Menu
While documenting solution architectures I use frameworks such as the following to provide structure for the Architecture Description document (see below):
However, I've also seen people use Enterprise Architecture concepts to structure their Architecture Descriptions, using document headings such as TOGAF's:
Question: Are Enterprise Architecture frameworks suitable for documenting Solution Architectures?
Definition:
Architecture Description (AD): A collection of products to document an architecture (source: Wikipedia).
498
An enterprise architecture is a conceptual blueprint, and the purpose of a framework is to help architects, designers and engineers understand how an organization's systems and assets are logically structured and connected.
While the enterprise architect focuses on the enterprise-level design of the IT landscape, solution architects are in charge of finding and introducing solutions to specific business problems. They also manage all activities that lead to the successful implementation of a new application.
According to CompTIA, the biggest benefits of EAP include: Allowing more open collaboration between IT and business units. Giving business the ability to prioritize investments. Making it easier to evaluate existing architecture against long-term goals.
An architecture framework provides principles and practices for creating and using the architecture description of a system. It structures architects' thinking by dividing the architecture description into domains, layers, or views, and offers models - typically matrices and diagrams - for documenting each view.
The term "Enterprise Architecture Framework" (EAF) is a very broad term. This answer contains a link to an helpful orientation (including some historical overview) how differently the term is used.
If you choose the right definition - and perhaps use only a subset of a given EAF - then the answer is: "Yes, they are suitable!" But since some EAFs might focus on something totally different (e.g. the process how you got to your architecture and not on the documentation of the architecture) the answer might also be: "They are not."
For your purpose (structuring architecture artifacts) the taxonomy provided by Zachmann might be a good fit. But I would argue that your current way of structuring it fits well into some of the other EAFs that doesn't define how the architectural artifacts are to be structured.
124
The OpenGroup have created ArchiMate as a tool for architecture modeling. It's designed to be in line with TOGAF, so a description of a solution architecture using ArchiMate would be full of those TOGAF terms.
36
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
