64:
33:
152: : This layer leads to producing an EAP workplan and stresses the necessity of high-level management commitment to support and resource the subsequent six components (or steps) of the process. It consists of Planning Initiation, which covers in general, decisions on which methodology to use, who should be involved, what other support is required, and what toolset will be used.
114:, EAP takes a data-centric approach to architecture planning to provide data quality, access to data, adaptability to changing requirements, data interoperability and sharing, and cost containment. This view counters the more traditional view that applications should be defined before data needs are determined or provided for.
135:
EAP is planning that focuses on the development of matrixes for comparing and analyzing data, applications, and technology. Most important, EAP produces an implementation plan. Within the
Federal Enterprise Architecture, EAP will be completed segment enterprise by segment enterprise. The results of
224:
EAP focuses on defining what data, applications, and technology architectures are appropriate for and support the overall enterprise. Exhibit 6 shows the seven components (or steps) of EAP for defining these architectures and the related migration plan. The seven components are in the shape of a
102:
in 1992 defined
Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP) as "the process of defining architectures for the use of information in support of the business and the plan for implementing those architectures." Spewak’s approach to EAP is similar to that taken by DOE in that the business mission is the
131:
in detail but for the sake of the planning exercise, abbreviates the analysis. The
Zachman Framework provides the broad context for the description of the architecture layers, while EAP focuses on planning and managing the process of establishing the business alignment of the architectures.
246:
program based on the EAP methodology has largely failed: "Enterprise
Architecture within the federal government hasn‘t been working, and far more often than not hasn‘t delivered useful results. Moreover, significant parts of the federal EA program have been complete and utter
204: : This consists of the Implementation / Migration Plans - Definition of the sequence for implementing applications, a schedule for implementation, a cost/benefit analysis, and a clear path for migration.
103:
primary driver. That is followed by the data required to satisfy the mission, followed by the applications that are built using that data, and finally by the technology to implement the applications.
253:
The historical analysis shows that the EAP methodology, as well as all other similar formal, documentation-oriented, step-by-step planning methodologies, never worked successfully in practice.
240:, the conceptual predecessor of EAP, did not work successfully: "Given their great expense and time consumption, findings seriously challenge the utility of the planning methodologies".
127:
EAP defines the blueprint for subsequent design and implementation and it places the planning/defining stages into a framework. It does not explain how to define the top two rows of the
422:
250:
Even Steven Spewak and Steven Hill (1992) admit that "the vast majority of enterprises that undertake
Enterprise Architecture Planning are not successful" (page 19).
165:, the compilation of a knowledge base about the business functions and the information used in conducting and supporting the various business processes, and
177: : The arrows delineate the basic definition process flow: data architecture, applications architecture, and technology architecture. It consists of:
136:
these efforts may be of
Government wide value; therefore, as each segment completes EAP, the results will be published on the ArchitecturePlus web site.
214:
106:
This hierarchy of activity is represented in the figure above, in which the layers are implemented in order, from top to bottom. Based on the
419:
263:
195:- Definition of the technology platforms needed to support the applications that manage the data and support the business functions.
474:
159: : This layer provides a baseline for defining the eventual architecture and the long-range migration plan. It consists of:
268:
243:
331:
213:
The
Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP) methodology is beneficial to understanding the further definition of the
168:
Current
Systems and Technology, the definition of current application systems and supporting technology platforms.
63:
186:
162:
107:
237:
189:- Definition of the major kinds of applications needed to manage that data and support the business functions.
192:
87:
79:
90:
for the use of information in support of the business and the plan for implementing those architectures.
273:
440:
The
Practice of Enterprise Architecture: A Modern Approach to Business and IT Alignment (2nd Edition)
233:
The effectiveness of the EAP methodology have been questioned in the late 1980s and early 1990s:
17:
459:
Enterprise
Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology
356:
Enterprise Architecture Planning: Developing a Blueprint for Data, Applications, and Technology
479:
221:, Planner and Owner. The design of systems begins in the third row, outside the scope of EAP.
218:
180:
128:
99:
225:
wedding cake, with each layer representing a different focus of each major task (or step).
426:
335:
46:
Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
468:
454:
351:
111:
98:
One of the earlier professional practitioners in the field of system architecture
328:
217:
at level IV. EAP is a how to approach for creating the top two rows of the
369:
The Implementation of Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies
83:
183:- Definition of the major kinds of data needed to support the business.
406:
Goodhue, D.L., Kirsch, L.J., Quillard, J.A., and Wybo, M.D. (1992).
144:
Enterprise Architecture Planning model consists of four levels:
26:
380:
Goodhue, D.L., Quillard, J.A., and Rockart, J.F. (1988).
420:"Why Doesn’t the Federal Enterprise Architecture Work?"
395:
Meeting the Challenges of Information Systems Planning
397:. In: Long Range Planning, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 69-80.
382:
Managing the Data Resource: A Contingency Perspective
329:
Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework Version 1.1
384:. In: MIS Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 373-392.
371:. In: MIS Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 445-461.
300:. Federal Aviation Administration, February 1998.
410:. In: MIS Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 11-34.
408:Strategic Data Planning: Lessons from the Field
326:The Chief Information Officers Council (1999).
461:. John Wiley & Sons, New York City. 1995.
8:
298:Federal Information Architecture Initiatives
67:Levels of Enterprise Architecture Planning.
215:Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
429:, Stanley B. Gaver, visited 19 May 2016.
62:
322:
320:
318:
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
306:
292:
290:
288:
284:
442:. Melbourne, Australia: SK Publishing.
393:Lederer, A.L., and Sethi, V. (1992).
367:Lederer, A.L., and Sethi, V. (1988).
347:
345:
244:Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)
7:
25:
264:Enterprise Architecture Framework
175:the vision of where we want to be
72:Enterprise architecture planning
31:
18:Enterprise Architecture Planning
269:Enterprise Architecture Process
238:Business Systems Planning (BSP)
358:. Boston, QED Pub. Group. p. 1
1:
110:(BSP) approach developed by
457:with Steven C. Hill (1995)
438:Kotusev, Svyatoslav (2021)
496:
187:Applications Architecture
163:Business process modeling
108:Business Systems Planning
40:This article needs to be
202:how we plan to get there
475:Enterprise architecture
193:Technology Architecture
80:enterprise architecture
354:and S. C. Hill (1992)
68:
274:Enterprise Life Cycle
66:
86:process of defining
425:2016-06-11 at the
334:2012-02-13 at the
157:where we are today
69:
219:Zachman Framework
181:Data Architecture
129:Zachman Framework
123:Zachman framework
61:
60:
16:(Redirected from
487:
443:
436:
430:
417:
411:
404:
398:
391:
385:
378:
372:
365:
359:
349:
340:
324:
301:
294:
100:Steven H. Spewak
56:
53:
47:
35:
34:
27:
21:
495:
494:
490:
489:
488:
486:
485:
484:
465:
464:
451:
449:Further reading
446:
437:
433:
427:Wayback Machine
418:
414:
405:
401:
392:
388:
379:
375:
366:
362:
350:
343:
339:September 1999.
336:Wayback Machine
325:
304:
295:
286:
282:
260:
231:
211:
209:EAP methodology
150:getting started
142:
125:
120:
96:
57:
51:
48:
45:
36:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
493:
491:
483:
482:
477:
467:
466:
463:
462:
450:
447:
445:
444:
431:
412:
399:
386:
373:
360:
341:
302:
283:
281:
278:
277:
276:
271:
266:
259:
256:
255:
254:
251:
248:
241:
230:
227:
210:
207:
206:
205:
198:
197:
196:
190:
184:
171:
170:
169:
166:
153:
141:
140:EAP components
138:
124:
121:
119:
116:
95:
92:
59:
58:
39:
37:
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
492:
481:
478:
476:
473:
472:
470:
460:
456:
455:Steven Spewak
453:
452:
448:
441:
435:
432:
428:
424:
421:
416:
413:
409:
403:
400:
396:
390:
387:
383:
377:
374:
370:
364:
361:
357:
353:
352:Steven Spewak
348:
346:
342:
338:
337:
333:
330:
323:
321:
319:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
307:
303:
299:
293:
291:
289:
285:
279:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
261:
257:
252:
249:
245:
242:
239:
236:
235:
234:
228:
226:
222:
220:
216:
208:
203:
199:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
178:
176:
172:
167:
164:
161:
160:
158:
154:
151:
147:
146:
145:
139:
137:
133:
130:
122:
117:
115:
113:
109:
104:
101:
93:
91:
89:
88:architectures
85:
81:
77:
73:
65:
55:
43:
38:
29:
28:
19:
458:
439:
434:
415:
407:
402:
394:
389:
381:
376:
368:
363:
355:
327:
297:
296:FAA (1998).
232:
223:
212:
201:
174:
156:
149:
143:
134:
126:
112:John Zachman
105:
97:
75:
71:
70:
49:
41:
469:Categories
280:References
247:failures".
200:Level 4 -
173:Level 3 -
155:Level 2 -
148:Level 1 -
118:EAP topics
52:March 2015
229:Criticism
480:Planning
423:Archived
332:Archived
258:See also
94:Overview
84:planning
82:is the
42:updated
78:) in
76:EAP
471::
344:^
305:^
287:^
74:(
54:)
50:(
44:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
