Methodology and Technology Services

Google
 
Web www.ies.aust.com

| Home | Courses | Certification | Projects | Papers | EA Blog | Online Store | Contact Us |

THE ENTERPRISE NEWSLETTER

TEN#42: 2008 Pearcey Awards and
Enterprise Convergence in Our Lifetime

Printable PDF Version

CONTENTS


Introduction

September 16, 2008 – Perth, WA: This issue of The Enterprise Newsletter (TEN) reports on the announcement of the 2008 Pearcey Awards in Sydney on September 11, 2008. It includes an article, contributed by Stan Locke, Managing Director of Zachman Framework Associates in Toronto, Canada, on the recent V2.01 extension of the Zachman Enterprise Framework. 

The Course Copyrights for the Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Technology courses developed by Clive Finkelstein of Information Engineering Services Pty Ltd (IES) are still available for sale. The Tender for purchase of these course copyrights is still open. .

The financial details of these courses are provided in the Course ROI document, which can be downloaded from here. This discusses the Course Groups that are available, and the Return on Investment (ROI) of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Technology courses. The Tender Offer Form is also available for submission of Tender Offers.

If you do not want to receive future TEN mailings, please send an email to unsubscribe@ies.aust.com with “Remove” and your email address in the Subject line.

Clive Finkelstein
Publisher, The Enterprise Newsletter (TEN)

Back to Contents


Establishment of DAMA Perth Chapter

The DAMA (Data Management Association) has chapters in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra in Australia, with many chapters in the USA, UK and Europe. A Perth Chapter of DAMA has now been established. The inaugural meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at the Somerset on the Terrace at 185 St Georges Tce, Perth WA – at 5:30 pm for a 6:00pm start. I have been asked to give the inaugural presentation: based on the same talk that I presented at the Enterprise Architecture Conference (EAC) Europe 2008 titled: “Modelling Tool Support for Rapid Delivery of Enterprise Architecture”. The handouts, in the form of PowerPoint Instructor Notes in PDF can be downloaded from here.

Back to Contents


Pearcey Foundation

The Pearcey Foundation was established in 1998 to honour the memory of Dr Trevor Pearcey who died in 1998. The following extract from the obituary of Trevor Pearcey was written by Professor Peter Thorne of the University of Melbourne in February 1998:

"Dr Trevor Pearcey, who died on Tuesday 27 January, 1998 pioneered computing in Australia. Born in the United Kingdom, he graduated in 1940 from Imperial College with first class honours in physics and mathematics. He terminated his Ph.D. studies because of the war and joined the Air Defence Research Development Establishment.

Late in 1945, Pearcey came to Australia to work at the Radiophysics Division of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

In 1948 he, with Maston Beard, commenced the design of a stored program electronic computer. This machine, the CSIR Mark I, was developed largely independently of work then underway in Britain and the US.

The Mark I ran its first program in November 1949. It was almost certainly the fourth stored-program electronic computer in the world and the first outside Britain and the US. The MkI was transferred to the University of Melbourne in 1955 and renamed CSIRAC.

CSIRAC was the first computer in an Australian University and the first in Victoria. It provided a computing service to scientists, engineers and the Melbourne business community until 1964. CSIRAC still exists intact, making it the oldest surviving electronic computer in the world.

The Pearcey Foundation promotes and encourages Australian ICT Achievement. It was founded in 1998 in memory of the great Australian ICT pioneer Dr Trevor Pearcey.

Image:Logo-70.jpg

 

Each year, the Pearcey Foundation organizes events and makes awards including:

  • National Awards such as the National Pearcey Medal and the Pearcey Hall of Fame
  • State Awards to recognize upcoming individuals in each Australian State

Back to Contents

2008 Pearcey Awards

The 2008 Pearcey Awards were announced at the Pearcey Awards Dinner in Sydney on September 11, 2008.  Nominated for the awards were Neville Roach, Dr Neil Weste and Clive Finkelstein. The 2008 Pearcey Medal was awarded to Neville Roach. Together with Dr Neil Weste and Clive Finkelstein, all three were inducted into the Pearcey 2008 Hall of Fame.

For those who are not familiar with the Pearcey Awards, they have been described by some as being the Australian ICT (Information Communication Technology) Industry equivalent of the Academy Awards, with the Pearcey Medal being the equivalent of the AFI Lifetime Achievement Award, such as presented to Barbara Streisand.

I did not have an opportunity at the dinner to thank all those who have helped me over the years. I will use this issue to thank them. In 1976 when I left IBM – after 15 years in Australia and the USA – my intention was to develop a group of methods for information that was as rigorous as an engineering discipline. I hired people who I felt could contribute skills in different fields in both IT and business. But I did not coin the term Information Engineering until 1980.

I have many people to thank; I will not list them all as I do not want to miss anyone. I must thank all the consultants in Australia and New Zealand who worked for me from 1976 – 1981 on the initial development of Information Engineering (IE). I also want to thank the many consultants from Australia, New Zealand and the USA who worked for me from 1981 – 1988 to refine IE for world-wide use.

Up until 1981, IE was used only in Australia and New Zealand. After publication of the Savant Institute book: “Information Engineering” that I co-authored with James Martin in 1981 – IE began to be used world-wide. Variants of Information Engineering emerged: developed by others: some were quite successful; others were not so successful. The business-driven variant that we all developed in Australia and New Zealand has been a success beyond my wildest expectations and has evolved still further. It was first used in the USA from 1987 as part of an umbrella contract for the US Navy and the US Marines.

Today it is being used very effectively for the rapid delivery of Enterprise Architecture into production. This variant is called Enterprise Engineering. It is described by John Zachman in his world-wide Enterprise Architecture seminars. Today it is very stable and is being widely used.

Once again, thank you all. I am pleased that after working on Information Engineering for over 30 years, it is now becoming an overnight success – even though today a reference to the acronym “IE” is assumed by most to be a reference to Microsoft Internet Explorer.

 Back to Contents


Enterprise Convergence in Our Lifetime

by

Stan Locke, Managing Director,
Zachman Framework Associates,

Toronto, Canada

 

As I sit here at the cottage near Ottawa, this long holiday weekend, handwriting on my diminishing supply of A4 continuous tractor fed paper, I am reminded that this was the hot technology of the seventies for computer generated letters, thesis writing and QuicLaw from APL Selectric terminals.  This of course has passed into the history of the last century.  Now, I will send this note on to Clive in Perth who will redistribute it to you all over the globe.  What a phenomenal convergence in our ability to create, connect, convey and converse so quickly!

During those same years IBM was very strong in formulating Business Systems Planning (BSP) studies with their customers, but couldn’t really get these into implemented systems that could move the enterprise to where it need to go.  Along came an IBM planner John Zachman who proposed a convergence theory of the ‘architecture’ for information systems.  With his strong customer ties to the aerospace industry, manufacturing sectors, and personal architect friends, Zachman soon understood that moving the global plan to implementation involved several different ‘stakeholder’ representations.  Hence, the fundamental notions of owner, designer and builder perspectives were identified. 

But, every perspective needed to answer the basic communication interrogatives of who, how, what, where, when and why to be a complete description which when made explicit could remove assumptions and ambiguity. Zachman was afraid to tell anyone more than the what, how and where descriptors because even these three were complex  (although the latter three questions who, when and why appeared in the supporting material).  In addition, the convergence of BSP and Systems Development Life Cycles (SDLC) emerged in the ‘Framework for Information Systems Architecture’. This Zachman ‘framework’ was first published by the IBM Systems Journal in 1987, (and according to IBM this is the most requested article in the history of the Systems Journal.)

The eighties also saw the rise of several significant analysis components for information systems requirements. The great partitioning techniques of structured analysis and the attempted cohesion approach of structured design, but integrated components didn’t really excel until entity relationship modeling appeared.  All of these were basically systems analysis tools. These converged into the discipline of Information Engineering created by Clive Finkelstein at Information Engineering Services Pty Ltd (IES) after leaving IBM in 1976.  Essentially, this work became the hands and feet (the methodology) of implementing systems.

By the time the second IBM Systems Journal article Extending and formalizing the framework for Information Systems Architecture was published in 1992, John Zachman’s co-author John Sowa proposed the additions of the Scope perspective of the ‘planner’ (bounding lists common to the enterprise and its environment) and the Detailed Representation perspective of the ‘sub-contractor’ (being the out of context vendor solution components). The Who, When and Why columns were brought into public view, the notion of the four levels of metaframeworks and a depiction of integration associations across the perspectives were all outlined in the paper. Keri Anderson Healey assisted by creating a model of the models (the framework metamodel) which was also included in the article.  Enterprises could now see that the structure of Enterprise Architecture was much more than building systems, and that there was a formal way to evaluate the enterprise specification, which had a significant amount of credible theory supporting the logic.

However, when the framework schema is only materialized in matrix form, it can be easily misinterpreted. Sorely misunderstood, for instance, is that the ‘framework’ is a top to bottom decomposition where each perspective continues the hierarchy details from above. The truth is that adding detail is a function of a cell not a column. Also misunderstood is that the columns are ordered as depicted. The truth is that the columns have no set order and the ‘order’ of enterprise examination is a methodology value judgment. Another misconception is that having all the class (cell) contents would somehow magically deliver a functioning enterprise.  This occurs because most folks have missed the other two associations outside the relationship association within cell which creates primitive models. These associations are: the integration associations between each cell and every other cell across the row; and the transformation associations down the column linking all the items in the cell above with the cell below.

The integration associations bind the various columnar answers together into a cohesive answer for the entire perspective.  The transformation associations ensure the alignment of one independent variable throughout the perspectives in order to explain, design and change the functioning enterprise. Again the matrix view of the framework schema does not readily allow us to see that any component in any one class (cell) can be related to any other component in the same row or column on a many to many association. These associations bring about the convergence of classification with the implementation methodologies.

As we moved through the nineties, methodologists like Finkelstein, for instance, recognized that having a piece of system design logic and subsequent implementations without having the definition of the business concepts as reflected in the motivation, inventory, transformation and organization would not ultimately match the desired business model with the implemented operations.  His professional practice was refocused on the top two framework rows which he labeled Enterprise Engineering and has one of the most successful methods for converging the business needs with information engineering implementation, and determining a logical build sequence of the pieces. 

At the same time others have tried to focus on simplistic hierarchical decomposition of the Scope lists purporting to be ‘doing’ Zachman Enterprise Architecture. These consultants have fundamentally missed the mark by failing to transform the scope items into the rich semantic vocabulary defining the business concepts and the business rules which so clearly elicit the system logic, and then subsequently making the technology transformation and component selections for an engineered functioning enterprise. Most didn’t even make provision in the plan for any of this to be accomplished.

So what are the convergences of these first eight years of the naughties? The framework has been subject to scrutiny and implementation by a large world wide linguistics enterprise who have been extremely helpful in our clarification of the framework terms. Even the casual observer would notice that all the adjective words (conceptual, logical, physical) have been removed from the framework labels in favor of noun modified noun labels giving it better defined deliverables and intersection set theory constructs.  The chosen terms are a move toward more a generic business language on the enterprise framework as shown in the diagram below. 

(Click the above Figure for a full-size, Landscape Zachman Enterprise Framework2 for printing)

Each class (cell) has a name derived from the mass noun answer shown at the bottom of the column in the diagram. These column footer terms (see bottom) are inventory, process, network, organization, timing, and motivation while the perspective row names (on the left-hand side) are scope, business, system, technology, component and instance. The enterprise contributors (on the right-hand side) are strategists, executive leaders, architects, engineers, technicians and workers. Using these labels for intersection naming not only allows for the exact positioning of the cell in the logic structure but it removes the need to arbitrarily assign meaningless codes, of r2c4 for example, as cell locators.

In addition, the normative framework terms have been projected onto enterprise framework adding the background rigor of broader context to the enterprise terms, while at the same time refining the overall meaning and enforcing the original framework logic. The column footer terms are sets, transformations, nodes, groups, periods and reasons. The row models (on the left-hand side) are contexts, concepts, logic, physics, assemblies and classes. The methods outcomes are identification, definition, representation, specification, configuration and instantiation, moving down the perspective rows. The generic contributors (on the right-hand side) are theorists, owners, designers, builders, implementers and participants.

Much of the confusion and misinterpretation about what constitutes a perspective model (as a single row), a single variable model (a single column), a primitive model (a single cell) and a composite model (more than one cell) has been removed by the refined framework terms. For example the scope context for the enterprise is the integrated set of lists identifying the items from the environment that will be included in or excluded from the enterprise operations.  The business concepts defined by the semantic models connects all the terms by associations for each of the six primitive models integrated across the row and aligned by transformation from the identified scope boundary lists.  Similarly, the system logic represented in the schematics models describe all of the defined business concepts in terms of their characteristics, properties and attributes in a manner that allows the each item to be aligned with the business definition.

What we have learned is that the perspectives are not really ‘stakeholder’ models but rather models that are based on the second century (B.C.) Greek philosophers notion of ‘reification’. This is a set of steps which transforms an idea into something real. It begins with the identification (description) of the mental thought, then moves through a definition stage where instances of the ‘thing’ and the relationships with other ‘things’ prove existence.  Next the representation of the ‘thing’ as evidenced by finding attributes or properties. This gives a complete notion of the idea. (The reader will note these converge with the first three perspective rows in the framework). 

Following the idea formulation, one can now examine the numerous manifestations possible given the various general technologies each with different physics specification constraints.  Next, the specification can be supported by the use, buying, or building of  component assemblies which when configured will support the desired idea. Finally the reality is made complete by the creation of instances which now can be seen in the real world.   (The reader can now observe that the last three perspectives support the reality of the idea). This notion of reification has parallel patterns and is supported by the ideas of cognitive thinking, testing and examination.

I encourage you to download a copy of John Zachman’s Concise Definition of the Zachman Framework, register at no cost to have a look at the Enterprise Standards and above all see if you too can see the Enterprise Convergence in our Lifetime.

Back to Contents

 

Home
Courses

Certification

Projects
Papers
TEN Archive
EA Blog

Contact Us

Search

Online Store

 

 


AUTHOR

Clive Finkelstein is the "Father" of Information Engineering (IE), developed by him from 1976. He is an International Consultant and Instructor, and Managing Director of Information Engineering Services Pty Ltd (IES) in Australia. 

Clive Finkelstein's books, online interviews, courses and details are available at http://www.ies.aust.com/cbfindex.htm.

For More Information, Contact:

  Clive Finkelstein, Managing Director
Information Engineering Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 246, Hillarys, Perth WA 6923 Australia
 
  Details:
Web Site:
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
http://www.ies.aust.com/cbfindex.htm
http://www.ies.aust.com/
+61-8-9275-3459
+61-8-6210-1579
cfink@ies.aust.com

| Home | Courses | Certification | Projects | Papers | TEN Archive | EA Blog | Online Store |Contact Us | [Search |

(c) Copyright 2004-2009 Information Engineering Services Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved.