Comparative Analysis of Architecture Frameworks †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Comparative Analysis of Architecture Frameworks. Answer: Introduction: The information architecture of the Archifarm is an information map labelling the assets of the company, the goals, targets, drivers and organizational structure that will enable the company to plan for targets and how they will be achieved. In Archifarm, there is an array of sources, distributors, markets and participants (Engelsman et al., 2011). Archifarm is a dairy farm whose main products are dairy products. As such, there are feeds which are required on a regular basis and other cow needs. Currently, they supply to distributors on a fixed contract basis where they are liable to penalties in case of lower quantities produced. Their cows are also susceptible to diseases which are often detected when too late to treat. They have also been facing stiff pressure from suppliers in terms of revenues meaning their primary objective is increasing profits without raising the prices. To achieve this goal, Archifarm has sought to invest in the Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) technology which would monitor the cattle and report any ailments before they can become serious. As such, they can be treated early preventing low milk production and deaths. There are 3 main units with the main one being the biggest. The 2 others have 200 cows each but have more expenses as they have to outsource equipment and services. As such, scaling these production sites into one big one can greatly reduce running costs but may increase logistics costs. To maximize probability, the farm plans to put up some measures in place and it is their application that will help reduce the overall costs of dairy product production. These applications to be incorporated include the incorporation of PLF technologies, Data analysis programs and restructuring the organization. In the application view, the data will be taken generally without much need to explain who and what does what. In incorporating the PLF technologies, the whole idea is to install the sensors and data monitoring devices on the cows for information receiving and recording. The PLF technology components, being foreign in nature in a cows body, may have the desired effect but with some side effects. Therefore the assessment of compatibility between the cows bodies and the PLF sensors is required in order to analyse their viability in this case. A data analysis program is also necessary to use the data recorded to provide relatable information to the farm administration and the management team. It would be synchronized with the information provided by the other devices in NSW. This so as to get an accurate reading of all the cow health information and be able to use the observed trends to make accurate prediction of the input necessary. The other application is suggested rather than read in the case study description. At present, it seems as though the 2 satellite farms in NSW may be uneconomical to run and therefore it is suggested to restructure the farm management. The aim is to remove the satellite farms entirely and take that cattle to the main site. From the diagram below, we see how the various suggested applications work in harmony towards reaching the final end game which is reducing the overall costs of production. In this drawing, it is assumed that farms operations fall under the leadership of the farm manager and his/her team. The back office operations, responsible for the non-farming work, would be really instrumental in the execution of the upscaling event. Here, upscaling is necessary as, with more satelitte farms whose costs of running are still high, it is advisable to close some of them and use the main farm as the only farm. The upscaling activities are shown in the archimate diagram below. The applications falling in the jurisdiction of the farm site are all concerned with the aplication of the PLF technologies onto the cow. This also PLF technologies would require equipment buying and installation and thise would be dependent on the numbers obtained after cow moving exercise. The operation of these new technologies with require either new stuff or training of the current staff to use it. It is therefore up to the management to make the decision about it and that information would depend on the farm characteristics shown below. The data dissemination of the business indicated below is a map of the business generally indicating the flow of activities from one player to the next in a business where the main product is dairy products. It indicates the relationships between the high level and junior staff in the organization. In this case, all staff members not part of the executive staff list and not part of logistics will be grouped together in management for the decision making aspect of it. That includes human resource team and the farming management team under the farm project manager. The farm team is the project manager and every other person working below him/her. The main responsibilities taken care of in relation to animals like cows are food provision and healthcare. Other activities too include servicing and machine repair and site activities. The following data dissemination offers insight into the business activities and major players in Archifarm. References: Berkem, B., 2008. From the business motivation model (BMM) to service oriented architecture (SOA). Journal of Object Technology, 7(8), pp.57-70. Charles F., Antoine H. and Stefan S (2006). The Stakeholder Theory. Retrieved on 29th Aug 2017. From https://www.martonomily.com/sites/default/files/attach/Stakeholders%20theory.pdf Engelsman, W., Jonkers, H. and Quartel, D., 2011. ArchiMate extension for modeling and managing motivation, principles, and requirements in TOGAF. White paper, The Open Group. Fowler, M., 2002. Patterns of enterprise application architecture. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.. Gharajedaghi, J., 2011. Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. Elsevier. Iacob, M.E., Meertens, L.O., Jonkers, H., Quartel, D.A., Nieuwenhuis, L.J. and van Sinderen, M.J., 2014. From enterprise architecture to business models and back. Software Systems Modeling, 13(3), pp.1059-1083. Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M.M., ter Doest, H.W., Arbab, F., Bosma, H. and Wieringa, R.J., 2006. Enterprise architecture: Management tool and blueprint for the organisation. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), pp.63-66. Lam, W. ed., 2007. Enterprise Architecture and Integration: Methods, Implementation and Technologies: Methods, Implementation and Technologies. IGI Global. Lankhorst, M., 2009. Enterprise architecture at work (Vol. 352). Berlin: Springer. Pereira, C.M. and Sousa, P., 2005, March. Enterprise architecture: business and IT alignment. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 1344-1345). ACM. Price Waterhouse Coopers (2011). The Australian Dairy Industry: The Basics. Accessed on 29th Aug 2017. From https://www.pwc.com.au/industry/agribusiness/assets/australian-dairy-industry-nov11.pdf Tang, A., Han, J. and Chen, P., 2004, November. A comparative analysis of architecture frameworks. In Software Engineering Conference, 2004. 11th Asia-Pacific (pp. 640-647). IEEE. The Open Group, 2011. TOGAF Version 9.1, Enterprise Edition. [Online] Available at: https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/ [Accessed 26 August 2017]. The Open Group, 2016. ArchiMate 3.0.1 Specification. [Online] Available at: https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate3-doc/ [Accessed 26 August 2017]. Versteeg, G. Bouwman, H., 2006. Business architecture: A new paradigm to relate business. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(2), pp. 91-102. Winter, R. and Schelp, J., 2008, March. Enterprise architecture governance: the need for a business-to-IT approach. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 548-552). ACM.