The enterprise architecture entails a blueprint that explains the structure and operations adopted by an organization in achieving its goals and objectives. The EA incorporates the best practices, standards, and processes that define the day to day operations of a business. Equally important, the EA classifies data used to efficiently and effectively drive an organization using the available hardware, programs, and operating systems and networking solutions. Additionally, using an EA in the operations of an organization ensures that proper decisions are made, the flexibility of organization, optimization use of the available resources and reduction of employee turnover. In this case, there is the EA3 cube that has been used in professional and academic training programs since it adheres to the principles of EA and essential elements that are in human organizations. On the other hand, Chubb EA deals with processes, politics, and people that are challenging experiences. In this case, there will be an evaluation, examination, and analysis of different EA i.e. EA3 and Chubb EA as well as establishing their uses and importance in different fields.
Various Enterprise Architectures are used to attain various goals and objectives (Lankhorst, 2009). In this regard, the two EAs are designed differently owing to the difference in goals and objectives. The differences occur in the designing and structuring of EA to enable the handle of different operations in their fields. Consequently, the study will evaluate the similarities that exist between the two identified Enterprise Architectures in relation to meeting the set goals and objectives. Therefore, the report will concentrate on understanding the two identified Enterprise Architecture.
The EA framework is composed of six core elements of methodology, best practices, framework, artifacts, standards, and governance (Schekkerman, 2004). The governance of an EA entails the decision making, planning, oversight procedures that will be crucial in the determination of maintenance and development of an EA. Therefore, the overall framework runs and operates as per the governance element. Consequently, the methodology element that defines the actual steps employed in the maintenances and establishing of the EA based on the chosen approach (Winter, Robert, and Ronny, 2006). The approach adopted is based on the goals and objectives of the EA. Furthermore, there are artifacts that identify the documentation used in the operation of an AE. The documents used in this case include the business plans, security controls, strategic analysis, and models of workflow, network systems, database, and internal controls. The artifacts describe the running and processes of running an EA. Moreover, there are the technology and business standards that regulate the operations of EA in meeting goals and objectives (Pereira, Carla, and Pedro, 2004). There are the best practices incorporated in the course of operations of the EA. The Associated Best Practices are the established ways to execute and implement various parts of the EA to ensure that the efficiency of the EA.
Chubb EA has been developed for an insurance firm over a significant period of time to incorporate all the necessary components and elements (Smith et al., 2012). The EA had been developed to serve the business and enterprise needs of the insurance firm. The framework of Chubb is based on culture and procedures that enhance flexibility, standardization, and negotiation. This makes it possible for it to handle arising issues of people, processes, and politics. The framework of Chubb EA entails the architecture strategy that explains the vital direction and components of the EA. The strategy, in this case, shows the EA roadmap and, operating model and major plans. In this case, the strategies go far in the reduction of redundancy, reduction of deficient technologies enabling emerging technologies and project portfolio analysis. Consequently, there is the Chubb architecture definition that explains the support system of the EA in terms of educational materials, standards, policies, practices, models, and portfolios (Weiss, 2010). Under this section, there are architects involved in the handling arising issues on security, malware as well as taking care of the hardware. Therefore, this component ensures that the EA operates effectively and efficiently in meeting the set goals and objectives. Moreover, there is a component of the Chubb architecture governance. Governances give development, design, and implementation of various policies and processes. The policies and processes ensure that all projects taken by the firm to comply with the appropriate architecture. More so, there is the component of business Unit project implementation. In this case, the architecture governance is supervised to ensure project implementation, consulting services, providing project strategy, technical support in the course of monitoring the compliance. Also, the implementation unit ensures that the strategy and laid roadmap, strategy and design are maintained at all times (Kotusev et al., 2015). Therefore, the implementation unit ensures that all the processes and procedures are controlled in conducting the insurances firm operations. Additionally, there is a component of shared assets and solutions in the consulting support and strategy review (Dang, Dinh, and Samuli, 2017). The architects at Chubb spend most of their time developing key assets and working with other organization and business leaders for a common good. The architects are tasked with ensuring the operation of shared services, understanding the existing networks and monitoring the centers of excellence.
The Chubb EA and EA3 have differences and similarities that can be compared. The comparisons exist in the structure, mode of operation, processes adopted elements of EA and frameworks (Urbaczewski, Lise and Stevan, 2006). First, Chubb EA and EA3 are enterprise architecture frameworks as compared to web application frameworks. The difference between web application (WA) and enterprise architecture (EA) arise in the fact that WA gives the architectural views to enhance the textual and graphical display in the organization. However, both the EA are used in to describe the structures and operations of adopted in an organization in achieving the goals and objectives. Consequently, both Chubb and EA3 do not give concrete recommendations in regard to useful products (Rouhani et al., 2013). In this case, experts and organizations have to sort other services or strategies to know useful products.
On the other hand, there are differences used to define the Chubb EA and EA3. The Chubb EA operates by describing products using row and column matrices of the architectural products (Sessions, 2007). The row and column matrices are able to describe everything exhaustively in the organization. On the other hand, the AE3 operates by describing an architecture development methodology that defines the different artifacts that define the process and policies of operations. Additionally, the EA3 overall process entails planning, organizing and delivering of the EA to enhance the ability to support the objectives and goals of an organization (Cameron, Brian, and Eric, 2013). On the contrary, Chubb EA operates through categorizing various aspects of Information technology to achieve the purpose of an organization
The Chubb EA has a wide range of benefits in meeting the goals and missions of an organization. First, the Chubb EA has made it possible for the insurance firm to move confidently due to the flexibility of their EA (Niemi, 2008). In this case, the EA is able to adapt to changing technologies and technologies. The business is thus able to operate without fear especially when competing with other similar organization. Furthermore, the standards and strategic direction of the Chubb EA ensures that the organization is able to attain high levels of success. The standards set to ensure that the insurance firm is able to abide by the policies and the procedures thus experiencing success at every level of operation. Also, the standard and direction set ensure that employees and other organization collaborate for common good and thus attaining great levels of success. Additionally, the arrangement of the Chubb EA ensures that develops clear lines of operations between the CIOs, IT staff and general employees to work as a team in achieving the goals and objectives of their organizations. The operations between employees ensure that proper decisions are made regarding the operations of the insurance firm thus increasing chances of success. Equally important, both Chubb EA and EA3 are effective in enabling their respective organization to attain the desired goals and organizations. However, the Chubb EA is more appropriate than the EA3 since Chubb EA creates working lines that enable employees in various levels in the organization to work together as a team thus increasing chances of success and collaboration. Finally, the Chubb EA is similar to EA3 since it is an improved version of the EA3 thus enabling the insurance firm to attain high levels of success. The two EA are similar as they have clear structures and operations that are directed towards meeting the goals of their respective organizations.
Cameron, B. H., & McMillan, E. (2013). Analyzing the current trends in enterprise architecture frameworks. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 9(1), 60-71.
Dang, D. D., & Pekkola, S. (2017). Systematic Literature Review on Enterprise Architecture in the Public Sector. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 15(2).
Kotusev, S., Singh, M., & Storey, I. (2015). Investigating the usage of enterprise architecture artifacts.
Lankhorst, M. (2009). Enterprise architecture at work (Vol. 352). Berlin: Springer.
Niemi, E. (2008). Enterprise architecture benefits: Perceptions from literature and practice. Tietotekniikan tutkimusinstituutin julkaisuja, 1236-1615; 18.
Pereira, C. M., & Sousa, P. (2004, March). A method to define an Enterprise Architecture using the Zachman Framework. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 1366-1371). ACM.
Rouhani, B. D., Mahrin, M. N., Nikpay, F., & Nikfard, P. (2013, September). A comparison of enterprise architecture implementation methodologies. In 2013 International Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Schekkerman, J. (2004). How to survive in the jungle of enterprise architecture frameworks: Creating or choosing an enterprise architecture framework. Trafford Publishing.
Sessions, R. (2007). A comparison of the top four enterprise-architecture methodologies. Houston: ObjectWatch Inc.
Smith, H. A., Watson, R. T., & Sullivan, P. (2012). Delivering an Effective Enterprise Architecture at Chubb Insurance. MIS Quarterly Executive, 11(2).
Urbaczewski, L., & Mrdalj, S. (2006). A comparison of enterprise architecture frameworks. Issues in Information Systems, 7(2), 18-23.
Weiss, M. (2010). APC Forum: Chubb’s Enterprise Architecture. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 8.
Winter, R., & Fischer, R. (2006, October). Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. In 2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW’06) (pp. 30-30). IEEE.