Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

View of
the
contextual
alignment
Unclear
4. Discussion
Thanos Magoulas, Aida Hadzic, Ted Saarikko and Kalevi Pessi
ZACHMAN TOGAF GERAM
Insufficient guidance
regarding how IS
relates to the
enterprise and its
surrounding
environment.
Unclear guidance as
to how the parts of
the architecture fit
together.
Unsatisfactory
guidance regarding
how the architecture
is aligned with the
laws of humanity
rather than the laws
of nature.
Framework does not
cover issues of
alignment between
business & IT strategy.
Insufficient guidance
regarding how the
alignment between EA
& enterprise purposes
is established.
Scarce guidance
regarding how the
alignment between EA
& its implementation is
managed.
Insufficient guidance
regarding how the role
of IS promotes the
responsiveness of the
enterprise to
environmental
changes.
E2AF
Lack of guidance
regarding how to
manage conflicting
expectations and
viewpoints of
partners.
The common denominator of any enterprise architecture is given in terms of various forms of sound
alignment between its constitutional parts. Thus, without alignment any sense of architecture
disappears. Hence, the ultimate aim of our efforts was to improve the existing body of knowledge
offered by the investigated approaches (frameworks, methods, reference models, et cetera). Each
one of the concerned approaches provides system of concepts, principles, guidelines and/or values
that is intended to support any effort in the process of designing, developing implementing and
evaluating an enterprise architecture that is capable of maintaining alignment between its
constitutional parts. Thus, our focus has been to clarify how each one of the investigated approaches
treats the issues associated with alignment. This section briefly discusses the manner in which the
investigated approaches treat socio-structural, functional, infological, socio-cultural and contextual
alignment.
Firstly, the analysis of functional alignment demonstrates that three of the four approaches: TOGAF,
GERAM and E2AF have a clear and strong reference to the different aspects of functional alignment.
However the treatment of alignment provided by the Zachman framework approach is both unclear
and weak.
Secondly, the analysis of socio-structural alignment confirms that three of the four approaches:
TOGAF, GERAM and E2AF have a clear and strong reference to the different aspects of structural
alignment. Again, the approach to alignment provided by the Zachman framework approach is both
doubtful and weak.
Thirdly, the analysis of infological alignment shows that only one of the investigated approaches,
namely E2AF, offers clear and strong guidance with regards to infological alignment. Accordingly, the
approach to alignment provided by the three other approaches, the Zachman framework, TOGAF and
GERAM, was either doubtful or brief with few clear guidelines.
Fourthly, the analysis of socio-cultural alignment shows that none of the investigated approaches
provide strong and clear guidance with regards to socio-cultural alignment.
Lastly, the analysis of the contextual alignment shows that three of the investigated approaches,
TOGAF, GERAM, and E2AF, provide a comprehensive and strong view of alignment. However the
Zachman framework does not provide sound guidelines.
328