Frameworks, concepts and importance for enterprise architecture

Undoubtedly, enterprise architecture is very useful in uncertain contexts, as it brings more options for survival, especially the digital era (^{Aldea & Sarkar, 2022}: ^{Ko¸c et al., 2022}; ^{Brée& Karger, 2022}). Frameworks have developed in parallel with enterprise architecture, as a toolkit that is present in most architectural projects and constitutes a recurring theme in projects of this type. It was Zachman who first published, in IBM Systems Journal, an article about a framework entitled: "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture" (^{Chávez & Villar, 2020}; ^{Petrov et al., 2022}). It was very clear to Zachman that enterprise architecture is a holistic project (Zachman, 1987), as it covers all parts of an enterprise (^{Afshani et al., 2022}).

After the publication of the first version of "Zachman's Framework", successive research on the subject focused on understanding architecture frameworks and methodologies, now numbering in the hundreds. Just as there is a wide variety of enterprise architecture concepts, there are several definitions of frameworks, which for the purposes of this research have been grouped into the following categories:

Architecture representation. An enterprise architecture framework is a multidimensional classification scheme, which functions as a conceptual structure. These provide transparency in the unfolding of the complex relationships that manifest between business and architecture artifacts, supporting future scenario planning. By providing a space for generic problem solving, they foster a deliberately abstract and unambiguous conception of the domains that make up the organization. A framework is a useful horizontal component to an architectural practice, capable of aligning different resources, including technology, across the current and future organization. At its inception, the purpose of frameworks was focused on formalizing the modeling of system architecture, but this approach has evolved into a standardized, high-level structure, which is concerned with shaping semantic representations of the entire organization.

A logical description. A framework is considered a logical arrangement, which is made up of a set of artifacts that constitute enterprise-specific descriptions. These may not only include the architecture descriptions, they may also contain standardized methods for producing the artifacts. The logical structure is useful for categorizing and organizing multiple artifacts (^{Gunadham & Ahmed, 2022}), which group a set of concepts, values and practices for viewing reality. Precisely, these artifacts are classified, organized and communicated through the framework, which is the one that defines at a conceptual level the elements or components of the architecture and their relationships.

A standard or model for applying the architecture. A framework can be considered a model for implementing an architecture, since they act as structured processes and provide a set of support tools and specific guidelines. These models propose a variety of contexts and elements that serve as a basis for developing lines of action or roadmaps. For a framework is a very useful communication tool for documenting architectures. A framework is a set of structures that serve for the development, documentation or modeling of many types of architectures.

An architecture itself. A framework can be used as a tool to develop from an extensive range of different enterprise architectures, or it can also be considered as an architecture. A framework is one of the most deliberately abstract and unambiguous definitions of the elements related to an enterprise, which can define enterprise architecture terminology.

Positive impact of frameworks

Although the benefits of enterprise architecture and its frameworks are sometimes difficult to understand (^{Hindarto & Putra, 2024b}), there is clarity on the important role these frameworks play in describing in detail the logical business functions, along with their capabilities, processes, roles, human actors, physical structures, data flow, applications, platforms, hardware, and communications infrastructure. Frameworks use the necessary data to show the design of the effort, organize data types into consistent structures and delimit the connection between them (Luwi et al., 2021).

Although each framework has its own structure, processes, strategy and models, their importance is irrefutable for enterprise architecture development. For many organizations, both private and public, much of their success in the last 10 years depends on the effective implementation of these models. Many authors agree that part of the success of enterprise architecture is due to the emergence of its frameworks, which has raised expectations about its benefits and increased its popularity (^{Kotusev, 2021}).

Enterprise architecture frameworks are essential for addressing uncertainty and learning (^{Hindarto & Putra, 2024a}), as they optimize processes and facilitate the creation of scalable and secure platforms (^{Ningsih et al., 2024}). Frameworks can describe specific instances of a reference architecture, developing strict design and implementation rules that can be used to develop multiple architectures (^{Oberle et al., 2023}).

Through a comprehensive review of existing systems and practices, frameworks can restructure and align processes according to industry best practices and standards. They are very useful models for automating routine tasks, reducing manual intervention, and improving the speed and accuracy of operations by enabling automated data entry, standardized report generation, and efficient communication channel management (^{Hindarto & Putra, 2024a}).

Frameworks provide a systematic approach to reorganization projects, which supports specific types of business analysis. This approach has demonstrated its potential to solve the growing needs for process integration in companies characterized by complexity and fragmentation. It has been factually proven that it can be equally useful for large and small companies, due to its strong ability to describe an organization holistically. Frameworks have emerged as a kind of control object, capable of providing the business with an overview of the enterprise and clearly exposing the mutual linkage of its parts into a single whole (^{Petrov et al., 2022}).

The architectural layers presented by frameworks are excellent tools for increasing design consistency and organizational structure. The contribution of frameworks is undeniable, as they contribute to solving the pressure on organizations to survive and adapt to change (Luwi et al., 2021), in the era of digital transformation. The rules and methods for managing the enterprise architecture lifecycle used by frameworks are an important guide for those organizations that want to improve their processes. This is a sign that their role goes beyond modeling to include business planning and control management tasks and the explicit mapping of relationships and dependencies between business services.

A framework identifies the scope of the architecture and establishes relationships between architecture areas, reflecting through a geometric model, creating an abstract set of enterprise views and providing an analytical structure for developing architecture results (^{Guo et al., 2022a}). Furthermore, frameworks are generators of an analytical structure, both for architecture and for its design process. This analytical structure becomes a common basis for professionals who are engaged in the discipline or in some way are users of the discipline (^{Guo et al., 2022b}), bringing capacity to structure organizational thinking and hardware and software working together.

Shortcomings and weaknesses of enterprise architecture frameworks

Considering their practical nature, frameworks have been subject to questioning due to opinions about their individual practices not satisfying all necessary aspects of the enterprise. Strict adherence to frameworks is recognized as one of the worst enterprise architecture practices. According to this author, "frameworks have been suggested as guidelines for enterprise architecture, but our experience indicates that very few companies follow the steps prescribed by such frameworks." For this reason, many of the organizations that apply enterprise architecture initiatives face many problems during implementation projects (^{Oberle et al., 2023}).

Depending on management resources, corporate vision and outcomes, many models have emerged and they emphasize different domains, artifacts and objectives, constituting a wide variety of alternative approaches (^{Afshani et al., 2022}). The large number of existing frameworks has caused these interpretations to vary, considering frameworks as enterprise architectures themselves, meta models of architectures or models where architectures are expressed and conceptualized (^{Chávez & Villar, 2020}).

Considering the diversity of frameworks, it is extremely difficult to know which of the available frameworks could solve the needs of an organization (^{Chávez, 2023}), because of the wide variety of architecture solutions. Their growth, especially in the last decade, is evident and their large number infers a potential difficulty for their practical application (^{Guo et al., 2022a}). It is sometimes difficult to know before the implementation of a framework whether it will be able to satisfy all the necessary aspects of the enterprise.

Another problem with frameworks is their high level of mutability, so it is common that several of these can be generated from one model, an element that is sometimes not easy to identify in practice (^{Wedha & Hindarto, 2023}). Another aspect to be taken into account in the practical application of frameworks is the resistance to change and the uncertainty surrounding their results. Technical issues, such as complex systems integration and complicated data management, can pose significant impediments during the implementation of enterprise architecture through their frameworks.

Most existing frameworks do not necessarily define the resulting architecture practice, so they still have much room for improvement. Many researchers and experts widely assume that enterprise architecture theory and practice always require the frameworks, which has sparked debate in academia. The role of frameworks can be significantly overstated and could even be an administrative fad. On many occasions, actual architectures practices have no correlation with the frameworks where they have their foundation. Frameworks, although used most enterprise architecture projects, do not seem to fully address alignment with information systems. The viability of enterprise architecture and its frameworks is questionable, especially in large organizations, as many have dimensions with values that do not have a clear relationship to the business practice of the practicing company.

Most of the models proposed by frameworks are not reusable and are designed for a specific purpose. Many enterprise architecture users emphasize the insights that the artifacts could provide, neglecting to focus on how the artifacts should be used to benefit organizations. It is difficult to prioritize the desired qualities of an enterprise architecture model and even more difficult to achieve prioritization in the successful implementation of any model. Sometimes these are not always comprehensive; they can be leveraged to provide at least an initial set of solutions to problems and concerns that need to be addressed in architecture development.

New trends in thinking about EA frameworks, consider them to have particular theories underlying their technical approach. Many enterprise architecture models start to deliver results in the long term, although some managers desire more immediate results. Finally, other limitations can be mentioned, such as the overestimation of business benefits and the failure to consider individual company characteristics (^{Petrov et al., 2022}).

Updating enterprise architecture frameworks

As discussed in previous sections, the great diversity and variety of frameworks at the international level is a fact that, although it is one of the main problems, has a positive side according to (^{Chávez, 2023}): there are many options and possibilities to successfully carry out enterprise architecture projects without having to start from scratch. Although not always all the frameworks that can be found are not totally original, that is, they are derivations of others that already exist, it should be recognized that there is a wide wealth of approaches, views, artifacts, methods and components. The new list includes 158 frameworks from all regions of the world, both generic and designed for specific sectors (Table 2).

As shown in table 2, frameworks developed for specific industry sectors outnumber generic frameworks by 34.18%, although the proportion of the latter cannot be considered negligible. With more than 30% of the frameworks being generic, enterprise architects or other users of architectural projects have a vast universe in which to choose the solution that best suits their needs. As for the specific sectors, a wide variety of these can be found as shown in Figure 1. Although the number of areas represented in the table above is varied, there is a concentration in several sectors that have been much more favored by the development of frameworks. The Figure 1 presents the concentration of models according to the sectors.

Elaboration: The authors.

Figure 1. Proportion of frameworks by sector of activity. 

According to Figure 1, enterprise architecture framework initiatives for the public sector abound internationally (between them they constitute 44% of sector-specific frameworks). The majority of sector-specific frameworks are developed for the IT domain (42%). Among these, the frameworks developed for defense and government management stand out. According to the figure, government frameworks constitute the largest proportion (33%), this sector being one of the first to develop frameworks since the birth of enterprise architecture as a discipline. The public sector has been at the forefront of the development and application of enterprise architecture frameworks, as one of the most important models has been developed for this sector. This occurs because public organizations have had leadership, at least, in the major economic powers worldwide, in automating their processes and services to society. The Figure 2 illustrates the countries of origin of the frameworks.

Elaboration: The authors

Figure 2. Proportion of frameworks by country of origin. 

As shown in the figure 2, the United States of America is the nation that has achieved the greatest development not only in the development of frameworks, but also in enterprise architecture. Almost 50% of the frameworks listed have been developed in that nation and many of these frameworks are very relevant at the international level. Twenty-four percent of the frameworks developed in the U.S. are generic, although it is not in this area that they have achieved the greatest notoriety, but in the development of frameworks for government management. A number of 21 frameworks (26%) have been developed for government management at different levels and 10 frameworks (12.82%) have been developed for defense management.