The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture: An Explanatory IS Theory

Abstract

Enterprise Architecture (EA) has had an interesting and often controversial history since its inception in the late 80's by pioneers such as John Zachman. Zachman proposed the Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture (ZFEA), a descriptive, holistic representation of an enterprise for the purposes of providing insights and understanding. Some scholars claim that EA is an imperative to ensure successful business structures or business-IT alignment, or more recently with Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM), to manage required organizational transformation. However, EA initiatives within companies are often costly and the expected return on investment is not realized. In fact, Gartner recently indicated in their 2018 Enterprise Architecture Hype Cycle that EA is slowly emerging from the trough of disillusionment after nearly a decade. In this paper we argue that the role and value of EA is often misunderstood, and that EA, specifically the ZFEA for the purpose of this paper, could be considered as a theory given the view of theory within Information Systems (IS). The purpose of IS theories is to analyse, predict, explain and/or prescribe and it could be argued that EA often conform to these purposes. Using the taxonomy of theories as well as the structural components of theory within IS as proposed by Gregor, we motivate that the ZFEA could be regarded as an explanatory theory. Positioning ZFEA as IS explanatory theory provides insight into the role and purpose of the ZFEA (and by extension EA), and could assist researchers and practitioners with mediating the challenges experienced when instituting EA and EAM initiatives within organizations.

Enterprise Architecture as Explanatory Information Systems Theory for Understanding Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise Growth

“…More recent research again refers to the original foundations and the need for understanding the role EA could play as theory. Radeke [39] identified the need for explanation within EAM and Syynimaa [81] identified the underpinning theory for EA as general systems theory and concluded by stating that this may allow for EA to be an explanatory theory, which supports our work that uses Gregor's taxonomy and method to classify the ZFEA as an explanatory theory [107]. According to Gregor, an explanatory theory is used to say " .…”

“…Despite the focus on the architect, engineer and technician perspectives, there was a measure of consistency in the focus on the enterprise elements that were relevant from the start as well. In line with the third and fourth laws of enterprise ontological holism [107], the overseers of growth were indicated to have a good understanding of rows 1 and 2 to maintain business system stability during growth.…”

“…In this section, we present previous work where we mapped the ZFEA to Gregor's theory taxonomy as well as the structural components of the theory to determine if the framework can serve as an IS theory [107]. We first explain the motivation for using the ZFEA in the next section followed by the section where we apply Gregor's method to classify the ZFEA.…”

“…These participants could be from various hierarchical levels within organisations, or even role players from different organisations or geographical areas [114]. The premise of the ZFEA as an explanatory theory was used to develop questions and Appendix A provides the open-ended interview structure, with the questions and rationale for the questions [107,115,119].…”

Development of Transportation Management System with the Use of Ontological and Architectural Approaches to Ensure Trucking Reliability

“…", and "Why?" [25]. The lines reflect the points of view of experts of the various levels of management hierarchy: The planner, the owner, the designer, the builder, the sub-contractor, and the user [26].…”