Enterprise Architecture

1 Introduction

Enterprise architecture (EA) is the practice of conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation using a holistic approach for the successful development and execution of strategy. EA applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their organization’s strategies.

Like many other disciplines, EA is evolving. [1] It dates from the late 1980s as a response to the growth in complexity engendered by the advent of distributed computing, specifically the unmanaged or uncontrolled replication of systems providing similar capabilities, and the same or very similar data sets. Consequently, the result has been an increasing difficulty of integrating and evolving systems to address changing business needs. The basic idea was to adopt an enterprise-wide view of an organization’s computing resources; and by developing and applying standards and governance throughout the organization, avoid unnecessary complexity. At first this was motivated primarily by the need to control EIT expense, but now it is also driven by the need for the EIT function to provide the enterprise with an ongoing need to improve effectiveness and efficiency in a rapidly changing business and technology environment. As such, an organization’s enterprise architecture provides a context for all its EIT activities.

While there are a number of frameworks, practices, and approaches for EA, there is a generally accepted body of conventional wisdom on the subject, and this chapter introduces its basic concepts.

2 Goals and Principles

• To provide artifacts such as requirements, specifications, guiding principles, and conceptual modes that describe the next stage of evolution of an organization, often called the future state or to be state.
• To provide the holistic information and insights to identify opportunities to execute on the enterprise strategy and make more informed decisions.
• To create a collaborative bridge between the needs of the organization and the timely support provided by EIT, rather than dictating to either side.

3 Context Diagram

Figure 1. Context Diagram for Enterprise Architecture ***add figure

4 What is Enterprise Architecture?

4.1 The Idea of Enterprise

The first definition listed in a dictionary for enterprise is generally some variation on the idea of an ambitious endeavor or undertaking. Subsequent definitions usually define it as the entity (typically an organization) that carries out such an undertaking. This latter definition is the common understanding of the meaning of enterprise within the EA community. More specifically, it is typically understood to be an entity that can be reasonably well modeled as comprising the business and EIT, including such organizations as governments and nonprofits within its compass.

4.2 The Idea of Architecture

The formal definition of architecture cited most frequently by the EA community is some version of this definition from ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011:

“In practice though, “architecture” means whatever the framework being used (explicitly or implicitly) implies it is by the various architectural representations it recommends for use. The role of frameworks in current enterprise architecture practice is discussed below.” [2]

4.3 A Definition of Enterprise Architecture

The Federation for Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations (FEAPO) defines EA as follows:

“Enterprise architecture is a well-defined practice for conducting enterprise analysis, design, planning, and implementation, using a holistic approach at all times, for the successful development and execution of strategy. Enterprise architecture applies architecture principles and practices to guide organizations through the business, information, process, and technology changes necessary to execute their strategies. These practices utilize the various aspects of an enterprise to identify, motivate, and achieve these changes.” [3]

Analogies between enterprise architecture and urban planning have been made as both define the common guidelines, standards, and overall framework for which solution architects (see Construction) and building architects, respectively, must comply (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Urban Planner and Enterprise Architect versus Building Architect and Solution Architect [3] ***add figure

5 A Brief History of Enterprise Architecture

The need for enterprise architecture arose for two separate reasons.

The first reason was technology-driven with the arrival of distributed computing in the 1980s, which resulted in increased complexity due to increased scale, diversity, and connectivity. In addition, this increased complexity resulted in increased EIT development, support, and operational costs. With these rising costs came the pressure from the enterprise management to slow the growth of EIT budgets and increase the business effectiveness of EIT support. Directives to “do more with less” and an unrelenting pressure to increase efficiency and effectiveness required a new approach to EIT strategy. To some extent, consolidation, standardization, and commoditization as EIT expense reduction strategies worked; however, there were limits to their effectiveness without a holistic and systematic understanding of the connectedness between all of the business roles and processes, information data elements and flows, supporting application systems, and underlying technology infrastructure.

The second reason for the need for EA was business-driven and due to the ever-increasing pace of change and the difficulty for many organizations to successfully execute their business strategies. Michael Porter estimates that more than 80 percent of organizations fail to execute their business strategies, and, for more than 70 percent of them, ineffective execution was the reason. [4] The principles and practices in EA provide a framework and approach to guide organizations through their ongoing business, information, systems, and technology changes. EA helps them succeed in moving from where they are to where they want to be.

Based on whether one views EA solely for technology-based and business reasons, the scope of EA, including its concerns, assumptions, and limitations varies. In fact, practitioners themselves have not yet come to agreement on this issue. One of the most cogent analyses of the range of EA definitions was presented by James Lapalme, who describes these three schools of thoughts on EA: [5]

1. Enterprise-wide IT platform (effective enterprise strategy execution and operation through EIT-business alignment)
2. Enterprise (effective enterprise strategy implementation through execution coherency)
3. Enterprise-in-environment (innovation and adaptation through organizational learning)

Nick Malik builds on Lapalme’s three schools, and describes the same three categories as follows: [6]

1. Enterprise IT architecting
2. Enterprise integrating
3. Enterprise ecological adaptation

These differences are depicted graphically as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. EA Schools of Thought [6] ***add figure

As shown in Figure 3, EA can serve a number of different goals (the vertical axis) and can provide direction and support for a range of time horizons and enterprise value (the horizontal axis). It is important to distinguish the type of EA that an organization needs and wants to establish. By doing so, the boundaries and handoffs between EA and business executives and their business strategy as well as between EA and EIT governance and strategy are clear. Without that clarity, ongoing confusion and issues with collaboration and alignment will likely be created.

Regardless of the school of thought, a framework for EA is needed to describe the interconnectedness of the business, information, systems, and technology elements (often called artifacts). In 1987, John Zachman published what is commonly viewed as the first framework describing a classification scheme for artifacts at several levels of abstraction. [7] In the 1990s, a reference model was developed for EA by and for the US Department of Defense (DoD) called the Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management (TAFIM).

In 1995, based on TAFIM, The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) had its first release. Since then, TOGAF has evolved and released TOGAF 9.1 in 2011. It maintains that “a complete EA description should contain all four architecture domains (business, data, application, technology), but the realities of resource and time constraints often mean there is not enough time, funding, or resources to build a top-down, all-inclusive architecture description encompassing all four architecture domains, even if the enterprise scope is ... less than the full extent of the overall enterprise.” [9]

While TOGAF may be the most popular EA framework (based on published certification numbers), there are many different frameworks, providing direction on types of EA artifacts and viewpoints, EA development process, and EA governance. The multitude of EA frameworks fall into these types: consortia-developed (e.g., TOGAF), defense industry (e.g., DODAF (U.S.)), government (e.g., E-overheid NORA (Dutch), open-source (e.g., MEGAF), and proprietary (e.g., Capgemini’s IAF). [10]

6 The Purpose and Value of Enterprise Architecture

As noted in the Introduction, the driving force behind enterprise architecture has changed since its appearance on the scene. These four purposes or value propositions for EA are frequently offered:

• Manage, if not master complexity
• Ensure business/EIT alignment
• Facilitate change, transformation, and agility
• Bridge strategy and execution

A common comparison is with city planning, where EA is the “master plan” for an enterprise’s (i.e., organization’s) business/technology integration.

6.1 Complexity

The elimination of unnecessary complexity was the earliest justification for EA. Eliminating unnecessary complexity would make systems easier to understand, and thus more tractable. This in turn would lead to the reduction of capital, development, and operational expense within the EIT function, and potentially other functions as well. In a large organization with multiple units, which may have been started at different times or in different geographies. For example, there might be multiple human resource (HR) systems or overlapping sales forecasting systems or disconnected procurement systems. In these situations, an EA-based framework and roadmap supports application rationalization to improve an enterprise’s effectiveness.

6.2 Alignment

While the EIT function was comfortable with the idea of reducing complexity as the rationale for EA, it was less easy for the business to connect such a concept directly to the bottom line. In an effort to speak the language of the business, the EA community shifted the focus of the value proposition for EA to business/EIT alignment, and as the complexity reduction rationale falls into disuse, the alignment rationale has become increasingly widespread, and is at this writing the dominant value model for EA.

Examples of alignment with the business would include mapping business roles and processes to information data flows and the underlying EIT systems and technology which support them.

6.3 Change, Transformation, and Agility

Another rationale for EA has been to relate it to business transformation or to be its presumed enabler, agility. The idea is that in a business and technology environment of continuous rapid change, only organizations that can anticipate and respond appropriately and quickly to such change can survive. EA is offered as the means for an organization to do so. The assumption is that changes in the business environment are driven by “disruptive” changes in the (information) technology environment, and thus a strategically agile EIT function confers that agility on the organization as a whole. Disruptive changes also occur when an enterprise becomes part of an acquisition or merger. This can go both ways. For example, when Twitter appeared, the business wanted to use it so it disrupted EIT instead of EIT disrupting the business. Based on this important symbiotic relationship between the enterprise and IT, it is particularly important for both to be agile and able to adapt quickly to change.

6.4 Strategy and Execution

Finally, a major focus of EA is in describing the relationship of all the different business elements, information elements, and the underlying information technology and technology infrastructure. Being able to describe at a systems level as well as at the most detailed element or artifact level, EA provides a foundation to connect an organization’s strategy to the enablers for execution of that strategy.

As we will discuss later, EA has influence over and provides guidance to these areas:

• EIT strategy, governance and portfolio management
• EIT project definitions
• Solution architecture
• Organization (business) strategy

Over the last several decades, enterprises across all functions, whether in manufacturing, finance, HR, or IS, have moved from vertically integrated entities to horizontally interdependent supply chains. [15] With this movement, the ways that enterprises compete and what they create internally versus what they source externally (often referred to as make versus buy decisions) are moving from the physical elements and on-site infrastructure to applications and off-site datacenters in the cloud. In the IS/EIT domain, this change started with hardware infrastructure, moved into software infrastructure, and continues into applications, and even information.

7 The Conventional Wisdom

These three almost universally adopted concepts characterize the current state of the art of enterprise architecture:

• The four layer stack model — or the four aspects — of an enterprise
• The as is and to be states
• The use of frameworks

7.1 The Umbrella Nature of Enterprise Architecture: Layers or Aspects

The conventional model (called the BIAT model) of an organization’s EA is sometimes represented as a four layer stack. In other models, the layers are not shown as horizontals; instead, they are shown as verticals, and in this view they may be called domains or aspects. These layers, domains, or aspects are:

• Business
• Data/information
• Applications
• Technology

Figure 4 depicts a BIAT model shown as layers.

Figure 4. Conventional BIAT Diagram ***add figure

7.1.1 Business

While it may seem odd, it is a demonstrable fact that there is no explicit definition of business that is universally or even widely shared by the EA community. Instead, the assumption seems to be that the EA community simply knows what business means. This is easily confirmed by examining the indexes of many widely respected texts on enterprise architecture — while there are many entries for compound nouns beginning with business, there is rarely an entry for business itself. The upshot of this is that what business means in detail in an enterprise architecture is very much locally defined. For the purposes of the EITBOK, business should be considered synonymous with enterprise. <p>Be that as it may, some sense of what the business domain is about can be inferred from the stack metaphor — it is whatever is ultimately to be supported by the technology domain.

7.1.2 Data or Information

EA is not excepted from the debate about the differences and relationship between data and information, though for the purpose of the stack metaphor, information is increasingly predominant and associated more with business concerns and less with storage concerns, the latter being relegated to a concern within the technology domain. The cliché is that the enterprise runs on information, and thus the patterns of information use by the business largely determine the nature of EIT support for the business. That is, the technology support needs of the business can be well represented by its information needs.

7.1.3 Applications

The applications domain is where the elements of EIT infrastructure from the technology domain are integrated with software to provide support for a business function or capability, as systems. Applications consume, transform, and produce data or information from and for use by the business. Control outputs are considered a form of data or information.

7.1.4 Technology

The technology domain includes processors, storage and network connectivity, and the middleware that provide the basic computing and communications capabilities for the enterprise. They enable the flow of information that is the lifeblood of the organization. Note that the technology domain is thus implicitly a domain of information technology, and does not typically include physical process technology such as industrial or manufacturing technologies or business process technologies.

7.1.5 Where the Action Is

It is an unstated presumption of the BIAT model that the transformative value of EA is typically delivered by transformation of the application and technology domains, that agility of the enterprise is a consequence of agility of the EIT function, and that alignment of the business and EIT is achieved by aligning EIT with the business. That is, the amount of change engendered by the typical EA initiative may be considered to be minimal in the business domain and could increase significantly as we descend through the layered model to the technology domain, with the business and information domains primarily serving as inputs to the design process. However, if it is rigidly viewed this way, then EA may run the risk of not putting enough effort into the collaboration and partnership with the enterprise’s “business” partners; this collaboration and partnership and the actual changes in the business processes and information flows, consistent with the changes made in the applications and technology domains, are required for successful transformation and ROI on EA investments.

Figure 5 depicts a variation of the conventional BIAT diagram. This shows that the focus of much of EA practice is on business processes, which are the aspects of the business that are most amenable to EIT support, and divides the technology domain into software and hardware infrastructure, because they are qualitatively different in nature. This diagram is used later to illustrate the relationship between EA and other enterprise-related architectures.

Figure 5. Modified BIAL Diagram ***add image

7.2 The “As Is” and “To Be” States

As noted earlier, EA serves a role in organizational transformation as well as tying strategy to execution. (You can’t get where you want to go unless you know where you are.) Essentially, one needs to understand the current as is state relative to the desired to be future state, identify the gaps, and chart at least a high-level plan or roadmap to get from today’s current state to the future. The Open Group describes an approach that it calls the Architecture Development Model (ADM) that consists of a number of iterative phases as shown in Figure 6. [14]

Figure 6. TOGAF 9.1 ADM Steps [14] Add figure ***

7.3 The Use of Frameworks and Two Examples Using Layering with a Vertical BIAT

Instead of the different layers in the BIAT model, several frameworks use two dimensions to provide the importance of both the architecture aspects of BIAT with the specificities of when and how to create and use the architecture. Two examples are provided: the Zachman Framework, which is one of the first frameworks for EA, and a simpler version of Zachman that may clarify the complexity of Zachman, the Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF). In both examples, the layers help bridge between the overall enterprise and the architectures and, ultimately, connect to and bridge with requirements management and construction:

• Contextual — the why, the connection to the business strategy, principles
• Conceptual — the what, the service level
• Logical — the how, the logical flows
• Physical — the with what, the specific elements

Figure 7 shows a more detailed and complex framework, where the business, information, applications, and technology are vertical domains rather than layers. This is the Zachman Framework, and was groundbreaking at its time. [11]

Figure 7. Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture [11] ***add figure

Figure 8 depicts the Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF), in less detail than the Zachman Framework illustration. [12] Here, the BIAT aspects are shown vertically, and the horizontal layers show varying degrees of abstraction from contextual (the why), to conceptual (the what or service layer), to logical (the how including processes), and, finally, at the lowest level, the physical (the with what layer), and adding the transformational (the when), it includes the dynamic dimension, from the current or existing state to the future state.

Figure 8. Integrated Architecture Framework [13] ***add figure

So, the Zachman and IAF frameworks both provide layers of abstractions or perspectives and the BIAT are shown as columns, rather than rows. With these layers, these different dimensions of detail and views are more apparent than the simple BIAT model.

On the other hand, the simple BIAT model is useful in comparing and contrasting EA with other types of architectures. So in the following section, we use the simple BIAT model.

It is common within the EA community that each of these layers or domains has an architecture, and that the enterprise architecture is in some sense the sum or union of these architectures. At the same time, it is also common within the EA community that the enterprise comprises the businesses + IT, and therefore that the enterprise architecture comprises business architecture + IT architecture, with IT architecture comprising data/information architecture, applications architecture, and technology architecture, though it is often conceded that the data/information architecture may straddle the boundary between the business and EIT domains.

The stack metaphor derives from the idea that the technology architecture is ultimately driven by the needs of the business domain/architecture (an expression of the business/EIT alignment rationale), with the data/information and applications architectures as key waypoints.

There are several different models in use for how this integration across the layers or aspects is best achieved. One of the most common is the service model, where each layer delivers services to the layers above it. Not surprisingly, the question of what exactly makes something a service remains a subject of considerable discussion within the EA community. Other models focus on the enterprise’s value chain, or enterprise capabilities.

8 The Geography of Enterprise IT Architecture and Links to Other Disciplines

Enterprise architecture is valuable and useful if it influences and integrates the inputs and outputs of other architecture disciplines in the enterprise and bridges between the enterprise strategy and the IS/EIT projects.

8.1 The Relationship between EA and Other Architectures

A recent survey conducted by the Journal of Enterprise Architecture asked survey respondents for their titles. Among the respondents who had architect in their title, there were 21 different non-level-related modifiers. Labels that architects use rather than simple enterprise architect include business process architect, information architect, applications architect, solution architect, software architect, middleware architect, infrastructure architect, network architect, network storage architect, hardware architect, and so on.

Figure 9 shows that the simple view of enterprise architecture (first introduced in Figure 5) also describes other typical architecture types. All of them must consider solution, information, application, software, middleware, infrastructure, and network storage.

Figure 9. Enterprise and Other Enterprise-related Architectures ***add figure

8.2 The Relationship between Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise IT

EA serves as a bridge between the enterprise’s vision and strategy and how the underlying layers of business elements (including business processes and people) are organized, as well as the flow of information and data elements. Business processes and information are not necessarily automated with IS/IT. For example, without IS/IT automation, workers may manually take measurements, create reports, and deliver data and information in those reports. On the other hand, where business process and information flows are automated with IS/EIT, EA describes the interdependencies, and linkages between the business (organization), information, applications, and technology infrastructure.

In contrast, enterprise IT (EIT) consists of the applications and technology infrastructure supporting the applications, so nowadays EIT is increasingly seen as a subset of EA.

Distinguishing between EA and EIT is important, and by doing so, an organization should clearly recognize that there is always a choice to either support business roles, business processes, and information flows with automation (i.e., IS/EIT) or keep them manual. Likewise, the governance and influence of EA is different than the governance and influence of EIT.

Artifacts (i.e., outputs or deliverables) from EA are found as inputs to strategy and governance as well as requirements (and subsequently, construction). Here are some examples:

• Strategy maps
• Capability maps
• Information maps
• Value maps
• Organization maps
• Operating models
• Product maps
• Stakeholder maps
• Process models
• Dynamic rules based routing maps
• Data models
• Network models
• Systems models
• Vitality and renewal plans
• A wide range of hybrid blueprints and models with specialty uses based on the challenge at hand

8.3 Solutions and Their Relationship to EA

There are different ways to view the landscape of the enterprise’s IT architecture. At the fundamental level, EA physical and logical artifacts describe the elements that support the organization’s operations. At a more conceptual level, there are the business, information, information technology, and infrastructure services. These can be related to an organization’s capabilities. Relatively speaking, these can be characterized in a colored heat map that uses color to represent different attributes or identify focus areas in a data set. Depending on the organization’s strategy, the capabilities that are most in need of improvement might be the first priority. Improvement/replacement costs, interdependencies with other capabilities and systems, risks of not improving, and so on are inputs to the prioritization process. The funding and governance of the improvement work (in the form of projects and programs) are strongly influenced by EA and typically overseen by a program management office (see the Change Strategy and Governance chapter). The projects and programs develop solution architectures and these solution architectures need to be compliant to and synergistic with the evolving enterprise architecture.

8.4 EA and Nonfunctional Requirements or Cross-layer Concerns

In the Requirements chapter, the two types of requirements, functional and non-functional, are discussed. While EA influences both types, its impact on functional requirements is more obvious. However, EA also influences nonfunctional requirements and can do so through the overriding EA principles as well as in what are called collaboration contracts between EA artifacts. Here are some examples.

• Business service collaboration contracts: An example would be a business service, a set of business processes like a financial operation and its expectations in receiving information data elements from a sales service (i.e., an order entry from a sales operation).
• Technology infrastructure component collaboration contracts: Technology infrastructure examples include storage components and networking components. Collaboration contracts between the two might be the quality and reliability expectations in terms of up time, error-free processing, messaging, latency, and so on.

In these contracts, the expectations of various qualities are defined and are documented in delivery projects as the nonfunctional requirements. By keeping the close association between the collaboration contracts of all the artifacts in the overall EA repository with the nonfunctional requirements in the enterprise IT portfolio of projects, the quality needs and expectations across the enterprise can be balanced.

8.5 EA and Business Architecture and BPM

The discipline of EA has evolved in parallel to the discipline of business process modeling (BPM). Clearly, the business architecture needs to be characterized and described in both EA and BPM “languages” and tools. Over the last decade, this relationship has been recognized and the companies who are developing and providing EA and BPM tools are coalescing and, in doing so, helping to bridge the gap. Likewise, the respective expert communities recognize the need and are starting to address it.

8.6 EA and Scope

It is important to note that EA does not necessarily mean across an entire enterprise. EA can be narrowed to a particular “subject of concern” and a “scope” for that concern. Enterprise can be the scope (“enterprise-wide”) and, in a different way, it can be viewed as the subject. TOGAF goes into detail about the different ways of looking at EA. Overall, remember that the organization is the definer of scopes, whether it is an extended organization, specific organization, business unit, function, department, and so on. EA is not necessarily enterprise-wide. And orthogonally, the scope can be narrowed and needs to be defined in terms of domains to be considered, such as business, information, data, application, platforms, infrastructure (software and hardware), and technology (network and storage). It may depend on whether the EA team is EIT-centric or enterprise-centric. Also, there sometimes are several EA teams working on smaller chunks that must be integrated.

9 Summary

There are three almost universally adopted concepts that characterize the current state of the art of enterprise architecture:

• The four-layer stack model — or the four aspects — of an enterprise
• The as is and to be states
• The use of frameworks

Enterprise architecture should clearly influence and be influenced by strategy and governance. Additionally, there is a strong connection to requirements. Likewise, an interdependency exists between the enterprise architecture and a solution architecture (SA) for a particular application (solution architecture is included in the Construction chapter).

Enterprise architecture can be defined by its scope and subject; it can be about an entire organization or can be narrowed down to a segment, unit, or function. So EA is scalable and can be small and incremental as well as enterprise-wide.

EA can assist in both short- and long-term enterprise improvement and transformation planning.

Successful EA functions must be able to balance high-level strategic work with tactical governance and collaboration with solution architectures in the enterprise’s IT portfolio so that the portfolio provides ongoing and clear impact and value.

A useful, practical, and functioning EA framework should have independent and modular elements, and, at the same time, be able to show an integrated and interdependent view of all of the elements.

10 Relevant SFIA Skills

***no content

11 Roles

***no content

12 Standards

ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010

TOGAF 9.1

13 Additional Reading

Schekkerman, How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks, Trafford

Ross Weill and Robertson, Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, Harvard Business School Press.

14 References

[1] L. Fehskens, “Why We Can’t Agree on What “Enterprise Architecture” Means, and Why That’s OK, At Least for Now,” Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe, London June 2013.

[2] ISO/IEC/IEEE, “ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description,” http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50508

[3] Federation of EA Professional Organizations (FEAPO), “Common Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture,” Architecture and Governance Magazine, Issue 9-4, November 2013, pp.11-17.

[4] M. Porter, “The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, January 2008, pp. 79-83.

[5] J. Lapalme, “Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture,” IT Professional, vol.14, no. 6, pp. 37-43, Nov.-Dec. 2012, doi:10.1109/MITP.2011.109.

[6] N. Malik, “Three Schools of Thought for Enterprise Architecture,” blog, 28 May 2012; http://blogs.msdn.com/b/nickmalik/archive/2012/05/28/three-schools-of-thought-for-enterprise-architecture.aspx

[7] J. Zachman, “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture,” IBM Systems Journal, vol 26, no 3, 1987, IBM Publication G321-5298.

[8] The Open Group (January 23, 2015),“A Historical Look at Enterprise Architecture with John Zachman” http://blog.opengroup.org/2015/01/23/a-historical-look-at-enterprise-architecture-with-john-zachman/

[9] The Open Group (2011),”TOGAF 9.1, Part 11: Architecture Development Method (ADM) — Preliminary Phase” http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap05.html

[10] Enterprise Architecture Framework, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_architecture_framework

[11] J. Zachman, “The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture 3.0,” http://www.zachman.com/ [need to write per website FAQ to get permission (just a formality) if we decide to keep this in the final]

[12] J. van’t Wout et al, The Integrated Architecture Framework Explained, Springer-Verlag, 2010.

[13] Dekker, Morsink & Partners, http://www.dekkermorsink.nl/raamwerken.htm

[14] The Open Group, TOGAF9.1 ADM Steps Reference Card

[15] C. Fine, “Clockspeed,” Perseus Books, 1998.