"What" Versus "What"

John A.  Zachman
John A. Zachman Chief Executive Officer, Zachman International Read Author Bio || Read All Articles by John A. Zachman

I recently overheard some discussion about what I said about "What." Someone thought I used the word "What" as it related to Column 1 issues.   Someone else argued that I had used "What" to refer to Column 2 issues.   There was even some discussion about whether I had used "What" to refer to Row 2 as opposed to Row 3.

Here is the problem:   the word "What" gets used in different contexts by different people for different reasons.   I always use "What" to delineate Column 1 issues for the following reason:

As I was first discovering the logic of the Framework, I was observing that in describing any physical object, there is always a bill-of-materials describing the material composition of the object, that is, describing "what" the object is made out of.   Since the Enterprise has a Semantic Model, which also is a bill-of-materials, that also describes the structural relationship of the "things" of the Enterprise ...

  • "things" being the material composition of the Enterprise,
  • "things" the Enterprise is made up of,
  • the "things," assets, concepts, common nouns of the Enterprise, whatever "things" the Enterprise thinks are important enough to manage,
  • "things" the Enterprise tends to put serial numbers on (like Boeing puts serial numbers on parts, the material composition of Boeing 747's)
  • "things" the Enterprise assigns accountability for inventory purposes ...

... it became obvious that the Enterprise equivalent of a product's bill-of-materials is the Enterprise Thing or "Semantic Model" ... describing "WHAT" ("things") the Enterprise is made out of and their structural relationships the Enterprise "bill-of-materials."   (At Row 3, this would be manifest as the Enterprise "Logical Data Model.")

Subsequently, in a similar fashion, it became obvious that the Enterprise's equivalent of a physical object's "functional specifications" are the Business Process Models, descriptive of "HOW" the Enterprise works.   The Enterprise's equivalent of "drawings," or, "geometry," are the Enterprise's Distribution Models (or "geography," or "Network") or "WHERE" the Enterprise establishes locations from which they accept work.   The Enterprise's equivalent of the "operating instructions" are the Enterprise's Work Flow Models, or "WHO" is responsible for which work products.   The Enterprise's equivalent of the "timing diagrams" are the Enterprise Dynamics Models, descriptive of "WHEN" things happen.   And, the Enterprise's equivalent of the "design objectives" are the Enterprise's Motivation Models, descriptive of "WHY" things happen.

In summary:

WHAT - material composition     Bills-of-Material (Column 1)
HOW - functionality Functional Specifications     (Column 2)
WHERE - distribution Geometry (Column 3)
WHO - work flow Operating Manuals (Column 4)
WHEN - dynamics Timing Diagrams (Column 5)
WHY - motivation Design Objectives (Column 6)

I do not believe that this is accidental.   Linguistically, over the millennia, humanity has universally discovered that for a complete description of any subject or object, you must answer these six primitive questions.   From the answers to these six primitive questions, one can derive answers to any other question about that subject or object anyone can pose.   These six primitives are a complete set.   They are not a hierarchy.   They are a fixed list.   It is not accidental that for a complex object like an airplane, you invariably find bills-of-materials, functional specifications, geometry, operating instructions, timing diagrams, and design objectives.

Therefore, in my (Framework) case, I am always using the word "What" to differentiate the material composition, the things, Column 1, the "bills-of-material," from the other Columns.   That is, I always use "What" for columnar differentiation and in designation of Column 1, the "Data Column."

In contrast, some people use the word "What" in association with function, to differentiate "What the Enterprise does" (Column 2, Row 2) from "How the Enterprise does it" (Column 2, Row 3).   Notice that in both of these cases, "What" and "How" are expressing functionality, Column 2.   What is being differentiated is conceptually "What" (Row 2) versus systematically (or "logically") "How" (Row 3).   The use of the word "How" for Row 3 in Column 2 is consistent with my use of the word "How" for all of Column 2, as all of the Column 2 models are descriptive of functionality.   On the other hand, the use of the word "What" to differentiate Row 2 from Row 3 ("How") is a Row differentiation, clearly much different from my (columnar) use of the word "What."

Both of these uses of the word "What" may well be legitimate, however, because of the six primitive interrogatives,   I think using "What" to differentiate the Columns is a more expressive, rigorous, and useful differentiation.   Therefore, I am very careful to be consistent in my usage of "What" to be a Columnar differentiation.   I do not use "What" to differentiate Rows.   When I want to differentiate Row 2 from Row 3, I use other words, like "Conceptual" versus "Logical," or "Business Models" versus "Systems Models," etc.

A slightly different but related issue relative to the Row differentiation illustrates a problem with the lack of a Framework for establishing context for meaningful dialog.   Relative to Column 2, the Process Column, some people use the word "Function" for the instances of Row 2 (conceptual functionality) and "Activity" for the instances of Row 3 (logical, or systematic, functionality).   Other people use the word "Activity" for Row 2 and "Process" for Row 3.   Then, other people use the word "Process" for Row 2 and "Activity" for Row 3.   There are people who reserve the word "Function" to mean "Organization" (the "Who" in Column 4) and they use "Process" for the "How" in Column 2, Row 2, and "Task" for the "How" in Column 2, Row 3.

All of this discussion illustrates the dire need for a logical structure (or, Framework) to establish a context for clear communication.   If one spoke "Framework language," this kind of confusion could rather easily be cleared up by saying something like, "Wait a minute ... what are we talking about here, Row 2 or Row 3?" Or, "Are you talking about Column 1 or Column 2?"   Then, "let's rationalize our terminology based on the Framework logic to ensure we are understanding one another."   That would quickly clear up any confusion, depending, of course, on how well you spoke the "Framework language."

Copyright, 2002. Zachman International.

# # #

Standard citation for this article:

citations icon
John A. Zachman, ""What" Versus "What"" Business Rules Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, (Jan. 2002)
URL: http://www.brcommunity.com/a2002/b098.html

About our Contributor:

John  A. Zachman
John A. Zachman Chief Executive Officer, Zachman International

John Zachman is the originator of the "Framework for Enterprise Architecture" (The Zachman Framework) which has received broad acceptance around the world as an integrative framework, an ontology for descriptive representations of Enterprises. Mr. Zachman is not only known for this work on Enterprise Architecture, but is also known for his early contributions to IBM's Information Strategy methodology (Business Systems Planning) as well as to their Executive team planning techniques (Intensive Planning).

Mr. Zachman retired from IBM in 1990, having served them for 26 years. He is Chief Executive Officer of his own education and consulting business, Zachman International® and Owner and Executive Director of the Federated Enterprise Architecture Certification Institute in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Zachman has been focusing on Enterprise Architecture since 1970 and has written extensively on the subject. He has directed innumerable executive team planning sessions. He travels nationally and internationally, teaching and consulting, and is a popular conference speaker, known for his motivating messages on Enterprise Architecture issues. He has spoken to many thousands of enterprise managers and information professionals on every continent.

Read All Articles by John A. Zachman
Subscribe to the eBRJ Newsletter
7 Common Myths (Plus 1) About the Zachman Architecture Framework
Enterprise Architecture Defined: Architecture Abstractions
Enterprise Architecture Defined: (2) Complexity and Change
Enterprise Architecture Defined: (1) What is Architecture?
The Business Agility Manifesto — The Authors Speak Out Q&A with Roger T. Burlton, Ronald G. Ross, & John A. Zachman
In The Spotlight
 Silvie  Spreeuwenberg
 Ronald G. Ross

Online Interactive Training Series

In response to a great many requests, Business Rule Solutions now offers at-a-distance learning options. No travel, no backlogs, no hassles. Same great instructors, but with schedules, content and pricing designed to meet the special needs of busy professionals.