Blog by Stan Devries:
ISA-95 is the strongest standard for operations management
interoperability, and its focus is on data and its metadata. ISA-95 continues to evolve, and recent
enhancements address the needs of interoperability among many applications,
especially at Level 3 (between process control and enterprise software
systems). One way to summarize ISA-95’s
focus is on business and information architectures.
TOGAF is the strongest standard for enterprise architecture. One way to summarize TOGAF’s focus is on
business architecture, information architecture, systems/application
architecture and technology architectures.
When considered with this perspective, ISA-95 becomes the best
expression of the data architecture within TOGAF, and ISA-95 becomes the best
expression of portions of the business architecture. Central to the TOGAF standard is an
architecture development method (ADM), which encourages stakeholders and
architects to consider the users and their interactions with the architecture
before considering the required data.
The key diagram which summarizes this method is the following:
The circular representation and its arrows summarize the
governance features. One example is the
architecture vision (module A in the above diagram). This vision could include the following
principles as examples:
- Mobile will be a “first class citizen”
- Interaction with users will be proactive wherever possible
- Certain refinery operations must continue to run without core dependencies
- Take advantage of Cloud services when possible
This framework provides a better language for each group of
stakeholders. The following table, which
is derived from the Zachman framework, maps these stakeholders to a set of
simple categories:
The categories of “when” and “motivation” enables the
architecture governance to consider transformational requirements, such as
prevention of undesired situations and optimization of desired situations. In this context, ISA-95 adds value in Data
(what) and Function (how), for all of the stakeholders, but it doesn’t
naturally address where, who, when and why.
Furthermore, ISA-95 doesn’t have a governance framework. In this context, “where” refers to the
architecture’s location, not equipment or material location.
TOGAF lacks the rich modeling for operations management,
especially for equipment and material, which is provided by ISA-95. The combination is powerful and it reduces
any tendency to produce passive, geographically restricted architectures.
No comments:
Post a Comment