The communications framework is defined to consist of the three geographical components of the Communications Infrastructure (local, regional, and global) and the four architectural levels (Transmission, Network Switching, Data Exchange, and Applications Program), and is depicted in . Communications services are performed at one or more of these architectural levels within the geographical components. shows computing elements (operating at the Applications Program level) with supporting data exchange elements, linked with each other through various switching elements (operating at the Network Switching level), each located within its respective geographical component. also identifies the relationship of TOGAF to the communication architecture.
While this approach addresses some of the over-arching data-quality issues (such as de-duplication for marketing processes), it typically will not fully address more complicated business usages such as compliance or privacy issues, where full reconciliation of data is required along with its associated history and lineage. Nor does this approach offer the best, reconciled view of customer master data since it lacks the resolution of conflicting records and the history of past changes. Therefore, while there is business value in this approach, it is also limited to a particular class of customer problems. As this architecture cannot deliver full customer-centricity across the enterprise, it limits the business potential that can be realized over time.
Addressing Cloud Security Concerns: Key Issues ..
To address these issues, companies should first conduct a data lifecycle audit to determine existing data issues and the associated benefits of implementing a customer-centric MDM solution. Specifically, in a data lifecycle audit:
Architecture 2030 and IFC Partner on ZNC
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken sufficient steps to address the intent of the recommendation. For example, the department has been working to integrate information contained in its system data repositories by developing and implementing the DOD Information Technology Investment Portal (DITIP), which DOD began to use in May 2013. According to DOD documentation, the system is now the authoritative source for DOD header (i.e., basic) information about information technology (IT) systems and is to serve as a one stop source for all information technology investment portfolio information. More specifically, the system will maintain a core database composed of common DOD IT Portfolio Repository (DITPR) and Select and Native Programming Data Input System- Information Technology (SNAP-IT) data elements as well as essential data elements required for initial registration of DOD IT systems (e.g., investment title, mission area, etc.). According to DOD, efforts to establish the portal include addressing common data errors and integrating data between the portal and the DITPR and SNAP-IT system data repositories. In addition, DOD's Portfolio Certification Request Memorandum template includes language indicating that the component Pre-Certification Authority is to assert that information contained in DITPR, DITIP, and SNAP-IT has been verified to be complete and accurate prior to any system's certification to spend appropriated funds.
Web Architecture from 50,000 feet
For example, customer service had become time consuming for a manufacturer of doctor-prescribed medical devices. Customer service representatives had to search across multiple systems to identify a caller and resolve an issue. More importantly, privacy legislation required the manufacturer to rely increasingly on accurate and unified patient data in order to adhere to patient marketing opt-out regulations and to better manage product recall processes. Previously, the product-recall process experienced problems with duplicate patient files, incorrect addresses, and mail return rates as high as 20 percent, including items returned from deceased individuals.
Agile Architecture: Strategies for Scaling Agile …
The purpose of the Stakeholder Map matrix is to identify the stakeholders for the architecture engagement, their influence over the engagement, and their key questions, issues, or concerns that must be addressed by the architecture framework.