and manufacturing.

Development and Evolution of the Framework

In the 1990s, Zachman published the first major update of the framework. There had been questions about it since its original publication — including questions about "the other three columns" — and Zachman sought to address these with his updates and refinements in the early 1990s (Zachman, 2009). One key refinement was rebranding the framework as pertaining to enterprise architecture rather than information systems architecture. This change was partly intended to help market the framework, but also reflected the idea that information systems and the enterprise were closely linked, and that both had to be engineered in order to be optimized. Zachman believed that information systems could not simply be the domain of the IS department, but had to be part of the organization's overall strategy, with IS built into that strategy from the ground up.

There were further refinements in the 2000s. The framework was expanded, and some of its columns were explained in greater detail. Graphic representation of the framework was continually improved over time — indeed, Zachman argues that the key refinement in 2002 was, literally, "the use of the black and white gradient between the cells" (Zachman, 2009). One of the issues addressed in later refinements was the use of IS-specific terminology. The framework was never intended to be strictly for use within IS circles; Zachman has stated that the framework is meant to be simple and relatively free from technical jargon. Thus, many refinements over the past decade sought to bring the framework back to the enterprise domain and away from the IS domain.

The final evolution of the Zachman Framework was released in 2008. This version is "no different than the previous representation," differentiated only "because of the color of the models in each Row" (Zachman, 2009). The underlying logic of the framework has changed little over time, as the fundamental structural questions raised about "the other three columns" were resolved in the early 1990s.

Academic and Practitioner Response

The Zachman Framework is considered a pioneering effort in the area of information systems architecture and is one of several different frameworks available today. A notable critique of the framework is that it lacks "guidance on sequence, process or implementation" and "has no explicit compliance rules" (Urbaczewski & Mrdalj, 2006).

Zachman argues that the framework has grown in importance over time because the ideas of information systems architecture and enterprise architecture have become more mainstream in business as the strategic importance of information systems has increased. Now that information is one of the key sources of competitive advantage for many companies, IS models are increasingly useful in business settings, and that has brought renewed attention to the Zachman Framework.

Scholars have also found use for the framework. It has been used to explain modern enterprise architecture, as researchers fill in each cell to understand the links between different architectural elements and organizational strategy (Pereira & Sousa, 2004). There has been study of the best ways to operationalize the cells in the Zachman Framework, in response to the need for greater guidance with respect to implementation (Ostadzadeh, Aliee & Ostadzadeh, 2007). Frankel et al. (2003) acknowledge that the framework is one popular method of understanding enterprise architecture and compare it with a model-driven architecture. However, the limitation in terms of methodology remains — if the framework cannot be used to drive action, its practical value is questionable.

There have been other critiques as well. Simsion (2005) noted that there is limited explanation of how the framework can be used in practice. Managers are generally not interested in arcane theoretical constructs, but in what they can do to make their organizations more effective. While the framework provides a mechanism for understanding an organization's architecture, there are other methodologies that can serve the same purpose and can be extended to yield coherent strategies for managers to implement.

Conclusion

The Zachman Framework has genuine merit as a means of understanding enterprise architecture and has become widely known in the IS industry as a result. Despite attempts to make the framework more accessible to a non-IS audience, those attempts have remained largely theoretical. In practice, the framework suffers from a lack of implementation guidance. While IS professionals appreciate its ability to illuminate IS architecture and the role of IS within overall enterprise architecture, non-IS managers prefer models that offer concrete methodologies and implementation guidance. The absence of such guidance holds the Zachman Framework back from being widely studied and implemented outside of the IS domain.

The framework's success derives in part from its use of metaphor, which helps audiences grasp the underlying concepts. The challenge remains, however, that it is difficult to take the framework and use it to make things happen in practice. As a tool, it needs to be able to do more to offer true value to the practicing manager. This is one of the most significant critiques of the framework and one of the reasons why it has not achieved mainstream status as a managerial theory, despite the fact that it was always intended to be precisely that.

References

Frankel, D. (2003). The Zachman Framework and the OMG's model driven architecture. Business Process Trends.

Ostadzadeh, S., Aliee, F., & Ostadzadeh, S. (2007). A method for consistent modeling of Zachman Framework cells. Advances and Innovations in Systems, Vol. 2007, pp. 375–380.

Pereira, C., & Sousa, P. (2004). A method to define an enterprise architecture using the Zachman framework. SAC '04.

Ross, J. (2004). Generating strategic benefits from enterprise architecture. Center for Information Systems Research.

Simsion, G. (2005). What's wrong with the Zachman Framework? The Data Administration Newsletter.

Urbaczewski, L., & Mrdalj, S. (2006). A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 7(2), 18–23.

Zachman, J. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 26(3), 276–291.

Zachman, J. (2008). John Zachman's concise definition of the Zachman Framework. Zachman.com.

Zachman, J. (2009). The Zachman Framework evolution. John Zachman.