Zachman Framework vs EA on a Page — Two Lenses on the Same Artifacts¶

The Zachman Framework (1987) and EA on a Page (2017) are both artifact classification frameworks. Neither prescribes a process or methodology. Both answer the question: "what architecture artifacts does an organization need?" But they classify from different angles — and together they provide a richer picture than either alone.

This article maps the two frameworks against each other, shows where they align and diverge, and demonstrates how to use both in Linked.Archi.

The Core Difference¶

Zachman classifies artifacts by two dimensions: - Interrogative (column): What question does the artifact answer? — What, How, Where, Who, When, Why - Perspective (row): For whom is the artifact created? — Planner, Owner, Designer, Builder, Implementer, Worker

This produces a 6×6 grid of 36 cells. Each cell represents a type of artifact defined by the intersection of question and audience.

EA on a Page classifies artifacts by two different dimensions: - Type (CSVLOD): How is the artifact used? — Considerations, Standards, Visions, Landscapes, Outlines, Designs - Usage frequency: How commonly is it used? — Essential, Common, Uncommon

And two additional classification axes: - Nature: What does the artifact describe? — Rules (Considerations, Standards), Structures (Visions, Landscapes), Solutions (Outlines, Designs) - Focus: Who is the primary audience? — Business-focused (Considerations, Visions, Outlines), IT-focused (Standards, Landscapes, Designs)

This produces 6 types with 24 specific artifacts, validated empirically across 27+ organizations.

The key insight: Zachman is theoretical and complete (36 cells, whether or not anyone fills them). EA on a Page is empirical and practical (24 artifacts that organizations actually produce). Zachman tells you what could exist. EA on a Page tells you what does exist.

The Mapping¶

CSVLOD Types → Zachman Rows¶

EA on a Page's six types map roughly to Zachman's perspective rows, but not one-to-one — they cut across perspectives:

CSVLOD Type	Primary Zachman Rows	Rationale
Considerations	Row 1 (Planner)	Principles and policies are set at the executive/planner level
Standards	Row 3 (Designer) + Row 4 (Builder)	Technology standards bridge the architect and engineer perspectives
Visions	Row 1 (Planner) + Row 2 (Owner)	Future-state artifacts serve both executives and business owners
Landscapes	Row 3 (Designer) + Row 4 (Builder)	Current-state inventories serve architects and engineers
Outlines	Row 3 (Designer)	Solution overviews are the architect's primary deliverable
Designs	Row 4 (Builder) + Row 5 (Implementer)	Detailed designs serve engineers and implementers

Notice that Zachman's Row 6 (Worker/User) and Row 2 (Owner) are underrepresented in EA on a Page. This is not a gap — it reflects Kotusev's empirical finding that EA practices primarily produce artifacts for rows 1, 3, and 4. Business owners consume Visions, and end users consume the running system — neither group typically receives dedicated EA artifacts.

CSVLOD Types → Zachman Columns¶

Each CSVLOD type spans multiple Zachman interrogatives:

CSVLOD Type	Zachman Columns Covered
Considerations	Why (Motivation) — principles express intent and rationale
Standards	How (Function) + What (Data) — technology standards define approved approaches and data formats
Visions	What (Data) + How (Function) + When (Time) + Why (Motivation) — capability models, target architectures, roadmaps, and strategy
Landscapes	What (Data) + How (Function) + Where (Network) — inventories, application maps, integration diagrams
Outlines	What + How + Where + Who — solution overviews cover data, function, deployment, and organization
Designs	All six — detailed designs address every interrogative for a specific solution

The 24 Artifacts Placed in the Zachman Grid¶

Here's where each of EA on a Page's 24 artifacts falls in the Zachman matrix:

EA on a Page Artifact	Zachman Row	Zachman Column(s)	Usage
Considerations
Principles	Planner	Why	Essential
Policies	Planner	Why + How	Common
Conceptual Architectures	Planner + Owner	How + What	Common
Guidelines	Designer	How	Uncommon
Standards
Technology Reference Models	Designer	How + What	Essential
Patterns	Designer	How	Common
IT Principles	Designer + Builder	How + Why	Common
Technology Guidelines	Builder	How	Uncommon
Visions
Business Capability Models	Owner	What + Why	Essential
Target State Architectures	Designer	How + What + Where	Essential
Roadmaps	Planner	When	Essential
Value Chains	Owner	How + Why	Common
Landscapes
Landscape Diagrams	Designer	How + Where	Essential
Inventories	Builder	What	Essential
Enterprise System Portfolios	Designer + Builder	What + How	Common
Integration Maps	Designer	Where + How	Common
Outlines
Solution Overviews	Designer	How + What + Where	Essential
Options Assessments	Designer	How + Why	Essential
Initiative Architectures	Designer	How + What + Where + Who	Common
Architecture Briefs	Designer	How + Why	Uncommon
Designs
Solution Designs	Builder	How + What + Where	Essential
Detailed Specifications	Builder + Implementer	How + What	Common
Interface Contracts	Builder	How + Where	Common
Deployment Architectures	Builder	Where	Uncommon

What This Reveals¶

Zachman's "Designer" row is the busiest. 14 of 24 EA on a Page artifacts involve the Architect/Designer perspective. This confirms what practitioners know — architects are the primary producers and consumers of EA artifacts.
Zachman's "How" column dominates. Almost every artifact addresses "How" (Function). This makes sense — architecture is fundamentally about structure and behavior.
Zachman's outer rows are sparse. The Planner (Row 1) gets Considerations and Visions. The Implementer (Row 5) gets Designs. The Worker (Row 6) gets nothing — they use the running system, not EA artifacts. This matches Kotusev's empirical findings.
EA on a Page's "Essential" artifacts cluster in the center. The most commonly used artifacts (Principles, Technology Reference Models, Capability Models, Target Architectures, Roadmaps, Landscape Diagrams, Inventories, Solution Overviews, Options Assessments, Solution Designs) all fall in Zachman rows 1-4 and columns What/How/Where/Why. The periphery (Who, When, rows 5-6) is less populated.

Where They Diverge¶

Zachman Has No Temporal Dimension¶

Zachman's grid is static — it classifies artifacts by content and audience but says nothing about when they're created, how long they live, or how they're used. EA on a Page adds:

Lifecycle: permanent (Considerations, Standards) vs long-lived (Visions, Landscapes) vs short-lived (Outlines, Designs)
Scope: organization-wide vs initiative-scoped vs project-scoped
Process: which EA process uses the artifact (Strategic Planning, Initiative Delivery, Technology Optimization)

EA on a Page Has No Audience Dimension¶

EA on a Page classifies by usage, not by audience. It doesn't distinguish between an artifact created for the CIO and one created for a developer — it only cares about the artifact's role in the EA practice. Zachman's perspective rows fill this gap.

Zachman Is Complete but Theoretical¶

Zachman's 36 cells are exhaustive by construction — every combination of interrogative and perspective is a valid cell. But many cells are rarely populated in practice. Kotusev's research found that organizations typically produce 8-15 of the 24 artifact types, concentrated in the center of the grid.

EA on a Page Is Practical but Incomplete¶

EA on a Page captures what organizations actually do, but it may miss artifacts that are valuable but uncommon. Zachman's grid can reveal these gaps — "we have no artifacts in the Who × Designer cell" might prompt creating an organization model.

Using Both in Linked.Archi¶

Dual Classification¶

Every architecture artifact in Linked.Archi can carry both classifications:

@prefix eaop: <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#> .
@prefix zach: <https://meta.linked.archi/zachman#> .
@prefix arch: <https://meta.linked.archi/core#> .
@prefix ex:   <https://model.example.com/myea#> .

# A technology reference model — classified by both frameworks
ex:TechRefModel a arch:Model, eaop:Standard ;
    skos:prefLabel "Enterprise Technology Reference Model"@en ;
    # EA on a Page classification
    eaop:artifactScope "organization-wide" ;
    eaop:artifactLifecycle "permanent" ;
    eaop:artifactNature "rules" ;
    eaop:artifactFocus "IT-focused" ;
    eaop:usedInProcess eaop:TechnologyOptimization ;
    # Zachman classification
    arch:viewpointCoversAspect zach:How, zach:What ;
    arch:viewpointFromPerspective zach:ArchitectPerspective .

# A business capability model
ex:CapabilityMap a arch:Model, eaop:Vision ;
    skos:prefLabel "Enterprise Capability Map"@en ;
    eaop:artifactScope "organization-wide" ;
    eaop:artifactLifecycle "long-lived" ;
    eaop:artifactNature "structures" ;
    eaop:artifactFocus "business-focused" ;
    eaop:usedInProcess eaop:StrategicPlanning ;
    arch:viewpointCoversAspect zach:What, zach:Why ;
    arch:viewpointFromPerspective zach:BusinessManagementPerspective .

# A solution design
ex:PaymentDesign a arch:Model, eaop:Design ;
    skos:prefLabel "Payment Service Detailed Design"@en ;
    eaop:artifactScope "project-scoped" ;
    eaop:artifactLifecycle "short-lived" ;
    eaop:artifactNature "solutions" ;
    eaop:artifactFocus "IT-focused" ;
    eaop:usedInProcess eaop:InitiativeDelivery ;
    arch:viewpointCoversAspect zach:How, zach:What, zach:Where ;
    arch:viewpointFromPerspective zach:EngineerPerspective .

Completeness Analysis¶

Use Zachman to check if your EA practice has gaps:

PREFIX eaop: <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#>
PREFIX zach: <https://meta.linked.archi/zachman#>

# Which Zachman perspectives have the fewest artifacts?
SELECT ?perspective ?perspectiveLabel (COUNT(?artifact) AS ?count) WHERE {
    ?perspective skos:broader zach:Perspective ;
                 skos:prefLabel ?perspectiveLabel .
    OPTIONAL {
        ?artifact arch:viewpointFromPerspective ?perspective .
    }
}
GROUP BY ?perspective ?perspectiveLabel
ORDER BY ?count

Portfolio Overview¶

Use EA on a Page to understand your artifact portfolio:

PREFIX eaop: <https://meta.linked.archi/eaonapage/onto#>

# Artifact portfolio by CSVLOD type and lifecycle
SELECT ?type ?lifecycle (COUNT(?artifact) AS ?count) WHERE {
    ?artifact a ?type ;
              eaop:artifactLifecycle ?lifecycle .
    VALUES ?type {
        eaop:Consideration eaop:Standard eaop:Vision
        eaop:Landscape eaop:Outline eaop:Design
    }
}
GROUP BY ?type ?lifecycle
ORDER BY ?type

Summary¶

Dimension	Zachman	EA on a Page
Origin	Theoretical (1987)	Empirical (2017, 27+ orgs)
Nature	Prescriptive classification	Descriptive observation
Classification axis 1	Interrogative (What/How/Where/Who/When/Why)	Type (CSVLOD)
Classification axis 2	Perspective (Planner→Worker)	Usage frequency (Essential/Common/Uncommon)
Classification axis 3	—	Nature (Rules/Structures/Solutions)
Classification axis 4	—	Focus (Business-focused/IT-focused)
Temporal dimension	None	Lifecycle (permanent/long-lived/short-lived)
Process dimension	None	Three processes (Strategic Planning, Initiative Delivery, Technology Optimization)
Completeness	36 cells (exhaustive)	24 artifacts (empirically validated)
Practical value	Gap analysis — "what are we missing?"	Portfolio management — "what do we actually produce?"
In Linked.Archi	`zach:` SKOS concepts for tagging	`eaop:` OWL classes for typing + SKOS for artifact catalog

Use Zachman to ensure completeness. Use EA on a Page to ensure relevance. Use both to classify every artifact in your knowledge graph.

References¶

Zachman, J.A. (1987). A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3).
Kotusev, S. (2019). Enterprise architecture and enterprise architecture artifacts. Journal of Information Technology, 34(2), 102-128.
Kotusev, S. (2016). Six Types of Enterprise Architecture Artifacts. British Computer Society.
Zachman International
EA on a Page
Frameworks Guide — Linked.Archi documentation