Why Use SPARX Enterprise Architect for my Repository?

Why SPARX?

As an Enterprise Architecture (EA) consultant, I am going into organizations with established cultures, practices, processes, and applications. It is important to be impartial in these situations to the software and tools available, especially EA software. The existing software landscape has a lot of history behind it so we must allow for stakeholders to become accustomed to any organizational change. I advise using a gradual as opposed to a Big Bang approach to change when there is established momentum.  However, when an enterprise does not have an existing EA tool and is impartial to its selection, I will always recommend SPARX Enterprise Architect as early in the engagement as possible. In a previous article, we discussed the importance of quickly implementing an EA repository. Organizations without an Enterprise Architecture application or repository may not initially recognize the value of having one. Compared to the cost of many EA applications which support both architecture modeling and EA artifacts, SPARX is much less of a financial commitment. Additionally, SPARX has a user-friendly interface with “out-of-the-box” packages that help you build your EA practice repository easily and quickly. 

PROS of SPARX Usage

• • Easy to understand
  • Short learning curve
  • Easy display of information
  • Easy to train other groups
  • Easy to  use models and modeling frameworks
  • Effective as a shared information repository
  • Simple to establish links between Business -> Data -> Application -> Technology
  • Ability to drill down into application and technology building components of a model

CONS of SPARX Usage

• • Lacking meta-model implementation within the application
  • Missing the capability to save an entire diagram as a single PDF file
  • The concept of a single project file isn’t useful
  • Integration to Microsoft Team Foundation Server (TFS) and the ability to directly export data to MS SQL
  • I did not find any out of the box road mapping support (Yet this is an EA tool!!??) that links to projects + strategy + objectives

A point to note, the above “cons” that I mentioned, not every Enterprise Architecture has the above capability either!

A gap that I faced with regards to SPARX was there was no overarching meta model implementation within the application for an EA implementation. As a result, if you are not exposed to different meta models or not familiar with the concept of using meta models in your architectural deliverable, your SPARX implementation might get out of sync and might look a lot less logical! My advice would be to always starts with a meta model that shows all the relationship between the different architectural entities.

Personal Opinion on SPARX

I have done a one-on-one comparison of SPARX with a number of other EA applications. SPARX from my observation beats them all. Most of the comparison was based on previous use of different EA software in a number of organizations. The comparison was based on ease of use, my ability to capture and retain information, upfront cost on loading data, the upfront cost of training, learning curve, etc. So from my experience, SPARX was really on top with regards to ease of use, my ability to fast track my learning of the different modules and I was also able to retain the information. Interestingly SPARX provides a lot of guides and manuals to learn and use the modules as well. This was extremely helpful.

Some Points to Consider

If your organization does not have an Enterprise Architecture Repository and you want a fast win, use SPARX and deliver fast. If you are interested in making the case to use SPARX in your enterprise and have not used SPARX before, the SPARX website has a 30-day trial version. That is actually enough time to build your initial model and show it to different stakeholders for their buy-in. Good luck!

Sysonex, Inc. is not affiliated with SPARX Systems and does not receive any compensation for this endorsement.