Case Study: NIH enterprise architecture provides proper and well defined reference models in the form sub architectures (Business, Information, and Technology), with each model clearly specifying their activities and functions. This makes it easier for the concern stakeholders in completing documentation within timeframe as different modules are established for specific purpose. This framework does not address important aspects of wide range of stakeholders involved, as the framework is based on models, rather than on matrix format. Within information architecture three sub architectures are defined for efficient and well defined communication between applications and information. Usage of bricks and patterns which promotes reusability is beneficial to the system as it helps reduce cost and time in developing new components or modules every time.
Software development lifecycle is a crucial part for development of any System. eHealth Interoperability Framework is based on matrix, with no details of from where to begin and where to end the process. NIH Enterprise Architecture is based on defining sub architectures and does not show the beginning or the ending of development lifecycle. Both the methodologies provide less details and poor guidance for step by step approach to completion of software development lifecycle for creating enterprise architecture.
Both the framework have established business as priority and then considering technological needs to maximize profits as technology is there for fulfilling the needs of business. Therefore requirements of business are addressed first. Both eHealth as well as NIH focuses on establishing common language for ease of communication, cooperation, and collaboration amongst different groups of people, within and outside the organisation.
Conclusion
All architectures have some similarities as well as differences amongst them, as all the architectures are made with different purpose. NIH as well as eHealth, both the frameworks differ in terms of the level of details they attend, stakeholders they concern, governance mechanism they follow, and principles. Both the architectures have some similarities as well as differences. Both have advantages as well as disadvantages. eHealth as well as NIH enterprise architecture frameworks gives more emphasis on prioritizing the business needs and process, then considering IT requirements as business needs are to be fulfilled by using information technology. Both prefer sharing common language to establish good communication amongst stakeholders, implement reusability, data integration, and have wider scope. Both the frameworks lack in maintaining the
software development lifecycle. NIH has a well defined governance structure, with proper description of roles and responsibilities of governing bodies. eHealth interoperability framework has wider range of stakeholders involved in development of framework. Both the architectures are best fit for the purpose, but still further improvements could be made in their frameworks.

Read less