The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
By: John P. Zachman
April 2009
The Zachman Framework ™ has evolved over time. While the fundamental concepts have not changed
at all, refinements to the graphical representation in addition to more precise language embody what The
Framework has become today. Here is a brief trip down its historical evolution...
1984
1984: Never seen until now, this is the original Framework: Information Systems Architecture - A
Framework by John A. Zachman. Created in June of 1984, this was a crude representation that John
created himself of what would later be referred to as The Zachman Framework ™. Notice it has only 3
Columns. While all 6 Columns did actually exist, John was nervous that people might not be able to fully
appreciate (or be willing to accept) his thoughts, particularly since Enterprise Architecture hadn't been born
yet and this was a Framework for INFORMATION SYSTEMS architecture.
Also notice, Column 1, Row 2 the Chen Diagram , Row 3 contains a Bachman Diagram and Row 4 has
an IMS Root-Segment Diagram .
1984
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
1984: This version of The Framework was created from John's original drawings by IBM graphics support
that John used up until he retired from IBM in 1990. Notice the original title: Information Systems
Architecture - A Framework. Also, notice the "diamond" in the Column 1, Row 2 Chen notation model.
John would later remove this because this is a composite view of that particular cell. The "diamond" is a
representation of a process (or verb) connecting two entities (or nouns), which violates the later developed
fundamental Framework rule that cells can only contain primitive constructs, not composites (i.e.: no
processes can be in that cell). This is a perfect example of what we would call a composite model today,
not a primitive model.
Also notice the IDEF0 notations in Column 2, Rows 2 & 3. These are also a composite view because of the
vertical arrows. These are not pure, primitive models.
1987
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
1987: The original Framework for Information Systems Architecture . This is the original version
published in the 1987 IBM Systems Journal. Notice that only the first 3 Columns made it in spite of all 6
existing. Most people had no concept of thinking "Enterprise-wide," as John would later coin. Since The
Framework was originally published for I/S, there was no precedent set for thoughts about
Organization (Column 4), Timing (Column 5) or Motivation (Column 6). Notice the composite model in
Column 1, Row 2 as defined above in addition to some of the other notation changes.
1992
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
1992: Still called A Framework for Information Systems Architecture in this 1992 IBM Systems
Journal article, Enterprise Architecture was starting to gain a small amount of recognition based on John's
ideas that strategy and information systems needed to be "engineered" enterprise-wide, not just
"manufactured" by the I/S department. However, this Framework so revolutionized the I/S concept that
existed at this time, that people began to refer to this Framework as, The Zachman Framework ™.
This artist's rendition is fairly close to John's original graphic. Note that John added the words "Owner,"
"Designer," and "Builder" to Rows 2, 3 and 4 for clarification. John Sowa (co-author of the 1992 article)
said, "Oh, we can call Row 1 'Planner,' and Row 5 'Sub-Contractor.'"
Also note that the models in Columns 4, 5 & 6 are all the same down the columns. The I/S community, at
that time, did not have much experience or notations for the models in those Columns, so these are John's
personal models that he used down each of the Rows.
1993
1993: It was at this point that John decided to officially call The Zachman Framework™: Enterprise
Architecture - A Framework . He'd been using the term "Enterprise Architecture" for some time and felt
convinced that people would be more willing to accept his ideas about Enterprise-wide architecture as
opposed to Information Systems Architecture.
This version is still a minor carry-over from the 1987 article since it is only 3 columns. John used only the
first three columns when teaching about The Framework because of the dominant I/S perspective that
still existed at this time.
Notice that in this version is the first to use the adjectives "Contextual," "Conceptual," "Logical," "Physical"
and "Out-of Context" defining the Rows.
Column 2, Row 3 "Business Process Model" came from the 1990 book. Re-engineering the Corporation
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
which popularized the words "Business Process."
There were some minor problems with this Framework which were actually rooted back from its
inception. The first (noted earlier) is the use of the Chen Diagram in Column 1, Row 2. This is still a
composite model - the diamond indicates a process (or verb). The Column 2, Rows 2 & 3 IDEF0 notation is
also a composite model- the vertical arrows represent controls and mechanisms on the process model
making it a composite model as well. Also notice the Column 1, Row 4 model ( IMS Root-Segment ) is a
hierarchy, which is a problem because nothing can be normalized in a hierarchy. Each of these models
were changed in later versions.
Also, notice the map in Column 3, Row 1 changed from a US map (1992 version) to a World map because
of John's first seminar in Australia. This representation is a very inaccurate model because the map is an
instantiation which belongs in Row 6 - see more detail about this below in the 2004 version.
1993
1993: Several of John's friends from the Business Rules community persistently pressed him to talk about
"The Other 3 Columns," because that is where the "Business Rules" were originally. This "version," while
not widely distributed was part of John's lecture series on "What is Enterprise Architecture" as evidenced
by the title of this version: Enterprise Architecture- The Other Three Columns.
2001
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2001: During this time, Enterprise Architecture was really gaining ground based on John's thoughts about
the subject. Fully recognized as The Zachman Framework ™, this version was very widely distributed
and had many of the refinements from the previous 10 years of research.
In particular, notice the model in Column 1, Row 2 is no longer a Chen Diagram . Removal of the
"diamond," or process (verb) made this model "primitive." Also, the controls and mechanisms (vertical
arrows) were removed from the process models in Column 2, Rows 2 & 3.
As you can also see, while Row 6 existed, the Functioning Enterprise wasn't fully acknowledged as part
of The Framework yet, but John was re-thinking this idea heavily. Without Row 6, people tend to embed
instances in their architecture making it very inflexible. The instance (when embedded in the higher Rows)
will bind things together. Proper nouns belong in Row 6 and generally mean you have in instance.
Common nouns imply you have a set. Abstractions belong in the first five Rows- instances belong in Row 6
(i.e.: Stockholm can not be in Row 1 because it is an instance of capital cities. Stockholm belongs in
Row 6, because it is the instantiation of the scoping context of capital cities which would be in Row 1).
In addition, to John's regret, he named Column 1 "Data," which he feels inaccurately continued to classify
The Zachman Framework ™ as a Framework for Information Systems despite having "Enterprise
Architecture" titled across the top. In fact, most of the terminology in this Framework is I/S related while
also containing quite a few adjectives which makes its directive less precise.
2002
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2002: Developed in 2002, this graphic was developed by Intervista Institute in Canada, whom we still
work with extensively. This was a HUGE upgrade in aesthetics and graphic design. While this
representation of The Framework was the most attractive aesthetically, it still contained Information
Systems terminology, adjectives, a minimized Row 6 and the IDEF0 notation in Column 2, Row 2.
One significant improvement in this version however, is the use of the black to white gradient between the
cells - which works its way down the columns. This gradient significantly emphasized that there is more
going on with The Framework than just a matrix. This de-emphasized people's misperception that
working your way down the columns is merely an increase in granularity. This is still a HUGE
misconception about The Zachman Framework ™ and the black to white gradient was an attempt to
correct this fundamental misinterpretation. The movement down each column has nothing to do with
granularity; it has everything to do with transformation.
This Framework illustration helped emphasize the Columns.
2003
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2003: Developed at roughly the same time period, this is probably the most widely distributed copy of The
Zachman Framework ™ because of its development during the time when ZIFA existed. Some of the
ZIFA partners, other than John, were unsatisfied with the Intervista version (above) which was a more
aesthetically pleasing version and showed Transformation black-to-white gradient banding down the
Columns. The objection was related to the predominant Intervista advertising despite the ZIFA logo on
the right. Therefore, they commissioned this version, which surprisingly reverted to the earlier graphic and
that only had reference to ZIFA.
This Framework does have some significant shortcomings. It still contains I/S terminology, not the
current Enterprise terminology, in addition to an extensive use of less-precise adjectives (which proliferates
ambiguity in interpretation) and a minimized Row 6, even worse than the Intervista version above.
Most surprisingly however, notice that the IDEF0 notation made its way back into Column 2, Rows 2 & 3
which violated the fundamental rule of The Framework about no cell containing composite constructs.
The vertical arrows make those processes dependent on some control or mechanism which destroys the
primitive (or "Periodic Table") idea of The Framework . John had made this correction in his 2001 version
above, but it unfortunately came back in this version.
In addition, the colors of Rows 2 and 3 became inverted.
Because of the colors of each Row, this Framework illustration emphasizes the Rows.
2003
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2003: Developed in 2003, this graphic was a minor variation of the graphic from 2002 (above), also
developed by Intervista Institute in Canada. This representation is most certainly the most pleasing
aesthetically.
The changes were minor from the previous version- it still contained Information Systems terminology,
adjectives and a minimized Row 6. However, the most significant improvement in this version however, is
the use of the gradient color banding across the Rows and down the Columns. This gradient color banding
between each cell best illustrates the concepts of Integration (across the Rows) and Transformations
(down the Columns) above all previous versions of The Framework .
Also, the IDEF0 notation was changed in Column 2, Row 2, in addition to the model in Column 5, Row 2
was changed to a "circular" icon which did not convey the idea of "event-cycle-event" very well and was
subsequently changed.
This Framework illustration emphasized both the Rows and Columns.
2004
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2004: After significant research starting in 2001, this copy of The Zachman Framework ™, also known
as The Zachman Framework 2 ™, was developed in 2004 and is fairly recognizable. The most notable
changes are the migration away from I/S terminology to Enterprise Architecture terminology. The use of
nouns also makes this version dramatically more precise, in addition to introducing the use of set theory
because of the use of nouns. Each model is carefully defined, and a complete Row 6 wraps up the 6th
phase of reification (the 2000 year old process for turning an abstract idea into reality: IdentificationRow 1, Definition -Row 2, Representation -Row 3, Specification -Row 4, Configuration -Row 5 and
Instantiation -Row 6), further proving The Framework's fundamental concept of abstraction, not
granularity, in the transformation process down each column - an idea (or Scope -Row 1) has to go
through 6 phases in order to reach reality ( Operations-Row 6). It also forces architects to get embedded
instances out of their architecture and make sure instances are only recorded in Row 6 (see 2001 version
above). The Enterprise is comprised of Rows 1-6, Enterprise Architecture is comprised of Rows 1-5.
Also, this version further moved Enterprise Architecture out of the I/T domain and shifted it back into the
business domain where John had originally intended. It depicts business architectural principles by clearly
defining that the top three Rows deal with the business ideas, while the bottom three Rows deal with
operations reality. This concept defines dramatically more practical ideas of Enterprise Architecture to
executive management.
There is one small flaw with it however, the picture (or model) of the globe in Column 3, Row 1
( Network Identification) is grossly inaccurate. The inaccuracy is in the fact that the globe is a
representation of a physical place, which is an instantiation (Row 6) of the scope (Row 1). The Row 1
models are all lists, not instances. If anything, the picture (or model) of the globe belongs in Row 6. While
this was done as more of a tribute to the original Framework (see above), John was quick to point out
this would lead to potential confusion in the Framework fundamental concept and was subsequently
changed in the next version.
2008
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2008: This is the current and most accurate version of The Zachman Framework ™ and is the version
available at no cost to anyone who registers for The Zachman Framework™ Standards . As you can
see, it is the purest graphical representation containing all the improvements in the evolution and research
on Enterprise Architecture and The Zachman Framework ™ over the last 10 years. This version's
improvements include the removal of the globe model in Column 3, Row 1 (see above), no adjectives,
precise noun names, Enterprise terminology, no I/S terminology, accurate models with no Instantiations
other than in Row 6 and is the elaboration of both the Enterprise and Normative Zachman
Frameworks™.
The terminology in the outside dark blue have been carefully selected to include names from the
Enterprise and Normative Zachman Frameworks™, giving EXTREMELY precise meaning to The
Enterprise Framework and Enterprise Architecture in general. The terminology in the previous version
(above 2004) contains only language from the Enterprise Framework . As you can see with the current
version, Enterprise Architecture is extremely well defined when coupled with the language from the
Normative Zachman Framework ™.
It is from this version that Enterprise Architecture Standards were definitively expressed and the idea of
the Enterprise Architecture Ontology (theory of existence equal to the Periodic Table of Elements) could be
realized.
2008
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
2008: This is also the most current evolution of The Zachman Framework ™developed and is the
version handed out to anyone who attends the Complete MasterClass in the Zachman Certified™ –
Enterprise Architect program, which makes this representation a bit of a collector's item because of it's
limited availability through the Zachman Courses.
It is virtually no different than the previous representation, but is a bit special. This is John's personal
elaboration of The Zachman Framework ™ because of the color of the models in each Row. The models
of The Framework actually would not contain colors, however John uses this particular version with color
models as a teaching tool to re-enforce the idea that whatever the Owners have in mind (Row 2 Business Concepts - Orange) is what is actually instantiated in the Enterprise (Row 6 - Operations
Instance Classes - Orange).
Concluding Thoughts on Change
It is important to keep in mind that throughout this "Evolution," The Zachman Framework ™ that you
see today is NOT a new Framework - it is a new Framework graphic .
What has changed?
Column Names- Communications Interrogatives and Enterprise Manifestations
Row Names- Audience Contributor Roles
Cell Names- Removed "e.g.'s" Absolute names based on Schema
Row 6- Provision for Instances and Examples (to differentiate from Cell abstractions)
Meta Model relates every Row to Row 6 for traceability and alignment
Meta Entity Names- more precise and more business oriented
Cell graphic icons now have "e.g.'s"
Row 1 meta-entities are Mass nouns (Column Names)
Modeling objectives by Row (Identification, Definition, etc.)
No adjectives used in the Framework graphic
Dictionary definition for every word
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]
The Zachman Framework™ Evolution
Helping words to classify by Row
Every Framework graphic is generated from the Repository metamodel (one authorized, consistent
source for every Framework graphic (no unauthorized variations) ... however, with provision for
"certified" local elaborations).
Personalized, personal-use, licensed, high-resolution versions available at no cost by registering for
the Standards.
What had NOT changed?
The Framework Theory
All descriptive representations can be expressed in terms of Things and Relationships (i.e.:
Thing-Relationship-Thing Models).
The Logic of The Framework
A two-dimensional classification system- a "schema"
Communication Interrogatives (What, How, Where, Who, When and Why)
Reification Transformation s (Identification, Definition, Representation, Specification,
Configuration, Instantiation)
Each intersection (Cell) is a unique, independent variable (Class, Abstraction)- a "normalized"
structure, one (meta) fact in one Cell
The Cell context defines the meaning of the Enterprise Models' words
The two-dimensional schema is depicted in matrix form
Each "Primitive" Cell Model has two meta (meta, meta) entities- a "Thing" and a "Relationship"
Comprehensive and Complete
The Classification on both axes is comprehensive and complete- therefore, the intersections
(Cells) have to be comprehensive and complete
The Zachman Framework™ is a classification theory about the nature of an Enterprise and the kinds of
"Things" (entities) that have existence in an Enterprise. Therefore, The Framework is the ENTERPRISE
ONTOLOGY.
© April 2009 John P. Zachman, Zachman International, Inc
Back
http://test.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/ea-articles/100-the-zachman-framework-evolution?tmpl=component&print=1&page=[2/21/2012 5:34:56 PM]