I have found that find the original Zachman Framework matrix can be too complicated for some people.
In most cases I find that people accept the columns based on the six questions, who, what , where, how, when and why.
The column names are not always understood.
There is confusion about all the rows and in which cell to put the ings such as User Interfaces, Use Cases, Objects, Classes, Components and Services.
The original Zachman Framework betrays its Information Engineering legacy and needs updating.
Does a class belong in the Data or Function Column ?
Where does a Service belong ?
If we distinguish between an organisational service (performed by people) , an application service (performed by a software application) and an infrastructure service (performed by the hardware and infrastructure platform), then should we put each of these services into a different column ?
How do we map strategy aspects and the architecture discipline ?
In response to this I have created a matrix with two dimensions:
- Levels of Abstraction {Strategy, Architecture, System and Operations}
- Architectural Perspectives {Information Architecture, Process Architecture, Application Architecture, Technology Architecture, Organisation Architecture and Performance Architecture}
I have found this to be more aligned with organisation view points and common terminology.
