Enterprise Architecture vs alchemy enterprises. Part 2. Nowhere is easier: simple framework and simple enterprise.

We continue to popularize the direction "Enterprise Architecture" and tentative attempts to cleanse it from alchemy and the science of science. Start: “Enterprise Architecture vs enterprise alchemy. Key myths "

Our approach to learning is classical: from simple to complex. We start with the simplest: the simplest framework - the nameplate of John Zachman and the simplest enterprise - the household. There is simply no place. Accordingly, the output should get the most simple "Enterprise Architecture". Is not it?
')
I remind you that the main problem of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) is the lack of specific examples of this very EA in open access. Alchemists keep them “like the apple of their eye”, apparently because if you publish them, the terrible secret of the “king’s dress” will be revealed and everyone will say: “The king is naked!”

In the first article, we talked about the rules for participation in the " Contest for the description of the" household architecture "(see Section 3). The competition is conceived as a practical step towards the formation of a scientific architectural approach (architecture) to the description of a “household” type enterprise, i.e. "Household architecture" (ON).

In my opinion, a similar topic — reflecting your own ON on any existing “classical” framework or the original method of describing EA — is an excellent topic for both the theses of Enterprise Architecture specialization in Business Informatics and the opportunity for practicing consultants to show as far as they know a lot about EA consulting.
I hope that the URL link to your AT (or reference) will become an obligatory requisite for qualifying work and a business card of a consultant in this area.


Therefore, “business informers” and “just architects” - “bite” into the topic, architecture, but the main thing is to share your ON (experiences), analyze your own and not your results.
Only as a result of this approach will one of you ever see in a dream the prototype of a real “enterprise periodic system” and, upon awakening, draw a table (for example, a practical framework “What? Where? When?”) Of the architectural structure of the enterprise (household, state).

So it came out with the tabular Mendeleev Framework: “Obviously, I saw in a dream a table in which the elements were arranged as necessary. I woke up and immediately wrote down the data on a piece of paper and fell asleep again. And only in one place was required then the edit. " True, Mendeleev clarified: "I have been thinking about it for maybe twenty years, and you think: I was sitting and suddenly ... ready."

We don’t have to see examples from “professional architects”. Professional "Alchemy, though": the "professional" code of the "experienced" alchemist prohibits the publication of both the "Enterprise Architecture example" and its personal scientific information.
For them, this seems to be tantamount to hara-kiri: courageously, but tragic. For such revelations, they risk losing the status of a "great guru" and will be called traitors and talkers who did not adequately protect Enterprise Voodoo.

The digital age, the post-industrial era, nanotechnology ... Maybe so, but there are still distinctive features of our time - this is the age of marketing and "management fad" (management fad), the revival of the era of alchemy and their joint victory over common sense.

Let's start the story "where to start" his first sketches ON. What entities to display in the description of their ON: What? With what and how to display: How? What will this description be: in the form of ordinary letters (text), a structured language, a table or a diagram?

John Zachman is considered the “father of EA”, so let's start with a brief description of his tablet: Zachman Framework (ZF). The fourth section introduces this old framework, answering the question "how to display, in what form."

Next, we give a description (some characteristics) of the object of our architecture itself: households. This allows you to look at what, in principle, I would like to see as objects of architecture.

The section on the most "promoted" framework and the section on the research object (household description) consciously included in one article. For the purpose of demonstration: the Zakhman plate seems extremely simple and the household itself seems just as simple, but their combination, in the form of “household architecture,” resembles the process of “cross-border a hedgehog”. At the same time, we took the two simplest components, and alchemists take on large enterprises (holdings, corporations) and much more complex frameworks and tell everyone that they are getting brilliant results, however, they offer to believe them only in word.

4 Zachman Framework

www.zachman.com - The Official Zachman Framework
no longer responding. It is strange. Are there any mirrors? ".Net" - also silent.
There is also: Zachman Institute for Framework Architecture, but this (apparently) is just a monetization tool.
Our Vicky is very sad :
Where better for our non-wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachman_Framework
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Zachman
However, the wiki does not show the chronology in the artifacts, but the “spirit” contained in the primary sources (which apparently were on www.zachman.com ?) Is important for us.

We take as a basis information from dragon1
and The Zachman Framework Evolution (Part 1)

Recall that the majority (and maybe all) of well-known descriptions of structures, "frameworks", approaches to the description, principles, framework methodologies, etc. (frameworks) were created specifically for the description of IT architecture, information systems architecture. Initially, that in 1984, in 1987, and in 1992, the “father of EA” gave such names (names): “A framework for information systems architecture”.

Those. JA Zachman used the name ISA framework (information systems architecture), and the use of the matrix was planned as an improvement to the IBM BSP methodology. About the planning of business systems (Business System Planning, BSP) of the International Business Machines (IBM) company for a long time no one remembers.

4.1 Chronology of Zachman frame plates

Selection of Zachman plates for either the enterprise architecture, or only for the IT architecture (pay attention to the names of the plates and the names of the articles).

June 1984, Zachman84

1984, Zachman84v2

THE ZACHMAN FRAMEWORK EVOLUTION BY JOHN P ZACHMAN

1987, Zachman87 (5x3)

Zachman's first article: Zachman JA A Framework for Information System Architecture // IBM System Journal. 1987. Vol. 26, No. 3

As you can see, all three ZF tables are virtually identical.

1992, Zachman92 (5x6)

More precisely, this is the Owl-Zachman framework: Sowa JF, Zachman JA Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information System Architecture // IBM Systems Journal. 1992. V. 31. № 3.
www.jfsowa.com/pubs/sowazach.pdf
Although more often under Zachman92 they give the picture below:


Where did this picture, not found, because Zachman .com / .net is not responding, but the main links lead there.
The first three columns are from previous versions and three more columns are added to the right.

Zachman2k

Zachman etc
Sometimes Zachman93, 04, 08, 11 is mentioned, but this is in fact the same Zachman2k, and all the frameworks since 1993 have already become “EA”.
Version 2 is considered to be dated 2008, and the current version of framework No. 3 2011 is: ZachmanV3 (ZFv3)

Sometimes, instead of a 5x6 matrix, 6x6 is mentioned, i.e. not 30 Zakhman cells, but 36, which is not important, since some consider the last row to be significant, others do not, just as they do not count the zero row (the table header).

The last line, “a working system,” apparently as a “final”, “concrete” system, was opposed to the rest of the lines by “system architecture” and did not contain pictograms, in fact emphasizing that this was no longer “architecture”, but the final implementation. About the separation: "architecture" vs "concrete implementation" was given a lot in the first article.

4.2 What? Where? When?

Zachman Framework is a diagram with two axes (i.e. a table).
The horizontal axis contains “open questions”: “what, how, when, who, where, why”.
The specified six fundamental questions: advise the concept (respectively): data, functions, location, people, time, motivation.

Sometimes the initial order of the questions is changed and the first column is the last: “Why?”, Thus emphasizing the primacy of the “list of goals” and “business strategies”.

The vertical axis contains the design stages by means of which “an idea becomes a thing”: identification, definition, presentation, specification (description), configuration, and specification (implementation). Just like Kant: from the world of ideas to the world of things.

Stages correspond to “prospects” (points of view on objects and processes): planner, owner, designer (designer), developer, contractor.
Who is Planer? Glider? Scheduler? Strategist? Main architector?
Who is an Owner? Owner of what? Boss, shareholder? Why does he need a business process model? Apparently is the owner of the business process? And who is he (and) in the company? Certainly not a shareholder (he may not know such words).

At the intersection of the rows and fields of the matrix fits the corresponding artifact: project document, specification and model. The artifact answers the question (table fields) for the corresponding point of view (perspective) indicated in the “name” of the line.
The truth is not entirely clear: what is required to enter? What kind of business process model? Upper-level or detailed? How to identify business processes, how to assign owners of business processes? Of course, there are no answers to this in the matrix, however, just as there is nowhere else, see the question. Consider business processes. Introduction

Zachman defines Architecture as a set of primitive models (primitives, templates). Not complicated, but simple, because primitives provide confidence (first of all, from the top management). Although this statement is doubtful, for example, it is difficult to call the business process model a primitive artifact.

Zachman: “If you do not build (and do not store, control or change) primitive models (templates), you are not engaged in architecture. You are doing the implementation. " The last sentence, apparently, is about the sixth row of the table, which is without a “role” and without an “icon”, i.e. without "architectural primitive."

The Zachman Framework form is a 5x6 (6x6) matrix, where each cell contains a set of diagrams. The matrix is ​​made as a report, allowing you to visualize what information is available at what level (in what context) at a particular enterprise.

The structure of the table (framework) of Zakhman is positioned as one of the Enterprise Ontology: “the doctrine of being” (a tool of thinking), which determines the fundamental principles of the enterprise, essential forms, key elements and properties.

Such “Enterprise Ontology” claims to be an independent scientific direction within the framework of computer science & engineering, including the study of the conceptual apparatus and the development on its basis of a classifier with a tabular structure that allows the analysis of criteria and models of the designed object (enterprise). It is considered the industry standard in IT.
Read more:

Lecture 8: Architectural Description Techniques. Zahman and Gartner models, META Group and TOGAF methods (reference to INTUIT has been removed at the request of a moderator)
or here
or here

However, I did not find any intelligible explanations (for "dummies") of the Zachman Framework key ideas (or did not understand them).
Of course, the tablet is intuitive, but how to use it in practice?
There is also no methodology for filling the table and the examples themselves. However, I am sure that textbooks on the Zakhman table of domestic universities do not cause any doubts and students get their firm “excellent”, only for “honestly perched” alchemy according to EA.

Over time, on the covers of such textbooks and books, the inscription “Alchemy Allowance” will suddenly appear, and some are already able to discern the still vague outlines of such an inscription.
This does not mean that one does not need to write and read such textbooks and books: apart from alchemy, there is simply nothing else (I did not see / did not understand). There is only one way out: through critical rethinking, to perceive the information indicated in them, and before reading it is necessary to repeat three times: “Careful marketing”.

However, one (and two and three) critical analysis is not enough, the main criterion of the scientific approach to EA is approbation by experiment. Therefore, after reading the book with the EA on the cover, you need to try checking the next “smart framework” on a simple and then complex practical task, without forgetting to share both the description of the experience and the conclusions made with the public (publish). There is no other way to move from “alchemy” to “chemistry”.

4.3 ISA vs EA

As you can see, the same approach (framework), unchanged (“1 in 1”) “quietly” moved from the “architectural world of information systems” to the “architectural world of enterprises”. I am sure that these are different worlds.

It is believed that the name “Enterprise Architecture” became popular after the publication of the book by Steven Spivak (also from IBM), describing the Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP) process, after which Zachman began to use this name.
Spewak SH, Steven C. Hill. Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Application and Technology. NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1992.

On the basis of this, something more strange happened later, with the result that “Corporate Architecture” - as a set of architectures: “Business” - “Technological” - “Infrastructure” (including IT architecture), was reduced only to IT architecture issued for EA.
Thus, the “information systems architecture” received a new “louder” name “Enterprise Architecture”. It was a brilliant victory "management fad" over common sense.

In order to somehow “soften” such a substitution, the phrase is sometimes used that the existing EA frameworks are “IT-oriented”. Thus, in 1993, the transformation of the Zachman spreadsheet framework from ISA to EA took place, and after that, IT hegemony over the architectural description of the enterprise (the current understanding of EA) reigned. From here and entered the date 1993-2018 on the screen saver to the article «Alchemy International».
You can read about the history of the emergence of the term EA and the history of frameworks:
The History of Enterprise Architecture: An Evidence-Based Review

It concludes that all the fundamental ideas that make up the modern concept of EA are already 50 years old.
Those. For half a century, the marketing industry has successfully sold “the same thing”, but under a different “sauce”. By the way, John Zachman worked at IBM as a Marketing Specialist (Marketing Division of IBM).

Fundamental structure
The Zahman Institute (ZIFA) states: “There is real evidence that our structure is the fundamental structure for enterprise architecture.
Thus, it provides a complete set of descriptive ideas applicable to the description of the enterprise. "
Did not see such evidence, where are they, where are examples of the Zachman Framework example?

Oh, I forgot: it's the NDA, the DSP, military secrets, the X-Files and other “excuses” of consultants for disguising alchemy as science. A discussion from the late 70s of Zakhman’s really popular tablet did not bring a mass of published examples of its filling for specific enterprises. But the success in marketing is impressive.

If this would be a really effective practical tooling, then examples of its use would not have been long in coming. There would be examples of implementations and examples of standards already (reference plates, typical architectures).
So far, only a repetition of the general framework (see the above pictures) - and nothing more.
The “collections” method — assembling into a general repository examples of specific architectures of real or educational (fictional) enterprises, a separate list of reference plates (not a general template, but typical options for filling it out) - would allow for elementary analysis and identifying the characteristic features of architectures and determining the method of filling Zahman tables.

The corresponding request to Google on the "pictures" tab was supposed to spill out a mass of specific eg real enterprises, but there it does not even smell like that.
However, I mainly observe talk about the practical value of the Zachman table, including even a comparison of its significance for humanity (importance) with the periodic table of Mendeleev. This is while there are no specific examples of filling the table, i.e. Descriptions of the experiments and their analysis are absent as such; there is no methodology for filling the table.

The Zachman tabular framework (framework) is positioned only “only the framework”, but not the methodology (unlike, for example, TOGAF), since it does not say how to do it, but only presents the template “where to enter the project artifact”, i.e. sort them by table cells.

The limited approach gives a "compelling argument", which is also borrowed by other frameworks and methodologies of EA, including TOGAF: "if you did well, it means the merit of our framework, and if it is bad, then the framework is not to blame, it’s your hands curves" . They would try to say the following with reference to the Mendeleev Framework: chemistry is not alchemy for you.

Framework for household architecture
To describe your NA it is not necessary to use the Zachman frame plate, it is given only as one example, primarily because this is the first thing that comes to mind for the formalization of HA.
There is a doubt that other frameworks and methodologies will be more effective, primarily because they are not EA, but only ISA (but stubbornly issued as EA). Are there enterprise-specific frameworks, not IT? The question is open.

Therefore, I stress that the Zachman framework should not be considered as something really practical, but through its critical rethinking it is necessary to try to find a really practical method of architectural description of the enterprise / household.

Despite the above criticism, analyzing both the ideas of the Zachman Framework nameplate (the transition to architectural primitives, perspectives from different “viewpoints”, etc.) and attempts to test it are useful and necessary things: “for fishless and cancer”.
In addition, the "simple" Zachman framework is an excellent image for inspiration, an example for imitation and further development (only on the "scientific track"), captivating with its simplicity and abstractness (philosophy, universality).

5 Introduction to the household object

5.1 Household

For the subject analysis of architecture, it is necessary to provide a description (characteristic) of the architecture object itself: households. No matter how it seems to us that there is nothing complicated in it.
The household is, first of all, the economic subject of the economy (economic entity).
Great attention should not be paid to “families”: raising children, family relationships, etc. - this is not the main attribute of "household architecture". A household can consist of only one person, which is likely to be expressed in a special architectural style (architecture).

We remember that we are talking about the concept of "Enterprise Architecture", and not "Information Systems Architecture" (IT architecture). Therefore, if the household IT architecture will be considered, it is only as an “infrastructure component” (a small “stroke”), i.e. architecture "Home Office".
Since this is an economic entity, then first of all let's talk about accounting.

5.2 Basics of Accounting

Many articles about financial accounting in the household. For example, on Habré from the "fresh":
The story of the emergence of financial accounting in my life
Financial accounting for non-entrepreneurs
Personal Financial Management System
Surprisingly, almost the same thing was said ... and Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol in his "Seven Piles". Brief excerpts from Gogol's housekeeping councils: “Seven piles”, as one of the types of household financial management architectures.

“Divide your money into seven almost equal heaps.
In the first heap there will be money for an apartment, with heating, water, firewood and everything that goes to the walls of the house and the cleanliness of the yard.
In the second heap - money on the table and on all the edibles with a salary to the cook and food of everything that lives in your house.
In the third heap there is a carriage: a carriage, a coachman, horses, hay, oats, in a word, everything that relates to this part.
In the fourth pile there is money for a wardrobe, that is, everything that is necessary for both of you then in order to appear in the light or stay at home.
In the fifth pile will be your pocket money.
In the sixth heap - money for extraordinary expenses that can be met: the change of furniture, the purchase of a new crew, and even the welfare of one of your relatives, if he had a sudden need.
Seventh pile - to God, that is, the money for the church and the poor.

Make these seven heaps remain unmixed with you, like seven separate ministries. Keep the expense of each special, and under no reason do not borrow from one pile to another.

Whatever bargains you would imagine at this time and no matter how tempted they are with their cheapness, do not buy. You can venture on this later, when you become stronger. ”

Compare the last paragraph with:
“If you keep it in your head forever, then you will never need to go to the store without needing and unexpectedly buy yourself any decoration for a fireplace or a table, for which both ladies and men are so greedy with us (the latter are even more and the essence is not women, but women) ”.

and an example from “Personal Financial Management System” (“two-month accumulation”):
“For example, you want to buy something for 20,000 rubles (or another amount for which you don’t have to go to the bank and take a loan). And your “tact” is 10,000. Start a separate target account (or open a new one-liter jar), and transfer those 20,000 there within two months. If by this time the desire to buy this product has not disappeared, it means that you really need it. This will avoid impulsive big expenses. ”

Coincidences are obvious, the only difference is: there is a “separate pile”, here there is a “separate account”. The essence has not changed, the terminology has changed.

In general, on the accounting and financial side of household management, a lot of things were written before the Internet era, and now even more so.
Financial management, methods of reducing family balance are also architectural features. For example, the tendency to impulse spending or strict rules of expenditure: after the payday, we “shake”, and the remaining three, “suck on.” Or alternatively, we use the “two-month accumulation method”, see above.

Different approaches are actually architectural elements of NA (different concepts). Since many approaches (elements, conceptual - architectural approaches) are mutually contradictory, then a common architecture can only combine their combination.

5.3 Artifacts and mental substitutes

What should be included in the list of basic documents of AN, which artifacts of NA or mental entities that regulate processes at the level of consciousness or subconsciousness? Accounting objects, codes, family policies and regulations? Apparently their set and content determine the key features of the architecture.

Household charter
Most often, such a document is not physically present. It is not a material entity, but a mental charter is always present, since mentally, we always determine what is permissible in our household and what is not.
Key requirements (business conditions), rules of conduct, family policies (regulations, orders), in fact, the family constitution is constantly spoken among themselves by the spouses and hammered (sometimes in the most direct sense of the word) to the rest of the household.

From the CMMI position, this will probably be considered the lowest level of maturity of the “enterprise” management of the household type, i.e. Initial (Initial, "Chaos", "Anarchy")

But within the household, it usually works and really does not require formalization on paper, because Effective “carrot and stick” tools usually help to quickly assimilate the “family constitution” and store it in the RAM of the skull with Continuous Availability.

Nevertheless, the Charter as a document with the sign "mental" we indicate in the list of "Key things ON". The mental one is more likely not because it is not “on paper”, but because the fact of its presence in the mind is not as obvious as the family budget or balance, which are also not printed, but their presence is beyond doubt.

5.4 Accounting for business processes

As a rule, there is no formalized Catalog of household business processes, as well as a formalized Catalog of products and services. The registry, the list of important processes is again kept in mind. , «» « » — .

, -: «, , , , , , . , , , ..». -, , .
-.

5.5

It's not about food and waste. Each object of the type “enterprise” produces a certain product that is in demand by other objects and subjects. At the same time, the “grocery” business process has an outlet as a “product” or service. What is the "Products and Services Catalog" in your household? In terms of "products" and "services."

For example, a household product "second child" valued customer (state) of 250 thousand. And is payable on the public offer, rates for "product on the" categories "child allowances" given the link
What other products besides "child benefits" category fall into Product catalog and services?

For the construction of a description of an IT, it is useful to ask other questions, for example, What should an NA go into its Scope & Vision? Similar examples of “visions” (concepts) and “frameworks” (borders) according to EA will not be found either, because: the
real visions and scopes you had to work with are military secrets, so I understand, and you will not be able to look at them? at least one eye
What is the full role of the composition in ON (distribution of roles)?

It is possible to write more than one book about the description of all the features, properties, varieties and details of a household device. But just in order not to “drown” in details and “not to lose the forest for the trees”, an architectural approach is introduced that considers not so much the top-level elements as it is focused on considering concepts, skeletons, the “core” of an enterprise or another object.

At the same time, the most important element of the architecture is the architectural set (repository), the catalog of reference architectures, with which it is possible to map different objects through their architectures.

6 Some features of the EA Architecture

In the last article, we said that it is embedded in the concept of an “architectural approach” when describing an enterprise, compared with similar approaches adopted in architecture and microelectronics using the example of processor architecture. The “architectural approach” will be called the Architecturika, the construction of meta architectures, the principles of their comparison, classification, comparison of pattern images (the world of ideas) with real instances (the world of things), etc.

You can use another close term - architectonics, compositional structure, which forms the main impression from the perception of the object and expresses the main compositional idea or, in other words, makes up the image of the object

In this term (architectonics), there is also a "bias" in the direction of IT, for example, under the "Architectonics of public administration" understand the architectural approach to the construction of an electronic state. Why necessarily electronic? Then it might be more correct to call this “e-architectonics”?

What is important is not so much the term itself, the main thing is to clearly define what it means and emphasize that this is an “inter-sectoral” term: architecture — buildings, electronics — processors, economics — enterprises and other industry analogies.

Consider some of the distinctive properties of the enterprise architecture.
One of the important characteristics of the architectural approach in EA \ NA, architecture objects and processors is static / dynamic.

The product "processor" (as a specific instance of an object of the type "processor") actually does not undergo changes in its architecture and structure throughout the entire LC: it is an unrepairable and non-modernized product.

The product of architecture (structure) from the originally laid architecture (during construction) can change (partially) the architecture through reconstruction: after a while, half of the building can be rebuilt under a different architectural style. This is an exception, but a potential opportunity.

Enterprise architecture and scientific institutions can be even more fluid, although they are, as a rule, conservative as a rule. Usually, changing the household architecture requires compelling reasons (shocks), a rethinking of the principles of household management, and previous house-keeping facilities.

The architecture of NA usually changes with the events: “the children grew up”, “the former households moved away” (other changes in the family composition - the org-state of the NA), “the owners of the NA changed their status” (retired), the change of the business model of the NA: loss of previous incomes or vice versa, “they got into the mainstream and money began to pour in virtually from the sky”.

There are other differences between meta architectures. For example, “visibility” of architectures: when some architectures are visible to the naked eye — architecture of architecture, others — only with the use of special devices / methods (processor architecture).

With regard to the architecture of the building (architectural architecture framework): looking at the “temple” type “with the naked eye” and opening the architecture architecture catalog, we can relate the architecture of a particular temple to a standard one (reference).
Type any cathedral in the wiki - and there (in the brief building passport, see the plate on the right) there will be “Gothic” (Gothic cathedrals) or something else (but specific).

Domestic processors with x86 architecture were sharpened by layer-by-layer copying of the topology of American microcircuits. By the way, similar for modern processors of modern capitalist Russia has long been too hard for businessmen or the military industrial complex. The x86 architecture can also be identified programmatically (analysis of the instruction set, bit depth, etc.).

Architecture architecture and processors have a "visibility" of a different type, but a very high degree. Here with the architecture of the enterprise - this is impossible.

So far, there is no effective tool for the formalization and identification of EA, but only a subjective approach and alchemy.
Speech is not about the description in the form of "squares" or text, but about identification, identification of objects, processes and their architectural elements.
Someday they will invent a method of “objective control” and formalization, learn how to “scan” enterprise processes, “photograph” logical objects and relationships, then move on to digital recognition of business processes and “deciphering” the architecture of the enterprise being surveyed.
These technologies will be similar to remote sensing of the Earth or network discovery (HP NMM, etc.).

Sometimes there is a mixture of concepts, when the same subject is considered in different meanings. For example, the "architecture of the city" - really gives a misunderstanding. What object is considered?
If the object is “urban planning”, then yes, akin to “architecture of architecture”. City development: point, complex, tower city, etc. An example from Gogol's architecture:

If a “city” is considered as an object of the “enterprise” class, i.e. an economic entity (not an IT entity, right?), then there is no point in talking about “architecture of architecture” - this is another object of analysis and urban planning / development, if it is reflected in the description of “Enterprise Architecture”, then only a stroke, that to. not a key object of the architectural description (according to the EA framework).

Conclusion

Easier "steamy turnips": the simplest framework and the simplest object of research - the household, therefore, you should get the simplest "household architecture" (NA). Information both on the Zakhman plate and the internal mechanics of the household is the sea, and the “practice of life” allows the architect to relate the theoretical calculations with his own experience (presence in the world of the household).

When I once again reviewed the pictures of ZF in different variations and interpretations of this famous framework, the child next collected “Colorama”. The similarity of the well-known two-dimensional classification matrix for an EA with a children's desk toy (or rather, the approach to knowledge, ontology itself) seemed worthy of attention, which the picture devoted to:



Colorama for Enterprise Architect (ZF compatible)

Alchemists are probably not in possession of “top-secret” information, and their very expensive and profitable research is based on data that can be independently recorded in a structured Zachman table.
Drawing an analogy in relation to the household, it is shown what specific objects can be taken as the basis for filling in the tablet, which as a result can become the Family Enterprise Architecture (NA).

“Marketing versus science” and “300 percent according to Marx” are the key factors of the kingdom and public veneration of near-scientific reasoning around EA and masking alchemy under “Best Practice”.

Revenons a nos moutons: while the statistics on the competition is not joyful, by the time of the publication of this article, 0.0000 descriptions of AN have been received. Alchemy cannot be overcome at this rate.
It may be “indecent” for professional corporate architects to describe household architecture (professional ethics), but at least someone will hopefully “descend” and show “master class” to beginners?

Motto: Turn off alchemy, turn on the mind and draw the architecture of your household!

Your, bipiem