Enterprise Architecture Applications: A Comparative Analysis of CISITAF and EA Cube 3 Frameworks

This report discusses the case study based on which the CISITAF is developed. The report also compares the CISIT architecture framework given in the case study to the new EA cube 3 framework and provides a comparative analysis of them.

Running head: ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Case Description........................................................................................................................2
Architecture................................................................................................................................3
Comparison................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................7

2ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
Introduction
The enterprise architecture or EA is the art of creating a plan, design and
implementing an enterprise analysis that can be successfully used to execute business
decisions and strategies. EA has major uses in creating and developing the business structure
of information technology projects and make policies that would bring the expected results
for the business. The EA also helps in keeping the company at par with the current market
disruptions and trends using a special method known as EAP or enterprise architecture
planning. In this report, two different enterprise architecture frameworks will be discussed.
The first framework chosen is the Corporate IS/IT Architecture Framework or CISITAF. This
framework is taken from the case study about the Department of Social security or DSS of
the United Kingdom. This enterprise architecture framework would be compared against the
EA cube 3 framework. The report will highlight on the merits and demerits of both the
frameworks and perform a comparative analysis of the same. The report will also discuss
about the architecture of both these frameworks.
Case Description
The DSS or department of social security is the primary organisation that is
responsible for the maintenance and development of the social security program of the United
Kingdom government. The DSS has over 90000 staff and currently uses the largest civilian
based computer operation in Europe for delivering its services on time. The Information
Technology Service Agency or ITSA is a part of the DSS and acts as the primary information
technology provider for the government. The enterprise architecture framework followed by
this agency is the Corporate IS/IT Architecture Framework or CISITAF. The legacy
enterprise architecture that was used before the implementation of the CISITAF was a
product based infrastructure and gave little to no attention to the customers. This was a big
problem and challenge for the government which led to the adoption and implementation of a
new framework which was more customer centric in design and also fundamentally modified
all the functions of the DSS to improve and modernise them.
The main advantages of the new framework adopted was that it was more accessible,
more easier to use, more accurate, less vulnerable to fraud, more flexible and simpler in
nature. This new framework was the Corporate IS/IT Architecture Framework or CISITAF.
The corporate IS/IT Strategy is the creation of a single repository for storing logical data
which would be capable enough of supporting the core business activities of the department.

3ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
Overall the new framework that was established by the government was simpler, transparent,
efficient and easier to use.
The main reasons that led to the need of new framework were:
1. A structuring and classification scheme was needed for the IT applications.
2. It was important to identify the architectural components that could find use in the system.
3. A reference document was needed for the CISIT system’s architecture.
4. A support was needed for the evaluation and requirement specification of supplier bids.
5. It was needed to document all the different perspective of the CISIT system.
6. A support was needed for the monitoring and development of the security milestones.
Architecture
The main architecture of the new CISIT architectural framework consists of multiple
different components. The main part of the framework is the model technical architecture that
contains underlying supportive models like transaction processing, MIS, security, data
management, interpolation, directory services, output services, event management, data
networks and others. This model also helps the framework to achieve resilience,
serviceability, availability, scalability, auditability, flexibility, security and suitability. These
model helps in performing functions in their respective fields. The framework also consists of
a technical reference model, an architecture development process and a standards information
base. The technical reference model or TRM is used to ensure that the architectural definition
is completed by providing the users with a taxonomical model of the common definitions and
terms. The standard information base or SIB is a mini framework within TOGAF that
contains a list of all the standards that are issued and used by the open group. The SIB plans
to promote software portability and interoperability. The SIB is more focussed on the
technical standards and policies of the department and also assists in the selection of products
and standards based on the relationships in between them.
The architecture development process is another part of the new framework’s
architecture in which the development and maintenance process of the CISITAF is discussed.
The process outlines all the steps that ae necessary along with the important responsibilities

4ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
and roles of the products and parties that are produced. The architecture views are another
important component of the framework as it encompasses different views for the different
departments that are being served by the EA. The CISITAF can demonstrate the IT systems
in the following perspectives to satisfy the various departments using the system. These
perspectives are:
1. Functional view
2. Security view
3. Data management view
4. Contractual and commercial view
5. Communications view
6. Operational and management view
7. Builders view
8. User view
9. Computing view
This views are similar to the ones that are recommended by TOGAF but has a special focus
on the operation and commercial aspects of the products and services provided.
Comparison
The EA that will be compared against the CISIT architecture framework is the
Enterprise Architecture cube 3 model. The EA cube 3 model is a combo enterprise model
which consists of a focus driven approach specifically focussing on the strategy, business and
the technology aspects of the company. The framework comprises of four major components.
The first component is the methodology that it follows. The second component are the
standards that are followed. The third component are the set of practices that are unique to the
framework and the last component consists of the artefacts. The main features of this
framework is the focus on strategic planning, data information, business activities, networks
and infrastructure and systems and applications. The major difference between the EA cube 3
and the CISIT architecture framework is that the second one focusses on the customer driven
approach after shifting from product driven approach and the first one focusses on three

5ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
different aspect not one. The EA cube 3 focusses on the company strategy, the business and
the technology used by the company.
The core components of the CISITAF are the standard information base or SIB, the
technological reference model and the architecture development process which consist of the
architecture views or perspectives. On the other hand, the major components of the EA cube
3 framework are the methodology of the framework, the standards followed, the best
practices performed and the artefacts used by the framework. The architecture views in the
CISITAF were functional view, security view, builders view, user view, data management
view, computing view, contractual and commercial view, communications view and security
view. On the other hand, the viewpoints of the EA cube 3 framework are goals and
initiatives, data and information, product and services, network and infrastructure and
systems and applications. All of the above mentioned viewpoints are further divided into the
mission statement, the strategic goals and the strategic initiatives of each viewpoint.
The EA cube 3 is divided into 3 major levels in its Meta model for enterprises. These
levels are the broadest technology level which comprises of CORBA, SDLC and object
oriented design analysis, the middle business level which consists of SOA, CPIC, business
cases and BPR and the highest strategic level which comprises of balanced scorecards,
SWOT and six sigma. All these Meta models are absent in the CISITAF. Overall it can be
said that the EA cube 3 framework is much more advanced and heavily detailed that the
CISITAF. The EA cube 3 framework also puts focus on 3 important aspects whereas the
CISITAF model only focusses on one aspect.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the EA cube 3 framework is much more advanced and useful
than the CISIT architecture framework. The report discusses the case study based on which
the CISITAF is developed. The report details on the background information and the
disadvantages of the old framework that led to the formation of the new framework. The
report also discusses the architecture of the CISIT framework and focusses on the main
advantages of using the system. The report also discusses the important components of the
system and highlights on their uses. The report focusses on the viewpoints and the models
used in the CISIT architecture framework and discusses the customer driven approach of the
framework. The report also compares the CISIT architecture framework given in the case
study to the new EA cube 3 framework and provides a comparative analysis of them. The

6ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
report discusses the different features of the EA cube 3 framework and compares these
features against the CISIT architecture framework used in the case study. The report
concludes with the analytical decision that the EA cube 3 framework is much more advanced
and better suited for today’s system as it puts more focus on all the important aspects like
strategy, business and technology.

7ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
Bibliography
"Information Technology Services Agency". 2019. Opengroup.Org.
http://www.opengroup.org/public/arch/p4/cases/dss/dss.htm.
2019. Coe.Qualiware.Com.https://coe.qualiware.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/
JohnGotze-EA3.pdf.
Alwadain, Ayed, Erwin Fielt, Axel Korthaus, and Michael Rosemann. "Empirical insights
into the development of a service-oriented enterprise architecture." Data & Knowledge
Engineering 105 (2016): 39-52.
Dang, Dinh Duong, and Samuli Pekkola. "Systematic Literature Review on Enterprise
Architecture in the Public Sector." Electronic Journal of e-Government 15, no. 2 (2017).
Giachetti, Ronald E. Design of enterprise systems: Theory, architecture, and methods. CRC
Press, 2016.
Hinkelmann, Knut, Aurona Gerber, Dimitris Karagiannis, Barbara Thoenssen, Alta Van der
Merwe, and Robert Woitsch. "A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and
IT: Combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology." Computers in
Industry 79 (2016): 77-86.
Jallow, Abdou Karim, Peter Demian, Chimay J. Anumba, and Andrew N. Baldwin. "An
enterprise architecture framework for electronic requirements information
management." International Journal of Information Management 37, no. 5 (2017): 455-472.
Lange, Matthias, Jan Mendling, and Jan Recker. "An empirical analysis of the factors and
measures of Enterprise Architecture Management success." European Journal of Information
Systems 25, no. 5 (2016): 411-431.
Lapalme, James, Aurona Gerber, Alta Van der Merwe, John Zachman, Marne De Vries, and
Knut Hinkelmann. "Exploring the future of enterprise architecture: A Zachman
perspective." Computers in Industry 79 (2016): 103-113.
Rouhani, Babak Darvish, Mohd Naz’ri Mahrin, Fatemeh Nikpay, Rodina Binti Ahmad, and
Pourya Nikfard. "A systematic literature review on Enterprise Architecture Implementation
Methodologies." Information and Software Technology 62 (2015): 1-20.

8ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE APPLICATIONS
Van Steenbergen, Marlies, Raymond Slot, and Johan Versendaal. "The Enterprise
Architecture Value Framework." (2018).
Vargas, Alix, Llanos Cuenca, Andrés Boza, Ioan Sacala, and Mihnea Moisescu. "Towards
the development of the framework for inter sensing enterprise architecture." Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing 27, no. 1 (2016): 55-72.