In the two first cases the consistency checking by the readers is very limited, especially if the architecture artefacts are not managed in a single architecture repository with preliminary checks done by the architecture provider. For the two following cases the current practices is to use a same limited set of tools for the entire project. The consequence is generally that part of the architecture description and evaluation are not done or are not shared due to effort and budget.
For the last case, the enterprise strategy is very complicated to build and this could lead rapidly to a lack of consistency and global understanding of the architecture With the lack of common vocabulary provided by the used architecture frameworks and the use cases of interoperability described above, major misunderstanding may appear if the lacks of semantic interoperability must be offset by project rules to explicit project- or enterprise-specific definitions even if they are in usage.
This lack of definition is the first motivation of the on-going standardisation work of the AFNOR AFWG. The second one is to put this set of definitions at work through the clarification of the architecting activities within the enterprise process with definition of roles and responsibilities.
Replaced/Superseded by document(s)
|File||MIME type||Size (KB)||Language||Download|
This document presents the action-plan of the AFWG (Architecture Framework Working Group) of AFNOR (French Member of the International Organization for Standardization).
The main outcome of planed standard documents is a unified view of the information issued by the existing Architecture Frameworks regarding the basis of architecting landscape for Enterprises and Architects, methods, formalisms, terms, concepts and principles for both architecture description and evaluation. The innovative part of the work-plan is a clarification of the Enterprise/System Architecting activities with regards to the Enterprise/System live-cycle. The basic idea is considering Enterprise/System Architecting in the same way as the buildings and naval construction domains. In these domains the Architecting phase is seen as an orientation phase and the architecture elements are considered as a dashboard for the Design Authority.