Paper #121

An Approach to Associate Strategic Business-IT Alignment Assessment to Enterprise Architecture

Leonel Plazaola, Johnny Flores, Enrique Silva, Norman Vargas, Mathias Ekstedt

Dept. of Industrial Information and Control Systems

KTH, Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

{leonelp | enrique | normanv | mek101 }@ics.kth.se, wjflores@uni.edu.ni

Abstract

Strategic Business and IT Alignment (SBITA) requires a holistic view and a continuous coherent interrelation between the business components, personnel and IT systems, contributing to each other’s performance over time. Several conceptual and practical methodologies to assess or achieve it has been proposed and implemented before or parallel to the advent of the Enterprise Architecture (EA), lacking to a greater or lesser degree the EA modeling characteristics. This paper explains the criteria and the process for associating the artifacts of a SBITA methodology represented as Metamodel to the Zachman Enterprise Architectural Framework (ZEAF) and reports the association pattern and statistics. This association has been done in order to find the representations of the specific concern SBITA into the EA dominion. This paper reports, among other issues, to what extent and in which perspectives and aspects the SBITA assessment concern is predominantly represented in ZEAF. Keywords: Strategic Business and IT Alignment, Enterprise Architecture, Association approach, SBITA Assessment Metamodel, Zachman Enterprise Architectural Framework

Introduction

The theory-building around the concept of Strategic Business and IT Alignment (SBITA) has a recent history; it has only been going on approximately 20 years (Luftman 2003), (Peppard 2003). This issue has been a top concern for Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and the importance of alignment has been reported as an organization-wide issue that directly influences the company’s overall performance (Xia 2002). Despite the widespread acceptance that Business and IT strategies should be aligned, the nature of such alignment is diverse and not clear in the literature. (Luftman 1996), (Hsaio and Ormerod 1998) and (Burn 1997) all provide some examples of alignment enablers and inhibitors, little guidance is provided on how to achieve, manage and maintain alignment between business and IT strategies, (Papp and Motiwalla 1996), (Luftman 1998). Because most of the above conceptual definitions, analyses, methodologies and theories of SBITA were developed before or parallel to the advent of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) practices, based on modeling principles, to a greater or lesser degree they explicitly or strictly lack the EA characteristics, definitions and principles that are broadly accepted nowadays. This paper

1

argue that most of those extensive theoretical and methodologies underpinnings experienced in case studies can be bridged to the field of Enterprise Architecture that has emerged as a feasible model-based tool for the systematic and holistic planning and decision-making of an enterprise’s business and IT system operation and evolution. This paper describes how SBITA assessment approach of Luftman (Luftman 2003) is linked to Zachman’s EA framework as a vehicle for this association we use a previously developed Metamodel for Luftman’s SBITA assessment approach (Plazaola et al 2006). This association has been done in order to find the representations of the specific concern SBITA into the EA dominion. The paper outline is organized according to the following structure: Firstly, SBITA assessment is a multidimensional issue and it is briefly explained in the section Strategic Business and IT Alignment. Secondly, in the section Enterprise Architecture of this paper we explore the Enterprise Architecture, concepts defining it as the set of models depicting the many concerns in an enterprise. In the section SBITA Assessment Metamodel association to ZEAF we explain the process and criteria to associate the Metamodel with the ZEAF, which helped us to classify the Metamodel’s artifacts in the EA context, perspectives and aspects, presenting in the section Findings on the Association the allocation pattern of the Metamodel artifacts in the ZEAF. The paper includes the section Discussion and Conclusions from the research activities here reported.

Strategic Business and IT Alignment

Several definitions are used in the literature to describe the concept Strategic Business and IT alignment, SBITA, (Henderson et al. 1993), , (Luftman 1996), (Luftman 2003),(Papp 1995), and (Reich et al. 2000). In this paper SBITA will be interpreted as a continuous conscious and coherent interrelation between all the

company’s components, personnel and IT systems contributing to its performance over time (Maes 2000). In this paper we adopt Luftman’s Strategic Business and IT Alignment Assessment approach (Luftman 2003) as the operationalized methodology that correctly describes the complex phenomena of alignment assessment since it is empirically well founded. It is based on research results from previous studies on alignment inhibitors and enablers and has been used in 60 global companies (Luftman 2003). (Luftman et al. 1998) describe a study by IBM involving executives from over 500 firms representing 15 industries. The study found that the six criteria presented in Table 1 below are the most important for aligning IT and business (Luftman 2003):

Table 1. Luftman’s criteria for SBITA Assessment.1

Some might, of course, argue against considering his strategic business and IT assessment alignment as a truly representative approach, but that discussion is not the subject of this paper. The Luftman assessment methodology is partially represented as theory diagram in Figure 1. Complete representation of the Luftman’s SBITA Assessment methodology as theory diagram can be found in www.Paper121_LuftmanTheorydiagram.uni.edu.ni

1 (*)The Communication Criterion is used as the representative example of the Luftman’s Criteria for further partial representations in this section.

2

Figure 1. Representation of the Luftman’s theory diagram (partial representation)

Luftman’s alignment assessment approach represented as a Metamodel

In order to make Luftman’s SBITA assessment approach more usable in enterprise architecture analysis and design, we have previously developed a Metamodel on this work (Plazaola et al 2006). The Metamodel describe a set of artifacts from which to represent the relevant issues of a real enterprise’s views for assessing alignment. By instantiating the entities of the Metamodel we are thus able to make SBITA assessments from architectural descriptions of the enterprise (as-is or to-be) This facilitates analysis and decision-making, using views on the SBITA alignment concern. The conformity of the proposed Metamodel with its parental expert’s approach is addressed by deriving the Metamodel straight and clearly correlated from the theory diagram of Luftman’s alignment assessment approach, a

syntactic and semantic analysis was applied from Luftman’s theory diagram to develop the Metamodel (Plazaola et al. 2006). In the Figure 2 it can be seen a partial representation of the SBITA Assessment Metamodel. Details on the Metamodel can be found at www.Paper 121_LuftmanMetamodel.uni.edu.ni

Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Architecture (EA) is understood as (i) the fundamental organization of an institution or a corporation, either as a whole or together with partners, suppliers and/or customers (“extended enterprise”), or in part (e.g. a division, a department, etc.) as well as (ii) the principles governing its design and evolution. (Opengroup 2003) In other words, an EA is a set of models depicting the organization as it is today and as it is envisioned in the future, and should be able to map the various views representing the architecture to one another.

3

Figure 2. Representation of the SBITA Assessment Metamodel (partial representation)

Enterprise architecture components

There is no universal accepted definition of how an EA should be represented, which dimensions, layers or details it should have. As an exemplification we show in Figure 3 a set of models defining the EA. The different models are linked to separate architectural discipline and the Enterprise Architecture is the glue that integrates each of these disciplines and models into a cohesive, useful and integral expression (Marques and Sousa, 2004)

Figure 3. Enterprise Architecture components The EA practices as seen in Figure 3 address concerns from the business to the technical issues of all stakeholders of an organization in an integral approach, with the goal of providing a more functional enterprise.

The Zachman Framework

(Zachman 1987) defined his Framework as "simply a logical structure for classifying and organizing the descriptive representations (i.e. models, artifacts, entities) of an Enterprise that are significant to the management of as well as to the development of the Enterprise’s systems”. The Zachman Framework focuses on content by defining the views that provide a holistic perspective of the organization. It is a classification scheme for entities, models or specific architectures in a two-dimensional classification schema diagramed in a six-by-six matrix format as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The Zachman matrix (Zachman 2002-2005)

4

The rows represent the perspective of different players/audiences/target contributors in the process while the columns represent aspects/ interrogative triggers of the process. The thirty-six frames are referred to as cells. In this Framework, each cell is unique. The columns manage the complexity while the rows manage the changes. The Framework is comprehensive and generic. It distinguishes an issue by answering all six primitive linguistic interrogatives: Who, What, Where, When, Why and How; hence they cannot be fragmented further after analyzing. In addition, it is a logical structure for descriptive representations (i.e. models, or design artifacts) of any complex object and is neutral with regard to the processes or tools used for producing the descriptions or models. For this reason, the ZEAF as applied to enterprises is helpful for sorting out technology and methodology choices and issues that are significant to both general management and technology management. This makes the framework generic. The columns in the Zachman matrix refer to the interrogative questions asked by an enterprise. The answers to these questions heavily depend upon the audience perspective/target contributor. The rows in the Zachman Framework represent distinct, unique perspectives and represent the point of view of different players. The intersection of each row and column forms a cell containing a specific enterprise artifact. Zachman contends that a fully architected enterprise would have an explicit representation that describes the enterprise's current and future activities related to that cell. He also maintains that all models in adjacent horizontal and vertical cells should be consistent with the artifacts in the cell. Such a fully described enterprise would have complete alignment between its business mission and its systems implementation, and would be completely efficient in its application of resources, priorities and processes. Of course, no such

enterprise may exist in practice, but use of the Zachman framework to analyze existing problems and guide future plans would lead organizations toward that ideal. The Zachman Framework has also spawned a number of other similar frameworks for applying enterprise architecture in specific domains. These include the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF), The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), and the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF).

SBITA Assessment Metamodel association with the ZEAF

This section shows to what extent the artifacts of the SBITA Assessment Metamodel are distributed in the ZEAF and in which perspectives and aspects. This information is useful for identifying the core stakeholders of providing information to SBITA assessments concern .This information help us to have a quick draft SBITA assessment model (i.e. as-is model generated by the SBITA Assessment Metamodel) In addition we provide a description on a new field of application for the Zachman framework: SBITA analysis.

Aspect’s Association criteria

We have the following criteria for associating the Metamodel’s artifacts with ZEAF Aspects: (i) Criterion Zachman Aspect 1 (CZA1): A Metamodel’s artifact can be associated to the general definitions of any of the six ZEAF Aspects the artifact is associated to such Aspect (e.g. A26 – Chief Information Officer is associated to the People aspect (who)). (ii) Criterion Zachman Aspect 2 (CZA2): A Metamodel’s artifact can be associated via its attributes with any of the six ZEAF Aspects the artifact is associated to such Aspect (e.g. A7-Knowledge Sharing Process- is associated to Location Aspect (Where) because the

5

attribute Scope of A7 can be Some Organizational Units or At All Enterprise or Across Organizational Units or Within Organizational Unit).

Perspective Association criteria We have the following criteria for associating the Metamodel’s artifacts by ZEAF Perspectives: (i) Criterion Zachman Perspective 1 (CZP1): The Metamodel’s artifact or any of its attributes match the Planner/Scope/Visionary view of the organization. (ii) Criterion Zachman Persperctive 2 (CZP2): The Metamodel’s artifact or any of its attributes match the Owner/ Business/ Executive leader view of the organization. (iii) Criterion Zachmant Perspective 3 (CZP3): The Metamodel’s artifact or any of its attributes match the Architect’s/ System view of the organization. (iv) Criterion Zachman Perspective 4 (CZP4): The Metamodel’s artifact or any of its attribute match the Designer/ Technology/ Engineer view of the organization. (v) Criterion Zachman Perspective 5 (CZP5): The Metamodel’s artifact or any of its attributes match the Builder/ Component/ Implementer view of the organization. (vi) Criterion Zachman Perspective 6 (CZP6): The Metamodel’s artifact or any of its attributes match the Function/ Operation/ Worker view of the organization.

Association process Phase 1 Process: The figure 5 shows how

each Aspect Association criteria were used to associate the artifact of the Metamodel with the correspondent ZEAF Aspect. 2

In the Aspect Data (Column1) we list all the Metamodel Artifacts, since all of them are needed for the modeling purpose, In this paper

2 More details of the Metamodel’s artifacts listed in Annex 1, are shown at www.paper121_Annex1.uni.edu.ni

we decided not to show that obviously redundant information; instead we focus on the Metamodel’s Artifacts associated or located at the other Aspects. Since some artifacts have more than one attribute it can be valid that an artifact is present in more than one ZEAF Aspect (Column) with the appropriate reasoning of the attribute used for that association. The result of this Phase 1 Process is a pseudo-ZEAF matrix with the Metamodel’s artifacts associated in the Aspects columns in a single Row that has no meaning, which we called the reference Row, not yet attached to any specific ZEAF perspective.

Figure 5: Phase 1 Process

Phase 2 Process: all the Metamodel’s artifacts associated in the Phase1 Process will remain in the columns where they have been associated. For allocating such artifacts to the proper ZEAF Perspective (Rows) for each of

6

the Metamodel’s artifacts we proceed as presented in figure 6:

Figure 6: Phase 2 Process Following these two phases described above, we have a ZEAF typical matrix, 6 by 6, where the Metamodel artifacts are associated with their correspondent Aspect and Perspective. This table is the outcome of the association proposed in this paper. See Table 1 at Annex 1. Any Metamodel artifact that is associated/allocated in a ZEAF cell will have in parenthesis the attribute for such association in case it is considered needed.

Findings on the association

Our SBITA Assessment Metamodel has 39 different artifacts, not including the relation types. This set of artifacts and their attributes covers the six assessment criteria mentioned in the section Strategic Business and IT Alignment. In the association of the Metamodel’s artifacts by ZEAF Aspects, referred to as Aspects from now on, we associated the 39 artifacts following the Phase 1 Association Process; some artifacts could be associated with more than one Aspect as a function of the attributes used for the specific association. The behavior of this association phase is shown in Figure 7.

Data, 0.00%Function, 22.73%

Location, 28.79%People,

13.64%

Motivation, 18.18%

Time, 16.67%

DataFunctionLocationPeopleTimeMotivation

Figure 7. Metamodel’s artifacts associated by ZEAF Aspects We have to remember that we decided not to show artifacts in Data (Column1) for the reasons explained in section SBITA Assessment Metamodel association with the ZEAF. Here we can see that the SBITA Assessment artifacts have a high association with the ZEAF Aspects Function (Column 2) and Location (Column 3) with a small, decreased presence in Motivation (Column 6), Time (Column 5) and People (Column 4), in that order. The SBITA Assessment Metamodel is covering all the ZEAF Aspects in a rather well balanced way. In the association of the Metamodel’s artifacts by ZEAF Perspectives, referred to just as Perspectives from now on, we associated 66 artifacts following the Phase 2 Association Process, some of which could be associated in

7

more than one Perspective, as explained previously. The behavior of this association phase is shown in Figure 8.

Planner33%

Sub-Contractor

0%

Owner60%

Worker0%

Builder5%

Designer2%

Planner

Owner

Designer

Builder

Sub-Contractor

Worker

Figure 8. Metamodel’s artifacts associated by ZEAF Perspectives. It can be seen that the SBITA Assessment Metamodel artifacts have a high association with the Owner and Planner and almost negligible presence in the Contractor and Designer. The current SBITA Assessment is clearly a concern of the Owner and the Planner perspective, from the current conceptual (Owner) and contextual (Planner) definitions at the enterprise. The Designer and Contractor are of interest for information on how the SBITA details are working at their level. Perspectives at the Subcontractor and Worker level influence the SBITA Assessment little to not at all. Remember that the SBITA Assessment Metamodel is producing the organization’s as-is model of the SBITA level, helping us to spot the possibilities to enhance some issues for a better SBITA.

Discussion and Conclusions

Luftman’s widely recognized SBITA Assessment methodology, originally devised as a discussion tool rather than a model, has been transformed into an SBITA Assessment Metamodel. This metamodel can only produce an instantiation or model of the Strategic Business-IT Alignment, i.e. the organization’s

as-is SBITA model, which can be assessed later on according to the procedure explained in (Plazaola et al.2006). The metamodel helps us map out the SBITA Assessment concern with graphical and defined artifacts, reducing subjective complexity by enabling standard communication processes (the artifacts) as well as reducing objective complexity by defining a limited set of artifacts, attributes and links to be shared in an Enterprise. It has been explained a feasible, systematic and swift implementation of a set of criteria and a process for the SBITA Metamodel Artifacts’ association with ZEAF Aspects and Perspectives. The SBITA Assessment Metamodel has been associated with the ZEAF and such association patterns have pointed out that the Owner-Conceptual and Planner-Contextual ZEAF Perspectives have the major impact on the SBITA Assessment, since a large number of the Metamodel artifacts are concentrated in these two Perspectives. It was also shown that the SBITA Assessment Metamodel is covered by and covers all the ZEAF Aspects in a rather well balanced way; i.e. there are no aspects that can be neglected by the SBITA Assessment. In Table 1 in Annex 1, where the SBITA Metamodel artifacts are represented in each ZEAF cell, we consider that we have information that helps us do SBITA assessment modeling by focusing, albeit not exclusively, on the information gathering in the target domain, the target contributor and the audience perspective of the ZEAF matrix. Such an SBITA assessment model can be validated later in a wider sense and help us in keeping the awareness of the interlinked artifacts in the modeling process, probable in the ZEAF’s Perspective and Aspects. The SBITA associated with the EA is an approach with close relation to the core principles of the Systems Engineering: an interdisciplinary approach and means for enabling the realization and deployment of successful systems. Systems Engineering

8

9

considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers, with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs (INCOSE 2006), in this case a better SBITA.

References

Burn, J.,”Information system Strategies and the Management of Organisational Change”. Journal of Information Technology 8, 205–216, 1997.

Ciborra, C., “De profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic alignment,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 9(1): 67-82, 1997.

Ekstedt, M., Jonsson, N., Plazaola, L., Silva, E., and Vargas, N. “An Organizational-WideApproach for Assessing Strategic Business and IT Alignment”, PICMET 2005.

Giaglis,: A Taxonomy of Business Process Modelling and IS Modelling Techniques. Int. J. of Flexible Manufacturing Systems (13) 2: 209-228, 2001.

Henderson J. C. and Venkatraman N., "Strategic Alignment: A Model for Organizational Transforming via Information Technology", Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.

Hsaio, R., Ormerod, R., “A New Perspective on the Dynamics of IT-Enabled Strategic Change”. Information Systems Journal 8 (1), 21–52, 1998.

INCOSE, What is Systems Engineering. Retrieved on 2006-11-26.

Luftman, J., "Competing in the information age: strategic alignment in practice”, New York: Oxford University press, 1996.

Luftman, N. J., “Competing in the Information Age – Align in the Sand”, Oxford Press, 2003.

Maes, R., Rijsenbrij, D., Truijens, O., Goedvolk, H., “Redefining Business – IT alignmentThrough a Unified Framework”, white paper , http://imwww.fee.uva.nl/~maestro/PDF/2000-19.pdf, 2000.

Marques Pereira Carla and Sousa Pedro, “Getting into the misalignment between Business and information Systems”, The 10th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Madrid, Spain, September 2003.

Papp, R., Motiwalla, L., “A Knowledge Based System For Measuring Business–IT Alignment”.http://Hsb.Baylor.Edu/Ramsower/Ais.Ac.96/Papers/PAPP2.html.1996.

Papp, R., "Determinants of Strategically Aligned Organizations: A Multi-industry, Multi-perspective Analysis, (Dissertation)", Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, 1995.

Plazaola, L. Silva, M. E., Vargas, N., Flores, J., Ekstedt, M., "A Metamodel for Strategic Business and IT Alignment Assesment, Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER), 2006.

Peppard, Breu, “Beyond alignment. A coevolutionary view of the Information Systems Strategy Process”. Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, 2003.

Opengroup 2003, TOGAF Enterprise Edition Version 8.1. The Open Group, 2003

Xia, W., King, W.R., “Determinants of organizational IT infrastructure capabilities”, MIS Research Center Working Papers.

Zachman, ZIFA11, All the Reasons Why You Can’t Do Architecture or (“We Has Met the Enemy and He is Us”). Zachman International ZIFA11.doc. www.zifa.com.

Zachman, John. “A Framework for Information Systems Architecture”, IBM Systems Journal,vol. 26, no.3. IBM Publication, 1987.

Zachman Framework Associates, Copyrigth 2002-2005)

Biography

The authors are researchers at the Department of Industrial Information and Control Systems at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Leonel Plazaola, Enrique Silva, and Norman Vargas are all Ph.D. students and Dr. Mathias Ekstedt is a senior researcher. Johnny Flores is a research assistant at the National University of Engineering, Nicaragua. Acknowlegments: We would like to acknowledge the enthusiastic work and discussions of Sugey Rodríguez and David Zapata both Computer Engineering students at UNI, Nicaragua doing their thesis work in the SBITA area under our supervision.

Annex 1. Outcome of Association Metamodel’s Artifact to ZEAF.

Legend: Artifacts Code and Name

(A1) IT Personnel (A2) B Personnel (A3) Human Resources Polices (A4) Organizacional Learninng / Training Program (A5) Learning / Training Monitoring (A6) Communication (A7) Knowledge Sharing Process (A8) IT Planning Process (A9) B Planning Process (A10) B-IT Liaison Staff (A11) IT Metric (A12) IT Assessment Process(A13) B Metric (A14) B Assessment Process(A15) Service Level Agreement(A16) Organizacional Units (A17) Benchamarking Process (A18) Continuous Improvement Process (A19) Business Strategy /Plan (A20) IT Strategy/ Plan (A21) IT Budgeting Process (A22) IT Budget (A23) IT Steering Committee(A24) Prioritization Process (A25) B- Process Owner (A26) CIO(A27) CEO (A28) CFO (A29) COO (A30) B Organizacional Units (A31) IT Application System (A32) IT Project (A33) B-IT Relationship Management (A34) B-IT Relationship (A35) IT Organizacional Units(A36) Technology Standard (A37) IT Architecture (A38) Social Interaction (A39) B Project

Component(Detail Representation)

Subcontractor

InventoryManifestation

No Artifacts

Component EntityComponent Relationship

FunctionManifestation

No Artifacts

Component ProcessComponent Input

NetworkManifestation

No Artifacts

Component LocationComponent Connection

OrganizationManifestation

No Artifacts

Component RoleComponent Work

TimingManifestation

No Artifacts

Component CycleComponent Moment

MotivationManifestation

No Artifacts

Component EndComponent Means

Implementers

Functioning enterprise

Operation

InventoryInstantiation

No Artifacts

Operation EntityOperation Relationship

FunctionInstantiation

No Artifacts

Operation ProcessOperation Input

NetworkInstantiation

No Artifacts

Operation LocationOperation Connection

OrganizationInstantiation

No Artifacts

Operation RoleOperation Work

TimingInstantiation

No Artifacts

Operation CycleOperation Moment

MotivationInstantiation

No Artifacts

Operation EndOperation Means

Workers

InventoryTarget Domain Function Network Organization Timing Motivation Target Contributor

Data/What Process/How Location/Where People/Who Event/When End/WhyAudience Perspective

InterrogativePerspective

Scope(Contextual)

Planner

Network Identification

A3(Scope)A7(Scope)

A10(Scope)A12(Scope)A14(Scope)A15(Scope)

A16A19(Scope)A20(Scope)A21(Scope)A24(Scope)A32(Scope)A34(Scope)A36(Scope)A37(Scope)A38(Scope)A39(Scope)

Scope Location

Visionaries

Organization Identification

A25A26A27A28A29

Scope Role

Inventory Identification

No Artifacts

Scope Entity

Function Identification

No Artifacts

Scope Process

Timing Identification

No Artifacts

Scope Cycle

Motivation Identification

No Artifacts

Scope End

Business(Conceptual)

Owner

Function Definition

A5A6

A7(Access Type)A8(Input Type)A9(Input Type)

A12(Type of assessment)A14(Type of assessment)

A17(useType)A18(useType)

A21(Input Type)A24(Input Type)A33(Use Type)

A34(Relation type)A38(Social Interaction

Bases)

Business ProcessBusiness Input

Executive Leader

Inventory Definition

No Artifacts

Business EntityBusiness Relationship

Network Definition

A30(Risk on IT Project incentived)

A35(Risk on IT Project incentived)

Business LocationBusiness Connection

Organization Definition

A1(propose change)A2(propose change)

A10(access type)A23(Access Type)

A25 (collateral consideration)A26 (collateral consideration)A27 (collateral consideration)A28 (collateral consideration)

A29 A25 (collateral consideration)

Business RoleBusiness Work

Timing Definition

A3(Frequency)A10(Frequency)A11(Frequency)A12(Frequency)A13(Frequency)A14(Frequency)A15(Frequency)A17(Frequency)A19(Frequency)A20(Frequency)A36(Frequency)

Business CycleBusiness Moment

Motivation Definition

A3A11A13A15A19A20A32A39

Business EndBusiness Means

System(Logical)

Designer

Motivation Representation

A37

System EndSystem Means

Architects

Timming Representation

No Artifacts

System CycleSystem Moment

Organization Representation

No Artifacts

System RoleSystem Work

Network Representation

No Artifacts

System LocationSystem Connection

Function Representation

No Artifacts

System ProcessSystem Input

Inventory Representation

No Artifacts

System EntitySystem Relationship

Technology(Physical)

Builder

Motivation Specification

A22(Spending Rationale Type)

A31(IT Function)A36(Use type)

Technology EndTechnology Means

Engineers

TimingSpecification

No Artifacts

Technology CycleTechnology Moment

OrganizationSpecification

No Artifacts

Technology RoleTechnology Work

NetworkSpecification

No Artifacts

Technology LocationTechnology Connection

FucntionSpecification

No Artifacts

Technology ProcessTechnology Input

InventorySpecification

No Artifacts

Technology EntityTechnology Relationship

Any Metamodel’s artifact that is associated in a ZEAF cell will have in parenthesis the attribute for such association in case it is considered needed.

10