An investigation into applying UML to the Zachman framework
The Zachman framework is considered to be the most referenced framework for the purpose of enterprise architecture. It is commonplace to compare other frameworks with this basic one in order to show correctness and usability of those frameworks. However, this is more than a fashion, the Zachman framework is actually the best one.
Despite of its popularity, the Zachman framework could be a challengeable one in practical situations because there are not enough well-known methods and tools covering all of its aspects. Three major challenges in using this framework, are discussed in this article. These challenges are lack of a methodology, a well-defined repository and a popular modeling notation. Focus of this article is on solving the last problem with the help of notations in UML (Unified Modeling Language) and UML Business Profile.
At the first glance the topic seems to be already researched by others, but there are some major distinctions between this work and the others', which make it a unique one. Most of the other work tried to cover the framework using multiple class diagrams stereotyped in different ways. This work tries to cover the Zachman framework using all of the UML features, especially those, which are convenient in common modeling tools as well as ignoring unfamiliar symobls as it is used by some authors.
A case study is used upon which we show how to apply the selected notation on a sample enterprise to develop cells in second and third rows of the framework. Models are tested to consider if they are supporting Zachman rules governing the framework. Furthermore, in order to see if they could be convincing enough, a statistical study is employed. Although results of these tests are relatively acceptable, the problem of inventing new modeling notations is mentioned as an open problem.
KeywordsThe Zachman framework UML UML business profile
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- de Villiers DJ. Using the Zachman Framework to Assess the Rational Unified Process. Rational Edge, March 2001.Google Scholar
- Fatolahi A, Jalalinia S. Building transition architectures using zachman framework. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Industrial Engineering Conference. Tehran, Iran, 2004Google Scholar
- Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.1, US Chief Information Officers Council, September 1999.Google Scholar
- Heumann, J. Introduction to Business Modeling using the Unified Modeling Language (UML). Rational Edge, 2001.Google Scholar
- Moriarty T. Metaprise to unify architecture with methodology: The rational unified process meets the zachman information systems architecture. Intelligent Enterprise, April 16, 2001.Google Scholar
- Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, 2001.Google Scholar
- Osvalds, Gundars. Bridging the Zachman Framework with Object Oriented Models. Northrop Grumman Information Technology. December 3, 2001.Google Scholar
- Sayles A. Development of Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework using the IBM Rational Unified Process and the Unified Modeling Language. Rational Edge, 2003.Google Scholar
- Schekkerman, J. Be enterprising: Facts and figures about EA, 2003. (Available from http://www.enterprise-architecture.info)
- Spewak SH, Hill SC. Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, September 1993.Google Scholar
- System Architect v8.0 Manuals. Building an enterprise architecture: The popkin process, version 1.0. Popkin Company, 2001.Google Scholar
- Wegmann A. The Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (seam): Business and IT Alignment for Competiveness. Technical Report EPFL/I&C No. 2002–65.Google Scholar
- Wilton DR. The relationship between IT strategic planning and enterprise architecture practice. Journal of BattleField Technology 2001;4(1).Google Scholar
- Zachman JA. A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal 1987;26(3):276–292.Google Scholar