Category Archives: ArchiMate

October 5, 2016 · 2:31 pm

Crossing the EA Chasm: “Where does IoT [Internet of Things] fit in?”

In the article The EA Chasm: Open Repository Strategies for Enterprise Architecture, Vijay Sharma asked the question: “Where does IoT [Internet of Things] fit in?”. Vijay, you couldn’t have chosen a more perfect example or a better question.

The one-word answer is “everywhere” – no sarcasm intended.

The “1000 word” answer can be found in the following diagram based on the Progressive Enterprise Architect Map (PEAM) model (click to enlarge):

Progressive EA Model 1-0-7-PEAMS-Chasms-IoT.png

The first thing that strikes me about this diagram is: with the need to complete 15+ major, cross-functional, interdependent activities, it is completely understandable why major digital business initiatives fail or, otherwise, “wither and die on the vine” before they’re completed.  This applies to all digital business initiatives – not just IoT.

Second, what happens when an IoT (or any other enterprise) initiative starts off as a “skunkworks” project?  Placing the question in the context of the above diagram, what if IoT starts off on the far, far right (activities 12-15) as unplanned, uncoordinated activities by a group without any defined business drivers, linkage to the business strategy, or connection to the enterprise architecture?

Food for thought (and time for breakfast).

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation

p.s. Why was activity 16 (IoT Platforms and Tools) placed inside the Enterprise Architecture Chasm?

It’s mostly unrelated to the above discussion but it hints at the idea that IoT approaches can also be used in a non-traditional way to Listen to signals in the  Enterprise Assets, Systems, and Processes (performance data, usage information, planned and unplanned changes in the operational processes and systems, etc.), and then use this data to annotate the Core Enterprise Architecture. BI techniques can be used to analyse and visualize the annotated EA model to create new Designs.  The coordination of the building and  deployment of the new Designs hopefully results in Transformative Changes being applied to the Enterprise’s Strategies, Systems, Assets, and Processes to produce additional, meaningful business value.

IoT Platforms and Tools are enablers for listening and responding to the “hum” of an organization’s systems, assets and processes, and, when fully realized, can also be used to distribute Transformative Changes in a software-defined enterprise.

To read more about using IoT to create, maintain and manage an enterprise architecture, check out External IoT vs. Internal IoT: Beware of the Hype Cycle.

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, ModelMate, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM)

Tagged as , , , ,

October 4, 2016 · 8:56 pm

Crossing the EA Chasm: Open Repository Strategies for Enterprise Architecture

[Updated October 27, 2016]

In a recent posting (Crossing the Enterprise Architecture Chasm), I offered a definition for the term Enterprise Architecture Chasm, the practical gap that will always exist between enterprise architecture and an organization’s systems, strategies, assets, and processes (and the companion Strategy Chasm that exists between an organization’s motivation and strategy and its enterprise architecture).

progressive-ea-model-1-0-6-peam3-chasms

Figure 1. Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map

In this posting, I describe the “ModelMate” project – the creation of an open EA repository software solution that assists in crossing the EA Chasm. “ModelMate” is a codename for this project (also read the p.s. at the bottom of this posting). Caveat: This posting will be somewhat technical but regardless of who you  are, you’ll find the example use cases to be insightful.

Definition

ModelMate is a working implementation of a Microsoft SQL Server and Neo4j graph database-based repository for managing arbitrarily large collections of arbitrary entities, properties, relationships, views, etc.to enable analysis, visualization, and understanding using easily-available open source and COTS (commercial off the shelf) business intelligence (BI), data visualization, and machine learning (ML) platforms, tools and cloud services.

Architecture

The ModelMate schema is modeled more or less after The Open Group ArchiMate Model File Exchange File Format (EFF) with several extensions; including support for multi-tenancy, 2D and 3D entities, 3D views of 2D and 3D entities, processing history, versioning, annotations (including usage and performance data), automated heat maps, replication and synchronization. Read/write access to the repository is supported using an entity-based .NET API.  Importing and exporting of EFF files is fully supported. The physical repository is a highly normalized SQL Server database. Here is what the high-level ModelMate architecture looks like.

ModeMate-HL-Architecture.png

Figure 2. Use Case 1. Cloud migration of custom .NET desktop apps, services, and web applications

ModelMate can run anywhere: on your laptop, Windows server, virtual server, data center, or in the cloud; anywhere you can use SQL Server Express, SQL Server, or Azure SQL Server.

Use Case 1: Cloud migration of custom .NET desktop apps, services, and web applications

In this scenario, a .NET Entity Discovery component scans the compiled .NET executables (.EXE files) and library assemblies (.DLL files); calling the ModelMate API to create a model in the ModelMate repository.  A separate component uses the EFF Exporter capability to read the ModelMate model and create an EFF file containing the model data.  In this specific scenario, Archi was used to read the ModelMate model and support real-time exploration of the .NET application’s architecture. At this point in the project, views are being created manually but highly facilitated by the design of the model and Archi’s Visualizer and Navigation features.  Here’s a sample of a view created from the resulting ModelMate model as well as a screenshot of what the actual dual-screen user experience looks like.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Figure 3. VetContext ModelMate Model imported into Archi

The broader use case is system analysis and assessment to support migration of on-premise custom .NET desktop, service and web applications to the cloud.

The above model is large; containing:

  • 190,000 properties and values
  • 25,000 labels
  • 16,000 relationships
  • 8,700 elements

The EFF file is 52MB in size;. the resulting Archi .archimate file, 34MB in size.

Because ModelMate models are based on the EFF file format, any EFF compatible modeler such as BiZZdesign Enterprise Studio or SPARX Enterprise Architect can also be used.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Figure 4. VetContext ModelMate Model imported into SPARX Enterprise Architect

SPARX EA’s automated layout and routing capabilities proved to be quite valuable – especially when the burden of importing extremely large numbers of elements and relationships into any of these tools is reduced to a few mouse clicks.

Use Case 2: Support for COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) Business Intelligence tools

Because the ModelMate Repository schema is based on the EFF format (with extensions) and is realized as a SQL Server database, it is easy to produce any myriad of visualizations and perform analysis using easily-available COTS and open source tools such as Microsoft Power BI interactive data visualization tools, and the R language for statistical computing. Detailed examples with be added to this article over the next few weeks.

modelmate-integrations

Figure 5. ModelMate Logical Architecture

Given the enormous user communities and large libraries of user-contributed data analysis, machine learning, and visualization components available for each of these platforms (as well as Power BI’s support for R), there are no limits to what you can do with a ModelMate model.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation

p.s. At this point, there are no specific plans to commercialize the ModelMate project but if you think ModelMate can help make what you’re trying to accomplish a bit easier to realize, please email me at mwherman@parallelspace.net.

* ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group

10 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing the EA Charm, Definitions, Enterprise Architecture, ModelMate

Tagged as , , , , ,

October 4, 2016 · 3:27 pm

Crossing the Enterprise Architecture Chasm

chasm

Enterprise Architecture Chasm

What is the Enterprise Architecture Chasm?  First, a quick Google search didn’t find any previous references to the term Enterprise Architecture Chasm, at least not in the context I’m using it.  So what am I talking about?  We need to recognize the difference, the practical gap, that will always exist between EA models, plans, and other artifacts and an enterprise’s actual strategies, systems, assets, and processes. There will always be a gap because of several factors:

  • Time to design
  • Time to plan
  • Time to act
  • Time to operate
  • Time to measure new outcomes

and, lastly, the completeness and faithfulness of transformative changes that are actually implemented relative what’s documented in the enterprise architecture.  Here’s a picture highlighting this gap, the Enterprise Architecture Chasm.

progressive-ea-model-1-0-9-peam3-ea-chasm-dots

Figure 1. Total Enterprise Architecture Model (TEAM): Enterprise Architecture Chasm

This iterative 4-step management cycle is called the Continuous Transformation Framework. At a given time, there isn’t just 1 Continuous Transformation cycle at work in an organization but there can be several, even hundreds, dependent on the size and complexity of your enterprise.

Homework Question: Which dimensions or metrics can be used to characterize or benchmark the size of the Enterprise Chasm in an organization?

Strategy Chasm

Is the EA Chasm the only chasm?  No.  In most organizations, there is most likely a Strategy Chasm as well – the gap between the organization’s motivations and strategies and what is represented and planned for in the enterprise architecture.  Same set of issues.  They just occur earlier in the process.  Here’s an example of the Strategy Chasm. (Click to enlarge this diagram.)

progressive-ea-model-1-0-6-peam3-chasms

Figure 2. Team Enterprise Architecture Model (TEAM): Strategy Chasm and Enterprise Architecture Chasm

In the Fall of 2016, two webinars were presented that looked how to extend traditional enterprise architecture methods (e.g. TOGAF) to be more complete/fill in some gaps.  The first talk, 7 Reasons Why IT4IT™ is Good for Architects presented by Dan Warfield and Sven van Dijk, looked to The Open Group’s IT4IT for answers on how to cross the enterprise architecture chasm. The second talk, BIZBOK® Guide and TOGAF® Standard: Business Architecture Value Proposition presented by Chris Armstrong  and Wally McLaughlin, looked at a related set of problems from a Business Architecture and BIZBOK perspective.

To what extent are your EA methods, repositories, and tools helping your organization cross the Strategy Chasm and the EA Chasm?

Will IT4IT and BIZBOK and other methods (e.g. ITIL) help cross or close the gap?

“Time will tell…”

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation

p.s. These diagrams on based on the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Model described here.

13 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, continuous transformation, Crossing the EA Charm, Digital Transformation, Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Architecture Chasm, IoT, ModelMate

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

September 6, 2016 · 2:39 pm

Using ArchiMate 2.1 to Model Product or Service Markets

In the LinkedIn ArchiMate group, Toon Wijnands posted a query asking

I’m looking for the concept of modelling ‘Market’. I’m referring to the markets a company is active at. e.g. you could have a B2C market and a B2B market, or USA market, European market, Asian market.”
[Any suggestions on how to model the concept ‘Market’ in ArchiMate?]

My response was:

Michael Herman (Toronto) I recommend using a Location to represent a Market and to aggregate the concepts that are relevant to each market and to your model’s goals. This includes using Location as an abstraction for specific B2B and B2C markets – making sure to document this practice in your EA governance document.

The aggregated concepts can [be] nested within each Location as a mini-model. Each mini-model can include Stakeholders (including specific or representative, customers, government entities, other regulatory bodies, competitors, etc), as well as Constraints and Requirements imposed by the preceding Stakeholders, etc. The market-specific set of Constraints and Requirements can then be linked to a possibly smaller, more uniform set of Drivers.

Ownership and updating of the Market mini-models, singly or in total, can be given to a member of your EA team or a business client within your organization. Elaborate Market models can be licensed or sold – but I’m getting off topic.

As a follow-up, here’s a concrete example using ArchiMate 2.1 and the Archi modeling tool; including the exact steps I followed to create a Market mini-model.

Start at the top: Most Markets are defined by their Stakeholders: Customers (or their Personas), Competitors, and Government Agencies (and perhaps, other regulatory or standards bodies). Use these to drive out a selected set of Drivers and Goals for your next product release. Of course, the current state of your Market model doesn’t have to respond to every Stakeholder or Driver.  Include all of these in the model but, in the current state of the model, only include the Goals you are trying to satisfy in the next release. From the Goals, derive more specific product or service Requirements.

In addition, add a Market Research Team as a Stakeholder to document specific market analyses or Assessments as part of your mini-model; linking these to a new or existing set of Goals.

You’ll end up with something like the following. Click to enlarge.

Markets 0

Of course, the current state of your Market mini-model doesn’t have to respond to every Stakeholder or Driver.  Include all of these in the model but, in the current state of the model, only include the Goals you are trying to satisfy in the next release. From the Goals, derive more specific product or service Requirements.

TIP: Because of the way ArchiMate works, make sure each Driver, Goal, Assessment, Requirement, etc. is linking to a Stakeholder; hence, the reason for creating the Market Research Team stakeholder.

TIP: Consider creating 3 views (I call them Construction Views) to help you track your work. In my model, I called them Markets 0, Markets 1, and Markets 2.  The above view is Markets 0.

Then select all of the elements of your Market mini-model, and drag and drop them onto a Location element (named Market M in the above example) to get the second version (view) of the model.

TIP: Different ArchImate modeling tools handle this action in different ways. In my example, Archi prompts you to add Assignment relations to relate each of the 5 Stakeholders to the Market M location element. I’ll talk more about this later.

…and voila!, here is one example of a Market mini-model.  Use the same technique to create mini-models for your additional markets. Click to enlarge.

Markets 1

What’s going on behind the scene views?

To understand how ArchiMate (and Archi) chose to model this scenario, after you’ve dragged and dropped your mini-model onto the Location element and accepted the creation of the new Assignment relations, do the reverse: select all of the mini-model elements nested inside the Location and drag and drop them outside of the Market M location element.  Your (third) view should look something like the following. Click to enlarge.

Markets 2

The Market M Location element is related to each Stakeholder using the automatically created Assignment relations.  The rest of the mini-model is related to the Location element via Derivation. This is why it was important to have the Assessment, Driver, Goal, Requirements, etc. elements related to a Stakeholder.

Every language (conventional or technical) has its idiosyncracies. Use ArchiMate and make it work in a way what works best for you and your organization.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

p.s. Please add your feedback in the Comments section below.  How can this idea be improved?

4 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Enterprise Architecture, Product Management, The Open Group

Tagged as , , , , , ,

August 31, 2016 · 4:30 pm

Progressive​ Enterprise Architecture Maps – Update 2

Pavel Harbe asked an interesting question with respect to the original version of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map: “Why … is Strategy first and then Motivation and not in opposite order (or in many iterations)?” and goes on to explain that, yes, in fact Motivation should precede Strategy (at least initially, and then followed by possibly several iterations).  Of course, Pavel is correct …but so is the diagram (see below). However, Pavel’s comments do indicate a need to clarify these points – here in text as well as in a new version of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map.

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-NoArrows-Slide

*Original discussion: Progressive Enterprise Architecture Maps

To respond directly to Pavel’s question, the subtlety in the original diagram can be found in text beneath the caption of each layer (emphasis added for this explanation):

  • Strategy refers to the “Strategy of the *Enterprise*”, the organizational strategy.
  • Motivation refers to the “Intentions of the *Architecture*”, a phrase borrowed from Gerben Wierda’s original discussion (An ArchiMate 3 Map (Layers? What Layers!))

The original diagram referred to the strategy of the organization driving the motivations [intentions] for the companion enterprise architecture.

Given pragmatic usefulness is one of my goals for the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (while at the same time preserving architectural simplicity), the following elaboration is warranted: adding 2 more layers to clarify the levels at which Strategy and Motivation are used to drive continuous transformation of the organization and its enterprise architecture.  Here is version 2 of Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map.

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-PEAM2-Slide

On the left side of the diagram, there is a distinct pair of Motivation and Strategy layers for enterprise-level strategy planning.  In addition, there is a distinct pair of these 2 layers which transform the enterprise-level drivers, goals, and strategies into drivers, goals, and strategies for the enterprise architecture. You can argue these should be the same but due to many reasons such as timing and resources, they are not always the same.

Progressive Enterprise Architecture Maps, Continuous Transformation, and Total Enterprise Architecture Managment

Given this elaboration, I decided to “take it all the way” and link Progressive Enterprise Architecture Maps to Continuous Transformation and Total Enterprise Architecture Managment – topics I’ve discussed and modeled in the article [Enterprise Architecture] Tools and Methods Don’t Create Business Value.  The model for Continuous Transformation and Total Enterprise Architecture Managment looks like the following:

Parallelspace-Business Value from Transformative Change4

Here’s version 3 of the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (linked to Continuous Transformation and Total Enterprise Architecture Management).

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-PEAM3-Slide

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Enterprise Architecture, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM)

Tagged as

August 30, 2016 · 5:05 pm

Crossing the Chasm: Progressive​ Enterprise Architecture Model (PEAM)

[Updated October 5, 2016]

Inspired by Gerben Wierda’s thoughtful discussion about how the full framework is depicted in the new ArchiMate* 3.0 specification (An AchiMate 3 Map (Layers? What Layers! — 1)), I’m going to suggest there’s another level of improvement that can be made to the specification’s “peanut butter and jelly sandwich” diagram. [Please excuse the visual metaphor but that’s what it looks like – with PB&J leaking out on all sides.]

image004

Figure 1. ArchiMate 3 Layers and Aspects

In his posting, Gerben suggests a succession of improvements (depicted below).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Figure 2. Gerben Wierda’s Suggested Improvements

But they still left my question unanswered: Why were Strategy, Motivation, Implementation & Migration left as disconnected layers on opposite sides of the enterprise architecture map? [I don’t accept Motivation being classed as an Aspect but that’s a topic for another article.]

What happened to the architectural principles of simplicity and elegance?

Aren’t the following series of enterprise architecture maps more informative and more understandable?  …more pragmatically useful?  I refer to the version below as the Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map.

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Base-Slide

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Layers-Slide

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Aspects-Slide

Progressive EA Model 1-0-2-Both-Slide

Figure 3. Progressive Enterprise Architecture Model: Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map

Check them out for yourself and please add your feedback in the Comments section below. Click on any diagram to see a larger version.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

p.s. If the arrows make the enterprise architecture map too prescriptive from a pure ArchiMate specification perspective, what do you think of this version?

Progressive EA Model 1-0-3-NoArrows-Slide

p.p.s. In October 2016, in the article Crossing the Enterprise Architecture Chasm, I extended PEAMs to include:

  • Continuous Transformations
  • Strategy Chasm
  • Enterprise Architecture Chasm

Here’s an example (click to enlarge):

progressive-ea-model-1-0-6-peam3-chasms

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

6 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Automated Application Architecture Analysis, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Progressive Enterprise Architecture Map (PEAM), The Open Group

Tagged as , , , ,

June 15, 2016 · 4:32 pm

ARM Models for Model-Driven LOB apps: SharePoint 2013/SharePoint 2016 [Oct. 24, 2016]

[April 12, 2017 Update: changed “metadata-driven” to “model-driven (metadata-driven)”]

[October 24, 2016 Update:

  • Technology Building Block for Microsoft SQL Server added
  • Building Blocks RACI Roles added
  • Existing relationships updated for conformance with ArchiMate specification
  • Typos and grammar corrected
  • ARM for SharePoint 2013/2016 image replaced in this blog posting

This is now a “version 2” (make it work better) model.]

It’s an interesting exercise to try and create an Architecture Reference Model (ARM) in ArchiMate for large, model-driven (metadata-driven) LOB applications like Microsoft SharePoint, Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics CRM, SAP, Oracle Financials, a SQL Server fault-tolerant cluster, the Microsoft Azure platform, etc.

Even though some applications (platforms) are architecturally quite different from one and another (e.g. SharePoint configurability vs. SAP modularity), the fact that metadata drives the configuration and reconfiguration these applications is the most interesting aspect from an architectural point-of-view (vs. manually or semi-automatically configuring a collection of software components or modules).

For the next while, I’m focused on creating Architecture Reference Models that in turn can be used as templates for creating logical and physical enterprise architecture models for these platforms.

Here’s version 1 (“make it work”) of the Parallelspace ARM for SharePoint 2013/2016. It’s based on my 15+ years experience as a SharePoint architect – working first for the SharePoint product group and then a number of Microsoft solution partners (including my own company Parallelspace Corporation).

Note: This is now a “version 2” (make it work better) model.

Please email me your feedback (mwherman@parallelspace.net) or add it to the comments below.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
Parallelspace Corporation
mwherman@parallelspace.net

p.s The model below was created using ArchiMate 2.1 and the Archi EA modeling tool.

Click to enlarge.

Parallelspace ARM-SharePoint 2013-2016 v1-0-12.png

p.p.s. The above view is what I refer to as a Construction view.  This isn’t a formal view in the ArchiMate specification but it is a view I use when I am building or constructing or updating a model.  It’s an “all in” view of the model who’s only stakeholder audience is the Enterprise Architect responsible for maintaining the ARM (architecture reference model). One downside of this view is that it has too many overlapping lines – but that’s OK. Appropriate stakeholder views should then be derived from the elements and relationships in this “all in” ARM.

5 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Enterprise Architecture, SharePoint

Tagged as , , , ,

May 31, 2016 · 11:51 am

Parallelspace PowerPoint Template for ArchiMate 2.1

[Scroll down to see an experimental version of the PowerPoint template for modeling Conceptual, Logical and Physical architectures using ArchiMate symbols.]

Standard PowerPoint Template

Click here to open or download a copy of my Parallelspace PowerPoint Template for ArchiMate 2.1 version 1.1 (file version 1-0-12).  For Microsoft Office, there are Visio templates for ArchiMate but I’m not aware of there being any PowerPoint templates. See below for an example.

Please post your feedback in the comments …good or otherwise.  Please let me know what you think and, more importantly, how are these helping you and what you would like to see next?

Enjoy.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Here’s a simple PPT use case/example:

Parallelspace ArchiMate Concepts 1-0-12-Example

Experimental PowerPoint Template (Conceptual, Logical and Physical Architecture Modeling)

Click here to open or download a copy of an experimental version of my Parallelspace PowerPoint Template for ArchiMate 2.1 version 2.0 (file version 1-0-14) containing experimental conceptual, logical and physical renderings of the ArchiMate Business Architecture, Application Architecture and Physical Architecture concepts.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)

*ArchiMate is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

1 Comment

Filed under ArchiMate, Enterprise Architecture, The Open Group

Tagged as , ,

April 29, 2016 · 2:05 pm

Microsoft Azure Stack POC Architecture Reference Model (ARM): ArchiMate Model – version 1-0-7 – April 30, 2016

[Updated March 3, 2017]

PLEASE POST A COMMENT ABOUT WHY THIS PAGE IS IMPORTANT TO YOU.
This particular page is 1 of my top 5 most viewed pages (ever) and I’d like to understand why. Thank you!

MS Azure Stack POC 1-0-7

Figure 1. Parallelspace Logical/Physical Architecture View: Microsoft Azure Stack POC (April 2016)

[Click here for a larger version of the ArchiMate model]

Notes

  • The actual drive letters will vary from system to system. Don’t fret these details.
  • I’ll keep adding more detail to the model as I work through the full deployment of the Microsoft Azure Stack POC.

The above ArchiMate enterprise architecture model was created with Archi 3.2 – The Free ArchiMate Modeling Tool.  Download the latest version of Archi from here.

Here’s what the original Microsoft drawing (a Visio sketch – not a model) looks like in April 2016 (from https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/azure-stack-architecture/):

image1

Figure 2. Microsoft Azure Conceptual Architecture View: Microsoft Azure Stack POC (April 2016)

[Click here for a larger version of the Microsoft drawing.]  It’s mostly useless but typical of what you’d expect in a Microsoft marketecture diagram.

Microsoft has subsequently updated their conceptual architecture diagram (March 1, 2017). It now looks like this (at the same URL noted above).  The new diagram is an improvement and I can’t help but imagine it was influenced by my ArchiMate model.

ms-azure-stack-2017-image1

Figure 3. Microsoft Azure Architecture View: Microsoft Azure Stack POC (March 2017)

For a topic that in theory has a relatively narrow audience, this article has had an extraordinary number of views over the past year.

Best regards,
Michael Herman (Toronto)
mwherman@parallelspace.net

p.s. I can only assume it is Microsofties trying to learn a little bit more about enterprise architecture.  You can see the (good) results in Figure 3 (above).

7 Comments

Filed under ArchiMate, Architecture Reference Models, Crossing the EA Charm, Enterprise Architecture, Graphitization, IoT, Microsoft Azure, Parallelspace TDM

Tagged as , , , , , , ,