Another EA framework player emerges in 2009, the Pragmatic Enterprise Architecture Framework (PeaF). I did skim and let me stress that I didn’t do a detailed analysis of the framework.
Below is the overview of the framework in their words:
PeaF has been formulated over a large number of years by understanding what works and what does not work in a pragmatic sense.
PeaF provides a quick start toolkit necessary to begin and sustain an Enterprise Architecture programme of work for organisations seeking to infuse and reap the benefits EA can bring.
What I did find interesting was this quote was in almost every document I opened on the site.
Where TOGAF is huge and Zachman is chiefly a taxonomy, PeaF cuts to the heart of what is needed to begin reaping the benefits of Enterprise Architecture. More than just a classification scheme or descriptive content, it provides a toolkit consisting of the vision, communication materials, maturity matrix, risks, plans, Metamodel, principles, processes and metrics required to hit the ground running.
I’m sure there isn’t any bitterness or hostility but it was strange to see those statements in every document. The statement I do believe is misleading and needs some tweaking. TOGAF is more of a process framework. TOGAF more than Zachman, I found references to TOGAF all over the documentation. TOGAF is very broad and can be implemented in many ways, this is intentional. That is why TOGAF is implemented in 80% of the Forbes Global Top 50 worldwide.
At first glance I am not sure how much value there is with this one. More analysis will be needed on my side. What I will say is that I didn’t find much process in the framework. That may or may not be intentional.
For me I did find a few issues:
- For a pragmatic framework it isn’t immediately actionable. Meaning there are no accelerators or templates to aid in the implementation of the framework
- Little process definition in the framework. See the Governance Process document (http://www.pragmaticea.com/docs/peaf-governance-process.pdf) as an example of this. No clear inputs and outputs, metrics, actors or descriptors where defined explicitly.
- Assumptions were made that not all enterprises will share. Every enterprise architecture office has varying forces applied to it based on organizational, operational and cultural forces. As an example how PeaF does this, in the principles definition document (http://www.pragmaticea.com/docs/peaf-governance-principles.pdf) instead of creating a framework and process for defining your own principles they were defined for you.
- Metric definition was fairly weak. While the questions in the Metrics Document (http://www.pragmaticea.com/docs/peaf-management-metrics.pdf) where useful for a subset of issues it doesn’t address the tough questions that will be asked about “why do we need EA?”
- I didn’t see if there is a line up of tools that support PeaF?
- It wasn’t obvious from the site on how the framework will grow.Is it a closed framework with no input from the community or is it open. Using the same frameworks referenced in PeaF are example of open and closed frameworks:
- Open - Open Group’s TOGAF is completely open and is customer driven
- Closed – Zachman framework isn’t adding any columns for anyone. This framework isn’t modified unless John Zachman wants it done.
Just like with anything, since this is a new framework the maturity is somewhat low. Without broad critique, enterprise implementation and best practices development caution and lowered expectations should be taken into account when approaching. There are some gems in the framework and does warrant further investigation.
If the guys at PeaF want to chat shoot me an e-mail I would love to get more information on the direction and roadmap of the framework.
What does everyone else think?