The levels of the framework, as well as its three perspectives, was considered a revolutionary way to look at the process for defining and building information systems. Weaknesses in the framework became apparent over time to the more mature organizations using the model, and the 1992 version of the complete framework followed.

The Framework gave practitioners a way to understand what engineering deliverables were needed by an IS or MIS project, how those deliverables differed based on the stakeholders involved, and how those deliverables evolved over the project lifecycle. Most importantly, the Framework presented the entire engineering project as a single conceptual architecture. No one had effectively done that prior to Zachman. The term architecture is used throughout the IT world today, but this use of the term was revolutionary at the time.

Question:

Discuss why an industrial engineer might value all six dimensions (columns) of the Framework compared to a software engineer who might value the three left dimensions from 1987 but feel that the three right dimensions added later werent really needed in software (a feeling expressed by many software engineers at the time).