Quoderat

The Zachman Framework (link to a full Wikipedia article) has been around for almost two decades now. It is an approach to enterprise system architecture that involves asking a series of questions (who, what, when, where, why, and how) for stage/aspect of a project. Because the framework is usually displayed as a table with the questions along the top and the stages/aspects down the left side, the Zachman-heads generally refer to the project stages/aspects as rows:

1. scope;
2. business model;
3. system model;
4. technology model;
5. components; and
6. working system.

An enterprise system architect will toss around the phrase “that’s a row-four question” just as easily as a network specialist will toss around the phrase “that’s a layer-four protocol”. The framework requires asking 6 questions 6 times to 5 stakeholder groups, for a total of 180 questions.

Not very agile, and maybe anglo-centric

This mountain of paperwork is pretty-much the antithesis of the agile software design that many of us are now practicing with great success — as the current version of the Wikipedia article linked at the top of this posting wrying notes, Zachman “is popular within IT architecture departments but has little hold of either the developer or user communities.” In other words, we tend not to use the stuff even if someone shoves it in our faces. I’m not going to bother rehashing the standard agile arguments against this kind of heavily formalized design, because most of you already know them (and those who do not can follow the link to the Wikipedia article at the start of this paragraph).

Today, I stumbled upon a different kind of criticism of Zachman: Graeme Simsion, writing from inside the system architecture community, notes that language bias has likely severely restricted the framework’s usefulness. He points out that, while who, what, when, where, why, and how are the six common single-word interrogative English pronouns, a French speaker would almost certainly have added “combien”. There are two common translations of combien — “how much?” and “how many?”. Obviously, these are critical questions to ask about any project. “How much will it cost?” “How many users will it support?” “How much bandwidth will it need?” “How many services will it offer?” Why are these questions missing from Zachman? Simsion suggests that Zachman left them out because they require two words in English, making them seem less natural, and because they’re missing from Kipling’s little poem:

I keep six honest serving-men
  (They taught me all I knew)
Their names are What and Why and When
  And How and Where and Who

He goes on to write, half tongue-in-cheek, that if Zachman had been Zachhomme, the framework would have had eight columns rather than six. Nice catch!

[Update: automated search: see below] My kids have independently come up with something very similar to the old Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game — they choose two arbitrary Wikipedia topics (say, feces and Paris Hilton) and then figure out the shortest link path between the two articles — they can generally manage in four hops or fewer, by using hub articles for countries, musical genres, etc. I’m sure that there’s a more elaborate version of this somewhere on the web, with formal rules.

Update: Tim has left a comment pointing to Six Degrees of Wikipedia, a simple web app that looks for the shortest path between two articles.