Are you interested in DAMA-DMBOK and DCAM mapping?

In the previous articles of this series, for DAMA-DMBOK2 and DCAM® 2.2 we have analyzed the statistics of usage, general differences, and commonalities between them.

In this article, we will map DAMA-DMBOK2, DCAM® 2.2, and TOGAF® 9.2 metamodels.

Before the analysis, I want to discuss some assumptions I used for such DAMA-DMBOK and DCAM mapping.

The assumptions for mapping

Some time ago, one of the Solidatus top managers asked me to perform DAMA-DMBOK and DCAM mapping. At the time, I thought that it would be “mission impossible.”

The key challenge to making such an analysis is to find elements that could be similar by nature and be at the same level of abstraction.

In the previous article, I have used Knowledge Areas from DAMA-DMBOK2, components from DCAM® 2.2, and Phases of the Architecture Development Cycle from the TOGAF® 9.2. But this level of abstraction is too high to dive into contextual differences between frameworks.

To make a more thorough analysis, I have decided to use a “deliverable” as the element of comparison.

However, the challenge remains. DAMA-DMBOK2 provides the list of deliverables of each Knowledge Area. The same goes for TOGAF® 9.2. With DCAM® 2.2, it is more complicated. The EDM Council has provided access to the content of DCAM® 2.2, but the lowest level of details is a sub-capability. Artifacts of each sub-capability are accessible only for the members of the EDM Council. I have checked the example of the sub-capability and related artifacts provided at the EDM Council site. I have decided that the level of abstractions of DCAM® 2.2 sub-capabilities is comparable to the level of DAMA-DMBOK2 and TOGAF® 9.2 deliverables.

So, I have put a couple of assumptions into DAMA-DMBOK and DCAM mapping:

  1. I compare deliverables of TOGAF® 9.2, deliverables of DAMA-DMBOK2 Knowledge Areas, and adjusted DCAM® 2.2 sub-capabilities.

The example of the adjustment looks like that: Component “Data Governance”, a capability “ Policy and Standards are Written and Approved”, sub-capability “Policy and Standards have been reviewed[…]” I identify the deliverable as “Data Governance Policy” or  “Data Governance Standard.” Such an approach can have some deviations from the original DCAM® 2.2 model, but it is enough to get some impression about the differences and similarities of the models. I want to stress again, that for the analysis I use only DCAM® 2.2 publicly opened resources.

  1. I analyze only components that are similar for at least two frameworks.

For example, Data Governance is the element used by DCAM® 2.2 and DAMA-DMBOK2.

  1. From now on, I use the term “capability” to substitute and align “Knowledge Area” by DAMA-DMBOK2, component& (sub)-capability by DCAM® 2.2, and Phases by the TOGAF® 9.2.

First, let’s look at the high-level mapping.

High-level mapping

I have analyzed the relationships between capabilities from different frameworks and found the following relationships as shown in Figure 1:

The relationships between capabilities from DAMA-DMBOK2, DCAM® 2.2, TOGAF® 9.2.

Figure 1. The relationships between capabilities from DAMA-DMBOK2, DCAM® 2.2, TOGAF® 9.2.

Even this high-level mapping looks complicated, doesn’t it? The relationships in Figure 1 may not be so clear. So, below you find the short description.

DAMA-DMBOK2 has the following interceptions with DCAM® 2.2:

DAMA-DMBOK2:DCAM® 2.2:
●      Data Governance●      DM Strategy and Business Case

●      DM Program and Funding Model

●      Data Governance

●      Data Quality●      Data Quality
●      Data Ethics●      Data Ethics in Data Governance

DCAM® 2.2 has the following interceptions with TOGAF® 9.2:

DCAM® 2.2:TOGAF® 9.2:
●      Business and Data Architecture●      Business Architecture
●      Data and Technology Architecture●      Application Architecture

●      Technology Architecture

DAMA-DMBOK2, DCAM® 2.2, and TOGAF® 9.2 have the following interception:

DAMA-DMBOK2:DCAM® 2.2:TOGAF® 9.2:
●      Data Modeling & Design

●      Data Architecture

●      Data Governance

●      Business and Data Architecture

●      Data Architecture

Let us dive into the comparison of each of these combinations.

DAMA-DMBOK2 vs DCAM® 2.2

1.        Data Governance (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs DM Strategy and Business Case, DM Program and Funding Model from DCAM® 2.2

The mapping between these three capabilities you find in Figure 2.

Data Governance (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs DM Strategy and Business Case, DM Program and Funding Model from DCAM® 2.2

Figure 2. Data Governance (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs DM Strategy and Business Case, DM Program and Funding Model from DCAM® 2.2

You see, that some deliverables of DAMA-DMBOK2 Data Governance intercept deliverables of other DCAM® 2.2 capabilities. In this case, we speak about Strategy, Roadmap, Scorecard/Metrics, Communication plan.

The key difference is that Data Governance from DAMA-DMBOK2 partly focuses on Data Management deliverables such as Strategy and Roadmap, partly on Data Governance. At the same time, two capabilities of DCAM® 2.2 only pay attention to Data Management.

Data Governance (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2)

Remarkably, Data Governance Capability from DAMA-DMBOK2 has not many deliverables, common with Data Governance from DCAM® 2.2 as shown in Figure 3.

Data Governance (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Governance from DCAM® 2.2.

Figure 3. Data Governance (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Governance from DCAM® 2.2.

DG policies, roles, and processes are similar, so I can assume that the Operating Framework from DAMA-DMBOK2 corresponds to the DG Organizational Structure, but this could be wrong.

Many capabilities/deliverables of Data Governance DCAM® 2.2 match Data Modeling & Design capability from DAMA-DMBOK2. We will discuss that later. Now let us compare Data Quality.

2.        Data Quality (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Quality (DCAM® 2.2)

The comparison between the Data Quality (DQ) capabilities of both frameworks has shown a lot of similarities as demonstrated in Figure 4.

Data Quality (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Quality (DCAM® 2.2).

Figure 4. Data Quality (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Quality (DCAM® 2.2).

DQ strategy, processes, roles define the DQ framework in both models. Data profiling, DQ issue management, monitoring processes even if they have different terminology are similar by content.

There are also some minor differences. For example, DQ from DCAM® 2.2 includes DQ rules. DAMA-DMBOK2 considers DQ Service Level Agreements, DQ policies, and DQ standards as a part of the DQ capability.

3.        Data Ethics (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Ethics in Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2)

Data Ethics is not a part of the DAMA Wheel. Still, DAMA-DMBOK2 covers this topic. This topic has become important during the last few years. DCAM® 2.2 includes Data Ethics as a capability in the Data Governance component.

The most striking result of the analysis is that there are no interceptions between DAMA-DMBOK2 and DCAM® 2.2 viewpoints on the Data Ethics deliverables as shown in Figure 5.

Data Ethics (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Ethics in Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2).

Figure 5. Data Ethics (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Ethics in Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2).

DAMA-DMBOK2 focuses on the development of strategy, policies, training, communication plans, etc. It looks like DAMA-DMBOK2 includes Data Ethics in the already-existing operational framework.

DCAM® 2.2 sets a goal to create a separate function to manage Data Ethics.

This topic closes the consideration of similar capabilities in DAMA-DMBOK2 and DCAM® 2.2.

Now we will investigate the similar capabilities between DCAM® 2.2 and TOGAF® 9.2. These capabilities are not part of DAMA-DMBOK2.

DCAM® 2.2 vs TOGAF® 9.2

1.        Business and Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Business Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2)

First, it is worth mentioning that DCAM® 2.2 combines Business and Data Architecture in one component. TOGAF® 9.2 recognizes these two capabilities separately. Therefore, in this paragraph, I compare only Business Architecture deliverables as shown in Figure 6.

Business and Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Business Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2).

Figure 6. Business and Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Business Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2).

As you may see, I have found only one possible correspondence between deliverables of these two frameworks: business data requirements vs business data model.

DCAM® 2.2 does not really cover the Business Architecture capability. Instead, it focuses only on the alignment between Business and Data Architecture. This alignment leads to the identification of business data requirements. DCAM® 2.2 also requests the development of business architecture processes.

On the contrary, TOGAF® 9.2 concentrates on the actual deliverables of Business Architecture. Target architecture, business goals, processes, roles, business capability maps, data value chains, etc. are examples of deliverables. The Business Architecture processes by themselves are not part of TOGAF® 9.2 Business Architecture deliverables.

So, the Business Architecture capability has a limited scope within DCAM® 2.2. To develop this capability, a company still needs to rely on other frameworks.

2.        Data and Technology Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Application and Technology Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2)

For unknown reasons, DCAM® 2.2 did not include Application Architecture in the list of their capabilities. DCAM® 2.2 defines some capabilities/deliverables that relate to Technology Architecture. This is a different approach than the approach taken toward Business Architecture. For Business Architecture, only the relationships between Data and Business architecture have been considered. The capabilities of Technology Architecture directly relate to the Technology Architecture itself. The mapping in Figure 7 demonstrates this statement.

DCAM® 2.2 Data and Technology Architecture vs Application and Technology Architecture by TOGAG® 9.2.

Figure 7. DCAM® 2.2 Data and Technology Architecture vs Application and Technology Architecture by TOGAG® 9.2.

TOGAF® 9.2 provides a wide range of deliverables, that cover both Baseline and Target Architecture.

We have finalized the comparison between DCAM® 2.2 and TOGAF® 9.2.

The interception of Data Modeling & Design (DAMA-DMBOK2), Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2), and Data Governance & Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) is the final and most challenging topic of this article. Let’s investigate further.

DAMA-DMBOK2 vs DCAM® 2.2 vs TOGAF® 9.2

I split the analysis into two parts. The first relates to data modeling-related deliverables, while the second part describes the relationships between data architecture deliverables except for data modeling.

1.        Data Modeling & Design (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2) vs Business & Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2), and Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2)

The relationships between deliverables in the area of data modeling can be seen in Figure 8.

Data Modeling & Design (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2) vs Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2) in the area of data models.

Figure 8.  Data Modeling & Design (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Data Governance (DCAM® 2.2) vs Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2) in the area of data models.

The relationships demonstrated in Figure 8 are rather complicated. Some remarkable differences are:

  • Different capabilities identify data models as their deliverables. In DAMA-DMBOK2, it is Data Modeling & Design. TOGAF® 9.2 specifies data models as the outcome of Data Architecture. For some reason, DCAM® 2.2 put data models in the Business & Data Architecture sections.
  • DAMA-DMBOK2 identifies three types of data models: conceptual, logical, and physical. In TOGAF® 9.2, I found only references to Business and Logical data models. DCAM® 2.2 in Data Governance speaks about data models in general.
  • For some reason, data domains appear in both the Data Governance and the Business & Data Architecture sections of DCAM® 2.2.
  • Business definitions are also a remarkable point. DAMA-DMBOK2 includes these deliverables in Data Governance, while DCAM® 2.2 into Business and Data Architecture.

Now it is time to look at the deliverables of Data Architecture, except for data models.

2.        Data Architecture (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Business & Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2)

I have taken into consideration the rest of the deliverables that I have not included in the list in Figure 8.

The results of the comparison can be seen in Figure 9.

Data Architecture (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Business & Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2).

Figure 9. Data Architecture (DAMA-DMBOK2) vs Business & Data Architecture (DCAM® 2.2) vs Data Architecture (TOGAF® 9.2).

I can make only one conclusion. The vision on the deliverables of data architecture differs greatly in three industry frameworks. Isn’t it remarkable?

Conclusion

  • Three leading industry frameworks, DAMA-DMBOK2, DCAM® 2.2, and TOGAF® 9.2 differ greatly in their viewpoints on the diverse capabilities of data management.
  • Such differences can be found at higher and lower levels of abstraction:
    • The building blocks have different nature: Knowledge Area in DAMA-DMBOK2, components & (sub)-capabilities in DCAM® 2.2, and Phases in the Architecture Development Method (TOGAF® 9.2)
    • At the high level of abstraction, we identify differences in the composition of building blocks
    • At the lower level of abstraction (deliverables and sub-capabilities), the content of building blocks differs greatly.

In the last article of this series, we will finalize the comparison between DAMA-DMBOK2 and DCAM® 2.2 by studying the approaches to measure and evaluate the maturity of data management.